Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 28 May 1985

Vol. 358 No. 12

Question Time: Motion.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. Barrett,

Dún Laoghaire): I move:

That notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders 31, 34 and 35 of the Standing Orders relative to Public Business—

(1) In relation to Questions for oral answer appearing on the Order Paper, the following provisions shall apply as and from 11 June, 1985, and for a period of one year:—

(a) Questions addressed to the Taoiseach may be asked only on a Tuesday or Wednesday and shall be placed on the Order Paper before Questions to other members of the Government to be asked on the same day;

(b) Questions addressed to other members of the Government may be asked on the basis of a daily rota as set out in the Schedule hereto and shall be in two categories:—

(i) Questions, the sequence of which shall be decided by lottery, and

(ii) Questions nominated for priority by a group [as defined by Standing Order 85 (1)] in Opposition;

(c) In relation to Questions comprehended by subparagraph (b) (i) of this paragraph, the following provisions shall apply:—

(i) No Member may put down more than two Questions to each member of the Government for answer on any one day;

(ii) Questions must reach the Clerk not later than 11 a.m. on the fourth day preceding that on which they are to be asked, not reckoning a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday;

(iii) Where the rota set out in the Schedule hereto provides that Questions to two members of the Government are to be asked on the same day, Questions to the member to whom the lesser number is addressed shall be placed first on the Order Paper and shall be allocated not more than one half of the time available to both;

(iv) The sequence in which the Questions addressed to each member of the Government will appear on the Order Paper shall be determined by lottery, at which Members may attend, which shall be held on the fourth day preceding that on which the Questions are to be asked, not reckoning a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday;

(v) A member nominated by a group in Opposition may, on request, be provided with the texts of Questions put down by Members of that group;

(vi) If any Question is not reached, the member of the Government to whom it is addressed shall cause an answer to be provided in the Official Report of the Debates unless

(a) the Member in whose name the Question appears on the Order Paper requests, before 4 p.m. on that day that that Question be re-entered in the lottery for the next day on which the member of the Government to whom the question is addressed is to answer, or

(b) such answer would, in the opinion of the Ceann Comhairle, prejudice the answering of a Question which has been entered in the lottery or which has been nominated for priority for the next day on which the member of the Government to whom the question is addressed is to answer;

(d) The provisions of subparagraph (c) (ii) of this paragraph shall also apply in the case of Questions addressed to the Taoiseach;

(e) In relation to Questions comprehended by subparagraph (b) (ii) of this paragraph, the following provisions shall apply:—

(i) Each Question shall be in the name of a Member nominated by a group and must reach the Clerk not later than 11 a.m. on the third day preceding that on which it is to be asked, not reckoning a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday;

(ii) Questions nominated for priority for any one day shall be placed on the Order Paper so as to rotate between groups in Opposition, with preference being given to the larger group: provided that the number of such Questions for any one day appearing on the Order Paper shall not exceed five;

(iii) Supplementary questions may be put only by the Member in whose name the Question appears on the Order Paper;

(iv) If any Question is not reached, the member of the Government to whom the Question is addressed shall cause an answer to be provided in the Official Report of the Debates unless

(a) the Member in whose name the Question appears on the Order Paper indicates, before 4 p.m. on that day, that the Question has again been nominated for priority or requests that the Question be entered in the lottery for the next day on which the member of the Government to whom the Question is addressed is to answer, or

(b) such answer would, in the opinion of the Ceann Comhairle, prejudice the answering of a Question which has been entered in the lottery or which has been nominated for priority for the next day on which the member of the Government to whom the Question is addressed is to answer;

(f) The Order Paper governing each sitting of the Dáil on a Tuesday or Wednesday shall also contain Questions, other than Questions nominated for priority, for answer on the following day;

(g) Questions shall be taken from 2.30 p.m. to 3.45 p.m.: Provided that the time allowed in the case of Questions comprehended by subparagraphs (a) and (b) (i) of this paragraph shall not exceed one hour; and the time allowed in the case of Questions comprehended by subparagraph (b) (ii) of the paragraph shall not exceed fifteen minutes;

(h) A member of the Government may, where appropriate, group both categories of Question comprehended by subparagraph (b) of this paragraph and Questions put down for written answer for the purposes of reply; and

(i) The Order of the Dáil of 15 December, 1982, implementing the recommendation contained in paragraph 14 of the Report of the Informal Committee on the Reform of Dáil Procedure shall not apply; and

(2) The member of the Government concerned shall, in respect of each Question appearing on the Order Paper governing the sitting immediately prior to the coming into effect of paragraph 1 of this Order and not reached, cause an answer to be provided in the Official Report of the Debates for that day.

SCHEDULE

Day	Member of Government
One	Minister for Energy
Two	Minister for Foreign Affairs
Three	Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism
Four	Minister for the Environment
Five	Minister for Defence Minister for the Public Service
Six	Minister for Fisheries and Forestry Minister for the Gaeltacht
Seven	Minister for Communications
Eight	Minister for Finance
Nine	Minister for Health
Ten	Minister for Social Welfare
Eleven	Minister for Agriculture
Twelve	Minister for Justice
Thirteen	Minister for Education
Fourteen	Minister for Labour
Fifteen	sequence to recommence with Minister for Energy.

Proinsias De Rossa

What is the procedure?

An Ceann Comhairle

When the Minister of State concludes, Deputy Mac Giolla will be called on to move amendment No. 1. The motion and all the amendments, for the purposes of debate, will be taken together. Separate decisions will, where appropriate, be taken on each amendment and on the motion subject to the Order of the House made today.

Tomás Mac Giolla

May I propose the amendments separately?

An Ceann Comhairle

You may speak on them all together and, subject to the Order of the House made today, they will be put separately, where appropriate.

Tomás Mac Giolla

Am I confined to speaking once?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes.

Proinsias De Rossa

I do not wish to delay the House, but are you saying that if the debate continues until 6.50 p.m. the amendments will not be taken?

An Ceann Comhairle

They will not be voted on.

Proinsias De Rossa

They will be guillotined.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): The motion before the House seeks to alter quite substantially present practices and procedures in relation to oral Parliamentary Questions. I should like to point out that there is practically no alteration to the procedure dealing with written Parliamentary Questions. The reasons for the change in the oral Parliamentary Questions system are self-evident. Because of the large number of questions on the Order Paper, there is a very slow rotation of Ministers during Question Time. Moreover, at the beginning of each new Dáil session, the existing rotation system starts anew. Consequently, Ministers near the end of the sequence who are not reached at the end of the previous session begin the next session again at the end. To give an example of the delays which occur between Ministers answering oral questions under the present system, the Minister for Justice, Education and Labour have not answered oral questions in the Chamber since the beginning of 1984. It is evident, therefore, that there is need for change so that there can be a quicker rotation of Ministers answering questions. As a result of the slow rotation of Ministers, when oral questions are eventually answered, they are frequently out of date and have lost much of their relevance. In these circumstances the Committee on Procedure and Privileges considered ways in which procedure could be improved. The most efficient method of improving the rotation of Ministers at Question Time is to introduce a rota system under which each Minister is allocated a specific day on which he or she will answer as many oral Parliamentary Questions as time permits.

The committee also considered the problem which the Ceann Comhairle has in relation to dealing with supplementary questions and it was felt that he should be given support in trying to get through questions as quickly as possible so that as many as possible can be answered in the hour allowed for Question Time. Of course, that depends on the co-operation of the House and on each individual Member. It is to everybody's advantage that we get through as many questions as possible, at the same time giving the Deputies, especially the Member who tabled the question, the right to ask a supplementary question. The rotation system was decided on by the committee and we then had to deal with the problem of how questions could be listed on the Order Paper. The obvious and most simple method would be by the first come, first served basis. However, this would have been unfair to Deputies who, for one reason or another, could not queue outside the questions office to ensure that their questions were submitted early enough to be at the top of the list. In other words, a rural Deputy who was not here on the appointed day would be at a distinct disadvantage if he or she had to depend on the goodwill of other Deputies to allow their questions to appear high up on the Order Paper. The only solution we could find, which is fair to everybody, is the lottery system and also to restrict the number of questions per Deputy to two. Because of the new system of rotation of Ministers, they will be in the Chamber more frequently answering questions and, therefore, the present system of questions remaining on the Order Paper for anything up to two years will disappear and every Deputy will have a better chance of having his or her question answered.

An important feature of oral Parliamentary Questions is the asking of supplementaries. As Ministers will, under the new scheme, be answering oral questions much more frequently, briefing on very complex questions will also be required more frequently. Accordingly, the Committee on Procedures and Privileges agree that the period of notice for oral Parliamentary Questions should be extended by one day, that is from three days' notice to four days' notice.

However, in a further effort to provide time for debate on important questions which might not have obtained a high enough place in the lottery, the Government and the Committee on Procedure and Privileges decided that an additional 15 minutes Question Time would be provided each day under which groups in Opposition could ask the Minister or Ministers to answer not more than five priority questions. There has been some misunderstanding about the reasons for our change and for adding 15 minutes priority Question Time.

In devising the new system we were very conscious not to interfere with the right of every Deputy, irrespective of party, to ask a question. Question Time is not for political parties. It is for individual Members to ask a question. We were very conscious not to interfere with the one hour Question Time being provided each day. To suggest that this new system will discriminate against smaller parties is inaccurate for the simple reason that every Deputy has the right to table two questions and every Deputy has an equal chance of coming out of the lottery high on the list.

Tomás Mac Giolla

The same as winning the sweep.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): With respect I suggest that what Deputy Mac Giolla said on the Order of Business would lead one to believe——

Tomás Mac Giolla

Bingo.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire):——that he, as Leader of The Workers' Party, regards Question Time as the period during which parties ask questions. Individual Deputies have the right to ask questions, irrespective of the party he or she belongs to and if one checks the Order Paper it will be clear that Deputies of all parties and Independents ask questions. Each Deputy should have the same right and under this new system every Deputy will have the right to ask two questions and every Deputy has the same chance of coming out of the lottery.

In providing an additional 15 minutes the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and the Government recognised that parties in Opposition from time to time have important national questions to ask. We applied the same principle as applies in ordering Private Members' Business or in dealing with Private Members' Bills. This means that a party, parties or group in Opposition could ask up to five priority questions. I will remind the House that this in no way interferes with the hour already provided for individual Deputies to ask a question. This additional 15 minutes is to provide groups in Opposition with the opportunity of asking important national questions which may not have come up high enough in the lottery.

The new system is experimental and will be for a period of 12 months with the commencement date of 11 June. The reason for starting the new system on that date is that we want to have some experience of how it works before the summer recess. We are often accused of spending time discussing matters the importance of which has since passed. The new system coupled with the additional time for priority questions and existing procedures in relation to Private Notice Questions should help to provide the basis for more up-to-date and relevant debate. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges and all the parties were conscious of the need to change the present system. This attempt to draw up a new system on a trial basis for a 12 month period was to ensure that every Deputy had the right to ask a question, and we did not interfere with the hour for Question Time provided each day.

If we are to rotate Ministers there must be a new system. It would be extremely unfair to have a system of rotation where people would be queueing up to get their questions in first so that they would be on the top of the list. This would mean that Deputies not living in the Dublin region would be at a distinct disadvantage. If I had to have a question in by 11 a.m. on Friday and I was in Kerry, Cork or somewhere else, I would be at a distinct disadvantage compared with the person who lived a mile from this House. The only alternative we could come up with was the lottery system, which was fair. Everyone had the same number of questions in the lottery and everybody had an equal chance of coming out of the lottery. Every question in the lottery will be listed in the order in which they come out, from one to 50, one to 20 and so on, depending on the number of questions. It is up to the House and to Deputies to get through as many questions as possible during that one hour period. I think this is a very fair system and I strongly recommend it to the House.

Mr. V. Brady

We are dealing with a proposal to reform the system of Parliamentary Question Time.

Mr. Kelly

I beg Deputy Brady's pardon for interrupting him, but I understood the Ceann Comhairle to say that after the Minister of State he proposed to call Deputy Mac Giolla. I have no objection to Deputy Brady speaking but I would like to know how this will go——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Ceann Comhairle decided to call Deputy Mac Giolla. I am sorry, Deputy Brady——

Mr. Kelly

I do not want to obstruct the Chair but could the Leas-Cheann Comhairle tell me in what order Deputies will be called?

Mr. V. Brady

This is a most unusual precedent. While I am not contradicting the fact that the Ceann Comhairle may have made this ruling, I must confess I did not hear it. This is most unusual procedure.

Mr. Kelly

I just wanted to make sure we did not go astray.

