Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Jan 1975

Vol. 277 No. 5

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take business in the following order: No. 7 (resumed). Private Members' Business between 6 p.m. and 7.30 p.m., and No. 16 (resumed).

Could I ask, a Cheann Comhairle, if you are aware of any occasion in the history of this House in which occurred two such incidents as occurred yesterday and today, (1) in which the questions which were down were answered and repeated the following day and (2) if such happened, whether you are aware of any occasion on which the answer given the first time was changed?

Totally changed.

Totally changed, as it was today.

I thought you did not hear it.

You said you did not hear it.

I think we should get away from this controversy. The Chair decided that the questions would appear again today because he was not satisfied that they had been disposed of.

I am not questioning your ruling. I merely wish to know whether there was any precedent for such a ruling.

Will the other 15 questions appear tomorrow?

Deputies

No.

Can we take it you are satisfied that the 17 questions were answered adequately? Since, in our opinion, they were not, you should allow them tomorrow.

Order of Business.

May I bring to your notice the fact that during Question Time I was on my feet and offered to ask a supplementary question. You may not have seen me. I have not had an opportunity of asking that supplementary question, and I should like to know whether tomorrow you will afford me that opportunity.

It is too late now.

Am I entitled to ask a supplementary question?

Not at this stage.

During Question Time. Are you saying you have the right to dismiss me like that?

Yes. Question Time has expired.

He is on a point of order.

Could I ask you whether or not earlier on this afternoon you gave me an assurance that you would protect the Members on this side of the House by affording them an opportunity of asking supplementary questions on 17 questions which were tabled? Could I ask you whether or not you gave me that assurance?

The Chair was as generous as time would permit. We devoted the whole hour to the 17 Questions.

With all due deference to the Chair, would you say whether or not you gave the assurance to which I refer?

The Deputy asked a number of supplementary questions.

Would you admit that the supplementary questions were put in respect of Questions Nos. 1 and 2 only?

I would not so agree. There was a variety of questions.

In respect of Questions Nos. 1 and 2.

I shall not argue any further about this matter. We must go on to the next business.

Therefore, would you accept that you have not kept the promise and the assurance you gave to me earlier on?

I should be very sorry if the Deputy thought that.

You are very sorry to admit that you did?

No, if the Deputy thought I had been unfair. I was trying to be as generous as I could.

If I suggest to you there is reason for your being sorry in so far as you have broken your word——

The Chair is bound by Standing Orders.

I wanted to ask a supplementary question specifically on No. 6, which refers to the College of Technology——

The Chair is bound by Standing Orders. Question Time has ended for today. I cannot hear any further questions.

Could you assure me that I shall have that opportunity tomorrow?

On the Order of Business, I heard the Taoiseach calling it out but I did not hear it put, and at this time it is normal for some question on the order to be raised. The question I want to ask is what sitting hours are proposed for next week? Unfortunately the Taoiseach and the Parliamentary Secretary have left the House and the Minister for Local Government may not be in a position to answer.

I can assure Deputy Lynch he will be informed tomorrow. The Parliamentary Secretary is here now.

I have raised a question as to the hours which it is proposed to sit next week. I have heard a suggestion that we shall have all-day sessions starting next week which, I submit, is, to say the least of it, rather unusual—we have witnessed rather a lot of unusual things here today—at this time of the session.

I agree it is unusual, but we are moving into an unusual era in as much as the new Standing Orders absorb a little more than a quarter of the Government's time on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. There will be a budget debate and a very large amount of financial business which must be disposed of before Easter, which is unusually early this year. The Government wishes to secure agreement on such matters, and I had intended to raise with the Opposition, not only this week but last week as well, the question of full-day sittings on Wednesdays with the intention that the budget debate would continue on Wednesday mornings thus leaving the rest of the week, or as much of it as possible, for legislative business. I agree it is unusual, but as the Leader of the Opposition will realise, we are extremely busy, and the disappearance of about 3¼ hours of Government time all the year round makes a fairly substantial difference.

In view of the unusual and, indeed, unreasonable nature of this suggestion, and having regard to the fact that Members of the House made commitments as to the disposal of their time, especially at this time of the year, which would preclude their attendance at the House, for example, for the morning session on Wednesday, would the Parliamentary Secretary take that into account? It is not easy for Deputies to disengage themselves from these commitments.

I agree entirely with Deputy Lynch that that is so. Usually what the Government find themselves criticised for is unwillingness to do some work. Now we want to sit longer hours and do more work and I hope the Leader of the Opposition sees the reason for it. Apart from the budget debate, which has barely begun, there is the Finance Bill which must be passed within 20 sitting days of the budget, as the Leader of the Opposition knows. There is the Capital Gains Tax Bill, which should have begun this week but, to convenience the Opposition, we agreed to postpone it until next week. I make no complaint about that. This is a very heavy programme by any standard. There is also the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Bill and the Misuse of Drugs Bill. If the Opposition have got some suggestions for economies I shall be very glad to hear them.

We have already co-operated in the economy of time. Might I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he take into account what I have just said?

I quite accept it is a nuisance to sit for 12 hours. It is a great strain on the staff. Of course I accept that but, if we can find some other way of getting through the business more quickly, it may not be necessary to prolong the hours.

Top
Share