It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 7. By agreement there will be no interruption for Private Members' Business to-day. By agreement also, apart from the opening speakers, there will be a limit of 45 minutes to contributions on No. 7.
Order of Business.
Would the Taoiseach reconsider the decision not to allow Government time this week for discussion of the Fine Gael motion to annul the orders reducing subsidies on foodstuffs, if necessary by extending the proposed sitting hours for the current week?
No, Sir.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that his refusal to allow a debate on the annulment order this week reflects a fear on his Government's part that their tactic of introducing a supplementary budget before the annual budget will be exposed?
We cannot have a debate on the matter.
If the Taoiseach will not answer that question, may I ask him to give an assurance that Government time will be set aside within the next 20 sitting days for a discussion of this motion?
The matter of complying with the statutory requirements of debating these motions within 21 sitting days rests entirely on the Opposition parties who put down the motion.
Would the Taoiseach agree that these Acts, including this Act, are passed in a manner that permits the Government to make orders on condition that there is a right to have them annulled in the Dáil within 21 days and that imposes an obligation on the Government to provide time for that purpose? That has been the practice of this House.
That obligation can be fulfilled equally well by having the debate in Private Members' Time and that is available to the Deputies.
No way.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that the fact that the Acts lay down that this right exists in the House imposes an obligation on the Government to provide the time? The Acts give the Government the privilege of making orders subject to the corrective power of the House and that lays a special obligation on the Government. Would the Taoiseach give further consideration to that argument?
I accept there could be an implication to that effect, but if the Deputy is talking in terms of time, the 21 days statutory period, he can avail of it today by having the motions taken with the discussion on the White Paper.
That is a separate question. We are talking here of having a debate in accordance with the provisions of the Act. There is nothing in the way of precedent to suggest that this can be taken with other matters. This is a particular Act and orders have been made under it. The matter should be debated separately and decided separately. I would like the Taoiseach to reflect on the matter and consider whether he accepts that there is an obligation in such cases and that it is a matter of principle, of parliamentary democracy, for Government time to be provided when such time is sought and when an annulment order is put down with good notice.
There are precedents for taking orders of this nature with other matters. One of those precedents was no later than 13 June when a similar order was debated in the context of another debate; and another precedent was on 1 December 1971 when a similar order, not under the same Act, was taken with a debate on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the precedent he cited of 13 June last was where the Taoiseach held that notice given was inadequate for it to be possible to provide time in view of financial business? This does not arise in this case because notice has been given on the first available occasion and therefore that is not a valid precedent. The only other precedent I am aware of where a private motion was taken in Private Members' Time was on 27 April 1976, where a motion was put down by Deputy Wilson, appeared on the Order Paper on that day and was taken in Private Members' Time on the Opposition's proposal. There is no precedent for the refusal of a request by the Opposition for a debate on the annulment of an order other than the Taoiseach's refusal of 13 June on grounds of lack of notice, which does not arise in this case. Would the Taoiseach reflect further on the wisdom of setting such a precedent in view of the implications for the parliamentary democratic system? I am not pressing for an answer now. I think this is a very serious matter and I would ask the Taoiseach to reflect further on it. I could raise this matter again tomorrow when he has had time to consider it further.
Would the Taoiseach agree that Government time will be given to the annulment orders tabled by all Opposition Deputies to ensure that there is a separate debate and a separate vote on food subsidies so that his party, with his substantial majority, can endorse his decision? We in the Opposition wish to make the point that under no circumstances would we agree to a joint debate on the food subsidies and we have given notice. I regret that for the first time in the history of this Dáil the Whips have been unable to reach agreement on the Order of Business. The Taoiseach has decided to discuss the White Paper and we are now seeking specific Government time, not Private Members' Time, on this issue.
I think I nodded approval to Deputy FitzGerald when he said I should reflect on the matter. I certainly will. Regarding the request of both Opposition parties to have these orders debated today and nothing else, might I remind them of the insistence from both parties that we would debate the White Paper on the first sitting day of the new Dáil session, which is now.
The Taoiseach will accept that the request for the White Paper to be discussed in the first sitting day was at a time when the subsidies had not in fact been removed and that all we asked for is that time be given this week for the White Paper debate and the annulment order.
I think we have fully discussed the matter.
We can come back to it tomorrow.
On the Order of Business, could the Taoiseach give us any indication when he proposes to deal with the Estimate for Posts and Telegraphs?
I could not answer that off the cuff.
(Interruptions.)
Would the Deputy please allow me to reply. When the Deputy gets up to talk nobody else may speak. If he had the courtesy to notify the Whip that he was about to raise this question we certainly would have tried to get an answer for him. I do not think it is reasonable to get up and ask when a particular matter will be taken.
The reason I am asking the question is that it is impossible for a Deputy of this House to contact his constituency if it is in County Donegal.
The Deputy is only seeking an excuse to raise the matter.
You must have the same difficulty in contacting Donegal as I have. If I want to contact Donegal I have to send a telegram to the Minister's office to get an operator to contact me.
The convention is next Sunday and the Deputy needs his name in the paper.
The Minister is just as wrong with regard to that as he is in other things. The convention is not next Sunday.
(Interruptions.)
It is Sunday week.
He is only a week out.
(Interruptions.)
Could I ask you to correct the record because when you read out the Order of Business, including item No. 7 you said there was agreement in regard to time allowed to speakers other than proposers. It may be the agreement of some party or parties in the House but it is certainly not an agreed matter for those of us who did not even know about it until it came up here. This applies to all other matters.
It is agreed by the House now. It is now a matter of agreement by the House.
It is not a matter of agreement by us. I am on my feet since, waiting to get in, saying that I do not agree with it. Maybe the House, less myself and a few others, agrees to it but it is not by agreement.
The Deputy can challenge it if he wants to.
If the Taoiseach had the arena where he could be challenged he would not be asking for the challenge.