It is proposed to take No. 4. Private Members' Business will be No. 34.
Order of Business.
Unfortunately, this is the first time since I have been involved with the Whips that I have had to rise to say that there is no agreement to take No. 4, No. 34 or anything else. We failed to come to any agreement on the Order of Business for this week. I am sure that you, Sir, will allow me, because it is rarely that this happens to make the point that at the end of the session there is always a rush to get business through and there is need for co-operation. This year was no exception. Over the last four weeks we have been sitting late and we sat on some Fridays. We tried to get through the business in an orderly way, making sure that items were debated properly. Unfortunately, having agreed to do the business in this fashion and to let a large amount of legislation through with proper debate which we thought was not always adequate but at least fair, having agreed to take the Estimates late at night and on Fridays, and having agreed with the Leader of the House on the Government side to debate the committees and to set them up prior to his departure abroad, we came along with only one Bill left on the Order Paper and what we thought was an agreement with the Whips, the Minister for the Environment and his Minister of State because several weeks ago we alerted the Minister for the Environment to the fact that the Second Reading of the Local Government (planning and Development) Bill, 1983 should not be taken at this time in the session. Our spokesman on the Environment, Deputy Molloy, outlined the reason why. It was done in a very orderly and fair way. There was no question of it being just rushed through at the end, and we highlighted this at least three weeks back.
Having obtained agreement to allowing all the business through and the clearing of all the decks with the Government we are left with only one Bill and with an understanding that this week the Fisheries Bill, if it was available, the remaining Estimates and the Adjournment Debate would take place and that since we had no other business we would be completed on Friday. I feel that that is no fault of the Government Chief Whip. From discussions with him, although he did not say so, it was quite obvious that he agreed with me on this matter, but at about 6.30 p.m. or 7 p.m. last Thursday night for some reason unknown to me, but I am sure known to somebody, there was a change in that and there was no agreement on anything. I was told that we would have as much debate as we could on the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill which I thought we were not going to take. I contacted our spokesman and from the informal talks he had he felt the same as I did.
Now, having agreed to everything with the Opposition and having acted in an orderly and fair way, the Government have turned around on the Opposition and have been totally unreasonable. When the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill was presented on 31 May we did not object to, because we could not stop, the Minister for the Environment ordering it on 2 June. The Official Report of 2 June 1983 at column 522, volume 343, states:
Bill entitled an Act to amend and extend the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, 1963 to 1982.
Minister for the Environment (Mr. Spring): I move: "That the Second Stage to be taken on Wednesday next, 8 June 1983 subject to agreement between the Whips."
There was no agreement between the Whips. Therefore, I do not believe that it is in order to take that Bill now. If we are to do business — on this side of the House we are accused regularly of not doing business, not agreeing to committees and so on — on this occasion it should be seen fairly and squarely that there is no disagreement from this side of the House and that we in good faith over a number of weeks, as is always the case, have been in total co-operation with the Government Chief Whip who acted honorably in this matter. However, the rug was pulled from under him, for some reason unknown to him I would say as much as it is unknown to me, last Thursday night. Now we cannot take this Bill today. I do not think it is in order to take it. There is no agreement to it. There is an agreement that it be by agreement between the Whips. Perhaps the House would adjourn while the Whips come to agreement and we can co-operate in a fair and orderly way on the business of this House.
Dún Laoghaire): There is a saying that Whips should never fall out and I do not intend to fall out with the Opposition Chief Whip, but I would like to correct a few points. The Order for Second Stage was moved here on 2 June to be taken on 8 June subject to agreement between the Whips. At our following Whips' meeting the Opposition Chief Whip and I agreed between us to take the Planning Bill. We then met Deputy Molloy who asked that we would not take it that week because he needed more time to study it. Therefore we knocked it off for that week and reverted to something else. I was accused of putting in filler business that same week, but it was as a result of that request. That was business done by the Whips behind the scenes. On this Bill the Opposition Whip for understandable reasons decided that his party did not want to take it before the summer recess. However, the Government decided that they wished to take this Bill before the summer recess. I approached the Opposition Chief Whip and advised him of this and tried to get some agreement, but, because of the position of his party, that agreement was not forthcoming. Therefore, it fell on my shoulders to arrange times and to try to give adequate time to the Opposition to debate Second Stage of this Bill. I did that by agreeing that it be taken today up to 10.30 tonight, all day tomorrow until 10.30 tomorrow night and all day on Thursday up to 5 p.m. and that Second Stage should concluded at 5 p.m. on Thursday. I calculate that as 20½ hours of Second Stage debate. I have also made it known that if the Opposition wished they could use another five hours on Friday which is provisionally put aside for Estimates and that would give 25½ hours Second Stage debate on this Bill. If you check back over the records for a number of years I doubt if you will find that the same amount of time was given for any Bill — which has only about 17 sections—with the exception of perhaps the Finance Bill. In this instance we have tried to give as much time as possible to the Opposition in the form of Second Stage debate.
