Announcement by Taoiseach.
Ministerial Titles and Functions.
On a point of order, under what Standing Order is the Taoiseach about to address the House?
The request by the Taoiseach to make an announcement is a frequent occurrence.
I have been advised that there is no precedent for this. Could I ask under what Standing Order we are working? We must work under some Standing Order. I am all for hearing a political statement. I want to know, procedurally, what our position is.
Ever since the House was established the Taoiseach has been permitted to make a suitable statement if he requests to do so.
It is under Standing Order No. 38 that statements are made. I thank you.
I do not know whether the Deputy is quibbling between a statement and an announcement, but the Taoiseach has an announcement to make.
You just mentioned that it is a statement. We take it that it is under Standing Order No. 38 unless the Ceann Comhairle rules otherwise.
The Ceann Comhairle has permitted the Taoiseach to make an announcement and is calling on him to make an announcement.
Under Standing Order No. 38? Could we clarify it first? You referred to this as a statement which comes under Standing Order No. 38. That is the Standing Order we are working under. Can we be assured of that?
This is only technical information.
The rights of the Dáil are not technical.
May I suggest that I am informed by my Department that as a matter of precedent the Taoiseach out of courtesy to the House and for the information of the House informs the House of any statutory developments during the recess. That is all I want to do.
We do not want to quibble.
(Interruptions.)
The Ceann Comhairle accused us of quibbling between a statement and an announcement. We were informed this morning that a statement was being made. If a statement is being made it comes under Standing Order No. 38. We were informed at 2 o'clock today that a slight mistake was made, that it was not a statement, that it was an announcement. We are not quibbling. If it is an announcement we want to know does it come under Standing Order No. 38?
It does not come under any Standing Order.
How can it be made?
It is a matter of courtesy.
To suit the Opposition I will not make a statement.
If it comes under the Standing Order referred to there would be the right of representatives of the Opposition parties to reply.
That is precisely what the change was designed to prevent.
It was a ploy to deny the Opposition the right to reply.
I understood the Taoiseach was availing of the opportunity of informing the House as to what the changes in ministerial functions, which had taken place, were. I cannot see any objection to that.
There is no objection as long as there is no attempt to deny us the right to reply.
Fine Gael should grow up.
I beg leave to announce, for the information of the Dáil,
(I) that the Government
(a) on 2 January 1980, made an order transferring to the Minister for Finance, with effect from 1 January 1980, the Departmental administration and Ministerial functions under the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Act, 1977, and the National Board for Science and Technology Act, 1977, vested in the Minister for Economic Planning and Development,
(b) on 15 January 1980, made orders, which
(i) altered, with effect from 21 January 1980, the name, Department of Economic Planning and Development, and the title, Minister for Economic Planning and Development, to Department of Energy and Minister for Energy, respectively,
(ii) transferred, with effect from 22 January 1980, the Departmental administration and Ministerial functions in relation to energy, mines, minerals and petroleum from the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy to the Minister for Energy,
(iii) altered, with effect from 23 January 1980, the name, Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy, and the title, Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy, to Department of Industry, Commerce and Tourism and Minister for Industry, Commerce and Tourism, respectively,
(iv) transferred, with effect from 24 January 1980, the Departmental administration and Ministerial functions under the Tourist Traffic (Development) Act, 1931, and the Tourist Traffic Acts, 1939 to 1979, vested in the Minister for Transport and Tourism, to the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Tourism, and
(v) altered, with effect from 25 January 1980, the name, Department of Tourism and Transport, and the title, Minister for Tourism and Transport, to Department of Transport and Minister for Transport, respectively; and
(c) on 12 February 1980, made an order which transferred to me, with effect from that date, the Departmental administration and ministerial functions under the National Board for Science and Technology Act, 1977, vested in the Minister for Finance, and which prior to 1 January 1980, were vested in the Minister for Economic Planning and Development;
(2) that, on 21 January 1980, in exercise of the powers conferred on me by section 4 of the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Act, 1946, I
(a) terminated, with effect from 22 January 1980, the assignment of the Department of Energy to Michael O'Kennedy and assigned that Department to George Colley, with effect from the same date, and
(b) terminated, with effect from 25 January 1980, the assignment of the Department of Transport to George Colley and assigned that Department to Albert Reynolds, with effect from the same date; and
(3) that the Government on 5 February 1980, transferred from the Department of Finance the responsibility, formerly exercised by the Department of Economic Planning and Development, in relation to the following:
(a) National Economic and Social Council, European Molecular Biology Conference and European Space Agency
to the Department of the Taoiseach,
(b) Muintir na Tíre
to the Department of Agriculture,
(b) Council for the Status of Women
to the Department of Labour,
and
(d) Dublin Inner City Development (including Dublin Inner City Group Fund)
to the Department of the Environment.
I have nothing very controversial to say on this subject.
This is an announcement and there can be no statements on it.
I understood the Taoiseach would make a statement to this effect and we would have the right to reply.
(Interruptions.)
The Chair understands that it is an announcement from the Taoiseach for the information of the House. There were numerous precedents for it.
We were given to understand that we were entitled to comment briefly on the information given by the Taoiseach.
Yes, if it were a statement but this is an announcement for the information of the House. That is clear.
If you are going to start the first day like that, you cannot expect orderly behaviour.