Mr. V. Brady

This is most unusual——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Ceann Comhairle decided on the order of speaking as in the debate on the Eighth Amendment. He said that in view of the fact that Deputy Mac Giolla had amendments down and that all the amendments would be discussed together, subject to the order of the day, Deputy Mac Giolla would be called first.

Mr. V. Brady

This is a most unusual precedent but being an orderly Member of the House I will bow to the Chair.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is a precedent.

Mr. V. Brady

There may be, but it is normal practice for the second speaker to be from the main Opposition party.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I move amendment No. 1:

In paragraph 1, line 4, to delete the words "11 June 1985" and substitute "the first sitting day after the 1985 Summer recess".

I do not know why Deputy Brady is upset about this because——

Mr. V. Brady

I am not upset.

Tomás Mac Giolla

——he has agreed to the whole procedure and all he can say is "I agree with what the Minister of State said". Obviously this has been agreed for some months past. On 15 December 1982, at column 70 of the Official Report, the Minister of State, Deputy Barrett, said "I want to assure him that the Minister for Industry and Energy will guarantee that any consultations in regard to Dáil reform will be done on an all-party basis". We understood from that that everyone, including Independents, would be consulted on any changes in procedure and Dáil reform. We were totally disillusioned when the first Dáil reform came up — the new Oireachtas committees. Not alone were we not consulted and were matters not discussed with us, but we were totally excluded from every committee, including the most recent one, Comhchoiste don Ghaeilge, established last November which I was involved in endeavouring to get established. Committee procedure obviously was a method of ensuring that Independent Deputies and parties other than the Government and Fianna Fáil parties would be excluded from participation in all Oireachtas committees. Despite the assurance of the Minister of State on 15 December 1982, it appears that the same procedure has occurred in relation to the reform of the procedure for Question Time.

Nobody denies that there is need for reform of the system in operation for Question Time. We raised this matter about two years ago because under the existing system a Minister could evade questions for 12 months or more. The Minister of State in moving this motion made great play of the fact that there was need for reform, as if this were the only method of reform possible. We have shown in the 29 amendments that we have put down to this motion that there are other methods of reform which would be democratic — and let the Minister not tell me that lotteries are democratic. What is democratic about a sweepstake? Did the majority ever win in a sweepstake? Your name is pulled out of the hat or is not pulled out of the hat and that is it. It is extraordinary that such a system should be brought into this House.

We have suggested a weekly system of ministerial appearances, of allowing questions to remain on the Order Paper if Deputies so wish, to come up after, say, 15 or 16 weeks. That would ensure that they would come up a couple of times a year to each Minister. That would be quite democratic and every Deputy would have a fair chance of getting an answer to his or her question without the long delays under the present system. We advocate also alterations in regard to the time allowed by the Ceann Comhairle and so forth. We certainly recognise the need for reform and have emphasised this previously. The rules of the House are based on old procedures of the British House of Commons but that Parliament have updated their procedures away ahead of ours. Like Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael politics, our procedures appear to have remained fairly rooted in the twenties.

There are many areas needing reform which have not been touched on, such as the length of recesses and the number of sitting hours. At the moment I understand that the Dáil sits on fewer days for shorter hours in the week than almost any other Parliament in Europe. There are widescale opportunities for reform in this area, to allow more time for debates, for Question Time and anywhere it is needed. Nothing has been done about that. I suppose that the present sitting arrangements suit those who are double-jobbing. It is useful for them to be part-time Deputies.

When a vote was called half an hour ago, Deputy Andrews referred to wasting time. Voting procedures in the House should not be seen as a waste of time. There are widespread opportunities for reform in that case. The voting procedure takes 15 to 20 minutes of the time of this House. Vast technological improvements have taken place and no opportunity has been used to improve the voting procedure.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is another matter completely.

Tomás Mac Giolla

This is taken to be an opportunity for reforming the system and there are other opportunities for giving more time — which could be another method of reform — and saving time in different ways, such as in voting procedures, to allow more time for Question Time. It is much more democratic to allow questions rather than to cut the opportunity for asking questions and the number of questions which Deputies can put down. When one restricts Deputies in regard to Question Time one must bear in mind that Private Members' Time is monopolised by Fianna Fáil to the exclusion of everybody else. The Workers' Party have never been allocated any time since they first had a Deputy in the Dáil in 1981. Our party have had co-operation from Deputies with regard to having amendments down to specific motions put down by Fianna Fáil during Private Members' Time. We have been allowed five or ten minutes on occasion, with the co-operation of some Deputies and of the Ceann Comhairle. However, we have no right to any Private Members' Time and have not had since we were elected.

The only alternative method by which we can elicit information or use the opportunities of this House to fight a case on behalf of our constituents or make a policy point in regard to a ministerial area is by use of Question Time, when we have not the opportunity of Private Members' Time. Question Time then becomes more important for Deputies of small parties and for Independent Deputies.

In the area of Question Time, there are many Deputies who never ask a question. There are others who ask a few questions in the year. There are still others who make very good use of Question Time and are very active in that area. A look at the Order Paper will give an indication that there is a relatively small number of Deputies who are constantly on the Order Paper asking questions. The Minister of State is being a little naive and attempting to put one across on people in saying that this new method is being fair to everybody and is not restricting Deputies but is giving everybody an equal chance. The position is, of course, that, say, with regard to Fianna Fáil Deputies who constitute half the House, ten, 15 or 20 of these would normally be asking questions and a half dozen others would occasionally ask a question and quite a few would not bother at all. Now, of course, every Deputy will be entitled to two questions under the Minister of State's procedure, so it will be Deputy Brady's job to ensure that every Fianna Fáil Deputy has two questions down every day.

That will make sure that they have the best chance of being drawn out of the hat. The Deputies who never have had the slightest idea of asking a question will be handed two questions to put down in their name.

Mr. V. Brady

We do not have that facility.

Tomás Mac Giolla

It will be Deputy Brady's job to ensure that they have the maximum possible number of questions in the hat. Incidentially, is it a hat? Would the Minister of State give us an idea of what it will be?

Mr. V. Brady

A box.

Tomás Mac Giolla

Who will be in charge of this lottery? Are we going to have the man with all the experience, Paddy McGrath, or those new lottery gurus, Flannery and O'Herlihy?

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): The Deputy should stick to the matter before the House. He is better at that than in trying to be a comedian. I have full confidence in the staff of this House to act fairly. The clerk of the Dáil will see to that.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I am sure the Minister has. However, I should just like to know. It is unfair that the House is being asked to pass a motion on something about which it does not know.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): Of course, the House knows.

Tomás Mac Giolla

How is the lottery going to be operated? Will it be tickets, numbers, bingo balls? Who will pick them out? Will it be a hat, a bucket or what? Would the Minister of State please tell us?

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): We will get the Russian Ambassador to do it.

Tomás Mac Giolla

What is this lottery about, that we are all supposed to say is a great democratic procedure — pulling a name out of a hat? The whole thing is a sham and a fraud and is an attempt to ensure that we are restricted in the number of questions we put down. What chance have two Deputies out of 166 Members, when all of those Deputies could have two questions down making a total of 332 questions in the hat or the drum or whatever will be used to hold them for the famous lottery every day? How can anyone think that is democratic or that our party will have the same chance as anyone else? It is obvious that this is an attempt to silence and stifle us who have made particular use of Question Time because we have been restricted everywhere else. We are excluded from all the committees and we are not allowed the facility of using Private Members' time. There is nothing else we can do except to ask questions.

These so-called democratic reforms will mean a restriction on the most basic democratic procedure, namely, the right of Deputies to ask Ministers questions. For the first time that right is being restricted in the name of democracy. It is the most undemocratic attempt ever to restrict Deputies in this House. The Government cannot stand real opposition. Fianna Fáil and the Government have got together on this. The cosy club system is getting all worked up now because other voices are being heard, but neither the Government nor the Opposition want these embarrassing voices to be heard. The Government do not want embarrassing questions to be asked and Fianna Fáil and they have got together to ensure that the old club remains in power.

This is a very black day for democracy and for the credibility of this House. There has been a lot of talk in the past few years about the alienation of our youth, of making the House relevant to the people and so on. All of that talk has gone out of the window now. The youth are alienated to an increasing degree every day by what they see happening here. It is not making the House more relevant or more democratic when people see that their Deputies are being restricted in their right to ask questions in the House on issues they have been asked to raise or which they are interested in emphasising.

This motion which the Government are bashing through this House by way of guillotine is an attempt to restrict the most basic right in the most ridiculous fashion. We will be the laughing stock in any parliament in the world that has some concept of democracy when they see the procedure here, of the bingo balls being called out at Question Time every day to see whose question is pulled out of the hat or the drum. Will it be a question about whether the parish pump is working? We will not know what kind of question will be selected until the day arrives. Then there will be cheers for the winners and the winners will always be in the same category except that some day, by accident, our questions will be pulled out and we will be told that will be a big day for democracy. We may win once or twice but we may not be called for the entire 12 months. As I see it, that is the likely position that will arise when it is well worked by both Whips to ensure that their Deputies have their questions in the hat. Thus, there is little chance that our names will be pulled out of the hat.

Another question arises: who will pull out the names? Will it be the Ceann Comhairle, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle or will the staff of the House be hauled in to do the work? Who will mix the questions in the drum? Who will put in the questions? How will we know our question is included? The first thing one wants to know about any sweepstake is whether the operation is run honestly or is it merely a racket? How will we know our questions are in?

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): How does the Deputy know whose questions are in at the moment?

Tomás Mac Giolla

The whole business will be questioned all the time. We will demand to see that our question is in. If the Government bulldoze this measure through they will have a lot of difficulties. The Ceann Comhairle has referred to us frequently as "ruly" Deputies. We will not be so "ruly" in the future if this measure is bulldozed through the House.

We have endeavoured to use the procedures that exist to carry out our duty to our constituents and to our party. In here we have used the procedures and the rules that exists but now we find the rules keep changing. If we get more Deputies into this House the rules will change yet again. At the moment it is necessary to have ten Deputies before calling for a Vote, as was evident 30 minutes ago. Of course, if we had ten Deputies in the House that rule would be changed to require 15 or 20 Deputies before calling for a Vote. The Government's concept of democracy is to change the rules when somebody comes in who might be a threat to the procedures built up here.

I am told I have to go through all the amendments. It is a very strange procedure that all the amendments have to be taken together. We have tabled 29 amendments and I will have to go through them all to explain their purpose. We would have preferred to have a vote on them to allow Deputies to explain their position on each amendment. However, I have been informed by the Ceann Comhairle that I must speak on all the amendments together and that there will be no vote on any of them. Apparently there will be only one vote at 7 p.m. It is an extraordinary procedure. I do not want to create a row about it but I should like to know under what Standing Order this procedure is laid down. If I have to go through all the amendments without getting a response from the Minister of State in respect of each of them, obviously that will be a most restricted procedure. I am asking the Chair if I am correct in thinking that I cannot ask the Minister of State for a response after I have moved one amendment?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes, that is correct.

Tomás Mac Giolla

The first amendment in the name of Deputy De Rossa and in my name is in relation to the time this new procedure will operate. According to the motion agreed by the Government and by Fianna Fáil and by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, this new system will begin on 11 June 1985. Our amendment seeks to substitute the first sitting day after the 1985 summer recess. The Minister of State will note that, once the Minister for Agriculture has finished, which will be tomorrow — there are only a few questions left to him — the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Education are next and their questions would be taken in the course of the month of June. It would be important that those two Ministries be allowed to be taken, that the procedure be allowed to continue, so that those two Ministers might answer the large number of questions put down in their cases. Having been on the Order Paper for so long it would be unfair that they would get away with this new lottery system.

Our amendment seeks the deletion of the words "11 June 1985" and the substitution therefor of the words "the first sitting day after the 1985 Summer recess". We first saw this motion on Thursday last, although it has been in existence for a number of weeks. Indeed, rumours have been floating around since last Christmas that Fianna Fáil were proposing this system of priorities and the press had various suggestions as to what would be in those proposals. The committee sat down and agreed their proposals. We asked the Ceann Comhairle if we could have a copy of them and we were told no, we could not. The first we saw of this extraordinary document was on Thursday last, leaving us only 24 hours to assess it, go through it in detail, and to put down amendments acceptable for today. We had to have our amendments in on Friday last. Democracy is right. But they did not catch us with our pants down, we were ready for them, we have 29 amendments down and they are now doing the best they can to boot them all out without even a comment.

Mr. Barrett (Dún Laoghaire)

If the Deputy will sit down I will answer all the points.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I would ask the Minister particularly to accept our first amendment. Our second amendment is a fairly fundamental one and reads:

In paragraph 1, line 5, to delete the words "one year" and substitute "sixteen sitting weeks".