I agree that an Opposition have a right to debate a Bill for as long as possible and to tease out difficulties that they may see in that Bill, but without agreement there was no option but for me to try to see to it that the Opposition were given adequate Second Stage debate and 20½ hours plus an option of another five hours, which would be 25½ hours, should be acceptable. I have discussed this with the Taoiseach. It may be possible even, if the Opposition so wish, to devote Friday for further Second Stage debate if they feel it is necessary to have that extra time, but that will be at the expense of the Estimates which, of course, will have to be agreed with the Opposition.
I would prefer to agree with the Opposition Whip on the business to be put through the House. I should like to assure the Opposition Whip, and the Leader of the Opposition, that I will be only too pleased if I can co-operate in any way this week, or next week, to try to conclude business in a satisfactory way so that every Member, including The Workers' Party and the Independents, whom I forgot to mention, anxious to make a contribution, is given an opportunity. I should like to assure the Opposition Whip that my door will always be open for this week if he wishes that we should come to an agreement as to how this business should be concluded.
I am anxious to say something.
This is going to be a long-playing record and the Chair had better make up his mind about that.
I have made up my mind that it will be in accordance with the rules of the House. I have allowed a fairly lengthy statement by the Fianna Fáil Whip and a fairly lengthy reply from the Minister of State. I cannot allow a debate on this matter and I am not going to.
Deputy Haughey rose.
I will deal with the point of order raised by Deputy B. Ahern when I get order. I am referring to the point of order on the agreement of business.
I wish to make a short reply to the Government Chief Whip; I do not wish to give a detailed response. I should like to correct the Government Chief Whip and tell him that if he looked at the record he would find that the debate on the two previous planning Bills, which were major pieces of legislation like this one and were introduced in 1973 and 1976, were not a matter of 26 hours. I believe it was longer than 26 weeks and for that reason he will discover that our request is not unusual. Of course, it was not just a question of the Bill dealing with planning. Last week at the Whips' meeting we were told that there would be other Bills — I am not sure what they are, there may be a turf Bill and a fisheries Bill — but we have not seen them. It is impossible for an Opposition Whip, or an Opposition to plan for legislation we have not seen. It is contrary to what we have done in the House previously when approaching the end of a session.
I am anxious to point out that there is no resolution or motion before the House.
I should like to intervene by way of explanation. Reference was made to me by the Government Whip and I should like the indulgence of the Chair to clarify the reference to me which was not correct.
The Deputy will have an opportunity of doing that later.
In the interests of veracity surely I should be allowed to clarify the position? I was not involved in any formal talks with the Government Whip.
I am not going to allow this to continue. It has been said that the Chair is too rigid and it is obvious that if the Chair gives an inch it develops to a longer distance and into a long, disorderly debate. Strictly speaking, any debate on the Order of Business is not in order for the simple reason that a debate can take place only on a resolution or on a Bill. Since neither of those is before the House a debate is out of order. However, I thought it proper and reasonable to allow the Fianna Fáil Whip to make his point and make it properly. I did so. I thought it necessary to allow the Minister of State to reply and I did that also. Deputy Ahern asked that he should be allowed reply and I even went that far. Consistent with my duties in the Chair I cannot be asked to go any further and I should not be asked. I will not go any further. I should like to deal now with the point raised by Deputy Ahern on the question that the Second Stage of the Bill was fixed for 8 June by agreement.
Subject to agreement.
Subject to agreement. It is a fact that those words appear in the Official Report and were used by the Tánaiste. I am advised, and I am satisfied, that those words are superfluous, and that Standing Orders provide that the Second Reading of the Bill should be fixed for a specified date. Even if the argument is put forward that those words are not superfluous and if the argument is accepted that those words were part of the motion and of the ruling of the House it is abundantly clear from the record of the House that the Tánaiste said:
I move: "That the Second Stage be taken on Wednesday next, 8 June 1983, subject to agreement between the Whips".
