Today's business shall be No. 8, Financial Resolution re Public Service Pay and Pensions Bill 2017; No. 27, Public Service Pay and Pensions Bill 2017 - Committee and Remaining Stages; No. 28, Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill 2017 [Seanad] - Second Stage (resumed), if not previously concluded; No. 9, Financial Resolution re Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill 2017 [Seanad]; and No. 29, Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2016 - Report Stage (resumed) and Final Stage.

Private Members' business shall be No. 160, motion re Syrian sanctions, selected by lndependents 4 Change.

Wednesday's business shall be No. 10, motion re horse and greyhound racing fund regulations, back from committee; No. 30, Social Welfare Bill 2017 - Order for Report, Report and Final Stages; No. 28, Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill 2017 [Seanad] - Second Stage, resumed, if not previously concluded; No. 9, Financial Resolution re Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill 2017; No. 32, Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (Hague Convention) Bill 2016 [Seanad] - Order for Report, Report and Final Stages; No. 5, Electoral (Amendment) (Dáil Constituencies) Bill 2017 - all Stages; No. 31, Technological Universities Bill 2015 - Order for Report, Report and Final Stages; and No. 29, Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2016 - Report and Final Stages, resumed, if not previously concluded. Private Members' business shall be No. 161, motion re neurological services, selected by Fianna Fáil.

Thursday's business shall be No. 11, Further Revised Estimates, back from committee; No. 12, Supplementary Estimates, back from committee; No. 12a, motion re Permanent Structured Cooperation, PESCO; No. 5, Electoral (Amendment) (Dáil Constituencies) Bill 2017 - all Stages, resumed, if not previously concluded; No. 29, Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2016 - Report and Final Stages, resumed, if not previously concluded; No. 1, Intoxicating Liquor (Amendment) Bill 2017 [Seanad] - Second Stage; and No. 32a, statements on climate change.

Friday’s business shall be: No. 32b, statements on Paradise Papers; No. 28, Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill 2017 [Seanad] - Second Stage, resumed, if not previously concluded; No. 9, Financial Resolution re Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill 2017, without debate, if not previously taken; No. 33, Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill 2017 - Second Stage, resumed, if not previously concluded; and No. 1, Intoxicating Liquor (Amendment) Bill 2017 [Seanad] - Second Stage, resumed, if not previously concluded.

With regard to the announcement of the proposed arrangements for this week's business, I refer to the first revised report of the Business Committee dated 5 December 2017. In relation to today’s business, it is proposed that:

(1) the Dáil shall sit later than 10 p.m. and shall adjourn on the conclusion of Private Members’ business;

(2) the Financial Resolution re Public Service Pay and Pensions Bill 2017 shall be taken without debate and any division demanded shall be taken immediately;

(3) any division demanded on the Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill 2017 on Tuesday or Wednesday shall be taken immediately;

(4) the Financial Resolution re Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill 2017 shall be taken on the conclusion of Second Stage of the Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill 2017 without debate and any division demanded shall be taken immediately; and

(5) Private Members' business shall take place not later than 9 p.m. for two hours.

In relation to Wednesday’s business, it is proposed that the motion re horse and greyhound racing fund regulations, back from committee, shall conclude within 40 minutes and be confined to a single round of five minutes each for speeches by a Minister or Minister of State and the main spokespersons for parties or groups and all members may share time.

In relation to Thursday’s business, it is proposed that:

(1) the Further Revised Estimates, back from committee, shall be moved together, taken without debate and decided by one question and any division demanded shall be taken immediately;

(2) the Supplementary Estimates, back from committee, shall be moved together, taken without debate and decided by one question and any division demanded shall be taken immediately;

(3) the motion re Permanent Structured Cooperation, PESCO, shall be taken following the Supplementary Estimates and to conclude within two hours. Speeches shall be confined to a single round of 15 minutes each by a Minister or Minister of State and the main spokespersons for parties or groups and all members may share time;

(4) the voting block shall take place on the conclusion of the motion re Permanent Structured Cooperation, PESCO, and the suspension of the House under Standing Order 25(1) shall take place thereafter for 40 minutes;

(5) statements on climate change shall commence not later than 5 p.m. and no Private Members’ Bill shall be taken under Standing Order 140A, and no committee report shall be taken under Standing Order 91(2). Statements shall be confined to a single round of 15 minutes each by a Minister or Minister of State and the main spokespersons for parties or groups to conclude within two hours. All members may share time. If the statements conclude before 7 p.m., the order shall resume save that the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2016 and the Intoxicating Liquor (Amendment) Bill 2017 [Seanad] shall not be taken;

(6) Topical Issues shall be taken not later than 7 p.m. or on the conclusion of the statements on climate change, if the other Government business has concluded, whichever is the earlier, and the Dáil shall adjourn on the conclusion of Topical Issues.

