It is proposed to take No. 12 and, by agreement, if a division is demanded on any Estimate, to postpone the division until 8.30 p.m. on the next Wednesday on which the Dáil meets until that hour.
Order of Business.
Yesterday on the Order of Business we arranged, subject to agreement between the Whips, to take the Second Stage of the Fuels (Control of Supplies) Bill, 1982 on Tuesday next. I must admit that I have overlooked telling our Whip that we had some doubts about the legality question raised by Deputy Kelly and I presume that the Bill will not be proceeded with until there is agreement to take it. I should like to know, also, whether the Minister for the Environment has done anything about establishing the all-party committee on the control of land prices to which he agreed a month ago, promising to establish the committee before the end of this session?
I have written to the party Whip on the matter. I signed the letter last night so the Whip should have it this morning. In the letter I have asked for suggested terms of reference and whether the committee is to be a Dáil committee or a joint committee of both Houses. As soon as I have the views of the Deputy's party, I shall take action on the matter.
What are the Government's intentions in relation to No. 4 on the Order Paper, that is, the Criminal Justice (Community Service) Bill, 1982? Can the Taoiseach indicate what was the rationale in the Government's effectively copying a Private Member's Bill, the First Reading of which was moved yesterday morning and distributed in the name of the Government at 7 p.m. yesterday? Can the Taoiseach confirm that the Government Bill was not printed until yesterday after the Private Member's Bill had been circulated? In relation to that I would draw the Taoiseach's attention to the print number on the Bill which clearly indicates that is the case. The print number on the Private Member's Bill is 6844 while on the Government Bill it is 6848. I should like the Taoiseach to explain why public funds have been used in this way? We are talking about two identical measures. If the Private Member's Bill was acceptable to the Government I suggest that the rational and sensible manner of dealing with it, having regard to the procedure of the House, would have been for the Taoiseach to indicate yesterday that the Private Member's Bill could be dealt with in Government time and on an all-party basis.
The position in relation to this Bill is that the Government Bill has been in preparation for some time. We intended publishing the Bill yesterday and we intend to continue with that measure as a Government measure. The Deputy knows that very late on Wednesday night when everybody else had left the Dáil, he indicated to us his intention to bring forward the Private Member's Bill. He brought the Bill forward on the Order of Business the following morning. That was a rather precipitate procedure. However, I do not wish to go into that now.
(Interruptions.)
We will go into it thoroughly if the Deputies opposite so wish.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Please do.
Deputy Shatter endeavoured in this instance to engage in a piece of sharp practice but so far as I am concerned the Government measure is on the Order Paper in the ordinary way and will be proceeded with in the ordinary way.
At no stage did I indicate in this House that I was bringing forward such a measure. The first time the measure was distributed was when it appeared on the Order Paper yesterday morning when it was given a First Reading. Therefore, I do not know what the Taoiseach is referring to in that regard. Perhaps he might clarify what he is talking about. Further, if this was a measure which the Government intended introducing I would refer the Taoiseach to the legislative programme to be completed before the recess and which was discussed and agreed between the Whips of all parties. There is no reference in that programme to a community service Bill.
The Government had never indicated that this Bill would be brought forward in this session. I submit that the Taoiseach has misled the House again in this instance. It must be obvious to everybody, including those in Fianna Fáil that the Taoiseach is stroking again and is losing his marbles.
I should like the Taoiseach to elaborate on his reference to the introduction of a Private Member's Bill as sharp practice.
Completely against any agreement or discussion between the Whips, Deputy Shatter, late on Wednesday night, announced his intention to raise this Private Member's Bill on the following morning. That was the first indication we had of the Bill.
(Interruptions.)
Order.
On a point of order, the Taoiseach described as sharp practice an announcement made by me on Wednesday night regarding my intention to introduce a Bill the following morning. In the first place I made no such announcement and, secondly, I presume that the only possible matter he can be referring to is the fact that at that stage the Bill was being printed for the purpose of being introduced the following morning. In what way is the Taoiseach suggesting that that was sharp practice? Effectively, he is seeking to cast aspersions on my behaviour and on my character in a totally uncalled for and outrageous way in an attempt to cover up a ludicrous stroke he has tried to pull in relation to this measure.
Like the Burke affair it boomeranged.
I should like an explanation as to the Taoiseach's objection. Is he suggesting that Members may not introduce Private Members' Bills without first having clearance from the Whips? If this is so what is the basis for it?
Deputy FitzGerald knows perfectly well that the Order of Business for Thursday was settled by the Whips at the very last minute on Wednesday evening and after the Dáil adjourned we were told that it was the intention to raise this Private Members' Bill the following morning. That is what I am referring to as sharp practice.
What is wrong with that?
(Interruptions.)
I want to suggest——
Am I right in saying that it is the right of a Member of this House to introduce Private Members' legislation, that there is no obligation to give any particular notice and that at any time he can notify his intention to do so and can bring forward the Bill? Is there any limitation in Standing Orders on that or has the Taoiseach any grounds whatever for his allegations?
Not to my knowledge. I am not aware of the practice between the parties, but there is nothing against it.
That settles that. There are no grounds for the Taoiseach's allegations.
He should withdraw the charge against Deputy Shatter of sharp practice.