We believe that the new procedure, whether for good or bad, will be ascertained within a short time. The Minister has proposed that it obtain for one year, presumably to be renewed by ministerial order thereafter. Incidentally, ministerial orders have proven to be totally undemocratic because we have been refused our rights as Deputies to introduce a motion to annul a ministerial order within the 21 days specified. All of these ministerial orders can be bulldozed through this House without us being allowed to put down a motion for their annulment, as the Ceann Comhairle ruled a couple of weeks ago in relation to a decision of the Minister for Social Welfare when he wanted to overrule a decision of the High Court. Therefore one must ask will this procedure continue unless a Deputy puts down a motion for its annulment. If that is to be the procedure then it will be a wash-out because we will not be allowed to put down a motion annulling it having regard to what happened a few weeks ago.

The 16 sitting weeks referred to in our amendment is the period it would take to go through all the Minister's questions. Thereafter we should be able to assess within that period whether the system is working, is democratic and is in the best interests of this House. Certainly that is something we should examine closely.

I would ask the Minister to review the situation after the first period of ministerial questions, that is, after 16 sitting weeks.

Our amendment No. 3 reads:

In paragraph (1) (b), line 3, to delete the word "daily" and substitute the word "weekly".

The proposal is that a different Minister come before the House daily whereas we are asking that that be done on a weekly basis, with each Minister answering questions on a weekly rather than on a daily basis. If the lottery system is removed, as we will be suggesting under other motions further down, then a Minister should be allowed answer questions for the week, that is, on whatever days the Dáil is sitting within that week, with a new Minister coming in the following week. This would mean that questions remaining on the Order Paper from the previous Minister would continue to remain there and that Minister would be back 16 sitting weeks later. If it were done on a daily basis there would be different Ministers popping up and down with ensuing chaos.

The weekly basis would afford both Ministers and their Departments a better opportunity of dealing with a number of questions, particularly similar ones, which is something the proposed procedure does not envisage. For example, on many occasions something may occur in an area and Deputies will put down questions in regard to it. Sometimes there may be four or five Deputies asking questions about the same subject, or even up to ten, if it is something of very great concern — perhaps some disaster or whatever. Under the Minister's proposed lottery one Deputy only will be chosen with the others being excluded. Sometimes it is necessary for even one Deputy to ask three or four questions in order to elicit the appropriate answer to one subject. For example, in regard to agriculture and the eradication of bovine TB and brucellosis I had to put down a number of questions — one in regard to the eradication of TB, another in regard to the brucellosis, another in regard to vets, and yet another in regard to farmers — in order to elicit the amount paid to vets for the eradication of TB and brucellosis and the amount of compensation paid to farmers.

This clearly demonstrates that a series of questions must be put down to elicit information on one subject whereas the Minister's procedure would throw that out the window completely because one would only be picked out of the hat. A Deputy would be afforded no opportunity of asking a Minister questions in relation to other aspects of the subject on the Order Paper because the Minister will say "That is not on the Order Paper. I am being asked only about vets with regard to the eradication of bovine TB and the Deputy is asking about farmers' compensation for brucellosis." The whole thing would turn into a real mess and no Member would get answers to the questions.

The purpose of Question Time is to get answers, obtain information and not just to have one's name printed on the Order Paper. Under the new proposal if one's questions are pulled out one will only be allowed ask two questions, but under the present procedure one is allowed put down five questions. The chances of one having two questions selected under the new system are out the window. I cannot see this information procedure being of benefit to any Member. Everybody will lose out, nobody will get information and the Press will not get information.

Mr. Barrett (Dún Laoghaire)

On a point of order, has Deputy Mac Giolla read the motion?

The motion refers to the method of selection. A Minister may take questions Nos. 1, 20, 30 and 40 together and reply to them, just as is done at present.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not a point of order. The Deputy should be allowed to continue.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): I do not think the Deputy understands the motion.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I am referring to the lottery system or the system of whipping questions out of the hat or whatever——

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): Every question is selected by number. If there are 50 questions in the lottery, they are listed from 1 to 50. It is only the order in which they will be taken that is at issue.

Tomás Mac Giolla

The Minister is not answering my question. They will be selected first and then put on the Order Paper, 1 to 50.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): There will be no selection. The Minister will not select the questions.

Tomás Mac Giolla

What would the Minister call it? Winners? How are the 50 questions got if they are not selected?

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): The Minister could answer 50 questions in the one day.

Tomás Mac Giolla

Will the 50 questions that appear be pulled out in a lottery?

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): All questions to Ministers will appear on the Order Paper.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I must point out to the Deputy that he cannot expect answers to his queries at this stage.

Tomás Mac Giolla

In his opening remarks the Minister should have explained everything to us. That is the purpose of him proposing something, whether it is a Bill or a motion. The Minister did not tell us anything about the method of lottery.

Mr. Barrett (Dún Laoghaire)

It is explained in the motion.

Tomás Mac Giolla

The motion does not tell me where the lottery will take place. Will it be in Ballsbridge or where?

The Minister did not tell us anything about this procedure in his opening remarks.

Mr. Barrett (Dún Laoghaire)

The motion states that the sequence in which the questions addressed to each member of the Government will appear on the Order Paper shall be determined by lottery. I suggest that the Deputy has not read the motion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister should allow the Deputy to continue.

Tomás Mac Giolla

The Minister has not told us anything about the procedure of the lottery. Does the Minister intend to hold the lottery himself?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not want any more interruptions from the Minister.

Tomás Mac Giolla

When he interrupts I wish the Minister would tell us something sensible because I do not have a clue as to how Question Time will be run. I do not have a clue as to how the lottery will be run or who will be in charge of it. Will the Minister be in charge of it during the day or will it be the Ceann Comhairle, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle or some other Member? How will the questions be picked? The Minister has not explained anything to us. When proposing a motion he should explain in detail its contents, but he has not done so. When the questions are selected by lottery they will appear on the Order Paper 1 to 50, but how will they be picked, selected or——

Mr. Kelly

Thrown up by the lottery process.

Tomás Mac Giolla

Is the Minister satisfied with that explanation, thrown up by lottery? Even if Members' questions are selected they may not be the appropriate questions, as operates under the present procedure. Therefore, one cannot elicit the information. Another great difficulty is that a further restriction is being introduced on the supplementaries. Under the present procedure any Deputy may ask a supplementary question. If a Deputy had a question on a specific topic and another Member later asked a question on the same issue it is only natural that the first Deputy would like to ask a supplementary question. However, the Minister is restricting the right of other Deputies to ask supplementaries. Is that correct?

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): It is not. The Deputy may have read the wrong motion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There can be no question of queries put by the speaker being answered by the Minister at this stage. The Deputy is permitted to make one speech and that was made clear to him at the beginning.

Tomás Mac Giolla

Amendment No. 4 seeks to delete subparagraph (i) and substitute, "(i) Questions, other than those covered by subparagraph (ii)...". Amendment No. 5, a very important one, is as follows:

In paragraph 1 (b) (ii), to delete the words "by a group [as defined by Standing Order 85 (1) in Opposition" and substitute the following "by a Party in Opposition".

Under the Minister's proposal a group can put down "priority questions". I am sure the Minister will agree that other than Fianna Fáil there is no other group, as defined by Standing Order No. 85, in the House. Standing Order No. 85 (1) states:

For the purpose of this Standing Order a group shall mean—

(a) any Party which had not less than seven members elected to the Dáil at the previous General Election or which, if it had less than seven, attained the number of seven members as a result of a subsequent by-election, or

(b) all Members of the Dáil being not less than seven in number who are not members of any such Party.

Under that Standing Order there is no group, other than Fianna Fáil, in Opposition. I do not know why the Minister inserted that in the motion, giving the impression that groups were being given an opportunity. Such groups do not exist, with the exception of Fianna Fáil. We are asking in this amendment to delete the words "by a group [as defined by Standing Order 85 (1)] in Opposition and substitute "by a Party in Opposition". That is a reasonable amendment and I hope the Minister will take it on board when he is replying. That is a most important amendment because if the Minister restricts this procedure to groups covered by that Standing Order he will be restricting the whole procedure to the Fianna Fáil Party. Neither ourselves nor any of the Independent Deputies will have an opportunity of availing of this section. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges were well aware of that when they inserted that wording.

Our next amendment was to delete subparagraph (c) (i) which says:

No Member may put down more than two Questions to each member of the Government for answer on any one day;

When one considers our earlier proposed amendment to delete the word "daily" and substitute "weekly" in relation to questions addressed to a Minister one will realise the importance in this section of removing that restriction on Deputies putting down no more than two questions. I explained why even on one issue Deputies may wish to put down more than two questions. I have frequently put down five six or seven questions in one day. To restrict Deputies to two questions is putting a severe restriction on a number of Deputies who make great use of question Time.

Amendment No 8. on the Order Paper proposes: In paragraph (1) (c) (ii), lines 2 and 3, to delete the words "the fourth day" and substitute "the third day". This paragraph reads:

Questions must reach the Clerk not later than 11 a.m. on the fourth day preceding that on which they are to be asked, not reckoning a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday;

The existing procedure is that questions must reach the Clerk not later than 11 a.m. on the third day preceding that on which they are to be asked. That is a sufficient length of time and we do not see why an extra day would be required.

Amendment No. 10 proposes: `In paragraph (i) (c) (iii), line 5, to delete the word "day" and substitute the word "week".' This paragraph reads:

Where the rota set out in the Schedule hereto provides that Questions to two members of the Government are to be asked on the same day, Questions to the member to whom the lesser number is addressed shall be placed first on the Order Paper and shall be allocated not more than one half of the time available to both;

In line with our original proposal to have a Minister answering for a week we have asked that that be changed. We also propose in paragraph (1) (c) (iii) to delete all the words after "day". The paragraph reads:

Questions to the member to whom the lesser number is addressed shall be placed first on the Order Paper and shall be allocated not more than one half of the time available to both;

Amendment No. 11 proposes at paragraph (1) (c) (iii) to insert the following subparagraph:

(iv) Where a member of the Government answers all his questions before the end of the week, the next member of the Government on the Schedule shall commence answering questions, and shall continue to answer until the end of the following week.

Amendment No 12 proposes: In paragraph (1) (c) (iv), line 5 to delete the word "lottery" and substitute the words "the Ceann Comhairle". We wish the sequence to be determined by the Ceann Comhairle. With the aid of Standing Orders the Ceann Comhairle is the best equipped to decide. It should be done by the Ceann Comhairle rather than by lottery.

Amendment No. 13 proposes: In subparagraph 1 (c) (iv) to delete all words after "lottery". This also relates to the lottery. Everything related to the lottery should be deleted. There should be some other procedure. Amendment No. 14 proposes: In paragraph 1 (c) to delete subparagraph (v) and substitute the following:

(v) All Questions tabled by Members, other than those ruled out of order, shall be published on the Order Paper.

Paragraph 1 (c) (v) says:

(v) A Member nominated by a group in Opposition may, on request, be provided with the texts of Questions put down by Members of that group;

This paragraph indicates that all questions will not appear on the Order Paper but only those produced from the lottery. Am I right? We want all questions to appear on the Order Paper and we do not see a reason why they should not appear on the Order Paper.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): They will appear.

Tomás Mac Giolla

We do not see why they would not appear on the Order Paper or why one has to nominate people to request the supply of texts. We wish all questions tabled by Members to be published on the Order Paper.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): On a point of order, Deputy Mac Giolla is operating from a draft Order Paper and on today's Order Paper the amendments are numbered differently.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I am referring to Order Paper.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): But not to today's Order Paper.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I am sorry, I am referring to the wrong numbers. However, the amendments are in order and it is much handier for me to refer to this while I have the Minister's proposals before me than to go back and look at a new order of numbers. The amendment I refer to relates to subparagraph (c) (v).

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): Amendment No. 14.

Tomás Mac Giolla

It is requesting specifically that all questions appear on the Order Paper.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): They do, yes.

Tomás Mac Giolla

They do at the moment.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): And they will.

Tomás Mac Giolla

Why is it necessary then, Minister, that a Member be nominated by a group in Opposition to request that he be provided with a text of the questions put down by members of that group if they are already on the Order Paper?

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): I explained to you when I was replying.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I am sorry for being so ignorant. It is a difficulty I have to endure——

Proinsias De Rossa

If you had involved us in the discussions we would know.

Tomás Mac Giolla

The Minister in his greater intelligence will be able to explain all these things to us.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy would please address the Chair it would keep the temperature down.

