It is proposed to take No. 2, Industrial Designs Bill, 2000 – Amendments from the Seanad; No. 49, Ordnance Survey Ireland Bill, 2001 [Seanad] – Order for Report and Report and Final Stages; No. 50, Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Bill, 2000 – Order for Report and Report and Final Stages; No. 51, Residential Institutions Redress Bill, 2001 – Second Stage (resumed), to adjourn no later than 7 p.m.; No. 52, Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Bill, 2000 – Report and Final Stages (resumed). It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the Dáil shall sit later than 8.30 p.m. tonight and business shall be interrupted not later than 10 p.m.

The proceedings on No. 2, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion after 30 minutes and any amendments from the Seanad not disposed of shall be decided by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall in relation to amendments to the Seanad amendments include only those set down or accepted by the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Report and Final Stages of No. 49 shall be taken today. The proceedings thereon, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 1 p.m. by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall in relation to amendments include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Finance. Report and Final Stages of No. 50 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 5.15 p.m. by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall in relation to amendments include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Report and Final Stages of No. 52 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 10 p.m. by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall in relation to amendments include only those set down or accepted by the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment.

Question Time tomorrow shall be taken from 3.30 p.m. until 4.45 p.m. and in the event of a Private Notice Question being allowed it shall be taken at 4.15 p.m. and the order shall not resume thereafter. Private Members' Business shall be No. 115, motion re the establishment of a tribunal of inquiry into the McBrearty affair and related matters, resumed, to conclude at 8.30 p.m. tonight.

There are six proposals to be put to the House arising from the Order of Business. The first is the proposal to sit late. Is that agreed?

Yesterday—

It is not fair to the Taoiseach to keep him up all night given that he was up early this morning.

Is the Deputy opposing the late sitting?

I would like to speak.

The Deputy has to indicate if he is opposing the late sitting.

I am opposing the late sitting because there was a disgraceful abuse of parliamentary procedures by this Government yesterday. We are rapidly moving towards what the late Lord Hailsham described as an "elective dictatorship" when, in respect of the Constitution—

This is a constitutional party.

I know Fianna Fáil is a slightly constitutional party and it has taken long enough to get in here, but some of us care about the Constitution and the way in which it is to be amended. For that reason—

This matter was addressed yesterday.

—we are opposed to the late sitting.

I am opposing the late sitting because I do not believe it is the proper way for this Dáil to do business. We should be using the time that is obviously not being made available. For example, amendments have to be produced by 11 a.m. today by people in this House who do not have a legal—

That was discussed and decided upon yesterday evening.

The matter is outstanding, a Cheann Comhairle.

It is decided by this House.

The most important piece of legislation to come before the House is to be dealt with in a hurry, without proper advice and without the expert backup that is required in any responsible democracy. I object to the late sitting on those grounds.

The next question is on the proposal for dealing with No. 2, amendments from the Seanad on the Industrial Designs Bill, 2000. Is the proposal agreed?

A Cheann Comhairle, may I bring to your attention that under the draconian procedures agreed to yesterday, the Opposition has exactly 50 seconds from now to forward amendments to the—

That matter is not before the House. What is before the House is—

I remind the Deputy that the question before the House relates to the amendments—

I know.

—from the Seanad on the Industrial Designs Bill.

There are four more to go after this one.

I must put the question. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 2 agreed?

It is absolutely outrageous.

A Cheann Comhairle, the Taoiseach might be able to assist us on one matter which may restore order to the House. Under the Standing Orders of committees, the chairman of a committee may accept late amendments. Will the Taoiseach prevail on Deputy Batt O'Keeffe to take amendments after 11 a.m. today?

That matter is not before the House. What is before the House is the proposal for dealing—

Will the Taoiseach assist us in this matter? If not, we will be faced with serious problems.

—with amendments from the Seanad in relation to the Industrial Design Bill, 2000. There is no other matter before the House.

So as not to cause problems for you, a Cheann Comhairle, and in an effort to be helpful, the Government Chief Whip has informed me that there is no difficulty with that matter. If late amendments are—

Trust has broken down.

Order, please, the Taoiseach is in possession. Please allow the Taoiseach to reply.

I am a passive person by nature. I would like to make a point to Deputy Stagg and my colleagues in the Labour Party. I have no reason to become annoyed or get excited but if there is one thing in life with which I have a difficulty, that is hypocrisy.

Hear, hear.

Last night, I listened ad nauseum– I did not bother replying because that would only have taken up more of the time of the House—

Order, please.

