It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 1, 3, 10 (resumed), 11, 12, 13 and 14. Private Members' Business, No. 19 (resumed), will be taken between 7 p.m. and 8.30 p.m.
Order of Business.
I hope you will bear with me, Sir, if I raise with you at this stage three matters which I consider to be of considerable importance to the conduct of our business in the House, particularly with reference to our capacity and ability to discharge our parliamentary responsibility as the Opposition party.
First of all, I want to draw your attention to a rather minor matter which many Deputies might not regard as being of any great significance but which I think is indicative of the manner in which the business of this House is being conducted. I refer to the Order of Business. Normally, the Opposition are entitled to receive a typewritten copy of the Order of Business in advance of the sitting of the Dáil. In our time in Government we always endeavoured to let the Opposition have this typewritten information on the Order of Business of the day in advance. That action is of significance because it enables the Opposition, even in a somewhat hurried fashion, to arrange their programme of activity for the day.
Increasingly it has become very difficult for us in Opposition to get the Order of Business from the Government. This morning and yesterday afternoon at the time the House sat we did not have from the Government the typewritten Order of Business. To ordinary Deputies and to commentators this may appear to be a trivial matter, but it is important to us because we cannot conduct our affairs properly as an Opposition unless we know what the Dáil is expected to deal with during the day. This failure is indicative of the very slipshod manner in which this Government have been approaching the business of the House.
Secondly, I want to raise with you again, as the protector in the House of the interests of Deputies, the manner in which the Taoiseach dealt with Question No. 2 on yesterday's Order Paper. I suggest you will think that the present state of play in regard to the negotiations on a new national pay agreement is of very great importance to Deputies, to business and the commercial community and to the great body of employees, the wage earners. I am sure you will agree it was perfectly legitimate for us on this side, in an orderly fashion, to ask the Taoiseach for his view of the situation and, if possible, to give us some indication of the Government's plans and intentions in regard to this matter. We expected some reasonable reply, some level of information from the Taoiseach. Instead, we were treated with grave discourtesy.
The Taoiseach, in his reply, referred to a Government statement. Just before the House assembled a copy of this statement was given to me and to Deputy Gene Fitzgerald. In subsequent inquiries we ascertained that the statement had been given to the media, particularly to RTE radio, in time for the 1.30 news, before it had been placed on the Table of the House. We have ascertained officially from the Library that that statement was placed in the Library at 2 p.m. In advance of that it had been issued to the media. I would direct your attention first of all to the discourtesy involved in that.
On a point of order, I recall that in the time of your predecessor long ex parte statements of this kind relating to matters not arising on the Order of Business were instantly ruled out of order. I do not expect you will be ruling exactly like Deputy Faulkner but I think there should be some similarity in the way the Chair operates. I say that with great respect to you and great appreciation of the leniency of your handling of such matters, but this system whereby the Leader of the Opposition can get up and make three long ex parte statements — we have not heard the third one yet, but I do not expect it to be any shorter than the first two——
You have raised a point of order, but that does not involve making a statement. I will answer your point of order. The question being raised now is on the Order of Business and it refers to the Order of Business. I have the power to allow this.
Deputy Haughey is complaining about the content of something the Taoiseach said yesterday and about his behaviour today.
I will permit Deputy Haughey to finish his point.
I draw your attention to a matter which is a breach of procedure and privileges in this House, namely that a statement was issued to the media before it was placed on the Table in this House. Secondly, Sir, I want to ask your views as to the propriety of the Taoiseach answering a question by referring Deputies to a statement which most of us had not seen or the contents of which we were not aware.
The third matter to which I wish to draw your attention and again ask for a ruling—I sought a ruling on this yesterday but failed to obtain it—is the matter of Private Members' Business today. I trust the Minister for Trade, Commerce and Tourism will recognise that I am perfectly within my rights in dealing with this evening's Private Members' Business because that is on the Order of Business. We had an unusual situation yesterday in which there appeared on the Order Paper an amendment in the name of Deputy Browne which was of a very specific import and sought to achieve a very specific objective. It was in the form of an amendment to our Private Members' motion. Subsequently we were circulated with a piece of white paper which was headed "Private Members' Business" and on which there appeared in the names of Deputies Browne and Kemmy an amendment to an amendment.