Tomás Mac Giolla

An affiction which I am sure the Minister will endure is my ignorance on this question. The first I saw of this was on Thursday last, I remind him. Despite requests to the Ceann Comhairle and to the committee for copies of the approved decision which had been made some weeks previously and despite efforts to find out over the last couple of months what was happening on this score, we got nothing on this until we were presented with this on Thursday last and had to work to produce amendments in 24 hours. Therefore, maybe the Minister should have given us some indication in his opening remarks about what his proposals are if they could make any sense, or was he ashamed to describe them in detail here to the House?

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): I suggest the Deputy read the motion.

Tomás Mac Giolla

The Minister has suggested that I read the motion. Perhaps I should read the whole motion out to the House. Members have copies of it, but if the Minister wants me to read the motion I will read it. I have read that section and the Minister has failed to explain why, if all the questions are on the Order Paper, somebody nominated by a group in Opposition could request the text of the questions. It is a simple thing to explain if he would explain it, but I still do not understand it. In any case, we are endeavouring to ensure by that amendment that all the questions be on the Order Paper.

The next amendment is in connection with the next paragraph (1) (c) (vi) (a), again to delete the words "in the lottery". We are opposed to the lottery system, in other words, we seek that questions be just re-entered, not in the lottery, for the next day on which a member of the Government will be answering questions.

Amendment No. 17 proposes in paragraph (1) to delete subparagraph (d) which reads:

The provisions of subparagraph (c) (ii) of this paragraph shall also apply in the case of Questions addressed to the Taoiseach;

Amendment No. 19 is in paragraph (1) (e) (i), line 3, to delete the word "group" and substitute the word "party". The motion states that each question shall be in the name of a Member nominated by a group. That group, I presume, in that case would also be a group as specified in Standing Order 85 (1). We are asking that the phrase "nominated by a group" be altered to "nominated by a party". In paragraph (1) (e) (ii) we seek similarly to delete the word "group" and substitute the word "party". In amendment No. 23 we want to delete all words after "group" in paragraph (1) (e) (ii).

Amendment No. 24 is to delete entirely subparagraph (iii) in paragraph (1) (e) which reads:

(iii) Supplementary questions may be put only by the Member in whose name the Question appears on the Order Paper;

When I raised this previously in my opening remarks the Minister said that one is not restricted in supplementaries. I pointed out that there was a grave restriction in supplementary questions by the Minister and he said that that was not so.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): That is correct. This is priority questions. It has nothing to do with the hours of questions at ordinary Question Time. This is the 15 minutes.

Tomás Mac Giolla

It is a restriction on supplementary questions when the Minister said there is no restriction on them. In fact, supplementary questions may be put only by the Member whose name appears on the Order Paper.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): In priority time. The Deputy implied that the reference is to ordinary time.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

This is a limited debate. The Deputy should address the Chair and there should be no interruptions.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): The Deputy is misleading the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister should cease interrupting and Deputy Mac Giolla should address the Chair.

Tomás Mac Giolla

Quite right, the Minister is most unruly. The Minister made great play of the fact that he was extending Question Time by a quarter of an hour to an hour and a quarter. Now he is trying to make a distinction between one quarter of an hour and the other four quarters.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): Yes, I am.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister will have his opportunity.

Tomás Mac Giolla

It is not just Question Time any more. If it is Question Time it is Question Time whether it is for an hour or an hour and a quarter. He extended it to an hour and a quarter but for a quarter of an hour of that he is restricting supplementary questions on what are called priority questions, which is restricting them specifically to a group there in the front benches of Fianna Fáil. That is all laid out by agreement between Fianna Fáil and the Minister, of course, and on that they are ensuring that nobody else will come in on supplementary questions on their priority questions.

Mr. Shatter

Fianna Fáil have the benefit.

Tomás Mac Giolla

When I said that half an hour ago the Minister said that he was not restricting supplementary questions in relation to questions on the Order Paper.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will have his opportunity.

Tomás Mac Giolla

In relation to questions at Question Time, in this subsection here he is restricting Deputies in asking supplementary questions. Nobody can ask a supplementary question except the Member in whose name the question appears. That is a most unusual, most extraordinary restriction on Deputies in relation to supplementary questions which are of vital importance, and the Minister cannot say that he is not restricting them when certainly he is in this section. Amendment (e) (iii) ——

An Ceann Comhairle

If Deputy Mac Giolla could conveniently refer to the number of the amendment it would facilitate the Chair. If he has not got them by number the Chair understands.

Proinsias De Rossa

These are on the other side of the page.

An Ceann Comhairle

It may not be possible.

Tomás Mac Giolla

The list I have is different from the Order Paper and the Minister has already pointed out that I have been calling out the wrong numbers.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): Amendment No. 25.

Tomás Mac Giolla

No, I am not down as far as that, Amendment No. 24 as on the Order Paper is in paragraph (1) (e), to delete subparagraph (iii) which provides that:

(iii) Supplementary questions may be put only by the Member in whose name the Question appears on the Order Paper;

I am asking that that be deleted and that that they be unrestricted in the use of supplementary questions as has always been the case.

In amendment No. 25 we are seeking in subparagraph (1) (e) (iv) (a) to delete "4 p.m." and substitute "4.15 p.m.", that is to extend Question Time where the Member in whose name the question appears on the Order Paper indicates before 4 p.m. on that day that the question has again been nominated for priority. We are asking that that be altered to 4.15 p.m.

Amendment No. 26 is again in paragraph (1) (e) (iv) (a), line 7, to delete the words "in the lottery". We have done that previously in another section. It says here "that the Question be entered in the lottery." We want to say "that the Question be entered for the next day on which the member of the Government to whom the Question is addressed is to answer" without any lottery. Amendment No. 28 reads:

In paragraph (1) (g), line 2, to delete the words "from 2.30 p.m. to 3.45 p.m." and substitute the words "from 2.30 p.m. to 4 p.m.".

We want to extend Question Time from an hour to an hour and a half, whereas the Minister is extending it from an hour to an hour and a quarter. This would mean that the questions could be completed without restriction. Amendment No. 29 reads:

In paragraph (1) (g), line 6, to delete the words "one hour" and substitute the following "one hour and a quarter".

That is in line with the extra quarter of an hour. Amendment No. 30 reads:

After paragraph (1) (g) to insert the following subparagraph:

"(h) When the Dáil sits on Friday, Questions shall also be answered on that day".

There is ample opportunity to provide more time for questions and to speed up the whole process. When we sit on Friday there is no Question Time. I do not see any reason for that. We suggest that when the Dáil sits on Friday there should be a Question Time. We could then get through questions in a democratic manner without restrictions and without lotteries. Amendment No. 31 proposes to delete paragraph (2) which reads:

(2) The member of the Government concerned shall, in respect of each Question appearing on the Order Paper governing the sitting immediately prior to the coming into effect of paragraph 1 of this Order and not reached, cause an answer to be provided in the Official Report of the Debates for that day.

In amendment No. 32 we are suggesting that the schedule should be altered. We want to delete the schedule and substitute:

SCHEDULE

Week	Member of Government
One	Minister for Energy
Two	Minister for Foreign Affairs
Three	Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism
Four	Minister for the Environment
Five	Minister for Defence
Six	Minister for the Public Service
Seven	Minister for Fisheries and For- estry
Eight	Minister for the Gaeltacht
Nine	Minister for Communications
Ten	Minister for Finance
Eleven	Minister for Health
Twelve	Minister for Social Welfare
Thirteen	Minister for Agriculture
Fourteen	Minister for Justice
Fifteen	Minister for Education
Sixteen	Minister for Labour
Seventeen	Sequence to recommence with Minister for Energy

Those are the 31 amendments we put down in an attempt to restore some elements of democratic practice and procedure to Question Time. The Minister has produced an extraordinary document restricting the number of questions a Deputy can put down, having them pulled from some type of lottery, restricting Deputies in asking supplementary questions for another quarter of an hour. Those are grave restrictions on the rights of Deputies at Question Time.

Our amendments are designed to endeavour to restore democracy during Question Time. The Minister may not agree with our amendments in which we want to delete the lottery system and extend ministerial answers for a day to a week. Although we believe they are reasonable proposals, the Minister may not agree with them. We ask the Minister to take on board other amendments such as postponing the implementation of this proposal until the autumn which we believe is essential and extending the period of Question Time and having Question Time on Fridays. We have made a whole series of suggestions which would ensure that Questions went through more rapidly, that Deputies were given more time to ask questions and that Ministers came into the House every week to answer them. After 16 weeks their turn would come around again. This would be a much more democratic method of reform than the one the Minister has produced.

Mr. V. Brady

Deputy Mac Giolla has made a very strong case for major reform not only of Parliamentary Question Time but also of many other aspects of Standing Orders and activities within the House. There is hardly any Deputy who would not agree that the whole system of Question Time requires a very radical and major change. The sooner we introduce such change the better for this House and for democracy as a whole. At one time Question Time was looked upon quite correctly as one the principal features of Dáil business. The whole purpose of Question Time was to enable a Deputy to pursue a particular matter which he or she considered vital at international, national or constitutency level. Originally questions of a local nature were submitted only when a Deputy was unable to obtain a satisfactory reply from a Minister on a matter of some importance. When I first came into the House on 1977, Question Time was much more relevant. I can recall many Ministers anticipating having to take questions with certain amount of trepidation and unease.

Mr. Kelly

The Government had to deal with a tough Opposition in those days.

Mr. V. Brady

The Opposition spokesman or a backbencher generally on the Opposition side asked these questions. Naturally most questions come from the Opposition side so the relevance of whether the Opposition were tough or otherwise did not arise. Deputy Kelly provides tough Opposition on the Government side so I will agree with him on that point. Unfortunately much of that has changed in recent years. Question Time has become very irrelevant. If we are interested in making the business of this House more relevant we should look at our procedures from time to time. If we feel it is necessary to introduce changes in the interests of good business, we should not hesitate to do so. We should accept that they are for the good of the House and the good of democracy.

For far too long we have all been aware of the fact that the procedures in the House have become somewhat outdated and somewhat irrelevant in many ways. Therefore it is necessary and in the interests of democracy that the Minister of the day with responsibility for Dáil reform, in agreement with the Dáil, should be seen not to be slow to introduce whatever changes are necessary at any given time. When this Government took office we were assured that one of their top priorities was to reform the Dáil and make it more relevant to day-to-day activities. Many people outside the House have adopted a very apathetic approach to the Dáil. On matters of urgent and grave importance, as legislators we have a responsibility to ensure that other pressure groups outside the democratic process cannot direct public opinion without Members of the Dáil being able to discuss whatever matters of urgent and national importance arise from time to time.

One of the responsibilities given to the Minister was that of Dáil reform. In two and a half years the only serious proposal for that reform was to enlarge an already existing committee system. Now we have this proposal before the House to change the system of answering parliamentary questions. Prior to the 1982 general election, Fine Gael talked about longer hours in the Dáil and probably a five day week. It is obvious that the intentions were good at the time. I do not deny that. Since then in two and a half years hardly any suggestion for reform has come before the House except the enlargement of the committee system and now this proposal to alter the method of answering parliamentary questions.

Regarding Dáil reform, on the Order of Business each day we are all reminded, and no one more so than the Ceann Comhairle, of how relevant or otherwise the Dáil can be. Various urgent matters cannot be raised by any Member. Therefore it is impossible for this, the elected Parliament, to express any view of a serious current issue. But that does not prevent Deputies, and especially Opposition Deputies, from endeavouring to raise such matters. It is their right to do so but that leads to confrontation with the Chair who is put in an impossible position in terms of remaining within Standing Orders.

Apart from Question Time there are many other areas requiring urgent reform. Very often many hours and even days are absorbed in debating legislation which has long lost its interest not only for Deputies but for the general public. Too often the result is that the Dáil must tolerate undiluted waffle that is of little or no value and which is merely enabling the Government of the day to fill in time before they are ready to take the next piece of business. It is not difficult to understand people being very cynical at these happenings. Therefore, there is an onus on all of us to strive to make this Parliament more relevant, more interesting and more businesslike. Democracy is very precious. It is a symbol of freedom and free speech. As elected representatives, we must guard jealously against any possible erosion of that system and to that end we must make the Dáil more relevant.

The proposal before the House is somewhat different from what was proposed first. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges have taken a long time to reach agreement so as to enable the motion to be put before the Dáil. One of the reasons for that delay was to ensure that the rights of all Deputies would be safeguarded. Earlier this evening Deputy Mac Giolla made the point that it would not be sufficient to restrict a Deputy to tabling only two questions. I note from today's Order Paper, for instance, that even in the present system only two questions of the first 100 listed are in the name of the Deputy. In the normal course perhaps up to three weeks would elapse before Deputy Mac Giolla's questions would be reached. I cannot see what advantage that type of system can have compared with the new proposals.

