It is proposed to take item No. 2. The speech of any Member contributing to the debate on the motion shall not exceed 30 minutes. The proceedings on the motion if not previously concluded shall be brought to a conclusion at 8.30 p.m. today and Members as follows shall be called upon by the Chair to speak on the debate on the motion not later than the times specified: 6.30 p.m. a Member nominated by the Workers' Party, 7 p.m. a Member nominated by the Labour Party, 7.30 p.m. a Member nominated by Fine Gael and 8 p.m. a Member of the Government.
Order of Business.
We agree that the item to be taken be No. 2 and that the Dáil adjourn at 8.30 p.m., but we do not agree that the debate should necessarily conclude to-day. That is a matter which should be left to the House.
This is the Order of Business I am proposing. I understand there was a difference of opinion about the time which should be allocated for this no-confidence moton. I understand the Labour Party wanted a shorter time and I could not ascertain exactly what the Fine Gael Party want. In our view ten hours, minus Question Time, is a reasonable allocation of time for this debate.
We do not agree with that. We feel the debate should continue until those who have anything to say about this no-confidence motion have made their contributions. We have not agreed that the debate should end at 8.30 p.m. although the Dáil can adjourn at 8.30 p.m. and the debate can continue tomorrow.
Before we have a mini-debate on this subject, might I suggest that this could be discussed at Whip level. We have no views on the length of the debate and I do not think there should be any great difference between us on that matter.
(Dun Laoghaire): If the Whips are to get together, I should like to think we will have a discussion, not dictation. We were told by the Government that it was decided the motion would be taken today from 10.30 a.m. to 8.30 p.m. I would like to remind the House what the Taoiseach said last night: “Perhaps the Whips could get together to decide when the two motions will be taken.” Now one motion is being taken; the vote of no-confidence is not being taken. I want to make it clear that while at all times we want to co-operate, in this instance we were not given an alternative. We were told the Government had made the decision, which they were entitled to do, but again I want to repeat what the Taoiseach said: “Perhaps the Whips could get together to decide when the two motions will be taken”.
For the last few weeks we have had a very unsatisfactory experience of arrangements being made that business would be taken at certain times, subsequently these arrangements were not adhered to, items were talked out and there was agreement when they should be concluded. We believe that last night the Opposition parties looked for a vote of confidence. We are prepared to devote all today to discuss that. That is a fair proposition and I am putting it to the House.
Would the Chair inform the Taoiseach that he does not own this House?
That is what Deputy FitzGerald would like to do.
If asked I believe the people would say from 10.30 a.m. to 8.30 p.m. would be a reasonable length of time to debate this motion. This debate clarifies the position for me that there is nothing but obstructionist tactics coming from one side of this House. What the people think should be taken into consideration now.
(Interruptions.)
(Dun Laoghaire): I do not wish to get into a slagging match with anybody, but there is one point I would like to correct. I have never broken any agreement made with the Whips. We tried to co-operate where possible and I have always made the position of this side of the House clear, openly and honestly. There have been no tactics on my part or on the part of my party—
(Interruptions.)
(Dun Laoghaire): I was asked to do a job, suggested by the Taoiseach to meet the Government Whip to decide when the two motions would be taken. I attended such a meeting and was told — I had no option — that the motion would be taken today from 10.30 a.m. to 8.30 p.m. Where in Standing Orders have the Government the right to put a deadline on a debate? They are entitled to order business, but are they entitled to say when the debate will conclude?
It is unfortunate that the Whips were not given the opportunity of getting together to fix the time scale for this confidence debate. My own view on that would have been that the time the Government had allocated for it is, if anything, excessive. The situation of the country is such that urgent pressing economic matters need the attention of the Dáil. I should have thought that a three or four-hour debate would have been perfectly adequate. Every Member in the House knows full well whether he or she has confidence in the Government, and talking that through for hour after hour of the repetitious material that we have had in the past weeks is not going to advance the economic condition of the country one iota. It is not going to contribute towards helping the unemployment situation. It is going to contribute nothing towards reducing the fiscal chaos and economic abandon that is facing the country. The sooner we dispose of the issue one way or another and get on to deal with the pressing problems of the country the better.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
In the absence of agreement I propose putting the question.
Will the Chair say under what provisions in Standing Orders he is putting the question?
This is normal practice. There is a motion before the House.
I understand that in the other House there is a procedure under which there may be a vote on the Order of Business but I have always understood, and was told repeatedly by the Chair in my early days in this House, that there is no procedure for a vote on the Order of Business in this House. If I have been misguided, fair enough. I am entitled to know under what provision the Chair is putting the vote and on what motion the vote is being put.
The terms have to be agreed and in the absence of agreement I was putting the question to the House.
There cannot be a vote on the Order of Business.
Deputies
Put the question.
The Order of Business does not include the times.
The Chair is quite right.
