It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 9, 10 (resumed) and 7. Business will be interrupted at 3.30 p.m. to take No. 7 and the order will not be resumed thereafter. By agreement it is proposed that for the debate on item No. 7 the following time limit will apply to speakers: opening speaker, 20 minutes; Minister, 20 minutes; other speakers, 15 minutes.
Order of Business.
Could I ask the Tánaiste if it is the intention of the Taoiseach to make a statement to the House regarding his discussion with the President of France on our entry into the EMS.
I could not say whether that is proposed or not. I would have to discuss it with the Taoiseach. The Deputy will, however, appreciate that in the particular circumstances it might not be appropriate for the Taoiseach to make a statement at this time.
Could I further ask the Tánaiste have the Government given any further consideration to the desirability of a debate in the House before the summit meeting to be held on 4 and 5 December?
I cannot usefully add anything to what has been said on that topic.
What was said by the Taoiseach the last time I raised this issue was that the Government would give consideration to the timetable and the only barrier in the Taoiseach's mind apparently at that time was the timetable which he had from the other Heads of State. I suggested to him at that time that perhaps it might even be desirable to meet over a week-end and the Taoiseach replied that that is being given consideration. Has any decision been made?
There is no change in the position as outlined in the House so far.
Would the Tánaiste accept that in all the circumstances, and particularly in view of this morning's newspaper reports, our entry into the EMS could possibly have a very adverse effect upon the beneficial operation of the common agricultural policy of this country and that it is vital that a full discussion be taken in this House before making any commitment.
We cannot have this discussion on the EMS every morning.
It is not every morning that we join the EMS. It is not every morning that democracy is pushed aside. Surely it is in order to ask——
The Chair is only concerned with the order in the House and I am calling Deputy FitzGerald.
It is the order of the House that we are raising as to whether, in the course of the order of the House, the Taoiseach will have the debate which he said he would have before a decision was taken. Could I also ask in what way could it be inappropriate for the Taoiseach to report to the Parliament of this country what he is reporting to the press of this country?
I am not aware of what the Taoiseach's final attitude will be but the kind of statement he could make to this House in regard to such a statement clearly would be constrained by the fact that we are in a negotiating position.
Would the Tánaiste not accept that the House is at least entitled to be told as much as has already been told to the press and then to pose questions to the Taoiseach which in his discretion he can reply to or not as he feels appropriate taking account of our negotiating position?
If the House felt that that would be a satisfactory situation obviously the Taoiseach might give further consideration to the matter.
I am not suggesting it as a subject for debate but as a natural and normal process after a visit to a Head of State followed by statements to the press in respect of that visit.
I want once more to point out to the House a factor that seems to be overlooked in all this, that is that we are in a negotiating position.
I am asking only that the same courtesy be extended to this House as to the press and that is minimal of parliamentary democracy.
Would the Tánaiste not agree that a discussion at this stage in the negotiations would possibly strengthen the hand of the Taoiseach in any further discussions rather than weaken it? Would the Tánaiste tell the House whether the Taoiseach will be here in the House next week to answer further questions on this matter?
As to the first part of the Deputy's question, the answer is no. As to the second part, I have not consulted with the Taoiseach on that.
I want to raise something on the Order of Business. On Wednesday last the Industrial Development Bill began its Second Stage not long before the evening concluded. The Bill was moved by the Minister of State at the Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy, Deputy R. Burke. He began his speech in column 1056, Volume 309, of the Official Report of 15 November. His opening words were "I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time." Neither in opening his speech nor in closing it did he give any indication that he would not be closing the debate as is the custom and almost invariable rule in the House. Naturally that often happens when a Minister is away or unable or unwilling, for one reason or another, to conduct the debate on the Bill. The debate was resumed on Tuesday of this week and I was the first speaker. During all of the time that I was speaking and during some of the time during which the debate continued thereafter the Minister. Deputy O'Malley, was in his place. I took it for granted, watching him, that he intended to intervene in the course of the debate, as would be natural enough: I would have been very surprised had he not done so. I discovered yesterday morning that he had in fact been called a matter of seconds before the House moved to other business. I have the unrevised report here of what happened and after Deputy White had sat down the Minister stood up and his opening words were
"I thank Deputies who contributed to the debate. It is my desire to deal as fully as possible with the points they made."
These are words which are appropriate to a Minister who is winding a debate up. They would be a little unusual for a Member, whether a Minister or not, who is contributing in the middle of a debate. I would like to make it clear and have it established that the debate will not conclude at the conclusion of Deputy O'Malley's speech but will continue with the speakers on this side of the House who still wish to contribute. There are not many of them and we have no surprises up our sleeves and we do not in any way want to obstruct the Minister's speech. I just want to have it established that this is not the conclusion of the debate.
The Chair can not give any such assurance. The Leas Cheann Comhairle clearly called on the Minister to conclude. The Ceann Comhairle will have to honour that.
There is no reference in the unrevised report to what the Leas-Cheann Comhairle said but, even if there had been, it is not the custom, as the Chair well knows, to put these purely formal and interlocutory expressions of the Chair into the report. But even if it had been in the report that could not suffice to overrule the ordinary Standing Order of the House any more than the opening words used by the Minister. The fact is that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was in the Chair most of that day as indeed he was in the Chair most of yesterday and he probably did not know on Tuesday afternoon that it had not in fact been Deputy O'Malley who opened the debate. But we knew it was not and we took it for granted that this was simply an intervention in the course of the debate which he quite naturally would wish to make. So the words said by accident or in mistake by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle do not and could not bind the rest of the House.