Proinsias De Rossa

At least Deputy Mac Giolla has had the opportunity to ask questions up to now but that will not be the case if the system is changed.

Mr. V. Brady

He will continue to have that opportunity. It was obvious that a major change was necessary because the present format had become a farce and a total waste of time so far as the House was concerned. There have been days when we have been able to dispose of only eight or nine questions. The whole matter has become a total nonsense. It was only bringing the Dáil into disrepute. Deputies will be aware that Question Time is the time when most visitors visit the House and these include many schoolchildren. These visitors witness this spectacle taking place in the Chamber in what is masqueraded as Question Time. That has been the case for far too long. From time to time I have brought groups of visitors to the House and they have expressed to me their disappointment and their resentment at having spent 30 minutes or so in the Public Gallery listening to four for five questions being dealt with. The fault in this regard must be laid squarely on all sides of the House.

Mr. Kelly

But the Deputy is not laying the blame squarely.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please.

Mr. V. Brady

In accordance with my usual practice, I shall ignore interruptions from the other side.

Mr. Kelly

The Government side are anxious always to move on to subsequent questions.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputies should be allowed to make their contributions without interruption.

Mr. V. Brady

Responsibility must rest with the Minister who is answering questions. He must be more positive in his response to questions and not attempt to use them, as is the case frequently, as a political exercise, or merely to refer to something that was said to him when he was in Opposition.

Proinsias De Rossa

How will the new system change that situation?

Mr. V. Brady

It is not unusual to find, as we find today, almost 600 questions tabled for oral reply. This involves expenditure of about £40,000 in respect of the Departments concerned examining, researching and providing replies to those questions.

Unfortunately during the past year or so replies to many questions have been anything but satisfactory. These kinds of replies are what have lead to the shambles that we have been witnessing for too long. Another reason for Deputies being anxious to table questions is their inability to receive a satisfactory reply or indeed any reply, from a Minister to their representations. There are some Ministers and some Departments who are especially culpable in this regard and I include among those the Departments of Health and Social Welfare, the Environment and Justice. I have often waited for four or five months for a reply to a representation and despite repeated reminders and telephone calls received only a further acknowledgement. Deputies will understand that nothing can be more frustrating or annoying than having to tolerate that sort of situation. Consequently, Deputies consider that the only alternative for them in such cases is to table questions for either oral or written reply, a procedure that is much more expensive. However, even in that regard the system has fallen down because the replies being given are totally inadequate and in many cases misleading. All of this marks a further derogation of the obligations of a Minister and puts a further dent in the democratic process of the House. This, too, is an area that will have to change because unless Ministers regard questions seriously and endeavour to give reasonably accurate and full replies, the new system will fail also and we will continue to experience the same frustration and unsatisfactory situation that pertains now.

Some Deputies may consider a restriction to include only two questions in the lottery to be an attack on their rights but that is far from the truth because every Deputy will have the right to participate on an equal footing in the lottery. If some are not fortunate enough to have their questions placed in a high priority order on the Order Paper, they will continue to have the opportunity of receiving immediately a written reply or of participating further in the lottery 15 days later. While there may be misgivings initially about the proposed system, it is a step forward and very much so in the sense that there will be a different Minister in the House every day at Question Time and that every Minister will have participated in Question Time after 15 sitting days when we return again to the rota. Initially there may be some hold up but given time I am confident that the system will work reasonably well. It cannot be anything but a tremendous advance and improvement on the present system.

I welcome the proposal to allocate an additional 15 minutes to priority questions. It is right and proper that during this time priority be given to the larger group in Opposition. Fianna Fáil, being that larger group, have 75 Deputies whereas the Workers' Party have two Deputies. I cannot understand how anyone in his right senses would advocate that a party of two Members be given the same rights as a party of 75 Members.

Tomás Mac Giolla

Each Deputy should have the same right as any other.

Mr. V. Brady

Deputy Mac Giolla was arguing on the basis of parties having rights.

Tomás Mac Giolla

Of Deputies having rights.

Mr. V. Brady

I am talking about 75 Deputies, not a party. The Deputy is talking about two Deputies.

Tomás Mac Giolla

Yes, and we have our rights too.

Mr. V. Brady

The 75 Deputies on this side of the House have more right than two Deputies.

Tomás Mac Giolla

They have not.

Mr. V. Brady

Some Deputies advocate that the system for Question Time should be based on other Deputies asking supplementary questions in that 15 minute period. The purpose is to enable Front Bench spokesman who may not have an opportunity of having their question placed high on the Order Paper to have an opportunity to ask a question on a matter of particular urgency at that time. Democracy could not argue with that. That is the situation at present in some circumstances but under a lottery system it is quite possible that a Front Bench spokesman would put in two questions in the same way as any other Deputy and it could happen that his questions would not be placed sufficiently highly on the Order Paper to be taken that day.

If we look at today's Order Paper it will be seen that there are a large number of questions to Ministers who have not come into the House. There are 150 questions down to the Minister for Justice but he has not been in to answer questions since last October. There are 100 questions down to the Minister for Education who again has not been here to answer questions since last October. There are 50 questions to the Minister for Labour. Many of these questions have been on the Order Paper since last October, but as a result of the way the system has become bogged down there is no way in which the Minister for Education or the Minister for Labour will be in here to answer questions before the summer recess. Admittedly, the Minister for Justice will be here this week. A year will have passed and Deputies will not have had an opportunity of questioning such important ministries. That is a massive condemnation of the present system.

Other Ministers will have come into the House to answer questions only once a year whereas under the proposed system every Minister will have to answer questions at least six times a year, if not more often. That is a major advance and improvement and I cannot understand people arguing against it. I do not know what alternative could be brought forward.

Proinsias De Rossa

There is an alternative listed in the amendments.

Mr. V. Brady

The new system is worth giving a trial period of one year to. If it is to be relevant and successful the Government must play their part and Ministers must be co-operative in dealing with questions addressed to them and endeavour to give full replies to Deputies. The Minister of State should impress on his colleagues the importance of dealing with Deputies' representations as speedily and as fully as possible. I am certain that by doing so the number of questions Deputies are compelled to table in the absence of a reasonably prompt and full reply to their representations would be considerably reduced.

I hope that this proposal to reform the business of the House and make it more relevant to present day needs is only the first move in Dáil reform. The Minister's commitment of two and a half years ago to reform the House is long overdue. We look forward to many other proposals which will in the final analysis maintain and strengthen our democratic process and make the House much more relevant to the people outside as well as for Deputies elected to represent those people.

Mr. Kelly

The Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism, who has taken a particular interest in the matter of Dáil reform, is a member of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. This is unusual. I do not recall a Minister having been a member of that committee before. I may be wrong about that. However, he will be generally credited with the initiative, whatever about the mechanics, behind the move to try to rationalise Question Time. In saying that I do not detract from the contribution made by the Minister of State or that made by Deputy Brady and his party in trying to arrive at a more rational way of carrying on the business of Question Time in the House.

I compliment Deputy Bruton on his sustained interest. I emphasise "sustained" because we all have rushes of interest in this or that subject but do not always sustain them. He has shown a sustained interest in reforming Dáil procedures over the years. Everyone wishes him well in that and I compliment him unfeignedly for his work so far.

Having said that, I am not entirely happy with every aspect of it. In connection with the motion before the House I am equally far from being 100 per cent certain that the committee have chosen the right way of doing the job. He has made a brave effort and a lot of work has gone into this proposal, but I can see flaws in it. Some of them are the flaws which Deputy Mac Giolla identified and which I suspect Deputy O'Malley will also identify. Another flaw which no one has identified is that the system is hellishly complicated, or so it seems. How much more will the State have to pay as a result of this system being adopted? I accept that if the gross number of questions is reduced and if Deputies are dissuaded from asking questions, there would be a saving made in that way. However, that is not the purpose of the reform. What worries me more is what demands will be made in the Office of the Ceann Comhairle for extensions of staff. With respect to the Chair and without knowing very much about the mechanics from the inside, I do not believe the resources in the Chair's office will be equal to the tasks of conducting lotteries, priority tests and the devil knows what apart from the purely interpretive problems of making sense of the motion, which runs to three pages.

I congratulate Deputy Bruton but do so with the reserve which later ages must have exhibited towards Columbus who, having crossed the Atlantic and entitled to congratulations for that, nevertheless thought he had arrived in India whereas he was about 14,000 miles short of that goal. It is an effort and a praiseworthy one. It is an experiment and is being tried out. The committee do not pretend to know the answers and are not pretending to amend Standing Orders for good. They merely purport to introduce an experimental temporary change. That is something we should see far more of in this country, not only in Dáil procedures but in governmental procedures generally. I cannot understand why we are afraid to experiment and why we are afraid to try something out on the dog, so to speak. If we have an idea about saving money or doing something more efficiently we are not required to extend it to every Department. We could try it out in one Department and pretend it is the dog for the purpose of my argument. We could see how it worked and if it worked well it could be extended gradually. That is the businesslike way of doing things.

We have done this before and I must claim some credit for it. With a lot of difficulty I got the House to change the sitting hours ten years ago. It was represented then by the Opposition as being the end of democracy as we knew it and that we should sit the same number of hours but distributed more rationally. It was presented to the House as an experiment for a year and has been continued since then. It has worked all right. The temper of the House and the health of Deputies has improved compared to what it was ten years ago, given the constraints we were then living within.

I realise that other Deputies wish to speak and I will not hog all the time. However, I want to look briefly at the reasons for the dimension of the explosion in questions, and when the year is up perhaps the committee might adopt an improved system having regard to the reasons which resulted in this explosion. I made a little statistical inquiry today — if that is not too grand a term to apply — and I have the figures regarding the number of questions on the Order Papers for the last Tuesdays in May in 1975, 1965, 1955 and 1945. I thought if I produced figures for 1935 and 1925 that I would be regarded as going back into prehistory, although in my book these were brave years in which the State, the Dáil and people generally knew what independence was all about, which does not seem to be the case now. However, I appreciate that conditions have changed so much since 1935 and 1925 that it would be regarded as irrelevant to introduce statistics for that period.

We will start after the war with the last Tuesday in May 1945. The newspapers of the time show grinning, disarmed German soldiers being marched back to their homeland from the relatively friendly western countries — those in the east had to wait for 12 years or thereabouts before they got that chance. On that day there were 21 questions on the Order Paper. All were answered that day and not a single one reappeared on the Order Paper on 30 May. De Valera was Taoiseach and of course there was a Fianna Fáil Government. Ten years later there was a Coalition Government, led by John Costello, and on Tuesday, 24 May 1955 there were 32 questions on the Order Paper, a very slight and insignificant increase because the pattern in those days was that there were hardly ever more questions on the Order Paper than could be disposed of that day. That day the 32 questions were easily disposed of and not a single one appeared on the following day's Order Paper.

We now come to 1965, the year of the rising tide lifting all boats. It was the Lemass era, the pragmatic party opposite, and of Taca although all that flowed from that was no bigger than a man's hand on the horizon albeit being blown, by a fairly strong wind of greed and anti-national self interests of various kinds which, if I were to describe, would take me away from the motion. On 25 May 1965 there was quite a large increase on that of 1955 in that there were 72 questions on the Order Paper which were not all disposed of on that day, although most of them were. Between 1955 and 1965 there had been the advent of the electronic media and the rest of the media had suddenly decided that it was time for them to show a somewhat more human face than they had previously shown. They decided to include a bit more gossip, life and style and referred to people by their Christian names. They affected to know where they came from, their associates, what their hobbies were and so on. Politics was becoming something of a chat show by 1965 and I suspect that the slight increase in the number of questions in that year is not entirely disconnected with the higher profile which individual politicians had. Their higher profile, which we were tending to have as a class, although I had not even joined the party then, was a contributory factor in asking more questions.

In 1975 the fruits of whatever forces were at work in 1965 were now hanging richly from the tree because on 27 May 1975, when I held the position that Deputy Seán Barrett now holds, there were no fewer than 260 questions on the Order Paper, nearly four times as many as there had been in 1965. In 1975 that was considered to be phenomenol and I remember distinctly on one occasion, when the Government were discussing Dáil business, drawing the attention of the House to the fact that we were within spitting distance of having 500 questions on the Order Paper at one juncture. That was partly accounted for by the fact that in the previous era of Fianna Fáil Government the practice had grown up of allotting the last hour and a half of Thursdays to a continuation of Question Time. In other words, the ordinary business of the Dáil ended at lunch time on Thursdays and the time from 2.30 p.m. to 5 o'clock was given over to questions. Deputy Jack Lynch was Taoiseach at that time. I do not know how far back the practice went, I suppose from the time when questions started to get out of hand around 1970.

