It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 9, 10, 11, 18, 19, 20 and 21.
Order of Business.
I want to ask the Tánaiste why the Government see fit to deprive the Opposition of the right to the normal Adjournment Debate at the end of this session. Does he regard it as appropriate or in keeping with the tradition of this House, to unilaterally decide that the Opposition can have a mere five-and-a-half hours for an Adjournment Debate at the end of this session?
I think, subject to correction, that the arrangement this year is approximately one hour shorter than last year.
For the benefit of the Tánaiste, the Adjournment Debate on this occasion is considerably less than that normally allowed by the Government. Last year was exceptional because we, as a Government, had provided at the start of the term a considerable period of Government time for discussion on the economic situation, at the request of the Opposition. The Tánaiste may not be aware that there was a tentative agreement on this occasion between the Whips that Tuesday this week would be devoted to tidying up a number of measures the Government are anxious to deal with and that Wednesday and Thursday would be allocated for a full Adjournment Debate. In the circumstances of this particular year and the outcome of the Government's performance this term, does the Tánaiste think it satisfactory, from the point of view of the procedure of the House, the general public or the rights of the Opposition, that the decision to allow two-and-a-half days for an Adjournment Debate should, without agreement or consultation, be changed by the Government to a mere five-and-a-half hours on Friday?
The Leader of the Opposition will agree that we should not discuss what happened here last year——
The Tánaiste brought it up first.
I did because I thought it was relevant. The point is we have a number of important matters to get through this week and we would be giving a poor example to the country if we were to engage in this title-tattle across the floor. We are giving one hour less than we had last year for the Adjournment Debate. The Opposition may say more time was given last year but our reply is that we gave more time on the Finance Bill. Surely there are more serious matters we should be discussing this week?
There are more important matters we should be dealing with this week and the most serious is the Adjournment Debate so that the House and the public will have an opportunity to assess the Governments performance during the last term.
I trust Deputy Haughey's eloquence will not be found——
Just as this Government are running away from the verdict of the electorate at Cavan-Monaghan, they are also running away from the views of this House expressed in an Adjournment Debate. This is an negation of the rights of the Opposition and is an undemocratic procedure by the Government. Does the Tánaiste think that in the time allotted this week there is sufficient opportunity for this House to debate seven Bills and two motions in a proper and adequate manner?
So far as I know there has been an arrangement between the Whips. The Finance Bill allowed ample time for Deputies to discuss the economic position. Obviously all Members of the House at times require more time to discuss their remedies for the situation but as I understand it, the Leader of the Opposition and Members of the Opposition have one stock recipe for our economic problems—to continue borrowing. I am sure the former Taoiseach will be able to deliver that message next Friday in the time allotted to him.
This matter is more relevant to the motion and can be dealt with when the motion is moved.
I want to ask the Tánaiste for an adequate answer to my question. Does he regard the time allotted to deal with seven Bills and two motions as adequate, and is this not again a negation of the democratic procedures of this House?
I understand Deputy Haughey has a role to play here today and he is doing it in very fine style.
A very smart aleck remark.
He knows it is a familiar accusation that sufficient time has not been allowed to discuss various matters. The defence from this side of the House can be made that we have co-operated in every endeavour to ensure that the Opposition had ample time to discuss every criticism of current Government policy. The by now familiar accusations from the Opposition about inadequacies in Government policy will be heard next Friday. I tell Deputy Haughey to have confidence in his backbenchers because I am sure they will acquit themselves very well next Friday.
My questions at this stage are not directed to the adequacies or inadequacies of the Government's performance. They are directed to the procedures and traditions of this House. I am asking the Tánaiste if he regards it as satisfactory that this House should be asked to deal with seven Bills and two motions between now and Thursday. Does he not consider that that is a negation of the normal established procedures and traditions of this House and that it is not fair that this House, as a parliamentary assembly, should railroad seven Bills through in this manner?
In regard to one of these Bills, the Housing Finance Agency Bill, I would like to have the Ceann Comhairle's opinion. I want to recall the exchange which took place in this House on Tuesday, 8 December 1981 on the Housing Finance Agency Bill, and I quote from Volume 331, columns 1265-1266, of the Official Report:
If that is the position of the Minister and the Government we shall have to regard all the arrangements we have entered into as being negatived. We have gone to great trouble to facilitate the Government in this situation. There are a number of very complicated Bills coming before us, legislation to which, in the normal course of events, we would like to give very considerable time. We have, very reluctantly and in the interests of the people concerned, agreed to curtail our rights. Part of the understanding was that this Bill could be mentioned before the Recess but would not be taken until the first day after the Recess.
Mr. Tully: I assume it will not be taken unless there is agreement between the Whips.
I want to repeat that.
I assume it will not be taken unless there is agreement between the Whips. I am following normal procedure and I am surprised to hear the Leader of the Opposition making that point. I am suggesting that if agreement is reached we are prepared to take this next Tuesday.
Mr. Haughey: I will not push it any further now but there is either a breach of agreement or a misunderstanding, because my understanding was that the Second Stage would be ordered today for the first day after the Recess. If the Minister agrees it will not be taken without the agreement of Whips, I am satisfied.