It is proposed that:

(1) the Dáil shall sit on Friday at 10.30 a.m. and adjourn not later than 2.30 p.m. to take the business listed earlier and any division demanded on Friday shall be deferred until immediately after the Order of Business on Tuesday, 12 December 2017; and

(2) statements on the Paradise Papers shall be confined to a single round of 15 minutes each for statements by a Minister or a Minister of State and the main spokespersons for parties or groups, to conclude within two hours and that all Members may share time.

After all of the detail, there are just four proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with today's business agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Wednesday's business agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Thursday's business agreed to?

Not agreed.

It is not agreed.

This is an absolutely scandalous suggestion. It was not agreed at the Business Committee that there would be a vote on joining the Permanent Structured Cooperation, PESCO, arrangement. This is a move to ram through a vote to move towards joining a European Union army while quadrupling military spending. It would have an effect as significant and damaging to the economy and our society as Brexit and is deeply cynical. I wonder if the quid pro quo for European Union support in the Brexit negotiations is that we sell out our military neutrality and ramp up military expenditure.

Come off it. Read the brief.

Perhaps they want our airforce.

We cannot have a detailed debate on the matter.

I have read the brief and the PESCO arrangement. It is absolutely outrageous. This was not agreed to and there has been no public consultation on it, despite it having a fundamental and damaging impact on Ireland's neutrality. It drags us into massively increased military spending.

I have always operated on the basis of co-operation at the Business Committee and the expediency of delivering the business to which this House needs to attend, but this is a departure from anything I have seen. I was the first person to raise at the Business Committee a number of weeks ago that the Dáil should be provided with adequate time to discuss this vital matter. I was assured that this would be the case. I know that in subsequent weeks Members of the House across the different political groupings have raised the issue. Last week the Tánaiste stated its scheduling was a matter for the Business Committee, but it did not discuss the issue on Thursday. Not only was it not discussed in the context of this week's business, it was also not mentioned by the Government in the context of next week's business either. This is an incredibly serious matter that potentially signs up the State to massive defence expenditure in the next few years. The proposal is that we have 15 minutes for each group shoehorned into a Thursday session on the eve of the recess. It is completely unacceptable and I object to it in the strongest possible terms.

Similar to the previous Deputies, I object in the strongest terms to the way this matter has appeared on the schedule for this week. As has been noted, there was no discussion about it in any shape or form at last week's meeting of the Business Committee. Deputy Seán Crowe and I discussed it as a Topical Issue only a few weeks ago when it was indicated that the Government might sign up to it and that it was aware of the deadlines. All of a sudden, it appeared on the schedule for discussion on Thursday. The proposal is that we have two hours in which to make a decision.

We are to be given only two hours to debate an EU proposal that would lead to a major shift in Irish foreign, defence and financial policy. It has not been discussed in committee and has been subject to no scrutiny in the newspapers or by the public generally. Two hours is way too short a timeframe to deal with the implications of such a significant move and it behoves us to ensure adequate time is allocated. Indeed the proposal should have gone beyond this House. It certainly should, at the very least, have been discussed at committee.

As I understand it, the detail of the proposal has not been circulated to any Member. All we have been told is that the EU proposals for permanent structured defence co-operation are to be discussed for two hours this Thursday. That is a disgrace given the huge commitments involved. We are talking about a requirement, very shortly after signing up to the agreement, for a threefold increase in defence spending. Given the other crises we are facing-----

The Deputy cannot go into the details of the proposal.

I am not going into the details. I am saying that we should have the same type of debate on this proposal as we would have when any significant change in our financial commitments is proposed. An additional consideration in this case is that the proposal has implications for our neutrality. In the course of the debate on the Lisbon treaty, a guarantee was given to the public that there would be debate and scrutiny in this House on any proposal to change our position on neutrality. That is not what is happening with this two-hour debate.

We asked the Government last week for a debate on the PESCO proposals. As I understand it, the Government intends to sign up to the agreement at the European Council meeting on 11 December. This issue is of huge significance to our country and, as such, we should be given more time to debate it. Perhaps the Business Committee might meet later today to discuss how that can be facilitated.

Any matter that impinges on defence is a matter of great sensitivity for the Members of this House and, more importantly, for the people of this country. We all engaged in a great deal of introspection immediately after the initial defeat of the referendum on the Lisbon treaty. One of the things that became evident at that time was the need for mechanisms in this House to accommodate proper debate such that people can understand proposals in full measure. Whatever one's point of view on a particular issue, there should always be facilitation of a full debate. The idea was that we would have a robust committee system in the House whereby people would be invited in to give evidence, the proceedings would be broadcast, and this House would subsequently come to an informed decision on the matter in question.