We discontinued that practice in 1975 or 1976 because — I do not want to attribute praise or blame — we had a lot of very bad medicine during those years and there was some very obstructive behaviour on the part of the party opposite, who wanted to break our necks physically as well as politically. They began calling quorums at 4.30 p.m. on Thursday afternoons while their questions were being answered. As a result we abandoned this concession to the Opposition and we decided that if a quorum had to be kept here on Thursday afternoons we would do Government business during that time. Since then we have had just the three hours devoted to Question Time every week, but that has not damped down the flow of questions because on today's Order Paper there are 751 questions, almost three times the number which there were on this day ten years ago.

What is the reason for this? It would not be a contemptible subject matter, although admittedly rather impressionistic, for a project by a sociology or politics student. I wondered whether there is more press reportage than there used to be, and undoubtedly domestic politics get more coverage, although it tends to be snippets on the back pages about somebody's breakfast habits. This coverage is of a kind which the journalists of 30 years ago would have thought contemptible and beneath them, but that is what goes now. I have looked through the yellowing pages of The Irish Press and the Irish Independent. The Irish Times is perhaps not representative for 1946 as up to 1945 it still printed a court circular. In case I give myself a black eye with The Irish Times, I recognise that they have turned over several new leaves since then. The other two newspapers did not give much more space to questions in 1975 than they did in 1945, so I cannot allege that there is more press reportage. I had a lot of amusement from looking at these yellowed pages. I saw that Deputy Brian Lenihan, the then Minister for Justice, said on 23 May 1965 that under no conditions could one admit the right of free testamentary disposition. He was in charge of the ill-fated Succession Bill and his line was that we should go for the continental system whereby everybody was, more or less, tied to allotting his property according to the way the civil code said. Little things like that are oases in the desert of old newspapers. If I were vindictive I would make notes of them, but I do not believe in hounding Deputy Lenihan into the grave or spending the rest of my life doing it if he outlives me.

It also occurred to me that the reason for more questions might be because of increased secretarial help. When I leave my own parliamentary questions on the table in the General Office I have often seen other Deputies questions and, as often as not, they appeared to be hand written by the Deputies. I do not think the increase in secretarial help has made a difference. In 1975 we had very little secretarial help — there was almost none for ordinary Deputies — but even then this matter had begun to get out of hand.

I cannot believe that Deputies today are more attentive to their constituency problems or more alert to public questions than they were 20, 30 or 40 years ago. All the heroes of all the parties in this House were active in those years and they were at least as alert to what was going on around them as well as to their constituents as Deputies today.

What I think it may be is increased spoofing of constituents, irrespective of the cost to the public. Once upon a time a Deputy had a modest conception of his status. That did not mean a humble view of what a representative of the Irish people had as his rights, but a modest conception of the degree to which he was entitled to spend, or occasion the spending of public money. He would not put down a question which cost £40, £50 £60 or £70 on average, and some much more than that, if he could get the same information by means of a letter or a telephone call. That vestigal self-restraint seems to have gone out the window.

There is a tendency for the press to play up the gossipy, human interest side of politics. This increase has gone hand in hand with the increase in the number of journalists. That is a factor on which one might get a student to try to write an interesting project. There has been a growth in the numbers of people whose profession it is to make stories out of the doings of Deputy Brady or——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are dealing with the number of questions, not the number of journalists.

Mr. Kelly

Putting down questions and pursuing them by the "shambolic" series of supplementaries that Deputy Brady so rightly castigated, is one way of putting yourself high in the running for mention in a sketch, or a box, or in a column on a page of a newspaper the following day. To a certain extent, Deputies play up to what the press expects of them and the press show dividends on what can be earned by delivery. We have the Order of Business everyday at 10.30 a.m. or 3.30 p.m. When I first came into the House that was a relatively quiet time. As often as not, the Order of Business was agreed in seconds. I do not say this in a contentious spirit, but the comments on the Order of Business began with Deputy Lynch. He suddenly noticed that if he scored a tuppeny-halfpenny point the press gallery, who at that early hour of the day are bright eyed and bushy tailed, their pencils nicely sharpened, ready for a little gas ——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is almost six o'clock and I would ask the Deputy to stay with the Parliamentary Questions.

Tomás Mac Giolla

The Deputy is playing to the gallery and the press.

Mr. Kelly

The press were inclined to make a meal out of a silly exchange on the Order of Business. They could write about 500 words on this but the rest of the day's business, especially a report on the Committee Stage of a Bill which gave the reader an idea of what was going on, went out the window. Like everybody else I depend on the press. I do not want to make enemies there any more than anybody else but it was far more interesting to do that and unfortunately Deputies began to play up to the press.

I think the same thing is, to a large part, responsible for the explosion not merely of bad manners and disorderliness on the Order of Business, but, the explosion in questions. This is an instance of trying to regulate by a rules what we should regulate by a degree of self-control. I wish this new regulation well. It will cost a lot of money and will give frightful headaches to the Ceann Comhairle's Office, but I am not sure it will be satisfactory. Among all the people I have heard it as being unfair to, not a word has been said about Government backbenchers. Naturally they are in the lottery but they do not have any rights. Suppose Deputy Shatter and I are Fine Gael Dissidents over some matter, we have the same non-rights as Deputy Mac Giolla and Deputy De Rossa, although I am sure they do not like to find themselves in the same pot, as the Germans say, as us. That is a point more might have been made of.

There is a good deal to be said for the resentment Deputy Mac Giolla showed about the priority to groups of seven but giving no look in to groups with fewer than seven. It is unfair that The Workers' Party do not have some presence on committees and some status with regard to them being accorded Private Members' Time, and this unfairness is being continued here. Needless to say, it is not a deliberate unfairness and what they lose on those swings they gain on other round-abouts. Although he speaks only for himself and Deputy De Rossa, Deputy Mac Giolla has a privilege which no two, three, four, five or 25 Government backbenchers have, namely whenever statements are made Deputy Mac Giolla's views are canvassed and widely published and reported, although we might have views which might, in many important nuances differ from those expressed by our front benchers. I do not quarrel with these privileges, I am only pointing out that it should not be all whingeing from The Workers' Party. Although I accept that the system of priority by groups is unfair to them in regard to membership of committees, questions and Private Members' Business, they have other privileges which I think are more than fair to them, too fair perhaps.

Tomás Mac Giolla

They are getting fewer and fewer.

Mr. Kelly

My suggestion is this, and I admit it is open perhaps to more objections than the system now proposed. I suggest that each Minister, in rotation, has a slot of ten questions. The people who get to the slots first win. I have heard pleas for Deputies who live in Cape Clear or Spike Island and so on, who cannot get to the Dáil Office in time for 11 a.m., but there is the telephone and there are colleagues. If a system like that did not work, we could have a committee of honour. I would be quite happy to have a committee consisting of the Ceann Comhairle or the Leas-Cheann Comhairle on one side and a former Ceann Comhairle, say Deputy Faulkner, on the other, decide on the fairness of questions. Such a committee, together with a little self-restraint, should be tried. Deputy Brady says this has become farcical, but we had to face this problem in 1977-81. At that time the number of questions had risen to the astronomical level of 300, 400 or 500, and frequently the Fine Gael front benchers got together and said they could not have this happening. It could happen that the Opposition might think a certain Minister was hiding behind seven or eight of his colleagues and that meant that this question would not be taken before Christmas. We decided to scrap all our questions and put them down for written reply. As a party we exercised self-control.

Mr. V. Brady

There are more questions from the Government side now.

Mr. Kelly

The Labour Party occasionally co-operated with us. It usually broke down because we could not get the co-operation firmly into kilter week after week. We did not try that on a few occasions and it is open to Deputy Brady to have the Minister for Justice in here next week by organising his party to withdraw their questions and bring them forward again if they wish.

Mr. V. Brady

The Deputy should organise his party to withdraw their questions.

Mr. Kelly

The Deputy knows perfectly well that there are comparatively many more questions, naturally, from the Opposition ——

Mr. V. Brady

The Deputy should look at the Order Paper.

Mr. Kelly

——than from the Government side. The remedy is largely in the Deputy's own hands. I want to save money and save the fuss and the disrespect which we incur from the people by the way things are done in there. A bit of self-control, self-restraint and a little less playing to the gallery is what we should be aiming for.

Mr. O'Malley

I agree with all who have spoken about the very unsatisfactory nature of the present situation in regard to Question Time. One has only to look at today's Order Paper which has been referred to already to see the vast number of questions on it and how less than worthy of a parliamentary question many of those questions are, or notice the size of the Order Paper which today runs to 72 pages and has a total of 751 questions in all, to realise that changes will have to be made, and perhaps quite drastic changes.

I am somewhat dubious about the type of changes proposed here and about some of the motives. It seems to boil down to this — that this procedure, if adopted, will create two classes of Deputies, as it were, in this House—those entitled to priority and those not. Those entitled to priority will consist of the Opposition Front Bench of the day and those who are not will consist of everybody else. It seems to introduce a very dubious concept into parliamentary representation to say that there is a certain class of Deputy here who has greater rights and privileges than another. I am not talking about the Government here, because the Government of the day must always stand in a particular position. It is not just a question of distinguishing between individual Deputies, their status, or their standing, or their rights. Remember that every one of us who sits here does so only because he or she was put here by the people and because he or she reflects the views of the people or the rights of the people in terms of representation.

Why is it that one group of people in a particular constituency, 8,000, 10,000 or 12,000, who elected a particular Deputy are seen, in a sense, as having fewer rights and effective representation within this House than a similar or even much smaller group somewhere else who elected somebody who happens for the moment to be on the Front Bench of the Opposition party or parties, whatever they may be? That principle is wrong. If it is started, it may not apparently be terribly serious at the beginning, but it could lead to various other distinctions being made in the future.

It is interesting to see how this problem was looked at by a committee established in 1971, under my chairmanship, as it happened, to consider reform of Dáil procedure. I see that we were very tentative indeed in our proposals, which would hardly be described as revolutionary. On re-reading the report I see that we were very anxious, first, to get agreement between all concerned on the committee and, secondly, not to undermine what we saw as long established and important parliamentary procedures and parliamentary privileges. I see, for example, that we were not prepared to give priority to any one Deputy or group of Deputies as against any others in terms of questions. The only suggestion in regard to priority made in that report was that Deputies who were in the House should have priority over those who were actually not present at the time the questions were asked, which was not a very revolutionary proposal but which was not adopted.

I notice, from that report and from other references, that it was particularly thought inappropriate to abolish or fetter in any way the right of a Deputy to ask a Private Notice Question. It is a little disturbing to find that under the terms of this motion which begins "That notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders 31, 34 and 35....."— the Standing Orders relative to public business — the Standing Order which contains the right to ask a Private Notice Question would seem to be overriden. The fact that Private Notice Questions are not referred to in the lengthy motion does not get over the fact that Standing Order 31 which contains the right to ask these questions is superseded by this motion.

If the Minister of State wants to argue in his reply that they are not superseded, he had better put that into the motion because everything else in Standing Orders 31, 34 and 35 is superseded by the terms of this motion, the first three lines of which are very broad and obviously take precedence over the three Standing Orders concerned and amend them in numerous ways, making it clear that this motion, assuming it is passed will be effectively the Standing Orders under which all aspects of questions will be asked in the next 12 months, at least.

I have four amendments down, two of which are similar to amendments in Deputy Mac Giolla's name and I do not propose to go into those in great detail. I would like briefly to refer to the other two amendments. First, there is a proposal to delete in paragraph 1 (b) (ii), the words "group as defined by Standing Order 85 (1)] in Opposition:" and to insert instead that the priority questions should be asked by a "Member and certified by the Ceann Comhairle as being appropriate to be afforded priority".

If and when this proposal comes into effect, the only really effective questions are those which will come in under paragraph (b) (ii) on what are called the priority questions. The others will not be of much significance. All the topical questions will come in under that and all those of any importance. Public and media attention will, understandably, be devoted to those asked under this priority rule. Those questions under that priority rule can only be asked by a member of the Opposition Front Bench and only a member of the Opposition Front Bench can ask a supplementary question.

I happen at the moment not to be on the Opposition Front Bench. If something of enormous importance to my constituency, for example, were to arise after this comes into effect, I am precluded from asking a question about it. Even if somebody on the Opposition Front Bench at the time decides to ask a question, I am precluded from asking a supplementary question. Indeed, it may even be that something of importance will come up relating to me and I cannot ask a question, nor can I ask a supplementary question, nor can I intervene in any way. I wonder if this is the right way of going about solving what I accept are undoubted difficulties.