I listened to a long debate about this last night and to endless speakers suggesting what we should and should not do. Members of the Labour Party stated that, under Standing Orders of this House, matters of the Constitution, by way of constitutional amendment, are taken by a committee of the full House and that every Member can have his or her views on it. That is correct, every Member can have his or her views. It was suggested that a committee of the House does not represent all parties of the House and Members on a constitutional matter and that it is unprecedented for a constitutional amendment not to be debated in the Dáil so that all Members and parties have an opportunity to table amendments, voice their opinions and have their votes recorded. Members went on and on about that issue. I accept that we said in the letter that we would try to take all Stages in the House but the weeks—

Do not revise history.

A Cheann Comhairle, please, just a few—

The Taoiseach, without interruption.

Please listen, Deputy.

Please allow the Taoiseach to continue.

I was elected to this House also. The Deputy spoke for a long time last night. Please give me a few minutes to speak. I am Taoiseach, please give me a little time to speak now and again. I listened patiently to the Deputy for 15 minutes.

Deputy Quinn, on 3 October 1995 when dealing with the divorce referendum, did precisely what we did last night. He gave less time—

We had only 12 hours on that occasion – the exact time if anybody is really interested and I do not think they are, was 12 hours and 15 minutes – to debate—

The spin doctors were busy last night.

They were not. Deputy Roche told us that last night but nobody was listening.

Order, please. The Taoiseach, without interruption.

Unfortunately, a Cheann Comhairle, nobody around here wants to listen anymore.

Lord Hawhaw.

The reality, a Cheann Comhairle, is that Deputy Quinn knows what happened last night. Let us call a spade a spade. The Deputy did—

By agreement.

Not by agreement. Deputy Quinn moved it and gave us two days for the amendment—

The Deputy should stop messing.

Hear, hear.

We are dealing with the proposal to take amendments from the Seanad on the Industrial Design Bill, 2000.

The next proposal is that dealing with No. 49. Is that agreed?

Before the last vote, the Taoiseach lied to the House.

The Deputy cannot make that charge.

I will use the parliamentary equivalent.

The Deputy must withdraw his words.

I will withdraw the word "lie". The Taoiseach deliberately misled the House.

That is not permitted either.

What is permitted?

The Taoiseach was inadvertently in a position where he misled the House. He said that I was doing exactly the same thing in October 1995. The record shows – I have had it checked – that I moved the Order of Business at that time. The Order of Business provided for the closure of Second Stage of relevant legislation, by agreement. At the end of that session, at 10 p.m. that night when the debate concluded Second Stage, the then Minister for Justice Deputy Owen, moved that the Bill be taken to Committee Stage. That was agreed—

That was the substantive point.

No, it is not the point.

Order, please.

The Taoiseach has lied.

The Deputy cannot make that charge. He must withdraw that charge.

The Deputy said that there was no precedent.

Those are the words of the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern. On a point of order—

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 49 agreed?

On a point of order—

There cannot be a point of order when the Chair is putting the question.

The next proposal is that for dealing with No. 50, Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Bill, 2000 – conclusion of Report and Final Stages. Is that agreed?

No, sir. Later today, Deputy Brian Lenihan, on behalf of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution, will launch a report which will, inter alia, recommend that in the consideration of constitutional amendments there should be detailed and comprehensive time given in this House.

The matter the Deputy is raising is not related to the motion before the House.

I am afraid it is, sir, and I am simply conveying the fact to the House.

The Chair rules that it does not have any connection with the question before the House.

It is not acceptable.

The next proposal is the proposal to deal with No. 52, that is, the conclusion of Report and Final Stages of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Bill, 2000. Is that agreed?

We are being asked once again to deviate from the normal standing orders. Later today a report from the all-party committee will recommend that Standing Orders for dealing with a constitutional amendment should be dealt with in a particular way. The Government has resolutely refused—

What the Deputy is saying is not relevant to the question before the House.

The Government has refused to accede to that. We will not co-operate with any deviation from standing orders.

Then I will put the question. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 52, the conclusion of Report and Final Stages of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Bill, 2000, agreed?

No.

The next proposal relates to the taking of Question Time tomorrow. Is the proposal agreed to?

I draw to the Chair's attention that we are being asked once again to deviate from Standing Orders. A report, the sixth report of the All-Party Review Committee on the Constitution, will be published publicly in about half an hour's time. The conclusion of that report is—

What the Deputy is stating has no connection with the question before the House. I must put the proposal to the House.

On a point of order, we are now two hours into—

This is called parliament. The Deputy is not here too often.

