It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 8 (resumed), 9 and 11 (resumed). By agreement there will be no interruption today for Private Members' Business. The Dáil will sit tomorrow from 10.30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and time will not be allowed for questions.
Order of Business.
What is it proposed to take tomorrow?
Resumption of the Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce.
Is the Taoiseach aware that this is the fourth Estimate, out of no less than 70 items under the heading of Estimates, which has not been fully discussed or discussed at all? The Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce is the fourth Estimate after which the word "resumed" appears. Is the Taoiseach aware that the Opposition are very apprehensive about the inefficient manner in which Government business is being discussed in this House? Is he aware that not only the Opposition but the country generally are apprehensive about the cavalier manner in which many important matters affecting the nation generally are treated in this House? We had an example of that only two minutes ago when a matter was raised by Deputy Barrett where it is envisaged that a further increase——
This is not in order.
This is on the Order of Business and I am entitled to make my point. A further increase of 10p per gallon of petrol, in addition to the 15p imposed by the Government in the last ten days, is likely to be imposed between now and when the Dáil resumes. We are not given the opportunity to debate the matter. Further, I would point out that there are two Bills on the Order Paper which we were advised by the Government Whip it was essential to pass before the Dáil adjourns for the Christmas recess. I refer in particular to the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Bill and the Bill referring to trade union amalgamation. In relation to the first Bill, when the matter was ready for debate last week we were informed that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was abroad. We were very pleased that the Minister was honoured by the Ghanaian Government with an honorary degree but, nevertheless, it was suggested to us this morning that the Bill must be taken and concluded today. This Bill envisages not only capital but current expenditure on the part of the RTE authority. Fortunately, a reasonable solution has been found to this problem.
Last week we were advised that in relation to the Bill relating to trade union amalgamation it was absolutely essential that it be passed before the Dáil recessed. We were told that it was not possible to take it last week because the Minister for Labour was engaged at a function in a Dublin hotel. It was ordered for this week but now we are told that the Minister is away and, therefore, it will not, and need not, be taken. I am putting to the Taoiseach that this is no way to run the business of the nation in this Assembly. From time to time we have made complaints but our patience is beginning to run out. Tomorrow we will be asked to pass no less than 70 items of Estimates, involving an amount in excess of £300 million. The Government will have to carry the blame for this when the Press make their comments that in a matter of minutes sums in excess of this amount——
This is completely out of order, as the Deputy knows.
May I say one other thing——
I allowed the Leader of the Opposition to raise a matter on the Order of Business.
If the Taoiseach would like to reply perhaps I might have something else to say in response to it.
The Government Whip has been dealing with the Opposition Whip in this matter and I will let him deal with the details. The Deputy knows, as well as other exMinisters, that there is a recognised procedure for raising issues. With regard to the matter Deputy Barrett was trying to raise, this is not the recognised method of raising it——
If the Taoiseach would give us 30 minutes to discuss the matter we would be obliged to him.
There is a recognised way of dealing with a matter like that and former Ministers are aware of it. I realise that Deputy Barrett has not had that responsibility and I appreciate he is endeavouring to raise it for his own purposes——
No.
So far as I am concerned we are affording ample opportunity for Deputies to discuss Estimates. The Deputies opposite are aware of the fact that we have sat longer hours, that we have spent more time in dealing with legislation and Estimates and, in addition, that we are giving longer time for questions than was ever given to the House.
May I say that the criticism most usually heard from the opposite side with regard to the ordering of business is that the Government are inclined to "freewheel" at times of a by-election, for instance? Last year when we had the Monaghan by-election we had very little else but Estimates for three weeks and we came under very heavy criticism for discussing what was then represented as something less important but is now represented as something extremely important. The conventional view of the discussion of Estimates in this House—let us not be pious or pompous about this because everyone knows it is so—has always been that it is "freewheeling".