The Taoiseach: Perhaps the Whips might consider this further because that is not my understanding of the position. Therefore further discussion between the Whips is desirable.
An Ceann Comhairle: We have to get a date for Second Stage.
I ask the Ceann Comhairle to listen carefully to what I have to say.
Mr. Tully: The normal practice is that a date is asked for and if it is agreed the Bill is taken on that day. I suggest the Second Stage be ordered for next Tuesday, if agreement is reached by the Whips.
And this is where the Chair comes into the discussion——
An Ceann Comhairle: It can be ordered for next Tuesday but will not be taken unless the Whips agree.
You, Sir, as the arbiter of business in this House clearly stated, according to the Official Report, that the Housing Finance Agency Bill would not be taken unless there was agreement between the Whips. I should like to ask you if it is now in order, therefore, for the Government to propose that that Bill be taken without the agreement of the Whips.
The matter under discussion was whether or not that Bill would be taken today. I said, and it is in the Official Report, that the debate would not be taken today unless there was agreement by the Whips. It was subsequently decided, apparently, that it would not be taken today. I do not know what Deputy Haughey is kicking up a row about.
Deputy Haughey rose.
Deputy Haughey should sit tight for one moment.
The Minister is taking over my role.
I am too long in this House to allow somebody like Deputy Haughey to jump up and silence me like he silenced his Whip a few moments ago. The position, as far as this matter is concerned, is that we wanted to take that Bill today but Fianna Fáil would not agree. Deputy Haughey threatened to withdraw everything. He did not threaten to cause hell in the place——
That was Deputy Gerry Collins.
——but he said he would withdraw all agreements if we did not agree. We are not taking it today and we are putting the matter down for the House to decide whether or not it will be taken before the Adjournment. That is the issue and Deputy Haughey knows that as well as I do. This little bit of a twist around is not going to get him anywhere.
I should like to recall, for the benefit of the Minister, what he said in the House, as reported at column 1265 of the Official Report:
Mr. Tully: I assume it will not be taken unless there is agreement between the Whips.
There is nothing about Tuesday in that.
The Minister can sit tight now.
Let me again point out that even the last sentence Deputy Haughey has quoted shows that what we were talking about was the taking of this Bill today.
Deputies
No.
That was the proposal I was putting to the House and there is no doubt but that Fianna Fáil do not like it. If that is the case then they know what they can do.
The normal practice is for business to be taken by agreement but there is an allocation of time motion before the House now and that takes precedence. This discussion is more relevant to the motion and that motion should be moved now.
With the permission of the Chair, I will move that motion.
I will not enter into any argument with the Chair, but I must recall to the Chair what he said to the House on the occasion referred to. On the basis of that statement we accepted the position. I believe there is something very fundamentally important at stake here: whether or not in this House we can make arrangements across the floor which will be honourably kept. That is what is at stake both from the Minister for Defence and the Chair's interpretation of the position of the Government with regard to this piece of legislation. Your interpretation was, and I have to quote your words: "It can be ordered for next Tuesday but will not be taken unless the Whips agree". I do not think any motion, closure motion, guillotine, time motion or anything else can obviate that specific statement and guarantee of yours as the arbiter of business and order in the House.
"Tuesday" is the operative word.
There is an allocation of time motion now before the House and I am afraid that motion has to be moved now.
I must ask the Chair to tell us the position about his statement of last Tuesday about this matter. You gave us an undertaking on the basis of statements from the Government that this legislation would not be taken unless the Whips agreed. Do I now take it that, despite that solemn statement from you in the Chair to the House, the Bill will be taken even though the Whips have not agreed?
For the benefit of Deputy Haughey I should like to state that what I said then was the established practice of the House, but the Government have the right to bring in a motion, an allocation of time motion, on this matter. That overrules everything and the House will decide that motion following a debate and a vote on it.
Am I to take it, a Cheann Comhairle, that, despite your clear statement of the position, the Government are now overruling not only us on this side of the House, are not only treating us in a cavalier, arrogant fashion, but that they are also overruling you by bringing in this motion negativing the clear statement which you gave us on Tuesday last about this piece of legislation? Is that the position?
The Deputy cannot anticipate the result of the motion. Everything the Deputy is saying is more relevant to the motion and I am calling on the Tánaiste to move it.
On the Order of Business, I wish to put two questions to the Tánaiste. My first question is in relation to Item No. 12, which the Tánaiste has omitted from his list. That concerns the European Association of Programmes in Health Services Studies Order. I should like to ask the Tánaiste, in view of the importance of the work done by this association and the fact that Ireland has been selected as the centre for this programme in health studies, when the Government plan to take that motion. It is a simple one and, presumably, would pass through the House quickly. It certainly will have our support. I understand that the group concerned made representations to the Government to have this motion passed urgently. It involves incorporation for the group, and that is important for them now. When is it intended to take this motion and why has it been decided not to take it before the Recess?
I should also like the Tánaiste to make a statement to the House on the measures the Government intend taking to deal with the critical situation that has developed because of the lack of staff in the Eastern Health Board to deal with 4,000 applications for shoes. I understand they have been set aside until after Christmas. I am sure the Tánaiste realises the urgency of this and I would be obliged if he would make a statement to relieve the concern of everybody about the steps which have been taken in this regard. He should make some arrangements to deal with this matter.