As far as the Chair is concerned it is an announcement. This has happened on numerous occasions in this House.
Perhaps the Opposition will be satisfied if they make their statements in the form of questions arising out of the statement made. Perhaps it would suffice if they phrased what they want to say as questions.
No. The point at issue here is, first of all, a matter of principle, that the procedure for making statements to the House is that a brief reply should follow. I have nothing controversial to say on this subject. There is only one comment I want to make about it.
I have.
We must follow the procedure of the House and the Standing Orders of the House. The Ceann Comhairle, when speaking, used the word "statement", thereby bringing it within Standing Order No. 38. I propose, therefore, to make a brief, noncontroversial statement.
As far as the Chair is concerned it is not a statement. The Chair has been informed that it is an announcement. There are numerous precedents for it.
There is no provision for it in Standing Orders.
Surely the Deputy does not expect the Chair to hand him something at a minute's notice?
We inquired from the office and they were unable to give any precedent and said this must be a statement.
There are numerous precedents for the Taoiseach coming into the House to inform the House of something for the information of the House. It happened just before Christmas.
For the information of the Chair, let me inform him that the Taoiseach's office informed my office that the Taoiseach intended to make a statement at 3.30 p.m. and that I would have the right to reply. That is why I am so anxious that the Taoiseach make a statement; I want the right to reply.
My office was informed of that, too.
So far as the Chair is concerned this is an announcement and there are numerous precedents for it. The Chair cannot do anything about it.
Chair should follow Standing Orders.
The Chair was informed that it was an announcement and must proceed accordingly.
The Taoiseach used the words "I am prepared to call it a statement if that suits the Opposition".
(Interruptions.)
Let us now get on with the business of the House.
If the Chair is informed by the Taoiseach that it is a statement, that is all right. The Chair is informed that it is an announcement, which is a different thing altogether.
By the Standing Orders conferred on me by the Constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann, I hereby declare it to be a statement.
(Interruptions.)
It was a clever ploy to deny us our rights.
All the Chair wishes to state at this stage is that we are now going against the precedent of the House established all down the years.
(Interruptions.)
Let me inform Deputy L'Estrange that I have sat in this House for 25 years and I have watched these things going on for years.
The Chair could neither hear nor see.
The Chair asked the Taoiseach to declare it a statement so what is he worried about now?
Would the Chair let the House proceed on the basis of agreement?
I am not stopping the House. It is the Deputy's own members who are holding things up.
We are all agreed and we are not holding up proceedings. We are back now to where we were at 2.00 p.m. and I am glad of that and that this attempt has not succeeded. The Taoiseach has wisely seen that it is better to proceed according to Standing Orders.
I have very little to say on this. In fact it will take much less time than all this silly argument. I merely wanted to comment on the concentration of certain activities in the Taoiseach's office. I do not want to criticise this; there are arguments for it.
I would like the Taoiseach to take the opportunity at some point—and this is not perhaps the appropriate point—to explain his thinking with regard to the evolution of the role of the Taoiseach's Office because traditionally in our system it has played a rather minimal role—I would think too minimal a role. The Taoiseach is evidently proposing to modify this by bringing within its competence a number of areas, including the National Economic and Social Council and other areas involving a very considerable increase in staff. This moves it slightly from the prime ministerial system towards a slightly more presidential system. It involves some shift in the interpretation of the constitutional role of the Taoiseach. I would prefer to defer any comment on that—except to say it is an interesting development and one on which I have an open mind—until the Taoiseach takes an opportunity to develop his thinking on the question on the role of his Office in the future. I would ask if he would, in the not too distant future, put his thoughts to us so we would have a chance to debate this. That is all I wish to say. I do not want to waste the time of the House on the issue but I hope the Taoiseach will give consideration to my statement.
First of all, I should like to thank the Taoiseach for making the statement. Also I am glad that our right to reply was recognised eventually by the Chair.
With regard to the statement itself, it deals mainly with administrative changes and responsibilities for the various ministries. One of the things that it has had to deal with—and it is mentioned in practically every paragraph—is the dismantling of the Department of Economic Planning and Development. It should be stated again in this House that that has been one of the most retrograde steps ever taken by an Irish Government. I would, even at this late stage, appeal to the Taoiseach to reconsider that decision. When the announcement was made by the Taoiseach's predecessor that the Department of Economic Planning and Development was being created, we on these benches welcomed that development. We were critical of the way in which the functions of that Department were being carried out; but at least the principle that is acknowledged in every progressive country in the world that a Department and Minister responsible for economic planning and development was necessary and indeed essential if we were to be enabled to monitor the progress which we have set ourselves to attain was accepted. I do not want to be controversial in this but certain allegations have been made as to what precisely motivated that decision. It is of paramount importance for the future development of the country and in helping us to get out of the chronic economic and social difficulties in which this Government have landed us that we have that Department brought back into existence and a responsible Minister placed in charge of it.
I would also ask the Taoiseach to give some serious consideration to reviewing the ministerial posts that he has allocated and to see that at least one of them could be either amalgamated with another or abolished in order that we could have, at Cabinet level, a Minister responsible for the affairs of children. That would be a highly desirable development in this country. It is universally recognised that the plight of many of the children in our society could well do with the attention of a Minister at Cabinet level. I would ask the Taoiseach seriously to consider that.