Secondly, the Bill relating to the trade unions was not represented to the Opposition last week as being an item that needed to be passed before Christmas. I had no idea that the Leader of the Opposition was once again going to raise matters of this kind at 4 p.m.; otherwise I would have made sure that I was speaking with accuracy. From memory, I did not represent last week to the Opposition Whip that it was necessary to pass that Bill before Christmas. I hope that the final Stages of the trade union Bill will be taken after Christmas but it is grossly unfair—I do not mind saying cheap—of Deputy Lynch to speak about the Minister being at a function in a Dublin hotel. The function he was alluding to was the presentation of apprenticeship awards; in other words, the Minister for Labour would have been open to serious criticism had he neglected to attend.
(Interruptions.)
That was the only occasion when the Minister for Labour was absent from this House last week. Deputies opposite do not want to hear the truth; they should hold their long tongues for a minute. The Minister for Labour was absent only on that occasion last week and I did not represent that it was essential to pass the Bill before the end of the session.
It is true that the Broadcasting Authority Bill is necessary before the end of the session and, after a very amicable conversation with the chief Fianna Fáil Whip and the Finance spokesman last week, we agreed how business for this week would be parcelled out. It was agreed that the Broadcasting Bill would be taken today. I know that difficulties have arisen about it since this morning. That was not foreseen last week or if it was I was not told anything about it by the Opposition.
This whole arrangement reminds me of the situation last July when again an arrangement for finishing the business of the House by the end of the session was freely and fully agreed but was subsequently torpedoed, not by this side.
The last thing I want to say is that the Opposition must understand that the Government's business since the beginning of this session, so far as Tuesdays and Wednesdays are concerned, has had to be done in roughly 75 per cent of the time which previously was available because the new Standing Orders in regard to Private Members' time cuts roughly a quarter out of Tuesdays and Wednesdays. That is a very serious inroad on Government time and I think we may have to consider sitting longer hours as a standing arrangement, in order to make up for that. The Government have appropriated no Private Members' time this session at all. Not only that, but three full days were conceded, rightly conceded, to a demand, no doubt rightly and honestly made, at the beginning of the session for a debate on confidence in the Government.
Thanks very much.
Three days ran out on that. Another day was conceded by the Government on a petrol debate and——
Thanks again.
Rightly conceded?
——there was a week during which the Dáil did not meet at all. I am trying to explain to the House—but the other side do not want to hear the truth, they would sooner if the Press ran away and made their headlines only out of what Deputy Lynch said but not out of what the reply is—that a very large part of the time of this House has been devoted this session to Opposition business at their request and freely conceded at their request. To the extent that a week was lost because of mourning for the late President——
There is a lot of time being lost now.
——and that Government time was devoted to Opposition business which was raised and conceded——
I made my point succinctly, we are now being subjected to a lecture.
——it comes very ill from the Opposition to raise the kind of cheap twopence ha'penny points of a very familiar kind that we have just heard from Deputy Lynch.
I am entitled, Sir, to say something in reply to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the Taoiseach. First of all, I do not thank the Government at all for allowing Government time at the beginning of this session for a motion of no confidence. No Government ever refused such time and the Parliamentary Secretary need claim no credit for that. Secondly, he need claim no credit for the fact that it was only on our insistence that an imposition of almost £30 million by way of taxation, imposed in a manner that was never envisaged by the Oireachtas, was debated only for one day, an imposition that the Government should be ashamed of introducing in the manner they did. I want to say that it was represented to me by the Fianna Fáil Whip that Deputy Kelly, the Government Chief Whip, asked for the passing of the Trade Union Bill before this session terminated and similarly with the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Bill. To suggest now that he never asked that those Bills be passed before the end of this session is not correct and, from my information, is totally untrue. I would ask you, Sir, for one minute to hear Deputy Lalor on that.