I wish to say that it was perfectly clear that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle called on me to conclude. He used those words in fact. There was no other Deputy in the House offering to speak. I am aware in this connection that, when Deputy Burke opened the debate and was immediately followed by Deputy Kelly, one of Deputy's Kelly's constant complaints at that time, as indeed at other times too, was that I was not there and he kept referring to the Minister of State's absent chief and why was I not here to deal with the matter. I spent all Tuesday here dealing with it. I thought it was only a matter of courtesy to the House, and that it was assumed by everybody, that I would naturally conclude the debate because it is a matter which comes particularly within my section of the Department. I might also add that at 6 p.m. on Tuesday there were no Deputies at all on the Opposition side of the House. I could have asked the Fianna Fáil Deputy who was then speaking to resume his seat and I could have then concluded. I chose not to do that in spite of the fact that for a period of four or five minutes there were no Deputies at all on the other side of the House.
It was not the Minister in front of us now who opened the debate and it was not he who moved the Second Reading. While there would not have been the least difficulty if we had been approached and asked to agree to the Minister closing the debate or even if we had been warned that he saw himself as the closing speaker there would have been no difficulty whatever. I am complaining about the House being taken by surprise by the Minister assuming and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle mistakenly assuming—this is the point—that this was the last speaker.
(Interruptions.)
We cannot have a debate on it now. The Chair's decision is clear and unambiguous in the matter.
With the greatest respect, the most frequently heard sentence in this House in recent times is you saying: "We cannot have a debate on this matter".
The Deputy is well aware that the Standing Orders of the House govern the method and manner in which business is conducted. A Deputy cannot stand up at any time and proceed to have a debate. The Chair would be lacking very seriously in his duty if he permitted that sort of disorganisation to continue. The Chair dealt with the matter under discussion. I have sympathy with the Deputy if he did not understand. I discussed it with the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and he has no question of doubt whatever that he called on the Minister to conclude. Any Minister, according to Standing Orders, may conclude any debate for another Minister and there is no obligation to announce during the debate who is concluding.
Yes, if the House is told that. Since you have endorsed the primacy of Standing Orders I await with interest your citation of the Standing Order on the next occasion this Bill is debated which entitles the Minister to intervene—perhaps he did not realise he was taking the Opposition by surprise—and take the House by surprise as he did on this occasion.
I ask you, Sir, when you come to rule on this matter, to cite the Standing Order that says that any Minister may conclude a debate, by implication in the circumstances we are talking about, without warning. I believe that has never been the case. It would be a totally impossible situation if at any moment a Minister could rise and by doing so conclude a debate even if he is not the Minister in question. I ask you to cite the Standing Order under which any Minister by standing up without warning can conclude any debate.
Is it not a fact that, if the Chair calls on a Minister to conclude and if the Opposition do not wish to accept that position, the point can be raised there and then as to whether or not the Minister is concluding and it can be clarified? It cannot be contested afterwards.
The Minister is always called on to conclude when he is the Minister who opened the debate but the Minister who proposed and moved the Second Stage of the debate in the House was Deputy Ray Burke. The Opposition took it for granted that the intervention we were looking forward to hearing from the Minister, Deputy O'Malley——
The Minister was in Brussels that day so how could he conclude the debate?
Then we might have been warned that the intention was to switch the closing speech to a different Minister.
The Chair was asked a question by Deputy FitzGerald. In the rulings of the Chair it is cited from positions of my predecessors: "Any Minister may conclude a debate for another Minister" Volumes 698 and 1420.
Is it said without notice being given that he is concluding the debate?
It does not say.
Exactly.
It does not and it could not say it.
When was notice ever given in advance? This is ridiculous.
(Interruptions.)
It has happened in the House many times and the Deputies know it. We are talking about a trivial matter now.
It is not trivial. It is a matter of principle.
The Opposition Deputies were not in the House to object if they wanted to do so.
It is a decision by the Chair. If Deputies can come in here and say that a Minister who has been concluding was interrupted by a change of business and they want the debate to continue, the Chair can establish a precedent of that kind. If the Minister and the Deputy concerned wish to make other arrangements, the Chair does not mind. The Chair has got to stand by the decision taken.
This matter has quite unnecessarily been given an angry point by the Government's behaviour. I will not produce any bombshells of debate from this side of the House and I do not expect to hear any from the Minister either. Why is there a reluctance to allow this debate to take its natural course and this determination by the Government——
It has taken its natural course. No Opposition speakers offered.
The Minister was seen in the Government benches and it was taken for granted that he was going to make an intervening speech. It would have been surprising if he had not done so.
I am the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy. I have to conclude if I am here.
We know what the Minister is.
(Interruptions.)
On the adjournment. I would like to raise, with your permission. Sir, the effect of the price increase application of 2½p per loaf of bread by bakeries in view of the serious impact this will have on the cost of living for families already threatened with the removal of food subsidies.
The Chair will communicate with Deputy O'Leary.
I should like to give notice that, with your permission, Sir, I wish to raise on the adjournment what I have now attempted to raise on four separate occasions, the question of the Dun Laoghaire Art School.
I will communicate with Deputy Desmond.
Perhaps I may be lucky this time.