I am sure that the Opposition Front Bench are worthy people. I do not know that I can go into defining their qualifications in every case: if I were to do so it might be suggested that was unbecoming. I think it is somewhat arbitrary to decide that such a group of people who were not elected to that position but were appointed to it, should have virtually the exclusive right of asking significant questions. I think that is wrong. In 1971-72 we veered away from anything of that kind. We made various other suggestions but we recognised the right of each individual Deputy to be equal in the House in terms of what he could ask or raise here. That is no longer the position and that is very serious. In my amendments I have proposed that the provision whereby only supplementary questions can be asked by such Members should be deleted. That is only fair and reasonable. In one of my amendments I suggested that such questions should be allowed to be asked by any Member provided that the Ceann Comhairle certifies them as being appropriate for priority.

When Deputy Kelly was speaking he said that perhaps we could have a committee of some kind. I think he had a somewhat similar idea as myself as to what kind of questions should be allowed and who should ask them. He suggested that Members who were previously the Ceann Comhairle should act as a small committee who would decide on these matters if the Ceann Comhairle of the day found he did not want to do that. I am open to any reasonable suggestion of that kind. There should be some approach of that type. If the proposals go through, the result will be that many Members will regard Question Time as entirely futile. I know many of us so regard it at the moment. That is why I hardly ever put down anything other than questions for written reply. I know that for an answer to an oral question I would have to wait for six months and then the answer would be totally out-of-date.

I should hate to see a change from one ridiculous situation to one that may well turn out to be equally ridiculous. Lotteries are not very satisfactory. We are a Parliament, dealing with the affairs of the nation. On today's Order Paper there are 751 questions and to put all of them into a lottery in order to draw a few is not satisfactory. It may be fair in a vague kind of way but it is not satisfactory.

I ask the House to look at page 2320 of today's Order Paper which lists questions Nos. 743 to 751 as an instance of what I am talking about. Each question asks the Minister for Labour the reason redundancy payments have not been paid by An Bord Telecom to a person, details supplied, in County Tipperary who has worked for many years as a night telephone operator at the telephone exchange in Clonmel. Everyone of those questions is the same except that it is about a different person. I know that that matter is of great importance to each of the individual night telephone operators in Clonmel, but why should a serious question of national importance relating to national policy be put into the hat with the seven questions on page 2320 of today's Order Paper?

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): Those questions are for written reply. They would not go into the lottery.

Mr. O'Malley

I know that, but there are many oral questions of the same type. Indeed, the oral questions go to No. 570. Deputies will say that they have to put down these questions because they cannot get answers from Departments. From my own experience I know that is the case, that one cannot get answers from a Department or that one has to wait for months. However, even if we have this lottery system, if the same kind of questions are put down we will not be any better off than we are now. The whole situation will be totally unsatisfactory and perhaps rather farcical. My point is that if we are going to change the system, let us have a sensible radical change rather than something that may well turn out to be just as unsatisfactory.

The Minister of State or the Government should give serious thought to the kind of amendments I have suggested. I am not tied to the detail of my amendments by any means and I am sure there are many variants that might be more satisfactory. The motion before the House is a detailed lengthy one which seeks to repeal for a year at least three Standing Orders and which seeks to reenact them in a completely different way. To my mind that motion is very doubtful. Simply changing something radically will not cure what, I admit, is a serious problem. It will create other problems. In particular, I do not like the situation that establishes two classes of Deputies. This is the first time anything like that has happened and I do not think it should happen. The Government should think again about what they propose. It is unfair and undemocratic. It is not just a reflection on individual Deputies but is a reflection on those who elect them. That is not right and the matter should be reconsidered.

The use of the definition of a group in Standing Order 85 (1) for the purpose of putting down priority questions seems rather doubtful. That Standing Order relates only to Private Members' motions or Private Members' Bills. It is a very limited provision. When those Standing Orders were drawn up and revised it was never envisaged that that definition would be applied suddenly and arbitrarily to the right to ask the most significant questions. While I am glad that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and the Government want to change the present very unsatisfactory situation, I regret they have seen fit to do so in the way they are doing it. I ask them to think again about the matter and to carry out the change in a more even-handed and a more democratic fashion.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I am here especially today because I have a contribution to make on this matter. I read with great interest the terms of the motion before the House and I was most anxious that what I had to say should be on record. First, the right of a Deputy to ask a parliamentary question is fundamental to democracy. All Deputies should be regarded as equal, no one with any great authority over the other. All were elected by the same procedure, the ballot. All Deputies represent their constituents; and if all of us together comprise a democratic Parliament, I seriously ask the Minister of State to consult with the Opposition and with whatever committee he has been dealing with in this matter and not establish a band of Deputies with stripes superior to others. I foresee a grave danger of this; and here I speak with experience, being the longest serving Member of this House. For many years I regarded myself as a specialist on parliamentary questions because probably I asked more in my time then any other ten Deputies put together. In recent years I have put none down on the Order Paper because I considered the whole system of questions to Ministers had become a complete and utter farce. For example, when one put down a question in relation to any serious topic in one's constituency one saw that remaining on the Order Paper after six or eight weeks, which did not make sense to me.

Question Time is the most important time in Parliament, affording a Deputy the only opportunity of coming face to face with a Minister, asking him or her to prove their responsibility to the House and the country. Under no other parliamentary procedure can an ordinary Deputy, as the representative of his constituents, come face to face with a Minister, who, in turn, must get from his superior civil servants the entire file on the subject and every iota of information in regard thereto. Anybody who has served any time as a Minister will know that the one matter about which civil servants in all Departments are extremely anxious is that full information and the complete background be supplied in relation to the subject of a parliamentary question. I often saw panic obtain in relation to a parliamentary question.

In recent times Deputies have lost their sense of responsibility in regard to parliamentary questions. For example, there are at least 60 questions on today's Order Paper in respect of which a courteous note to the secretary of the various Departments would have extracted a complete explanation and answer. There is very little about which we in this country can boast, but apart from our cultural heritage, one thing we can boast about is the superiority of our civil servants.

The matter of the right of Ministers to reply to questions has been raised here. When I first became a Member of this House I never dreamt of putting down a parliamentary question without having exhausted all possible resources in order to extract the information from the Minister to whom a question might subsequently be addressed. Now the practice is quite different — the Minister and his Department are by-passed and the parliamentary question is put down without having had recourse to any of the other proper procedures. The parliamentary question should be the last resort; it is the greatest weapon a Member of Parliament possesses. We have no other weaponry. There is no other way in which we can bring a civil servant face to face with his Minister or bring a Minister into the House to give the full facts relating to the subject of the question.

Without meaning to be critical but rather in a friendly spirit, one of great affection, I might say that the office of Ceann Comhairle is not without some degree of fault in relation to this matter. For example, the number of supplementary questions now allowed would never have been admitted in the forties and fifties. It is my opinion that the Chair is allowing too much latitude. If there is a backlog of questions it is due, first, to the relevant Deputy not using his office to obtain the necessary information without resort to Parliament and, second, the Chair allowing too many supplementaries. The number of supplementary questions I have seen allowed from all sides of the House in recent times makes it impossible for some Deputies to have their questions answered and makes a complete farce of the hour made available for questions.

In this respect Deputy John Kelly is quite right. In the forties and fifties I remember every single Minister answering his questions within the hour. I remember numerous occasions questions commencing at 3 o'clock sharp and finishing at 3.50 p.m. However, at that time no Deputy would dream of putting a parliamentary question on the Order Paper unless it related to a matter of grave importance to his constituency, himself and the public at large and unless he had first in his possession a file from the Minister responsible from which he could not extract the information he sought. That is not the practice today. Deputies take the easy way out. They do not consult a Minister or his senior civil servants, but simply put down a parliamentary question. Deputies will have to use commonsense in this regard. I can remember 50 and 60 questions having been answered in one hour.

I also remember the late Ceann Comhairle, Frank Fahey, who was exacting and precise, like all other Cinn Comhairle who followed him, and who knew procedure. But there were questions on which he would not allow a supplementary if he felt that the question had been answered fully by the relevant Minister. If the Chair felt a complete explanation had been given by the Minister, that was the end of it, and that was then accepted by Deputies on all sides of the House. Now there is a song and dance about every parliamentary question, with Deputies springing up on all sides of the House, some having no connection whatever with the constituency or the problem on which they are addressing such supplementary questions. It is wrong.

I compliment the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach and the Opposition in endeavouring to come to grips with what I perceive to be a hopeless situation and which does not in any way add to the dignity of Parliament. It has lessened the importance of the one method Members have to question Ministers — the hour allotted at Question Time. Are we now not endeavouring to restore confidence in Question Time, having seen that the position has fallen into serious decay? I do not think there is anything wrong with allowing a Member to ask two questions per day because something must be done to restore confidence in Question Time.

Members should endeavour to obtain as much information as possible before tabling a parliamentary question which should be the last resort. The Minister should give serious consideration to increasing the time allotted at Question Time from 2.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. in order to restore confidence in that aspect of Parliament and to clear the backlog. If Parliament is to be used as a democratic institution we should respect it and not, through curiosity, jump up and down in the Chamber utilising all the time available thereby depriving other Members of an opportunity to ask questions. The Ceann Comhairle, and his office, should give serious consideration to a complete curtailment of supplementary questions. I make that suggestion based on my long experience as a Member. The Chair is the best judge of order, but my view is that many of the supplementaries do not bear any relation to the subject matter under discussion.

This reform is very necessary. I hope other reforms will be implemented before long. The Chair, with the help of the Minister of State, and the Opposition, should endeavour to restore respect at Question Time. The procedure at Question Time today does not bear any relation to the Question Time in the forties, when I was first elected to the House. Parliament has belittled itself. Dignity has gone. Dignity for the Chair and the Minister involved has taken an extraordinary change. Members do not appear to have much self-respect.

I hope that those intending to ask questions at Question Time present themselves in accordance with what one would expect a dignified Member of Parliament to do. I can recall at Question Time some years ago seeing many lady Members, such as the late Mrs. Reynolds, the late Mrs. Redmond of Waterford, Mrs. Rice of Monaghan, Mrs. Ryan of Tipperary and Mrs. Celia Lynch, who is still alive, in the Chamber. I can recall one occasion when the late Mrs. Redmond drove from the Curragh to deal with questions she had on the Order Paper. Unfortunately, she had forgotten her headgear. She consulted with General Mulcahy as to whether she should enter the Chamber without having her head suitably covered to address the questions, and he replied, "No; it would not be proper". I can recall Mrs. Redmond going across in haste to Brown Thomas where she purchased what I can describe as a most becoming little hat from Senator Ned Maguire and returning to appear in the Chamber in proper dress.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the Deputy thinking of proposing an amendment?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I am not proposing an amendment, but if we are thinking of having some form of dignity at Question Time we ought to restore some of the lost dignity. We must remember that this is not a county council chamber. It is the Parliament of the nation and its Members are supposed to set the example for all outside. We are supposed to set the example for the Press. Deputy Kelly referred to the reporting of Question Time in our national papers. Some of the modern, liberal and up-to-date journalists report the seriousness of Question Time as a comic sketch. That should not be permitted by the editors of the newspapers. There is nothing pertaining to comedy in Parliament. It is in Parliament that the laws are made and at Question Time Ministers are made account for their actions. To me that should not be the subject of a comic sketch similar to Denis the Menace, Mutt and Jeff or any of the other comic strips. It appears that if comic strips are to be written now they come from Parliament, which is supposed to be the most serious assembly in the nation. I hope that the long established and experienced journalists will whisper into the ears of their editors that if we are to maintain proper respect for Parliament the proceedings of that institution should be portrayed to the reading public with a high degree of respect.

I hope the Chair, and the committee responsible for this change, will ensure that at Question Time, which is witnessed by members of the Diplomatic Corps and groups of schoolchildren, dignity for Parliament is displayed. Has any Member asked, what is the purpose of Question Time? It appears that there is a complete loss of contact between ordinary Members. If there was proper contact we would not have up to 700 questions on the Order Paper. The position in regard to Question Time is a farce. I can recall that when one tabled a question many years ago one could approach the late Mr. Frank Geoghegan or Mr. Jack McGowan-Smyth of the General Office, or the late Clerk, Mr. Peter O'Connell, for assistance. When one went in with a parliamentary question one could ask for five or six copies of it and they were immediately made available so that one could send a copy to a constituent or to the local papers. I do not know if those facilities are still there but if they are it would be a help for the enthusiastic, energetic Deputy who wanted to get some publicity as a result of his question, to get a copy when he is putting down his question.

In relation to the lottery, I have never been successful in a lottery and it would be too much for me to hope that I might be successful in the proposed question lottery. As far as I know, all questions will appear on the Order Paper and the lottery is only for the granting of the question. I do not see anything wrong with that.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair will be calling on the Minister of State to conclude in four minutes time.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

However, the question of a lottery should be reconsidered as a small committee comprised of people who know the procedures and who would be able to judge the importance of the question might be better.