The Order of Business merely announces the items to be taken.
On the Order of Business, in the interest of getting a debate off the ground and without having disagreement on less important issues, perhaps it would be possible for the Whips to meet and report at a later stage of the debate without having the question put. Our Whip has talked about the serious economic problems facing the country. To meet those problems it may be necessary to dispose of the Government.
Deputies
Put the question.
Yesterday the Taoiseach proposed that the Whips should meet to decide the issue. The Whips have not met to decide the issue. There was a meeting at which the Taoiseach sought to dictate to our Whip what the arrangements should be. I suggest that we now have a meeting of the Whips to decide the issue and I am sure it could be decided amicably. It need not and should not be done by dictation. It has never been done by dictation in this House.
I am afraid Deputy FitzGerald has a very short memory. Before Christmas last year the Order of Business, not just for one day but for three or four days, was put before the House by the Government in the form of a guillotine motion and pushed through the House by vote. I cannot understand the behaviour of the Opposition parties. The leaders of Fine Gael and the Labour Party asked specifically last night for a vote of confidence. We are giving them all day today. I am inclined to agree with the Chief Whip of the Labour Party that perhaps we are offering rather too long a time, that we are allocating too much time to this. We could dispense with the matter by one single vote now, and if there is a wish for that I am prepared to go along with it. In an endeavour to be fair to the Opposition parties I am proposing this arrangement. I believe it is reasonable and fair and I am asking the Chair to put it to the House as the Order of Business for today. If there is to be a discussion during the day on any matter we are prepared to do that, but we must have an Order of Business now.
(Dun Laoghaire): If the Taoiseach thinks he is giving too much time, why did he go to the bother yesterday of saying that perhaps the Whips could get together to decide when the two motions would be taken? Are we to be made a fool of? I am very disappointed in the Taoiseach for saying we broke agreements. I should like him to specify what agreements we broke. Secondly, last Friday the Taoiseach made a statement that was totally inaccurate also——
Deputies
Chair, Chair.
The Deputy should have some respect for the Chair.
(Dun Laoghaire): When the Deputy wants to speak I will allow him to do so without interruption. All I am saying is that we were asked by the Taoiseach to get together and arrange something. I made myself available but I did not get the option. In the Dáil we asked questions but we are accused of acting in an obstructive manner. I think this is grossly unfair.
I wish to remind the House that there is a motion before the House and, as such, Deputies may speak only once on it.
There are two procedures——
On a point of order, what is the motion?
Will the Deputy please sit in his seat?
I cannot sit in my seat and make a point of order at the same time.
Then the Deputy should stand up in his place.
On a point of order, how can there be a motion on the Order of Business?
There is a motion about the times proposed. That is not part of the Order of Business. The Order of Business states the House will take item No. 2.
Where is there provision in Standing Orders for a motion on the Order of Business?
I am proposing that the Order of Business and the times be as I have outlined. That is the motion and I am asking the Chair to put it to the House.
(Cavan-Monaghan): On a point of order——
On a point of order, a member of the Fianna Fáil back bench has been standing up for the past five minutes——
(Interruptions.)
The Chair has recognised Deputy Fitzpatrick, who wishes to speak on a point of order.
Other Deputies are entitled to be heard.
Deputy Andrews has no right to speak from where he is situated at the moment. I ask the Deputy to sit in his seat. I am calling Deputy Fitzpatrick.
(Cavan-Monaghan): If we want to get very technical and act in accordance with Standing Orders, as apparently the Taoiseach does, as far as I can see there is no time motion on the Order Paper and a time motion has not been circulated here today. As I understand it, we cannot discuss a verbal motion or any motion unless it has been circulated in accordance with the rules.
On a point of order——
Fianna Fáil back-benchers have the right to be heard in this House also.
On a point of order that I have been trying to raise for the past five minutes, is it correct and proper procedure that a Member of this House be abused by a Member of the Upper House standing in this lobby? I wish to report remarks that have been made by a Labour Senator across the railing——
The Chair heard no such remarks.
This House is being reduced to the level of a circus by some people——
The Chair heard no such remarks. The Chair cannot rule on something it did not hear.
On a point of order, this is the first time I have heard my old friend, Senator Mara, referred to as a Labour Senator. I made a suggestion to avoid this kind of discussion on the structure and time of the debate. To avoid any disagreement on that matter, the Whips should meet in the course of the debate, come to an agreement and report to us at a later stage. Surely there is no necessity for a division on the time and duration of this debate?
Could the motion be put now that the House reaffirms confidence in the Government and then we could get on with affairs of State?
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am convinced that the Taoiseach, or the Government Chief Whip, did not give any notice in writing to the Chair or to the general office.
The order of business is the prerogative of the Taoiseach——
(Cavan-Monaghan): Is there a motion before us?
Is it not the case that it is a Taoiseach's prerogative to set the order in which business is to be taken, not the limit within which it is to be taken?