If this is parliament, it is total repudiation of one. In the course of its parliamentary procedure, the Opposition has frustrated the protection of part-time employees. Is that its notion of parliament?

The Chair will put the question.

Deputies should resume their seats. Is the proposal for taking Question Time tomorrow agreed to?

No. 6 is to facilitate the House and its Members tomorrow. If Members disagree with it, I will withdraw it.

No. 6 is withdrawn. I will now take leaders' questions. I call Deputy Noonan.

If further evidence of the Government's incompetence was needed, the INTO survey on primary schools provides it. Out of 73 schools, one third had inadequate toilet facilities, 50% had inadequate hand washing and drying facilities, 40% have no proper heating system, 47% have rotting windows and doors and 71% have inadequate or unsafe school yards. Will the Taoiseach agree that at the end of a period of unprecedented prosperity, it is a frightful indictment of the Government that 73 primary schools are unsafe for both teachers and pupils because of the neglect of the Government and its lack of prioritisation in public spending? If ever a boom was squandered, this one has been squandered by the Government when children in primary schools have to live and learn in such conditions.

On the same topic, as a former Minister for Finance and as someone who is per ipherally involved in the economic management of this economy, having ceded that to both the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance, perhaps the Taoiseach might explain the reason the increase in capital funds barely matches that of the rate of inflation in the construction industry and, in some cases, is below it. At a time when there is a downturn in the construction industry and a forecast that approximately 1,500 jobs will be lost, when there will not be the same output in housing this year compared to last year and where there is spare capacity in the construction industry, why was the golden opportunity of diverting that spare capacity into an area of manifest social need not availed of by the Government? It would be maintaining levels of employment, sustaining the construction industry and providing the sort of facilities we can now afford and to which our children are entitled. Why has the Taoiseach acquiesced to a conservative management of the economy that will exacerbate the economic cycle rather than assuage it?

In reply to Deputy Noonan and Deputy Quinn on the lists put forward by the INTO, the Minister for Education and Science informs me that most of the schools on that list are moving on through the system at one stage or another. Some of them are under construction.

No money.

Some tenders have been sanctioned, the work on others has been put out to tender and some projects are at architectural design stages. Funding has been increased by 70%.

Not for schools.

The largest investment programme in the history of Irish education is under way.

They did not hear that this morning for breakfast.

Order, please. The Taoiseach is replying.

The expenditure on primary schools has increased four-fold on what it was previously. The Minister for Education and Science made it clear in the presentation of his Estimate last week that it is his intention to continue developing that programme which,unfortunately,suffered neglect through the 1970s and 1980s. He will continue the upgrading and the improvements, along with all the other measures he is taking in education.

No increase for next year.

The schools have got worse.

That is nonsense, and the Deputy knows it.

The capital programme will continue through next year.

While the debate on whether the economy is going into recession will continue for some time, there is no doubt now that we are facing a major fiscal crisis. Just 12 months ago, the Government projected a surplus of £3.5 billion and anybody with any competence in economics would say now that we cannot have a budget with borrowing of less than £1 billion, so the fiscal situation has deteriorated by £4.5 billion in a 12 months period. The Government has squandered the boom and there are 800 schools awaiting approval for various projects. Despite the Taoiseach's reply, there is no additional money in the Book of Estimates for primary schools.

There is a great deal more than the Deputy's party put in. It is £70 million more a year.

It is no wonder they are getting nervous.

Order, please.

There is no additional money in the Book of Estimates for repairs to primary schools. Will the Taoiseach, between now and budget day, reconsider his priorities and ensure that these appalling, degrading conditions which young children must endure in school are removed? Will he ensure also that the Minister for Education and Science, who has abandoned the school improvement programme, will be given the finance to restore it?

The Estimate for primary and secondary schools next year, if I recall the figure, is £240 million. That money will be spent next year, but there has been an increase of 70%. In the past few years, approximately 800 schools, both primary and secondary, have been built, rebuilt, renovated, upgraded or are in the process of being upgraded in one form or another.

There are 800 waiting.

The Minister plans to continue to do that into next year.

God help the children.

