I ask the Taoiseach when the promised legislation with regard to the amendment of the Road Traffic Acts arising out of the decision of the court and the DPP against Haughey will be circulated.
Order of Business (Resumed).
Is there promised legislation on this matter?
I am not aware that legislation is promised but I will inform the Deputy of the position.
There was an indication to the House by the Minister for the Environment on 6 February last that he proposed to amend the legislation and would circulate a Bill.
I think we have already decided that indications are not necessarily taken as representing promised legislation.
(Interruptions.)
A battery of shaking of heads does not alter what the Chair has indicated. We have had this ad nauseam as to what is promised legislation. As far as I am concerned the matter to which the Deputy refers is not promised legislation.
I wonder if there is any mechanism by which this issue could be resolved between the Chair and Members. There is some confusion because we are tied to a list of indications of intended legislation from Government.
If the Deputy asks a question I shall answer it.
Would you extend to me the courtesy of allowing me to finish my question?
I have heard enough to know what the Deputy is about.
No, I am seeking to suggest that the rulings of the Chair represent a substantial departure from what was previously the norm in this House in terms of what we might raise in regard to promised legislation. I am seeking your good offices to have this matter clarified lest we continue at variance on the matter.
The Deputy can look at the records and he will find that the decision I have given is not in any way in contravention of the traditional approach of the Chair in matters like this. If Deputy McCartan wishes to have that altered or extended so that he, the Chair and the House can enjoy a situation where we are at one about the matter, the Chair will be happy to co-operate.
On a point of order, the ruling has been in the past that legislation could be inquired about which had been promised in the House. Is it not the case that the list to which you have referred is not a document of the House and therefore has no status as a document of the House and that the only documents to which one could refer are promises made on the record of the House? Therefore I submit that your ruling in this matter is not correct.
Deputy Bruton might permit that the ruling is in accordance with the traditional rulings of the House.
It is not.
If it is proposed to have it changed the Chair is——
On a point of order——
You will have to send for the Ceann Comhairle to clarify the matter.
I will carry out the duties of this Chair.
On a point of order, would you agree that it is an innovation for the Government to circulate a list of this kind and that on the Order of Business in this House, long before the circulation of such lists became a practice, it was the practice that the Government could be asked questions about any legislation promised in the House. Would the Leas-Cheann Comhairle not agree that in introducing a restriction which confines Members to inquire about legislation promised on that list one is interfering with and reducing the long established privileges of Members and that is a matter of grave seriousness?
The Chair when following the question put by Deputy McCartan had an indication from the Taoiseach that the legislation was not promised. Am I to over-rule the Taoiseach?
Yes, Sir. Surely, Sir, we have not reached a point in this House when one side of the House determines what is ordered?
That is the whole point.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Bruton, please resume your seat. Deputy Spring, resume your seat.
(Interruptions.)
Would you kindly indicate to the Chair, how the Chair would be privy to everything that has happened here?
The record.
The record.
I do not carry the record. The Chair does not carry the record.
What do you have officials for but to inform you on matters of this kind?
I did not say that legislation was not promised on this issue. What I said to Deputy McCartan was that I would ascertain the position and inform him about the legislation. For all those Deputies who are getting excited about this, they might consider that I think Deputy McCartan has achieved his objective.
No, I have not.
(Interruptions.)
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle——
On a point of order——
A Deputy
The Deputy is being a hypocrite.
(Interruptions.)
That is disgraceful.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I demand that you ask the Member to withdraw that remark. I demand that that remark which is totally derogatory of me is withdrawn. It was totally uncalled for. I want my rights protected.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy McCartan, I was endeavouring to listen to Deputy John Bruton.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that is not acceptable. A Minister of the Government has called Deputy McCartan a hypocrite and you must insist that the remark be withdrawn.
(Interruptions.)
That remark should be withdrawn immediately.
On a point of order, I think there are matters more important. We are all being called hypocrites every day of the week in this House. I do not think we should get too excited about that.
Not in the House.