If there was ever any effect in those words it expired on 8 June, a date that has long passed.
The Chair is joking?
If anything else was to be accepted it would mean that the Second Stage of the Bill could never be taken unless all parties in the House agreed. That was never meant.
It was said.
I am ruling that the Government are in order in announcing the Order of Business today and that they were in order in announcing and taking today the Second Stage of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill. In ruling on that I sincerely hope there will not be any questioning of it.
There will be a lot of questioning.
I am not going to have it.
I want to speak on the Order of Business.
There is no provision for that.
Is the Chair not going to allow me make a point of order?
I resent that a little bit. It is not a question of the Chair either allowing or refusing a debate on the Order of Business. A debate can take place on a resolution or on a Bill and the announcement of the Order of Business is neither. That is long established; it is not new.
It is also long-established tradition in the House that when a Minister introduces a Bill and fixes a date for it, subject to agreement between the Whips, that that Bill is not taken until the Whips agree that it should be taken.
I am not going to allow Deputy Haughey to make a speech.
I am anxious to make it clear that we cannot accept the Chair's ruling that words in black and white in the Official Report are meaningless.
If Deputy Haughey does not accept the Chair's ruling he has a method of challenging it, an orderly challenge.
I want to put a point of order.
I am not taking them. This is tantamount to questioning the Chair's ruling and arguing against it. I am now calling on the Tánaiste to move the Second Stage of the Bill.
On a point of order, in view of the decision of the House taken on 2 June regarding this Bill, the first thing that must happen is that the Tánaiste must move that the Second Reading be now taken. Is that in order?
I am ruling that that is not necessary.
Why is it not necessary?
It is necessary to move the Second Reading when the Minister stands up to make his speech and that is what I called upon him to do to move the Second Reading.
The Chair called upon the Minister to move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.
That is what I propose to call on him to do.
The Chair is breaking with every precedent, every tradition and every rule of fair play in the House in deliberately over-ruling the agreement of the House reached at the instigation of the Tánaiste, at the specific suggestion of the Tánaiste, that the Second Stage of the Bill be taken only by agreement between the Whips. As our Chief Whip has pointed out there is no agreement between the Whips to take this Bill today and, therefore, I suggest it cannot be taken today unless the Order of the House made on 2 June is negatived. There is no escaping from the logic of that argument.
I should like to refer the Deputy, and the House, to Standing Order No. 88 (3) which states:
A member of the Government, or a private member nominated for the purpose under Standing Order 85 (2) may present a Bill without previously obtaining leave of the House and any Bill so presented shall be printed and an Order for its second reading shall be made.
I suggest that order was made on 2 June and the order which that Standing Order contemplates was very clear and very specific. The order made under the Standing Order which you have just read out was to the effect that the Second Reading would only be taken by agreement between the Whips. Therefore, you make total nonsense of the House if you overrule that clear decision of the House taken on 2 June.
I am absolutely satisfied that what I am doing is in order and I propose to continue with it.
Will you answer my point of order please?
What is it?
My point of order is very clear. The House has specifically ordered and it is clearly recorded in the Official Report at column 522, volume 343, No. 3:
That the Second Stage be taken on Wednesday next, 8 June 1983 subject to agreement between the Whips.
The Second Stage of this Bill cannot be taken in the House except by agreement between the Whips unless somebody is now prepared to move in the House that that order of the House be set aside. That is a procedure which could be adopted. Otherwise, I suggest that the Second Stage of the Bill cannot be taken today unless the Whips agree that it should be so.
I will now reply to the last point made by the Deputy. On 2 June 1983 the Minister for the Environment moved:
I move: That the Second Stage be taken on Wednesday next, 8 June 1983 subject to agreement between the Whips.
My interpretation of that is that if it were to be taken on 8 June 1983 there would have to be agreement between the Whips. That is what that means.
(Interruptions.)
I am ruling that. I am now calling on the Minister for the Environment to move that the Bill be read a Second Time.
You have indicated since you assumed the Chair that you are concerned about rigidity. I might remind you, in passing, that when you sat on those benches you accused me of the same offence. You indicated early on that in respect of words which appear in the Official Report——
I will not allow an argument on my ruling in the House. There is a way of challenging that.
I am asking you if you are establishing that it is permitted to the Chair to regard as superfluous words which are in the Official Report of the House?
I will draw the Deputy's attention to the Order Paper of the following day and to every Order Paper which came out since that day and he will find that there is not one word about agreement or subject to agreement. It does not appear on the Order Paper. It is superfluous and concerns the parties. I am calling on the Minister for the Environment.