Will the Taoiseach, who is also the Minister for Defence, accept the view expressed by so many Deputies in the House today that we should have a proper committee debate on these matters? There is no rush to sign up to the proposals this side of Christmas. I understand there is a request to do so, but we may choose to postpone our signing up until after the event. We must have a proper debate, with experts invited in and cross-examined, after which the House can come to an informed decision. It would be entirely improper to sanction these proposals on the basis of a two-hour debate in which 15 minutes is allocated to each group.

I agree with the concerns expressed by previous speakers. We are seeing an attempt to bulldoze a very significant provision through the House without adequate debate. In fact, not only do we need debate in this House, there also must be widespread public debate on the issue. To proceed as proposed would be hugely damaging to our neutrality and result in its further erosion. It would commit the country to expenditure in this area of 2% per annum, which is some €3 billion. Given the serious issues facing our health, housing and other areas of provision, we should not even be contemplating expenditure of that level on this proposal. The notification for the debate is totally inadequate. There must be full public scrutiny, in this House, in the media and among the public. The matter should be deferred at least until 31 March 2018 to allow for that debate to take place.

I add my voice to those of colleagues in objecting to the handling of this issue. The Government was aware that several groups and Members in the House had concerns about the PESCO proposals and had requested that adequate time be allowed for proper scrutiny and debate.

There was not agreement at the Business Committee to handle it in this manner. It should go back to the Business Committee to find a satisfactory outcome and not be forced on us like this.

We are quite open to a debate on this. We do not understand why if everybody in the House is of the view that there should be a debate how it has ended up being on the Order Paper as proposed by the Business Committee, I think, but I am subject to correction.

No it was not proposed.

The climate change debate is only to last for two hours, with eight people to speak for 15 minutes. Only eight people will speak which is hardly adequate for such an important issue. I know people want to wrap up early in the next two weeks, but it seems we cannot concertina everything into eight or nine days. That will be our challenge if we are to have meaningful debate. I accept this issue was always going to require debate. I do not understand how people thought it could go through without debate given the views they have traditionally on issues of this kind in the House. People need to go back to see if they can create time for a debate on this and allow the rest of the business go ahead.

There are rumours that this is threatening our neutrality. That could not be further from the truth. Sweden and Austria, which have neutrality policies similar to ours, have already signed up to PESCO.

They are trying to end their neutrality as well.

I have spoken to the Chief Whip. He will allow more time for the debate and I have no doubt that he will communicate with the other Whips to agree a timeframe on this.

What was the decision of the Business Committee?

It was a motion on PESCO. There it is.

Do away with the Business Committee.

I was in here last week taking a Topical Issue matter on this specific issue from Deputy Ó Snodaigh and Deputy Lisa Chambers and I am not sure who the other Deputy was-----

Does the Minister of State mean he is not sure who Deputy Lisa Chambers is?

Deputy Crowe.

I outlined to the House exactly what PESCO is about. I have no problem coming back to the Chamber to debate the matter with the rest of the House.

In the interests of debate this is an important topic to discuss and I recommend that the Business Committee reconvene and agree adequate time for a debate. I am sure that can be agreed.

Ceann Comhairle-----

Ceann Comhairle-----

Let us not have the debate all over again.

This is not the debate. This is about the Taoiseach's proposal.

I ask that it be referred to the committee.

Does the Deputy mean the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Trade and Defence? Yes. Deputy Boyd Barrett may make a brief point.

So that we are clear what is being discussed, it is not just the time allowed for a debate but the fact that the Minister of State with responsibility for Defence is proposing a vote this week. That is what we object to.

We can debate that at the Business Committee.

That is not acceptable.

I fully support what Deputy Howlin says, that this would be brought to the committee so that the Defence Forces and others could come in and explain what is happening rather than rushing it through for the December Council meeting. Would that be possible?

The Army Chief of Staff could come in.

This should be put back to give us time to consider it.

Let us debate all of those matters at the Business Committee, which is the appropriate place to do that. We will convene that-----

It is not the norm that these things would go to a specific committee. I believe there should be adequate time to debate it in the Chamber.

There needs to be a public debate.

This is massive. It is as big as Brexit.

I do not think so.

It is actually. The Taoiseach does not think so because he supports it.

It is not just a question of debating it in the Chamber or in the committee. It needs a public debate and there needs to be adequate time, several months, to do that.

I would not support it if it cost €3 billion.

It is not as big as Brexit.

We are in the run-up to Christmas and this cannot be done properly between now and Christmas. It should be deferred until the new year and given adequate time for a public debate on the issue.

The arrangements will be made at a meeting of the Business Committee this afternoon.

Given that there will be a meeting of the Business Committee and subject to its arriving at agreement, is Thursday's business acceptable? Agreed.

Is the proposal for dealing with Friday's business agreed to? Agreed.