Item No. 12 is not deemed to have as much urgency as other matters which will be discussed in the period allotted to us, but certainly it will be taken on the first day of resumption after Christmas. The other point has already got the full attention of the Minister for Health and Minister for Social Welfare and I can assure the Deputy of that.
Does that mean that the shoes will be delivered before Christmas? In effect will the vouchers be out before Christmas?
The Minister for Health and Minister for Social Welfare knows of the seriousness of the situation.
But she will not do anything about it.
The object is to get the vouchers out and I should like to ask the Minister for Health and Minister for Social Welfare if she will give us the information I have sought.
In view of the expressed reluctance, as shown by the Minister for Trade, Commerce and Tourism in Skibbereen over the weekend, to proceeding with legislation to initiate the referendum and process in this House in regard to Articles 2 and 3 as against the initiation of a crusade in the public media outside the House where matters of this kind should be debated, will the Tánaiste tell the House when the legislation providing for the referendum — that legislation must be passed by the House — is likely to be introduced?
That does not arise on the Order of Business.
(Interruptions.)
The roles are wearing a little thin and we have putative leader No. 2 starting it now after we have had Deputy Haughey, in the most unlikely role yet, as defender of parliamentary democracy.
The Tánaiste's tenure will be short.
I will put Deputy Haughey out of his misery by moving the motion, with the permission of the Chair.
We are on the Order of Business.
I wish to raise a point on the Order of Business.
I am calling on Deputy Moore to move the amendment to the motion.
On the Order of Business——
On the Order of Business——
How many Members want to leave the House now? Deputy Moore to move the amendment.
I have a point to raise on the Order of Business.
I am calling on Deputy Moore to move the amendment.
(Interruptions.)
Will Deputy Fitzgerald please resume his seat?
Is it in order for No. 9 to be called before we have concluded the Order of Business?
I have called the motion and have asked the Tánaiste to move it.
We had not finished the Order of Business, on which we are entitled to ask questions.
Is it any wonder that Fianna Fáil have so much difficulty in naming a Front Bench?
The situation over there is like a chipmunks' tea party.
I know that we are riding roughshod over every rule, tradition and procedure in this House but there is a normal simple procedure so far as the Order of Business is concerned, that is, that the Order of Business is agreed before we begin to deal with the business ordered. We have not yet agreed today's Order of Business and, consequently, we are entitled at this point to ask questions on it.
The Chair has given ample time for the discussion of matters on the Order of Business. Many of the matters raised are not relevant.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
In view of the fact that there is a motion before the House which indicates that after this week the Dáil will not sit until late in January and having regard to the deteriorating situation in the whole arena of pay, with a breakdown in the discussions between the building workers and the CIF, with strike notice served in an essential service between now and when the Dáil resumes——
We cannot have a speech at this stage.
——and with discussions taking place with the public sector, is the Tánaiste prepared to allow time to discuss this week this most important area of economic activity?
That question does not arise on the Order of Business.
But surely we are entitled to ask the question.
Perhaps we could have a little order first.
Is it the intention of the Minister for Finance or of the Minister for Agriculture to make a statement or to take any initiative arising from the breakdown in discussions between the Government and the banks concerning financial assistance for farmers in difficulty?
The Minister concerned has been referring to the subject and the serious situation involved will continue to have the Minister's attention. Regarding the pay situation I assure the House also that the Minister for Labour is dealing with the matter. In general the position has been that the Government have been faced with the unenviable task of picking up the bits of the economy left by our predecessors.
(Interruptions.)
Order. The Tánaiste is speaking.
It is somewhat difficult to tolerate lectures in parliamentary democracy from some of the Members opposite. I have explained the reason for moving the motion on the Order Paper and the matter is now in your hands.
I refer to item No. 23 on the Order Paper. This item has been listed every week for the past five weeks but has not been reached. Can the Minister concerned tell us whether it is proposed to take the Bill, that is, the Sea Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 1981, and can he assure the House that if it is not taken until the Dáil resumes the Irish fishing industry will not be inhibited in the meantime because of lack of funds from BIM.
Cavan-Monaghan): It is intended to take the Bill in question when the Dáil resumes.
Again, on the Order of Business, in regard to the commitments given both by the Minister for Agriculture and by his Minister of State that 75 per cent of all headage grants would be paid before Christmas, since none of these grants has been paid, has either of those gentlemen any comment to make?
It is not Christmas yet.
The Deputy would need to table a question on that.
On the Order of Business——
I am calling on the Tánaiste to move the motion.
The Order of Business has not been agreed.
For the information of the House, the position is that when the Order of Business is announced agreement on it is not sought.
The Tánaiste does not like being here.
On a point of order, it is a hallowed tradition in this House that the Order of Business is agreed between the parties. That is the way we have conducted our business up to now but I am afraid that there is a strong fascist, arrogant tendency emerging on the other side of the House.
(Interruptions.)
Order. I am calling on the Tánaiste to move Motion No. 9.