I would ask both the Opposition and the Government not to create two grades of Deputies. I welcome changes and I know a change must come. I agree with the terms of the motion with only one objection which relates to the priority of questions. It would be a very strange position if a question arose relating to my constituency for instance and there was not a Front Bench Member representing that constituency and the Deputy representing the constituency could not open his mouth on the question. This is very wrong and it will put Deputies in a very embarrassing position. We should not create two kinds of Deputies, Deputies with the influence of his right to raise questions in this House and Deputies without the right. Rights and privileges should be the same for all Deputies.

I would ask the Chair who has a long experience and is a highly respected Member of this House to intervene here. The Ceann Comhairle is the custodian of Deputies' rights and we look to the Ceann Comhairle for protection. I appeal especially to the Ceann Comhairle to make sure that we do not have two grades of Deputies in this House, the Deputy who can raise the question under the priority section and the Deputy who cannot do it. It will create endless difficulties in operation. Much confusion will be avoided by eliminating that section and by both the Government and the Opposition coming together to straighten this out. A Front Bench Deputy should not have more rights and privileges than any other Deputy as we are all elected representatives representing the people.

I am glad this occasion arose and I hope other occasions will arise when we can reform other procedures to ensure the smooth running of this House. Unless Parliament functions properly the results cannot be felt outside. We should respect and endeavour to strengthen Parliament so that what must be spoken will be spoken here and the questions which need to be asked shall be answered here.

Proinsias De Rossa

On a point of order, is it in order to propose that the time for this debate be extended for at least two hours to permit those who have spent time preparing contributions to have an opportunity to make their points?

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not.

Proinsias De Rossa

It is highly unsatisfactory that the guillotine is being applied to this debate in this way.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): I am anxious to try to reply to some of the points made. It is unfortunate that The Workers' Party decided to make this a party political issue despite the fact that those of us who spent out time to improve Question Time for the sake of all Deputies did so in the spirit of Members of the House without taking into account our party affiliations.

Tomás Mac Giolla

You did not take us into account.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): The inconsistency of the Workers' Party ceases to amaze me.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister has only 15 minutes to reply.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): There was a veiled attempt to make some political gain——

Tomás Mac Giolla

It was done behind closed doors.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire):——out of the efforts of those who are trying to improve the running of this House. It is quite obvious that the message coming from the vast majority of speakers is that there is a dire need for change to restore a sense of importance to Question time. My opposite number, Deputy Vicent Brady, was very conscious of this. It is important for people who bring school children here to see their elected representatives behaving in a reasonable responsible manner during that period.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): I did not interrupt you continuously. If the Deputies want replies to points they made——

Proinsias De Rossa

I did not get a chance to speak.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire):——will they please let me make them?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister should be allowed to reply.

Tomás Mac Giolla

The Minister used the guillotine.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister used it in order.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): Will the Deputies please stay quiet for a moment? They are not impressing anybody. I will give the Deputies the answers.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputies cannot restrain themselves I will have to ask them to leave.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I was interrupted when I was speaking.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): The Deputy kept asking me for replies. Now when I want to give them, the Deputy will not let me.

Proinsias De Rossa

The Minister kept interrupting.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): There was not an attempt on the part of those concerned in bringing together these new proposals to undermine the authority of any Deputy. We were very conscious in the changes we are proposing not to interfere——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire):——with the right of a Deputy to ask a question.

Tomás Mac Giolla

Why were we not consulted?

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): That is why we stayed away from interfering in any way with the right of a Deputy irrespective of the party of which he was a member, of asking a question during that important one hour period.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): That is why we decided to extend Question Time by 15 minutes, recognising that people are individual Members appointed by their leaders as spokesmen and are also Deputies in their own right. As Deputies in their own right they are entitled to ask a question.

Tomás Mac Giolla

Two chances.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): They also have an additional responsibility as Opposition spokesman for the main Opposition party or other Opposition parties to ask questions on behalf of the Opposition. It was for that reason that we extended Question Time by 15 minutes, basically to facilitate Opposition spokesmen who are doing their job as Opposition spokesmen and not in their capacity as individual Deputies asking a question, which they are entitled to ask at present in the one hour period. That is why we extended Question Time by 15 minutes. There is nothing devious in it. It was a genuine attempt to meet a problem that we came across when we were dealing with these changes. We did it for no ulterior motive. We were not trying to get at anybody. If the Worker's Party succeed at the next election in electing more than seven members they will have the right to participate in priority Question Time the same as anybody else.

Tomás Mac Giolla

The Minister is changing the rules again.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): If the Deputy reads the motion he will find that the questions asked in priority time rotate. The largest party ask the first question, the next largest party in Opposition have the right to ask the second question and if there is a third party——

Tomás Mac Giolla

Group.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire):——or group — they are entitled to ask the third question. There is nothing loaded in favour of the major party or group in Opposition. All the Deputy has to do is persuade others who are Independents in the House to join with him into a group of seven, as is done in many other parliaments, and they can get the rights appertaining to groups of seven and over to deal with Private Members' time and questions in priority time. That is all. The alternative is to get more people elected. I would imagine that a party in Opposition with 70 or 75 Members surely represent far more people than a party in Opposition with two Members. If democracy is to mean anything the voice of the majority must be heard. We are not in any way depriving the Deputy of his right to ask a question as an individual Deputy just like anybody else on this side or that side.

Proinsias De Rossa

The minority have no right to be heard.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): Deputy Mac Giolla referred to the number of days we sat. If he checks the records he will find that over the last number of years we have increased the Dáil sitting days and will continue to do so. The committee system operated throughout the summer last year including July, August and September and the Dáil Chamber was used for some of those meetings.

Tomás Mac Giolla

You shortened the sitting period.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): We did, in trying to devise a new system. We were conscious of how we would deal with the questions coming in from individual Deputies. The lottery system is not ideal, but every other system we thought about equally had its deficiencies. I am quite certain that if the motion read differently other Members would be in here, including the Deputy, complaining that this other system would not work just as he is complaining that the lottery system would not work. I want to explain briefly how the lottery system would work. Every Deputy who hands in a question would hand it in to the Questions Office as at present. A note would be taken of that question, the questions would be listed 1 to 50 as they come in and on the appointed day at the appointed time those questions would be drawn in number out of a hat or anything you like — as is done in Westminster incidentally; they have a lottery system for Question Time — a number would be drawn out and if Deputy Mac Giolla came out as No. 1 his question would go as No. 1. If Deputy Flanagan's question came out No. 2 his question would go as No. 2, and if Deputy Haughey had a question in, his question if it was No. 3 would go No. 3 and so on. We list all the questions to No. 50 depending on the number of questions that are in to a Minister. That is a fair system. No preference is given to one Deputy against another. You have an equal chance of coming out with anybody else.

Tomás Mac Giolla

Suppose it is 150.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): It is not an attempt to deprive anybody or to arrange that if you get to know somebody your question goes further up the list. The alternative system would be that we all queue down at the office and push to get in first so that our question comes first, if that works. Then we have a suggestion from The Workers' Party that you, a Cheann Comhairle, will decide in what order the 50 questions are to appear on the Order Paper. I wish you the very best of luck because I would not like to have your job. How in the name of goodness can a Ceann Comhairle or a committee of this House decide that Deputy Haughey's or Deputy Flanagan's question is more important than Deputy Daly's question or Deputy Mac Giolla's question? I do not know. At least it is a genuine attempt to treat everybody fairly and everybody has the same chance.

Tomás Mac Giolla

Who lists them at the moment and has been doing so for the last number of years?

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): I cannot hear the Deputy. The questions as they came in were put on the Order Paper. We had 700 or so questions on the Order Paper and some Ministers have not been in for over 12 months. The Ceann Comhairle does not decide in what order they appear on the Order Paper.

The Deputy also said that he was not consulted and accused me that I had promised in the Dáil that I would always consult with him. He misquoted. I was replying to Deputy Bertie Ahern who was Opposition Whip at the time and I assured him that any consultation with regard to Dáil reform would be done on an all-party basis.

Tomás Mac Giolla

Quote it correctly, please, Minister.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Minister is not being fairly treated. He should be allowed to make his reply.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): I am afraid The Workers' Party think that they might get the answers to the questions that they pose and, therefore, they might not get the publicity they were seeking.

(Interruptions.)

Tomás Mac Giolla

On a point of order——

An Ceann Comhairle

If you have a point of order.

Tomás Mac Giolla

The Minister said I quoted him wrongly.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): If the Deouty checks the Dáil debate for 15 December he will see——

Tomás Mac Giolla

I read in the Official Report——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister did not purport to quote. He referred to a report.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): I want to deal with the amendments if I may. The problem with regard to amendment No. 1 is when the new system should start and for how long it should be. We have suggested that the new system should start on 11 June and that it should be for a trial period of 12 months. We think that is reasonable as a trial period. It is a fair chance to give the new system. If it does not work we are quite willing to listen to other suggestions and come back in here and change it.

Tomás Mac Giolla

Could we not wait for a new session?

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): Deputy Mac Giolla and Deputy De Rossa have suggested that instead of having Ministers rotating on a daily basis they should do so on a weekly basis. Deputy Mac Giolla's and Deputy De Rossa's party on 6 December 1983 wrote to the Minister suggesting a new procedure for practice for the Dáil and they referred to parliamentary questions. They suggested that Members should be able to table questions for written reply when the Dáil is not in session and that this would help to avoid the backlog and so on. They suggested also that consideration should be given to allocating Question Time each day to a different Minister. In reply to the request of The Workers' Party who suggested that the Ministers be rotated on a daily basis——

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister has a very limited time to reply. He should be allowed to reply.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): They suggested it. Now they suggest in an amendment that it be done on a weekly basis. If we were to do it on a weekly basis over a period of 16 sitting weeks from the beginning of the autumn session as proposed it would run to Easter 1986. Therefore if a Minister did not get in in the autumn session it would be Easter 1986 under that system when he would get in. That would not be a good idea; in fact it would be nearly as bad as we have at the moment.

Amendment No. 3 again deals with a weekly instead of a daily rota. Again I maintain that the daily rota system is far better than the weekly system because we get a quicker rotation of Ministers and it is more beneficial to the Dáil.

I have dealt with the lottery. It is a method of trying to deal fairly with everybody. Probably it is not ideal, but none of the other systems that we thought about is ideal either. If it does not work we can always change it.

With regard to a group in Opposition consisting of seven Members, Standing Order 81 laid down certain conditions and we felt that, in view of the purpose of priority Question Time, the same principle should apply here, because it is dealing with priority questions which would be tabled mainly by spokesmen on behalf of the Opposition as distinct from their right as individual Deputies which they can deal with in the ordinary hour period. For that reason the same principle applies and it was felt that that Standing Order should apply in respect of priority questions and I think it is reasonable. Of course, if I were an Independent Deputy, or a member of a small party, I would have objected to it and I would look to have a change, but it is a Standing Order that applies to Private Member's time and Private Member's Bills, and if the Committee on Procedure and Privileges decided to review that Standing Order and change it, it will apply not alone to Private Member's time but also to the priority questions. That question must be decided in the future.

There is no change in questions down to the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach will answer questions on Tuesday and there will be no change. There is no change basically in the procedure dealing with written questions. In reply to Deputy Mac Giolla and his worry about who will look after the lottery, it will be under the control of the Clerk of the Dáil who will see to it that all procedures are dealt with fairly and that a proper system will be implemented. I have no worries. I am quite confident that the staff of the House will be very fair and deal with this new system strictly in accordance with the Standing Order.

I am sorry that I did not have sufficient time to deal with the many other points raised. I hope I have outlined clearly to the Dáil the reasons for the change. There is nothing devious in it. We have tried to be fair. We have recognised the difficulties that can arise. I am quite confident that this new system will restore dignity to and a level of interest in Question Time which has been disappearing slowly certainly since I became a Member of this House. If after 12 months we feel there is a need for further change, or that we should change the system around again, we can do that. Therefore, I recommend the motion to the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

As it is now 7 p.m., in accordance with the order made today I am putting the following question: "That the motion be agreed."

Question put.

Tomás Mac Giolla

Vótáil.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will Deputies supporting the request for a division please rise in their places?

Deputies Mac Giolla, De Rossa and O'Malley rose.

An Ceann Comhairle

As fewer than ten Deputies have risen, in accordance with Standing Orders I declare the motion carried and I also declare that the motion has been agreed.

Motion declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

In accordance with Standing Order No. 59 the names of the Deputies dissenting will be recorded in the journal of the proceedings of the Dáil.