It is proposed to take items Nos. 7, 2, 3, 8 and 9. It is further proposed that the proceedings on item No. 7 shall be brought to a conclusion not later than 4.15 p.m. today 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 of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Vincent Brady. Private Members' Business shall be No. 43.
Order of Business.
I put in an amendment to the Order of Business at lunch time today within ten minutes or so of my receiving the order. The amendment proposes to delete the second paragraph of the Order of Business which the Taoiseach has read out because it relates to completing the proceedings on item No. 7 not later than 4.15 p.m. today. Item No. 7 is a very elongated complex motion to guillotine about 12 items of Business during the next couple of days, to allow no debate at all in respect of some of them and to allow short periods of debate in respect of the others.
I find it impossible to accept that and for that reason, while I am not objecting to things in general being ordered as the Taoiseach sees fit, I am certainly objecting to this complex and lengthy guillotine motion and I ask that that paragraph be decided separately from the remainder. It is worth noting that that motion contains in subparagraph (7) a proposal I have never seen before in 20 years in this House, which is to distinguish between the Leader of the main party in Opposition and of the various other parties. That might not mean a terrible lot if we did not read it in the context of what has been going on over the past couple of weeks in particular. It seems designed to underline what has been happening.
I think that 45 minutes in my case, and I am sure in the case of the majority of Members, is quite adequate. I am not complaining about the length of time but it is quite wrong that a distinction should be made and that the leader of another party should be given a longer period in which to speak. It is unnecessary and, read in the context of the events of last week, it seems to be almost provocative.
Arising out of the Order of Business, as announced by the Taoiseach, there is only one proposal to be put to the House, that is, that the proceedings on No. 7 shall be brought to a conclusion not later than 4.45 p.m. today and one Question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only amendments set down by the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach. Deputies Mary Harney and Desmond O'Malley have tabled an amendment to delete the proposal. Pursuant to Standing Order 48 I have disallowed the amendment as being equivalent to a direct negative. The Deputies can achieve the very same objective by opposing the proposal made by the Taoiseach.
On a point of order ——
On a point of order, I do not wish to interfere in any way with the debate on the matter in the House but I want it to be quite clear, Sir, that the stage we are at now is that you are putting the order which the Taoiseach has put before the House and that debate on the matter contained in the second paragraph of that order is something that can begin only when the order has been accepted by the House. I have a number of things to say about the content of that paragraph which I will not say until the matter is properly before the House.
The Deputy's version is correct.
I want to inform you and the House that I am objecting to the Order of Business for today and particularly in relation to Motion No. 7 (7). I have here a schedule of business for this week which was circulated last Friday. I assume it resulted from a meeting of the Whips which the Whip from the Labour Party was not allowed to attend. There is no mention of this particular motion which is now on the Order Paper. I do not think that is a fair way of doing business. The Labour Party Whip attempted to consult with the Whip of the Government Party last week to find that the door of his office was locked and there was a private meeting going on between himself and the Whip of the Fine Gael Party.
I do not feel that is the way to conduct and arrange the business of this House. I am objecting to it and I appeal to the Taoiseach in relation to allocating time for debates and making a differentiation between the leader of the main party in Opposition and other leaders. I do not think that is in the interests of this House. I appeal to the Taoiseach. A meeting should be held between all the leaders of this House to arrange the business of this House because this will go on and on, on this basis, certainly for the rest of this session and the next session if we do not sort it out.
The Deputies who have spoken are slightly ahead of the Chair. I want to be sure that we are dealing now with No. 7.
On the Order of Business, with your permission may I ask the Taoiseach if he would accept that there are a number of unsatisfactory elements in the Order of Business before us. An example of the kind of problem which all of us in this House have with the Order of Business is that there is scheduled in the context of this comprehensive three day order a proposal to take on Thursday morning an Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce without debate. That Estimate has, from my own knowledge, a substantial number of important items within it. It is not yet circulated and surely it is unreasonable of the Taoiseach to expect this House to approve of an Order of Business binding itself to having no debate on an item with far reaching implications which has not yet been circulated. Is that tenable or sustainable in any democratic institution?
That particular Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce has been debated and passed by the House. What the Deputy is talking about now is a Supplementary Estimate.
A Deputy
Does that mean we will not have any debate on it?
I am talking about the Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce tabled as the first item for Thursday morning. If I left a word out I apologise. The sense of what I am saying is very clear. There is a proposal to take without debate, on Thursday morning, a Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce which that Department told me, prior to lunch, has a number of facets to it and not a scintilla of it has been circulated at this moment. That is utterly unreasonable and unacceptable and, therefore, is another reason why we oppose it.
There is going to be no debate on it.