I should like to draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that there are two substantial changes involved in this matter. In the first instance what we had on the Order Paper of the day was an amendment to our motion. The second thing brought forward by the Deputy and one of his colleagues was an amendment to the Fine Gael amendment. That was a significant difference. In addition the terms of the matter were substantially changed. The purpose of Deputy Browne's original amendment was clearly to set aside circular 24/81 by the Minister for Education because the amendment spoke of reintroducing that circular, clearly indicating that Deputy Browne sought by his amendment to have circular 24/81 set aside. In the amendment to the amendment there was a completely different purpose imported and that was to tolerate the continuance of circular 24/81. I do not want to go into the merits of either of these propositions but they are basically different. I want to ask the Chair for a ruling on whether or not it was in order for Deputy Browne in particular to effect this last minute change both in the form of his amendment, the technical parliamentary form and, secondly, in the basic content.
I wish to draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that this leaves us as an Opposition party under great difficulty with regard to Private Members' Business, which is basically the time allotted to the Opposition to conduct their business, if we are to be subjected to this kind of treatment where amendments are put down on the Order Paper and, at the last minute, changed in substance and form. I should be grateful if the Chair would indicate the procedure to be followed in this regard in future.
As regards item No. 1, these are arrangements between the Government and Opposition. Standing Orders merely require us to announce them to the Dáil at the commencement of business. It is not a matter for the Chair. On item No. 2, the Chair has no control over the form of answers given by the Taoiseach or any Minister. On item No. 3——
Perhaps the Chair would deal with the statement and the placing of it in the Library.
It was an answer given by the Taoiseach and the Chair has no control over the form of any answer. If the Taoiseach or any Minister refuses to answer a question the Chair has no control over that either. As regards item No. 3, Deputy Browne's second amendment was received very late. Normally two days notice is required but the Chair has the power to accept an amendment at shorter notice. Deputy Browne's second amendment was only received at 5.35 p.m. The Government amendment was received very late and the Deputy would only have seen it yesterday. In those circumstances I felt I should not rule out his second amendment because of the fact that the Government amendment was received so late. I feel that the Opposition were discommoded by this and that it is a matter that should be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges so that proper arrangements about motions and amendments can be clarified.
I am grateful for those explanations. In regard to the first, I accept that the Chair has no responsibility and unfortunately we, as the Opposition party, have to rely on the courtesy of the Government and have no alternative but to continue to do so.
You did not, Sir, deal with my complaint about the release of the statement to the media before it was placed on the Table of the House, namely handing it in to the Library. Perhaps you will deal with that for me. I find it very difficult to follow your line of reasoning about the amendments. Our motion was on the Order Paper for a long time. The Government's amendment was on the Order Paper and Deputy Browne's amendment to our motion was on the Order Paper. All this was clearly understood and known to Deputies, the media and so on. I find it difficult to see how Deputies Browne and Kemmy should have been afforded this opportunity to make a last minute turn around. We all know the political reason why they did it but I am not concerned with that at present. I should like to know if the Chair would go a little further to help us in this matter and indicate to us now what is your view about the timing of the rest of Private Members' Business, in other words how do you envisage the time being allocated from now on until our motion is dealt with? Unfortunately we had to delay the House for about ten minutes during Private Members Business yesterday on procedural matters. It is not part of our policy to delay the House with procedural wrangles but we had to use up ten minutes yesterday evening because we failed to secure from anyone including your office, any information about the situation of Deputies Browne's and Kemmy's amendment to an amendment.
I understand that the Government's amendment was received late on Monday evening, just before going to press, and Deputy Browne could not have seen it until Tuesday. That was the reason I accepted this second amendment. As regards Private Member's Business, I am satisfied that the Opposition did not proceed to debate the motion on education and raised the question of order relative to Deputy Browne's second amendment. I am satisfied it was a genuine procedural point and not an attempt to frustrate the proceedings of the Dáil and because of that I decided that Private Member's Business would have to be extended by 15 minutes.