Would the House not agree that it is a more important matter that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has indicated that in regard to matters which are his function he would be relying on information supplied from one side of the House? That is an undesirable indication of the proper role of the Chair.
Deputy Bruton, would you allow me answer that question. The proposition the Chair put was that if I was to accept the presentation of individual Members of the House it would be obligatory on the Chair to have available to him at any given moment any reference, casual or otherwise, that would have been made by a Minister. If Deputy Bruton is suggesting, and the Chair would be happy with it, that henceforth in respect of every such announcement, whether we have it during Question Time or not, by a Minister that it be noted and then that a list be available to the Chair——
Good thinking. That is the way to do it.
Meanwhile, Deputy Bruton will have to accept whatever Government are in office or what the Taoiseach indicates — again there is clarification; the Chair did not appreciate in toto the statement made as far as the question put by Deputy McCartan was concerned. Deputy Bruton could help the Chair, and the House, and so could all Members, and we could avoid this daily situation that arises on the Order of Business. It is much easier for the Chair to proceed on what is regulated.
May I say, Sir, that I welcome what you have just said in this matter in regard to recording promises of legislation. I think you have responded very reasonably to the point made.
I view the procedures of this House as being extremely important and there has to be a two-way process between the Members and the Chair. I am afraid, Sir, you have landed us in a bigger mess than we started out in. I am afraid, Sir, that a lot of blame has to lie at your feet in this regard and I say to you that we should have a meeting of the Committee of Procedure and Privileges immediately.
Deputy Spring——
I did not interrupt the Chair, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
You have said enough for me to interrupt you, Deputy.
I would ask you, in relation to this situation, to call an immediate meeting of the Committee of Procedure and Privileges to sort this matter out once and for all.
Deputy Bruton has already accepted the proposition from the Chair in respect of this, and the Chair resents very much any charge or insinuation by Deputy Spring or anybody else.
I will not withdraw it because it is deserved.
Deputy Spring has the means by which he can have an alternative Chair at any time.
If I get the numbers right I will take up that challenge.
If Deputy Spring was not listening to the reply which I made to Deputy Bruton, and if what is proposed by Deputy Bruton which would seem to resolve the position is not welcomed by Deputy Spring, that is not the responsibility of the Chair.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, let me submit to you that, whether Deputy Bruton is satisfied or not, so long as the remark made by the Taoiseach is allowed to remain on the record of this House you, Sir, are not applying the rules impartially and that at a minimum what you have stated is that in the event of a dispute about the procedures in this House you would not over-rule the Taoiseach.
Deputy McCartan probably has a facility for interpreting in his own way statements by other people. I did not so indicate. I indicated that tradition here is that the Chair accepts from the Taoiseach of the day for the Government that which is promised legislation. It is not the Chair——
It is on the record of the House.
I am sure Deputy Rabbitte appreciates that, whether he wants to admit it or not.
The fact is that Deputy McCartan gave the reference, the date and the report of the House which indicated the promised change in the legislation, and despite that you still ruled it out of order. On a previous occasion recently when this issue was debated also, the Taoiseach indicated that he would implement some system whereby promises made by Ministers in this House at Question Time or in debates in relation to legislation would be drawn together and brought to his notice. In the interests of clarity, let me ask if that system has yet been introduced by him and when will it be operational?
I have no problem with any of this. I am quite clear on what the rules of the House are on legislation. In any case I have accommodated the House by giving the position about the legislation if there is any doubt as to whether it is promised or not. In this particular case, before all this argument developed, I indicated to Deputy McCartan that I would ascertain the position on the legislation for him. What more is required?
The point is not what the Taoiseach did or did not say but your ruling with regard to what was in order and what was not in order. I am simply seeking to assist by pointing out that the Taoiseach has already indicated on a previous occasion that he would have a system whereby Ministers would notify him when they were promising legislation in the House.
That should be drawn up by the Chair, not the Government. We want an independent body.
I am not interested in who draws it up. What I am interested in is that if the Taoiseach is going to answer questions in the House in relation to legislation he would be made aware by his Ministers of such promises and that we are confined to a document which is not on the record of this House in relation to promised legislation.