I was in my room and I heard over the loudspeaker the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach saying that the Opposition did not want to hear the truth. In my rush downstairs I may have missed out on what the Parliamentary Secretary said after that but I want to say that the Parliamentary Secretary indicated to me last week that he must have the Trade Union Bill before the end of this session. Subsequently, I found myself having to go to the Party Leader on, I think, Wednesday evening last saying that it had been ordered for that day but it was withdrawn because the Minister for Labour chose instead to go to some presentation of certificates and it would have to be taken on Friday. Basically I objected to that because we were taking the Industry and Commerce Estimate on Friday. In addition to that, I heard the Parliamentary Secretary say that it was made clear to me that the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Bill was a "must" before the end of this session. We argued this and the Parliamentary Secretary indicated that he was not really able to get clarification from the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs as to whether that Bill was essential or not. Eventually, we agreed today to take a portion of the Broadcasting Bill. I lost out on what was said while I was coming downstairs but I felt it was necessary to give this explanation.
Can we now get on to the business of the House?
Allow me to say one word. I accept that Deputy Lalor believes I said the Trade Union Bill was necessary before the end of the session, but I am quite clear that I did not represent it in that way because I know that it is not necessary before Christmas, and I do not think I was ever under any other impression. I do not accuse Deputy Lalor of misrepresentation.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that all this emphasises the need for reform of the business and procedure of the House?
No, it just needs efficient management over there.
May I make one request to the Taoiseach? As I indicated already we will, within about an hour tomorrow, be passing Estimates amounting to some £350 million or £400 million. The Minister for Finance normally puts those through in a formal manner. In view of the tremendous number of Estimates and supplementaries that are involved, I would request the Taoiseach that the Ministers involved in each of those separate Estimates be in the House in order to answer questions that may be put, questions that will certainly be short, to each of the Ministers, questions that the Minister for Finance may not be in a position to answer.
I will certainly try. In reply to Deputy O'Connell I should say that we have adopted a number of reforms and one of the problems in the present situation is that this year the financial year ends in a couple of weeks' time and the new financial year will begin early in January. Not merely are we disposing of in nine months what would normally be disposed of in 12 months but we will be meeting again to start the new financial year. In addition, a number of changes have been made in the procedure, some of which were referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary and some of which have been availed of by Deputies on all sides but particularly, so far as Private Members' Business is concerned, by the Opposition. To that extent, our present timetable appears to be somewhat overloaded as a result of the accumulation, because of the curtailment of the time involved in the transition from the old financial year to the new one. In regard to the point made by the Leader of the Opposition, I will endeavour to have Ministers available when their Estimates are being considered.
In view of the Taoiseach's advice about recognised procedure I wish to give notice that I intend to raise the subject matter of my question on petrol on the Order Paper on the Adjournment.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
A Cheann Comhairle, I received a letter from you today disallowing two questions——
Deputy, the Chair's ruling cannot be challenged in this fashion. It is disorderly to do so. I am calling the next business.
I want to point out to the Ceann Comhairle that I am going to raise——
Item No. 8.
Is this a democratic Assembly or is it not? The Deputy has not been allowed to develop whatever point he is making. The Ceann Comhairle is taking certain advice from the officials here. I think he is entitled to at least hear a democratically elected Deputy.
The Ceann Comhairle is his own man in this House.
I can hear what is being said to the Ceann Comhairle.
The jackboot tactics should be stopped.
I received a letter from you today, a Cheann Comhairle, disallowing two questions in relation to Government policy, because you alleged they contained argument. I want to point out now that I intend to raise those on the two Estimates tomorrow—the Estimate for Health and the Estimate for Agriculture.
Item No. 8.
May I ask what is proposed to be done in regard to the questions outstanding?
Deputies may have written answers.
Will that be automatic or must they be requested?
Deputies will be issued with written replies unless they wish to have them tabled for the next sitting of An Dáil in the New Year.
In this discussion between Deputy Lalor, Deputy Colley and myself we agreed there would be no Question Time to-morrow, but it was not at any time a point of contention. The idea was to leave more time for the outstanding Industry and Commerce Estimate to be debated.
I do not know how the Parliamentary Secretary makes contention out of a request for information.
I am not doing that, but there was so much contention a moment ago that I was afraid the Deputy's question might be ministerpreted as a bit more of it.
I did not quite catch what the Parliamentary Secretary said, but may I give notice that I would like to have a written reply to Question No. 129?