One further question and then I shall cease to bother the Chair any more. If we come forward with a proposition to your office some time today about compressing the time so that our motion can be dealt with this evening by agreement with the Government would that be acceptable?
We would have to consider it.
As regards the points raised by the Leader of the Opposition, the third point is a matter for the Chair. It is a matter of order and I have no comment to make on it. As regards the first point, the Leader of the Opposition has complained that he received the typed Order of Business only one or two minutes before the Dáil met.
No, after the Dáil met.
I was present when it was handed to the Opposition Chief Whip before the Dáil met. I even offered my own copy in the event of the other one not being available.
On a point of Order, that document was not the typed Order of Business. It was the programme that the Taoiseach had for himself. The typed Order of Business was handed to me five or ten minutes after I started speaking.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Deputy is making a long speech that has no meaning.
I did not interrupt the Leader of the Opposition and I should be entitled to reply to the points he made. When we were in Opposition we received notice frequently only immediately before proceedings began. We complained about this as the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to complain now. It is annoying that one should receive such short notice of the day's business but the Order of Business was transmitted by phone this morning at 9.45 and given to a messenger to pass to the Chief Whip of the Opposition. That was at 9.50. I shall inquire into the question of why it was not received 40 minutes later. I regret very much that such delay occurred. While it was not due to any fault of ours, it should not have happened and I will ensure in so far it is in my power to do so, that it will not happen again. The problem arose in the offices of the House.
Regarding yesterday, I am sorry if any discourtesy seemed to be offered to the Opposition. There was no such intention but there seems to be some confusion of thought on the matter. The position is that a statement was issued by the Government to the press and to RTE yesterday morning. When replying to a question here later it seemed to me that it would be helpful to the House if as a courtesy the statement were available in the Library and made available also to the Leader of the Opposition and to the relevant spokesman. It was not a question of telling the media what the reply in the House was to be but that is implied in what has been said. To do so would have been a breach of privilege. Perhaps the more appropriate procedure would have been, and I shall consider this in future, for me to have appended the press statement to be circulated with the report. However, the procedure I adopted was one designed to facilitate Deputies opposite and the one that seemed the most appropriate at the time having regard to the fact that a press statement had been issued. There is no obligation on us in respect of any press statement being issued to convey it to the Opposition, to put a copy in the Library or to append it to the reply to a question. It was simply as a matter of courtesy that that was done. I am sorry that our courtesy was taken amiss but if some other procedure such as appending such a statement on certain occasions to a reply is thought to be better I am willing to do so. There is no misunderstanding or suggestion that we communicated in advance to the press the reply given in the House. We did not do that.
So far as they go, I am grateful to the Taoiseach for his replies and I apologise for engaging in what may appear to some people to be a procedural wrangle. However, the matter is of some importance. Question Time is a very important parliamentary process. The Taoiseach is right in saying that he has no obligation to supply us with copies of his press statements and that neither is there any obligation on him to deposit such statements in the Library but a difficulty arose on this occasion in that in answer to a parliamentary question the Taoiseach relied on his press statement and that is the key factor.
(Interruptions.)
Order.
I trust that I may continue this serious discussion with the Taoiseach without interruption from the Minister for Trade, Commerce and Tourism or anybody else. The Taoiseach will accept that this was of fundamental importance both to this House and to the community generally. It was a matter which was the subject of a great deal of press speculation beforehand. Many of the commentators in the media indicated to us that the Taoiseach would be making an important statement in the House by way of reply to Deputy Fitzgerald's question. Our problem was that instead of answering the oral question in the normal way and thereby giving us the opportunity of teasing out the matter further with the Taoiseach, he relied on this press statement for his answer to the question. It is on that basis that, in our view, the breech of privilege arises. If the Taoiseach had been prepared to answer the question in the normal way and then to refer to the press statement we would have no ground for complaint.
I understand the objections of the Leader of the Opposition are based on information that a major statement was to be made in the House but I am not aware of any intention to make a major statement in the House. However, I am willing to consider the point he makes on the format of the reply. It might have been better if the reply had taken the form of announcing the invitation to Professor Chubb and saying that a press statement had been issued containing some background.