I understand that the Chair has ruled out of order the amendment to the Order of Business. Does that mean that we cannot discuss the guillotine on the Order of Business? In other words, the dicussion on item No. 7 regarding the allocation of time must end at 4.15 p.m. I want to oppose that.
I will be putting the question at 4.15 p.m.
Is the Chair putting the question on the Order of Business or on item No. 7 at 4.15 p.m.?
I must deal first with item No. 7.
The Government have put before the House a proposal for the ordering of business for this week. That is the Government's prerogative. I have examined the proposal for the ordering of business during the course of the week and examined in particular the proposals for dealing with a number of Bills which are included in the Order of Business. Having consulted with my spokesmen I have concluded that the time allowed for debate on these Bills is adequate, bearing in mind——
(Interruptions.)
——the concern which I and my party have to spend our time in this House speaking about the substance of the matters before the House and not talking interminably about whether we are going to talk about the items before the House. Therefore, A Cheann Comhairle — I may be a little out of order, in which case I apologise to you Sir — I am saying that the allocation of time for the various items of business during the course of this week which has been proposed by the Government appears to me to be reasonable and I will not oppose it. I do not think the House should spend much of the time of the House in debating whether we will debate issues. It is far more important for us, and it is the reason we are elected, to be here to deal with the business before the House rather than talking about the business.
Order, An Taoiseach.
I just want to explain, in case it is necessary to do so, that this procedure is a well known and time honoured procedure for dealing with business of the kind that we are dealing with. I have here in my hand a sheaf of precedents.
Giving more time to the Leader of the Opposition?
The first one I find was proposed by Deputy Spring. Another one was proposed by Deputy O'Malley as Chief Whip——
(Interruptions.)
In the good old days when the Deputy was Chief Whip of the Fianna Fáil Party.
On a point of order, would the Taoiseach read out the references he is quoting?
In respect of the debate and the discussion which is going on, I am amazed at the attitude of the leader of the main opposition party suggesting that we have adequate time, particularly if one considers that we are being afforded an hour and a half on Thursday to discuss all remaining Stages of the National Monuments (Amendment) Bill. That Bill attracted 72 amendments in the Seanad and there are upwards of 50 amendments pending on it by Deputies in this House, who are concerned, and who wish to get involved in the workings of this House. For too long we have been accused abroad of being people who simply run for our constituences and of not doing the business of this House. We are anxious and willing to get involved in the discussions, the debate and the deliberations on important legislation. It is not acceptable to me, or indeed to anyone within the Workers' Party, or to anyone interested in serious work in this House to be afforded an hour and a half to discuss major implications of all Stages of a Bill such as the National Monuments (Amendment) Bill. In view of the seriousness of the proposals contained in this and in many other Bills, but I want to single out this Bill as one primary concern to me, I suggest to the Taoiseach that he find some other time or some other means to afford at least a reasonable opportunity to all parties and Deputies who are interested in discussing this matter. I appeal to him because it is important that we are afforded some opportunity to contribute to this Bill.
You have all next week.
Again I have to say that I thought Deputy Dukes made a helpful contribution. It is helpful in the sense that it is not necessary for me now or for anyone else here to make any claim, suggestion, or allegation of collusion or collaboration, we have had the clearest evidence possible from his own mouth. For him to say what he has said today, justifies some of the epithets that have been applied to him within the past week by a number of commentators.
So far as is concerned the Taoiseach's suggestion that as Whip of the Fianna Fáil Party in 1969-70 I moved a guillotine motion, I may or may not have, I do not know. I certainly know that I never moved one of two and a half pages. Last week the Taoiseach suggested that I moved one in respect of the Finance Bill when I was Whip. The only Finance Bill when I was Whip was in 1970. I recall that period well because we had a quick succession of three Ministers for Finance. We had many strange incidents but one of them did not include a guillotine.
Will the Deputy please bring his remarks to a conclusion?
We have here before us a guillotine on a guillotine. We saw guillotines before but I never yet saw a guillotine motion in order that the guillotine motion be put.
I have allowed Deputy O'Malley great latitude.
Glasnost may be dawning in the East but there is not much sign of it here.
I have allowed Deputy O'Malley great latitude. He has spoken twice at length on the matter. It seems clear to the Chair that in respect of the allocation of time to the motion there is strong objection. Therefore I am putting the question: "That the proceedings on No. 7 shall be brought to a conclusion not later than 4.15 p.m. by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall in relation to amendments include only amendments set out by the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 26.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Matthew.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Ray.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary T.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermott.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm Michael.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lynch, Michael.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Mooney, Mary.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Colley, Anne.
- Cullen, Martin.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Gibbons, Martin Patrick.
- Harney, Mary.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kennedy, Geraldine.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCoy, John S.
- McDowell, Michael.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Molloy, Robert.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Malley, Pat.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Browne; Níl, Deputies Harney and Howlin.
Question declared carried.