It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 1, 8, 9, 10, 12 (resumed) and 11. Business will be interrupted at 3.30 p.m. to take No. 11, following which the order will be resumed, with the exception of No. 10. Private Members' Business, No. 20 (resumed), will be taken from 7 p.m. until 8.30 p.m.
Order of Business.
When will the Taoiseach be in a position to inform the House of the conditions for our joining the EMS?
We have debated that matter so often that the conditions are well known, but if after the Summit meeting next week there is anything further to tell the House I shall so inform it.
When we discussed the matter before Christmas the Taoiseach told us that the Government were not in a position to tell the House what were the precise terms of our entering in respect of grants or loans but that these terms would emerge in the following weeks. When will this information be made available to the House?
The Deputy has already asked that question. We cannot have a discussion on it now.
As is usual, I hope after the Summit meeting next week to be able to make a statement to the House and to clarify further the position then if there is need for that.
Will the statement include the precise terms under which we are entering the EMS?
I assure the Deputy that I will be as comprehensive as possible.
There are two separate issues here—what is decided at the Summit on broad lines and the specific arrangements that have been under negotiation in respect of the £225 million and the alleged £70 million more in grants to be provided through some sort of consortium. That matter may not arise at the Summit. But what I understand Deputy Cluskey to be seeking is a statement which we were promised on those facts when they were established, regardless of whether that is before or after the Summit. We are entitled to be told when the information will be available and to be assured that it will be forthcoming.
In this way we could easily move into a discussion that we have had so many times in the past. Therefore, we shall continue with the order.
Has the Taoiseach decided when he will allow discussion on the removal of food subsidies?
That question also has been asked a number of times.
If it were answered there would not be any need to continue asking it.
Deputy FitzGerald asked me that question before we came in and I was in a position to tell him that the matter referred to will be taken on Tuesday next 13 March.
I wish to give notice of my intention to raise on the Adjournment the question of the community school in Birr, a subject that has been raised by me here before.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
On a point of order, I wish to raise a matter relating to the removal from the Order Paper of a question in my name. On Tuesday last I tabled a question concerning ground rents to the Minister for Justice for oral reply. That question appeared as No. 90 on yesterday's Order Paper but also appearing on that Order Paper as Question No. 188 was a question in similar terms from a Fianna Fáil backbencher, Deputy Killeen. The result was that, because of the written reply having been given yesterday to Deputy Killean, my question for oral reply has now been removed from the Order Paper on the basis of its being a repeat. However, I have checked in the Question Office and have found that the question in the name of Deputy Killeen was tabled on Thursday after the 11 o'clock deadline. Therefore, under the rules of our procedure, it should not have been on the Order Paper yesterday, and I am contending that it could only have been put on the Order Paper for yesterday as a result of contact having been made between the Office of the Minister for Justice and the Question Office. The result is that, as an Opposition Deputy, I am not now in a position to raise the matter in the House by way of oral question today. This is an abuse of parliamentary democracy——
Deputies
Hear, hear.
——and I am asking that you, Sir, have the matter investigated and ensure that such abuse of procedure does not occur again.
The Deputy discussed this matter with me before we came in and I pointed out to him that the only approach to any change in what has been a long-standing practice would be to raise the matter at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I understand there is nothing irregular in what has happened, that it is a practice as old as the House itself.
Practice is dependent on the integrity or otherwise of the Government of the day.
The only irregularity I should like to emphasise in this case is that the written reply appears, whether prompted or otherwise, to have been brought forward specially by a day for the sole purpose of excluding my oral question.
The Chair would not be in a position to judge the motive of a question.
The point is that the question was tabled by Deputy Killeen at 12.45 p.m. on Thursday. That was after the 11 o'clock deadline. It could not have appeared on yesterday's Order Paper other than as a result of contact having been made between the office of the Minister and the Question Office. That appears to be the glaring irregularity in this case.
The tactics of sleeveens.
The practice has been always that, if a question is on the Order Paper, a Deputy tabling a similar question is not obliged to comply with the time schedule as laid down.
While a question put down for written answer has always been answered on the first available day, would the Chair accept that the abuse of this practice for the purpose of suppressing oral questions is something new, something that has not occurred until this Dáil, and that the abuse that has now arisen of putting down a question out of time and by arranging with the Minister to have it brought forward to a date earlier than the date on which it should be answered is a further abuse? Can the Chair say what steps will be taken to end these abuses and may I invite the Taoiseach to discuss this practice with his Ministers and to ask them not to seek to suppress in this way discussion in the House.
That is a matter for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
The Chair has announced that Deputy O'Keeffe discussed this matter with the Chair but, obviously, he could not forbear from discussing it publicity here and making allegations about which we know nothing. This is the first I have heard of the suggestion of collusion which has been repeated by Deputy O'Keeffe's leader. Those allegations should not be made in public unless there is some chance of investigating a complaint made directly to me, which has not been done. This is the first I have heard of this.
I did not allege an irregularity in that respect. I said that the procedure, as I understand it, is that if a question is put down after time it can only appear on the Order Paper a day earlier if there is discussion between the Questions Office and the Minister, a practice which takes place. As to whether the Minister rang the Questions Office or whether the more normal procedure of the Questions Office ringing the Minister took place, I do not know nor have I alleged that.