On a point of order very recently in the House when Bills were being moved a Minister was not aware that a date had to be named. You ruled on that occasion, which is only about two weeks ago, that a Minister had to give the date. The Minister looked around and he was quite surprised that he had to give a date. He did not know what date to give. Usually the Whips' office give that going into the House. You ruled that a date had to be given. Surely it is not superfluous or you would not have ruled that a Minister had to give a date. He had to get guidance on that occasion about the date. Now you are changing. The Standing Orders are not the only things which rule the House. The rulings of previous chairmen also rule. On every occasion when a Bill is moved it is by agreement between the Whips, otherwise the Whips have no function. In effect, you are ruling that Whips have no function in the House.
I am ruling that the words are superfluous so far as the Standing Orders are concerned, that a date must be fixed.
On a point of order——
The Chair is speaking and nobody else should speak when the Chair is speaking. I also said that, if I was wrong in that argument and if it were to be held that the words had some effect, they expired and ceased to have any effect on 8 June last. Before I conclude I want to say that I am calling on the Minister for the Environment to move "That the Bill be now read a Second Time". I will not adjourn the House. I can only appeal for order. If the House is broken up, that is not my fault. I am proceeding in accordance with——
You are not.
I regret having to do this.
On a point of order, and in the interests of preserving decorum in the House, I would like to go back to the specific decision which was taken on 2 June: "That the Second Stage be taken on Wednesday next subject to agreement between the Whips". The history of this matter as it progressed is the same in relation to every case regarding pending legislation. The Whips met regularly until, apparently, an arbitrary decision was made by the Taoiseach last Thursday evening and on foot of that arbitrary decision which upset working between the Whips we now have the situation where this Bill is being introduced today and the Government are seeking to bulldoze it through the House today without any justification, good, bad, or indifferent, either in regard to the content of the Bill or the method of presenting it.
I will not have disorder in the House. I do my best to avoid disorder in the House. The House should be allowed get on with its business. Item No.4.
When is it proposed to take the Estimate for Foreign Affairs?
I understand that it is subject to agreement between the Whips.
(Interruptions.)
In the past when a Minister has agreed that a date is set, subject to agreement between the Whips, I always understood that was as soon as possible thereafter subject to agreement between the Whips. I always understood it was a matter of on that date or as soon as possible thereafter subject to agreement between the Whips. This was always the understanding when I was Minister on the other side and also on the Opposition side. As far as the House is concerned the understanding of that statement depended on the goodwill between the Whips on both sides and the arrangements which could be made between them. There is a grave danger——
I have allowed the Deputy to make a short speech and he should not abuse it.
——in introducing a work to rule situation here and one in which the word of the Minister for the Environment can only be taken for one day and no more than one day. It is a very serious situation in the House if that is the way it is to be.
Matters between the Whips are not matters for the Chair. They are matters between the parties. The next thing I want to say is that if it were to be accepted as logical and binding that because these words appear here the Second Stage of this Bill could never be taken without agreement, then unless there was agreement the Bill could never be taken. In my opinion that is absurd. I am calling on the Minister for the Environment to move the Second Stage of this Bill.
On a point of order, I have pointed an alternative to you that when your argument does not stand up——
I will not have an argument with the Chair and I am ruling that out.
I am suggesting to you that, if you wish to get away from the situation where this Bill can only be taken by agreement between the parties, then I suggest you must negative that order of the House made on 2 June.
I am ruling against Deputy Haughey.
Why are you?
I am ruling that that is not necessary.
A Cheann Comhairle, for your sake, for the sake of your own reputation, we have an order of the House——
There is no order.
There is an order of the House of 2 June.
The order expired on 8 June. The Minister to move the Second Stage——
On a point of order——
On a point of order——
(Interruptions.)
I am not hearing any more points of order.
(Interruptions.)
I am calling on the Minister to move the Second Stage of the Bill.
On a point of order, in view of the ruling you have just given, I want clarification of it.
No, I am calling on the Minister.
Can I have clarification of the ruling you have just given?
I am sorry. I have ruled and I cannot be questioned. I am calling on the Minister to move the Second Stage of the Bill.
(Interruptions.)
This is unbelievable.
Deputy Molloy is out of order.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Molloy was out of order. I am sorry, I have moved to the next business.
(Interruptions.)
There is a motion here which has to be moved as well.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy is out of order.