I want to turn to something over which the Taoiseach has direct control, if he chooses to exercise it. I refer to the threat of the loss of 150 jobs in FLS at Dublin Airport in north County Dublin, an area that has been abandoned by the Taoiseach and his party. FLS was formally TEAM Aer Lingus. FLS has been informed by Sikorsky that in return for it securing a contract to supply five helicopters from the Air Corps, it would offset, as is the practice in the business across the western world, a sum of £72 million in return for a favourable reception on their contract tender, which would at least secure 50 jobs in Dublin Airport. There seems to be some conflict in the various Departments as to whether this is acceptable, and I am aware that the Secretary General of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, David Begg, has written to the Taoiseach, in no uncertain terms, highlighting the necessity for some creative, innovative response from the Taoiseach in this respect. If the Taoiseach took one day off his frantic tours around the country for photo opportunities, sat behind his desk and examined the practice in other countries, listened to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and to others about the opportunity on which he alone as Taoiseach can intervene, and accepted the offset, which is an established practice in the defence procurement industry, for the—

And interfere with the tendering process.

Does the Minister for the Environment and Local Government want to say something?

And interfere with the tendering process.

What does the Minister mean?

The Deputy should not lecture the rest of us when he does not know what he is talking about.

Order, please. There can be no interruptions. Deputy Quinn should not encourage interruptions.

I am sorry. The Minister for failure had intervened and I wanted to hear what he said.

Order, please. Proceed with your question, Deputy.

Before I was interrupted, I was asking the Taoiseach if he will intervene to prevent the loss of 150 jobs and the departure of some business that we could retain here.

Arising from Deputy Quinn's question, I remind the Taoiseach that the Minister for Defence announced, on a number of occasions, the purchase of helicopters for the Air Corps. Was that an exercise in imagination or is there a commitment to purchase helicopters? If so, why is it not done in the manner suggested by Deputy Quinn?

It is the intention of the Minister for Defence to purchase helicopters. The Minister has issued the tenders, of which there are four. There are rules about tendering. Applications have been put in by more than one com pany, not just FLS, about offsetting arrangements. The Minister has to take into account all of those details. This is a difficult area. In the normal course of events, I could imagine what would happen if a Minister got tenders and those tenders were substantially different. I will not give the details of this case, in case people think it is a simplistic view. However, if tender No. 2 was to get the contract rather than tender No. 1 because the Minister said it was an offset, and the Minister then had to quantify that offset to this House to satisfy what tender No. 3 might have, whose offset might be bigger, I could imagine where the file would end up. Having said that, the Minister, myself and all our colleagues are very conscious of the difficulties in FLS and of its employment potential. The Minister will explore all avenues open to him within rules, guidelines and regulations to try to deal with this matter. It is not simply a matter of comparing offsets and ruling that, for example, tender No. 4 is suddenly tender No. 1. It does not work that way.

Does the Taoiseach agree with recent reports in the newspapers that counter trading is common practice in defence procurement? A recent newspaper report cited at least six European states, Italy, Austria, Portugal, Spain, Greece and Norway, in which the Governments have been engaged in this practice. While there is a precedent for it, I respect the Taoiseach's comments on transparency and tenders. We should have transparency.

I ask him to repeat the entire process and invite offsets along the lines described to ensure we get the best deal in terms of the equipment the Air Corps needs and the best offset for securing jobs in FLS, formerly TEAM Aer Lingus. There is no problem with the proper procedure for tenders. I would be pleased to contemplate implementing again the whole process, including offsets, to make sure there will not be accusations of favouritism.

Deputy Quinn is correct, other countries are doing this. He will also agree that the practice is common not only to defence expenditure, but in all other matters. Perhaps we are slightly more self-righteous or correct in this area. Other countries take a different view. In France consideration is given to a company's ability to contribute to contracts other than the one for which it tenders.

Virtually every Member of the House has lobbied for one or other of the companies involved. There has been more lobbying on this contract than for many contracts of late, which creates considerable difficulties for the Minister. The Minister is also actively looking at the possibility, which Deputy Quinn raised in his final point. While the matter deserves close attention, we do not want to lose too much time on it. We need to adhere to one definition of offsetting because as soon as word reached the other companies that one company was offsetting, of course, they came back. This creates difficulties. The Minister for Defence has the money and is anxious to move on the issue. The Air Corps badly needs the equipment. We will examine the Deputy's proposal.

Last week, the Tánaiste indicated she was anxious to facilitate an assessment of Aer Lingus by the All-Party Committee on Public Enterprise. Today, we discover the Minister has arranged for her "Sir Humphrey" to send a letter indicating that it would be wholly inappropriate to hold such a hearing. The Government is sending out mixed signals. As the House was given a clear indication from the Tánaiste that the Government was happy to have an assessment, the committee should be permitted to hold such an assessment.

How does this relate to promised legislation?

