Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Jun 1986

Vol. 368 No. 2

Business of Dáil

We will now deal with Committee Stage.

No. There is an order of the House that Committee State does not arise now.

That was on the basis of Second Stage concluding not later than 1.30 p.m.

I understand we would take Committee Stage at 3.45 p.m.

According to an order of the House, the proceedings on Second Stage shall be brought to a conclusion not later than 1.30 p.m. today, with the Minister being called to conclude not later than 1 p.m. The debate on Second Stage concluded much earlier.

There was no order of the House or no agreement with regard to Second Stage.

On a point of order, the agreement was that Committee and Remaining Stages should commence at 3.45 p.m.

That is not in the Order of Business.

That was the agreement.

The Chair knows nothing about an agreement between the Whips on that point. The Order of Business indicated that Second Stage should conclude not later than 1.30 p.m. Perhaps the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy O'Brien, will give some indication of the position?

This is normal procedure when we order business. Second Stage was to conclude not later than 1.30 p.m. and if it concluded before that time we were to take Committee Stage. All Stages are to conclude at 11 p.m. That is the way the business was ordered and agreed by the House.

Then, the Chair was correct: we will now proceed to Committee Stage.

I am sorry I have to disagree with the Minister of State. The agreement was that if Second Stage were completed before 1.30 p.m., we would resume on Second Stage of the Courts Bill. The agreement was firm and definite, that Committee and Remaining Stages of this Bill should commence at 3.45 p.m.

The Order of Business was agreed at 10.30 a.m. There is no indication in the Order of Business about resuming Committee Stage at 3.45 p.m. and there is no mention of the Courts Bill in the Order of Business which was agreed by the House.

That may be so——

That is what I have to stand by.

The wording may imply that but I should have thought the Minister of State would have agreed that he and I had agreed on a different arrangement, namely, that the Courts Bill would intervene before Committee Stage if Second Stage finished before 1.30 p.m.

I am sorry. If the Minister and Deputy Brady agreed on that arrangement it should have been included in the Order of Business but that was not the case. The Order of Business was agreed by the House this morning and the Chair has no control over the Order of Business as agreed. The Chair is not responsible for this mix up.

If the Chair would listen to my reasoned intervention: I understood that the Minister would have ample opportunity for replying. The original suggestion was that 15 minutes would be allocated for the Minister for Communications to reply to the Second Stage debate but, in view of the large number of questions put by me and by other contributors from this side of the House, I asked our Whip to see that at least 30 minutes would be allocated for the Minister's reply. Our Whip said that if the debate on Second Stage continued the Minister would intervene at 1 p.m. That, I understand, is written into the order of the House. That being so, I submit that the Committee Stage cannot be taken before the break at 1.30 p.m. or before the end of Questions at 3.45 p.m. This was our understanding and we are not prepared to take Committee Stage now. Our understanding was that the Minister would be in by 1 p.m. but as it happened, all the contributions today were from this side of the House. Since there were no contributions from the Government side, the debate ended before 12.35 p.m. I am asking the Chair to order Committee Stage for 3.45 p.m. as originally understood by this side of the House. As a different Minister of State is now in the House, I presume she is ready to take the Courts Bill.

The Order of Business indicated that by agreement, the proceedings on the Second Stage of No. 29 should be brought to a conclusion not later than 1.30 p.m.

That is right.

It happened that the Second Stage concluded before 1.30 p.m. and that was agreed on the Order of Business.

Would the Chair tell me where in any part of the Order of the House the words "Committee Stage" are mentioned? When the Order of Business was announced, I did not hear any such reference made.

The concluding paragraphs indicated that also by agreement the proceedings on the remaining stages of No. 29 should be brought to a conclusion not later than 11 p.m. tonight by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only amendments set down by the Minister for Communications.

That is right.

The Order of Business was agreed and the Chair has no control over any discussions between——

I agree the Chair has no control over the Order of Business as agreed, but the Order of Business as agreed did not indicate that the Committee Stage would be taken before 3.45 p.m.

Why was I not allowed to continue? Why was I stopped? I had another hour to go.

On a Bill of this nature it must be accepted that the spokesperson should have reasonable time to prepare for the Committee Stage. That was my understanding when the Minister of State and I agreed on the Order of Business last week. As the Minister indicated, the Order of Business this morning was worded in the normal way, but this has led to a misunderstanding. The agreement was that if the Second Stage should conclude before 1.30 p.m., business would be interrupted to take the Courts Bill, with the Committee Stage of this Bill commencing at 3.45 p.m. The Chair has the Order of Business before him, but the Minister of State can clarify the situation by making a fresh order to which we will very readily agree.

This is normal procedure. When we order business we request, by agreement, that we conclude business not later than a certain time, but if it concludes earlier we follow on with all stages. What we had decided today was that we would follow on with all stages to be concluded by 11 p.m. The Courts Bill was put in as a "filler" in the sense that if the business concluded before 11 p.m. the Courts Bill would be debated. I am not trying to make an issue of this, nor do I wish to be awkward but I do not want anybody to feel I misled the Opposition.

I am not saying the Minister of State misled us.

This is normal procedure and we are adhering to normal practice. I accept that there was a misunderstanding but this is normal practice and if business concludes before the specified time we move to the remaining stages. If the B & I Bill concludes before 11 p.m. we will deal with the Courts Bill until 11 p.m. If we had agreed what the Opposition want, we would have ordered that if the B & I Bill concluded before 1.30 p.m., we would take the Courts Bill until 1.30 p.m. and we would take the Committee and remaining Stages after Question Time.

That is what I understood.

I am not disputing that. I accept there was a genuine misunderstanding and I am prepared to help Deputy Wilson by suggesting that we resume the Second Stage debate on the Courts Bill by agreement, and take the Committee and final Stages of the B & I Bill at 3.45 p.m.

I thank the Minister. I have an obligation to the people who told me they wanted to contribute to the Committee Stage and I told them the Committee Stage would be commencing at 3.45 p.m. I thank the Minister for his suggestion.

Is it agreed we take Item No. 30 between now and Report Stage? Agreed.

Top
Share