The Chair would not at any stage make any claim to infallibility. If the Chair has not acted in accordance with the traditions here then the Chair would regret it but the Chair feels that the question of promised legislation is long established. Deputy Bruton has made a proposition which has been accepted.
Was that an apology from the Chair? It is a pity we cannot say things straight around here.
If Deputy Spring is not happy with what Deputy Bruton has sought and for which he has the agreement of the Chair, the Chair cannot do anything about that.
As my motives in raising the question, which I believed were in order, have been called into question I would like to clarify the position very briefly.
There is no question on that.
Sorry, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, may I make this point?
No, you may not.
On a point of order——
Deputy McCartan, resume your seat, please. We have spent the last quarter of an hour——
A Deputy
It was your fault, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
——establishing that Deputy McCartan was in order in asking questions, that the Chair misunderstood the situation. Deputy McCartan will accept now that he has had his reply and, therefore, there will be no further discussion on it.
May I clarify one further question?
There is no question——
I am not in any way seeking to impugn your position and I accept fully that we have made progress on the matter but in the course of the exchanges the Taoiseach as an aside said I have achieved something simply by raising this question which then led to the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Woods, shouting across the floor that I was a hypocrite. I am asking you for a brief moment to explain the reason the question was put in the first place. It is this: that arising out of a prosecution in a court case in this matter——
We are not having a discussion on it.
Will you not allow me to explain——
The Chair did not hear——
On a point of order——
Deputy McCartan, please resume your seat.
I am merely asking that we correct the record.
Deputy McCartan, resume your seat. Deputy McCartan, whatever else might be expected from the Chair, if the Chair cannot hear every remark or aside——
We all heard it.
I indicated — and Deputy Bruton will confirm — I was listening to the Deputy who was endeavouring to make the point and the matter ends at that.
The Minister for Social Welfare should withdraw the remark.
On a point of order, even if you did not hear the remark of the Minister for Social Welfare, I did. I also heard Deputy Dick Roche call Deputy McCartan a hypocrite.
A Deputy
Well, you heard wrong.
(Interruptions.)
No, I did not hear wrong. You used the word "hypocrite". A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, if you did not hear both the remark of the Minister for Social Welfare——
The Deputy is not making a point of order.
Is it in order for a Member of the House to refer to another Member of the House as a hypocrite?
The Chair has already adjudicated on that issue and I thought you would have accepted it.
I am not a member of Deputy McCartan's party but I distinctly heard the Minister for Social Welfare and Deputy Roche make that remark. If you did not hear it, then I am left to ask very serious questions.
The Chair cannot operate on the basis of "duirt bean liom". I did not hear it.
I would ask that the Deputy withdraw the remark.
The Chair did not hear the remark. Can we now proceed with the ordered business of the House?
On a point of order, do you regard the term "hypocrite" as a parliamentary term?
Deputy De Rossa, the presentation of questions——
We are all called "hypocrite" here every second day.
I told Deputy De Rossa and his companions on two occasions that I did not hear it.
I am asking you to indicate whether you consider the term to be parliamentary? Do we take it we can call any Member of this House a hyprocrite if we so choose?
Deputy Howlin.
In relation to legislation on this precious list, Item No. 6 on the B List regarding the Roads Bill, may I ask the Taoiseach when it will be taken? May I ask the Taoiseach or the Minister for the Environment when responding whether he can indicate why there is an historic delay in notifying to local authorities the amount of their road grant allocation for this year? Road plans will not be available to local authorities until April and this is the first time in the history of the State that this has happened.
The answer to the first part of the Deputy's question is that we hope the legislation will be circulated shortly. The answer to the second part of the Deputy's question, if I were to give it, would be disorderly but I can assure him that local authorities this year will receive an amount of money for county and primary roads which is vastly in excess of the miserly amount allocated by the Government in which the Deputy's party was a partner when the problem of roads in this country really started.
It is disgraceful that no local authority in the country can implement a roads plan and they will not have them drawn up until April because they have no allocation.