There has been a promise to facilitate an assessment of Aer Lingus which, as the Taoiseach has indicated, could close.

The question must be about promised legislation.

Perhaps the Government will uncross its lines.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has tabled a substantial Report Stage amendment to the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Bill, 2000, which has nothing to do with Committee Stage. I seek a ruling on this from your office, a Cheann Comhairle. The amendment will amend an existing Act, namely, the Criminal Justice Act, 1994.

The matter will be debated later.

I am seeking a ruling on whether the amendment is in order. It will amend existing legislation using new legislation.

It is not in order to raise these matters on the Order of Business. The Deputy should contact my office and give the necessary notice.

The amendment has already been tabled and is on the list.

The Deputy still has time to contact the office. It is not in order to raise the matter.

Is this regular parliamentary practice?

I wish to address the same point.

As I have ruled that the matter is not in order, the Deputy cannot address the same point. He must confine his remarks to promised legislation.

With regard to this Bill, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has now, on three separate occasions, tabled either late in Committee Stage or—

This is not in order.

I ask the Ceann Comhairle to listen to the point.

Until now, the Deputy has not been in order.

The Department has lobbed in extraneous material, which has profound implications for people, without proper debate either late on Committee Stage or on Report Stage.

The Deputy's point is not in order on the Order of Business.

Is it possible to recommit the Bill to Committee Stage to allow the new matter to be dealt with before Report Stage?

Yes, the Deputy can propose to recommit the Bill while it is moving through its various Stages.

We will not reach this amendment because there is a guillotine on the debate.

The amendment has serious implications. It changes the burden of proof.

There are ten amendments before it.

The Deputy may propose to recommit the Bill at the start of the Report Stage debate.

The proposed change was not mentioned during Second Stage or Committee Stage.

A Member may propose to recommit a Bill at the start of the Report Stage debate. It is not in order to debate the matter on the Order of Business.

How may we deal with it?

It can be dealt with at the start of Report Stage.

We had the guillotine forced through this morning.

The Deputy must move for recommital at the start of Report Stage.

Will the Government indicate that it accepts this?

The time for the Government to respond is when the recommital is moved.

To clarify matters, can we recommit at the start of the debate or must we wait until we have reached the amendment in question?

The Deputy can move to recommit the Bill at the start of the debate.

Does the Government propose to amend the Electricity Regulation Act, 1999, in tandem with the Sustainable Energy Bill, 2001? This is hugely important for Bord na Móna. Will the amendment be passed if the Sustainable Energy Bill is passed before Christmas?

Yes, if the Sustainable Energy Bill is passed.

The question I am asking is whether the Sustainable Energy Bill will be passed before the end of the year.

That is the intention.

The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development had a poor day at the office in Brussels yesterday while acting on behalf of Irish sheep farmers.

The Deputy should find other ways to raise this matter.

He had a very good day and should be congratulated.

All we got from him was one line.

Order, please.

The Minister for the Environment and Local Government does not want to listen to the point I wish to raise, which concerns the arrangements for discussing the Estimate for the Department of the Environment and Local Government. Is the Taoiseach aware that local authorities are having to postpone their annual Estimates meetings because the Minister for the Environment and Local Government has not yet notified them of their annual rates support grant for this year? The planning of local authorities, all the financial work they have to do for next year, is being put back as a result.

Does the Deputy have a question on promised legislation?

Now that the House has referred the referendum Bill to a select committee, it makes more time available for the plenary session. What time is being made available to allow the Minister for Public Enterprise, Deputy O'Rourke, make a statement on the greatest confidence trick ever perpetrated on the Irish people, the Eircom debacle?

It is not in order to ask about statements. They are a matter for the Whips. The Deputy can raise the matter in other ways.

I want to know the reason—

The Deputy is out of order.

When will the Estimates for that Department be debated?

That is not in order at this stage.

Is it not possible for this House to hear from the Minster for Public Enterprise on—

I have told the Deputy that is not in order. The Deputy is being disorderly. He should obey the chair and resume his seat.

On the Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill, last week the Taoiseach gave me the wrong information as he did not seem to be aware that a Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill is to come before the House in the next three or four weeks. It will follow on the budget and will relate to payments in euros and the cheques to be sent to our constituents in the middle of February. Does the Taoiseach propose in that Bill and on foot of the budget to allow—

The contents of the Bill cannot be questioned now.

Will the Taoiseach make any arrangements for there to be payments of interest to social welfare recipients?

That is a matter to be discussed when the Bill comes before the House.

I must conclude the Order of Business.