These times are proposed at the time of the Order of Business.
There is no mechanism for making a formal proposition on the Order of Business, times are merely suggested.
We should not be wasting time in silly wrangles. The attempt by the Taoiseach to dictate to the House is not acceptable to us. The Whips should meet and reach agreement. If the Taoiseach is not satisfied with the agreement reached, it is open to him to put down a guillotine motion and that motion can be passed by the House if necessary. We cannot proceed on a vote until there is a motion before the House. If the Taoiseach wishes to propose this motion he may do so.
I did not hear you, could you please repeat what you said?
A guillotine motion has not ben handed into you, Sir. Until that is done, a vote cannot be taken. In the meantime, the debate should proceed, the Whips should consult and, if there is no agreement, and the Government are so anxious to terminate this debate that they do not wish the voice of the Opposition to be heard——
(Interruptions.)
Do they wish to set a precedent by guillotining a no-confidence motion? I do not think that has happened in 60 years, but if that is what they want let them do so.
The practice over the years in this House has been that motions are proposed and agreed by the House.
I do not want to make this argument any more heated, but when I was Government Whip we had a fair number of motions like this and my recollection is that we managed to agree beforehand on a certain length of time. It might have been done on this occasion and it may still be done. I am concerned to make one simple, procedural point. Merely because a Member proposes something off the top of his head does not mean that the House has before it a motion in the sense which requires a vote. I am not party to the decisions which my Party makes on such matters any longer. Wiser heads than mine decide these things. The Taoiseach is proposing off the top of his head something he has not proposed in the form the orders of the House require and there is nothing, therefore, before the House for it to vote on. Having said that, I hope some agreement can be reached and that we will not make a show of the House again by these early morning wrangles.
I have a proposition before the House that this be the Order of Business and that we proceed in the way in which I have outlined. I am asking the House to adopt this procedure.
There is another proposition before the House that the Whips should meet and report back at a later stage in the debate. If there is a disagreement at that point then we should have a vote. To avoid a vote now, I suggest that the Government will accept the proposition that the Whips meet, seek agreement and, in the event of non-agreement, a vote will be taken.
There are now two motions before the House——
(Interruptions.)
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Government are entitled to order business for the day. Ordinarily, there is no time limit on debate. A person can speak for hours unless there is agreement to the contrary. The way to get agreement and to bind every speaker by it is to put in a time motion which, for the adjournment and various other debates, appears on the Order Paper. I agree that might not be possible today but it should have been circulated here on a white sheet this morning. If we want to adhere to the rules we must do that.
There are numerous precedents for putting this to the House on the Order of Business and if there is not agreement there will be a division.
Would you draw the attention of the House to the Standing Order under which you now propose to operate?
There are numerous precedents for this.
Would you direct the House to a single precedent where a motion, which is not yet in writing, has not yet been circulated let alone printed, is put to the House in any shape or form on the basis of a proposal off the top of somebody's head?
There are numerous precedents but I cannot quote them now.
The Taoiseach said there was a time allocation motion before Christmas and that we had them on numerous other occasions. A whole lot of items were bundled into time which the Opposition felt was unreasonably short and it was ordered by the House on a vote in that way. That might have been done today and it could still be done today for all I know. It would still be open to the Taoiseach or anyone on the Government side to move that the question be now put towards the end of the day if they feel they have had enough. It is in your discretion to allow the question to be put. I am concerned to prevent something being done here which is outside the rules as I understand them and I am here for nearly ten years.
As I understand it even though there is agreement between the Whips it has to be agreed by the House on each occasion.
My proposal is that the Whips should meet to discuss this matter of time. If there is disagreement at that level it should be reported to the House and then the House can divide. That seems to be the most sensible thing to do.
Is it part of the proposition that we proceed in the interim with the debate?
Yes.
The only thing at issue now is that termination time has to be agreed. If agreement is not reached the House can divide accordingly.
Is it part of the proposition that in the meantime the debate should proceed with half an hour per speaker?
If the Vote cannot be taken now because there is no motion before the House, how then could it be in order if the Whips do not reach agreement?
We are prepared to accept the proposal of the leader of the Labour Party on the understanding that the Whips will report back by 12 o'clock.
Is that agreed?
Agreed.
Is it agreed that each speaker has 30 minutes?
Yes.
There is a meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges at 12 o'clock.
The Whips can report back before 12 o'clock.
Could I raise on the adjournment the subject of my Private Notice Question on Tuesday which is of grave public interest? I am sure the Minister for Justice would share my concern that this should be debated, and I would ask him to come into the House this evening.
I shall communicate with the Deputy.
I want again to ask your permission, Sir, to raise on the Adjournment the matter of restrictions on the sale of calves locked up under the Disease Eradication Scheme.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
For the third time might I raise again the issue of the closure of Ardmore Studios on the Adjournment?
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.