This is a procedure that has always applied. Whenever a question is put down for written answer, a question on the same subject on the Order Paper for oral answer is taken off. That was always the case. It was not so noticeable at a time when all the questions were cleared on the same day but now, with questions remaining on the Order Paper for weeks, it is more noticeable that, if a question on a certain subject is put down for a written reply, other questions on the same subject disappear.
In the past I have had my suspicions that questions were being put in for the purpose of removing oral questions from the Order Paper.
The Chair cannot judge what the motive is.
We are listening to more allegations being made in public and the Deputy, being a lawyer, ought not to make reckless allegations like this without investigating them.
The Deputy is paranoiac.
The Deputy is not making reckless allegations.
I said I had suspicions which I was unable to prove and yesterday I made it my business to investigate the situation. I discovered that the question which was put down for written reply by a Fianna Fáil backbencher was put down after the deadline on Thursday. Therefore, it could not have been on the Order Paper yesterday without contact being made with the office of the Minister for Justice. On that basis, having investigated the matter fully, I felt it only right to mention the matter in the House this morning.
I should like to explain what the position is in regard to this matter. If a question is on the Order Paper a question on the same subject may be put down for written or oral reply without the necessity of complying with the necessary notice. That has always been the case.
The Chair will appreciate the danger of abuse that this gives rise to, the possibility of abuse, and the fact that in this and in another instance a fortnight earlier affecting the same Deputy, the effect has been to prevent an oral question and supplementaries. In those circumstances I should like to ask that the rule be reconsidered and that consideration be given to a system under which, if an oral question is put down for answer, the question for written reply in relation to it be answered on the same day to prevent the oral question being ruled out of order.
There is only one course open to the Chair and that is to have the matter raised at the Committee of Procedure and Privileges. I suggest the House do that, by agreement.
(Cavan-Monaghan): It will be voted down like the last occasion.
Since the Taoiseach has intervened in the matter and in view of the fact that the Minister for Justice is involved, it is my view that one of them should make a statement to the House now.
The Taoiseach did not intervene. He was asked to answer some questions.
The Chair has now explained to the Dáil that it is not necessary, if there is a question on the Order Paper similar to one a Deputy wishes to put to a Minister, to apply the time limit. That comes as a great surprise to me.
It comes as a surprise to me after ten years.
Will the Chair tell the House the Standing Order relating to this matter?
That is the practice which has always been used.
Since when?
From what I can ascertain from the comments made today and my knowledge of the situation, nobody is aware of this procedure. Under which Standing Order does this practice apply?
It is a practice that has been used down the years.
It is the practice of sleeveens.
The Chair has stated that there is no time limit, but there must be one if the Order Paper has to be printed. Could we be informed of something which we have not been aware of, and which even in a discussion with the Chair I did not become aware of, as to what the deadline is for putting down a written question for the Order Paper? There must be some deadline. This knowledge should not be the privilege of Members of one side of the House.
I read Standing Orders this morning in relation to another matter and the section dealing with the time limit for questions and I found that section is clear and specific. It does not make any exceptions.
It is disorderly to have a discussion on this matter here, but when I was discussing it with Deputies FitzGerald and O'Keeffe I stated that I would make reference to it if it was mentioned now. This has been the practice down through the years. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges are fully aware of the situation. If the practice of the past is capable of being abused, that Committee should look into it.
It is contrary to Standing Orders.
It is not.
In addition to the point raised, which I agree should be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, the Chair raised an issue which was new to me even after our discussion this morning—that a question for written answer can be put down without any time limit. My understanding after our discussion was that such a question put down after the time limit could be taken in advance of the normal time that it would appear on the Order Paper by agreement between the Questions Office and the Minister. That is a different point. If, as appears to be the case, the Chair is suggesting that there is no time limit for such questions —I take it that means that they can be put down up to the time the Order Paper goes to print—we should be told. I wonder if the Chair intended to convey that fact to the House.
The Chair did not say that there was no time limit for questions for written reply. The Chair pointed out that it has been the practice that any question for either written or oral reply may be put down if there is a question on the same subject on the Order Paper without the necessary time notice. Naturally, there must be a time limit before the material goes to print.
What is the time limit?
The Questions Office usually facilitates Deputies as far as possible.
They facilitate the Minister.
On behalf of many other new Deputies, and myself, I should like to know if I was correct in understanding the Chair to say that a Deputy, if he puts down a question for written reply which is similar to a question already on the Order Paper for oral reply, he can receive, within the due process of time, that written reply and such a reply will remove the oral questions from the Order Paper? Does that mean that if I put down for written reply every question on the Order Paper I could clean up the Order Paper in one or two days? I would appreciate if the Chair, now or later today, would make a statement on the matter, because it is of immense importance to all Members.
There is no need to make a statement on a matter which has been the practice during the lifetime of the House.
May I suggest that we proceed with the Order of Business?
Is it embarrassing the Taoiseach?
I suggest that a meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges be held to discuss this matter.
Unfortunately, I do not have the experience of the Taoiseach in relation to procedure in this House and for that reason I should like to know where I can obtain the information I am seeking if I cannot obtain it on the Order of Business?
The Deputy knows that the office will facilitate him as far as possible in relation to this information.
It is not in Standing Orders.