I maintain that the Order of Business for Thursday — which all parties in the House knew from our point of view was a very special day because most of us wished to attend the funeral in the west of Ireland of our late lamented colleague, Deputy John Callanan — had been fixed in an amicable way between the Whips. Completely contrary to that arrangement, Deputy Shatter gave notice at the last minute the night before that he proposed to put this Bill forward for Second Stage. I do not know if Deputy Shatter was aware that we intended to publish our Bill on Thursday.
(Interruptions.)
The coincidence is there that at the last minute on Wednesday night at a very late hour, in spite of the agreement that had been made between the Whips, Deputy Shatter comes along with this announcement. Now that we are talking about it — I did not intend to go into these matters — the Bill that Deputy Shatter brought forward is almost identical with the Bill that was in the Department of Justice when Deputy Mitchell left office.
(Interruptions.)
We cannot have a debate on this matter.
(Interruptions.)
A point of order, Deputy Mitchell.
It is on the Order of Business. Is there anything terribly wrong with the Opposition submitting a Private Members' Bill which was prepared while they were in Government? It so happens that this Bill is very like the Bill that I prepared while in Government. The Taoiseach has said twice in the House that they intended to introduce the Bill yesterday, yet on the list of Bills discussed between the Whips as recently as last week I understand that a community service order Bill was never discussed. Who is pulling what strokes and who is guilty of sharp practice? Secondly, as Deputy Shatter has indicated, the print number of the Government Bill is later than the print number of the Opposition's Bill, so it is very clear that the Taoiseach himself, who is again casting aspersions in the House today, is guilty of sharp practice, not Deputy Shatter.
For the information of Deputies, there is nothing in what Deputy Shatter did that is against Standing Orders, but I am not aware about private arrangements or practice between the parties and between Whips. As a result I cannot pass comment on it or say yea or nay.
I am aware that it is open to any Deputy in the House to submit a Bill at any time. This Bill has been prepared and has been under consideration for some weeks past at meetings of our party. It was produced in the ordinary way. It is evident that the Government are simply reluctant to accept any measure from this side of the House. When they saw the print number on the Bill coming out they produced their own version which is in fact the original version without any changes as it existed in the Department before it was amended by us in Opposition to make some significant changes in it.
I think it would be very wrong if we were to proceed in this——
Could I ask the Taoiseach to clarify one aspect?
Deputy Shatter, I will call you in time.
I know I am not entitled to any courtesy in this House but I would like the Deputies to have at least some order. The position about our Bill is that we went in the normal way. It was considered by the Government and approved by the Government for issue on Thursday and as far as we were concerned that practice was perfectly normal. I am giving the facts as I know them. It was our intention to publish the Bill on Thursday. Late on Wednesday night Deputy Shatter, by a strange coincidence, brought forward a Bill which was very much along the same lines as the Bill that was in the Department of Justice. I do not know if Deputy Mitchell gave that Bill to Deputy Shatter or whether between them they were able to recollect what was in the Bill in the Department of Justice, but that Deputy Shatter brought forward his Bill precipitately on Wednesday night at the last minute after we had all gone home, for order on Thursday morning, suggests that it was a strange coincidence. I am prepared to leave it at that.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
It is not sharp practice so.
On the question of whether this Community Service Bill was in our parliamentary programme, I am quite prepared to accept that it was not.
The Taoiseach is embarrassing his back benchers.
We are also publishing a number of Bills — some of them are out this morning — which we are bringing forward as expenditiously as we can. They will not necessarily be taken in this session, but that does not mean that we are not going to publish them for the benefit of the public as soon as they are ready.
(Dún Laoghaire): Would the Taoiseach please refrain from saying that it was agreed between the Whips with regard to the taking of this Community Service Bill?
No, I did not say that.
(Dún Laoghaire): He said that he had intended producing this Bill and that it would be taken at First Stage.
He never said that.
(Dún Laoghaire): There was no agreement on or mention of this Bill between the Whips but the allegation is that we brought out this Bill to preempt the Government having an opportunity to introduce this Bill. There was no question of this Bill being introduced. In fairness, we have co-operated on this side of the House to deal with all the legislation that has been brought before it and will continue to do so on behalf of the people of this State, but I do not want the people to be conned into thinking that we were asked to take this Bill, because we never were.
I want to make it clear that I have the utmost respect for the Opposition's Chief Whip and the manner in which he does his business and I would never attempt in this House to make any implication of any sort. I hope he will accept that I did not at any stage infer that there was any agreement about taking the Government Community Service Bill. I said that the Order of Business on Thursday had been fully agreed between the Whips. I accept perfectly that there was no question of the Community Service Bill being on the parliamentary agenda between now and the end of the session.
The Taoiseach is adding confusion to an already confused situation. Would he please clarify for the sake of all Members of this House exactly what he is talking about? He has told us two things. He has told us that the Government made a decision to introduce a Government Bill on this matter that would be distributed on Thursday. That is the first thing. Secondly, he has told us that at the beginning of the week it was agreed what measures would be taken this Thursday and in particular what legislation could be dealt with and introduced in the House. He has then been told and has accepted from our Whip that at no stage was it intended or indicated by the Government that they would introduce a community service order Bill. He has said two contradictory things. Either the Government originally intended to introduce such a Bill on Thursday or they did not intend to introduce it on Thursday. I ask the Taoiseach to confirm that the Community Service Bill that was published by the Government and distributed in this House at 6 o'clock yesterday evening was printed by Cahills, the printers, only yesterday after our own Bill had been circulated.
My only statement is that our Government measure conformed with the normal procedure — approval by Government, sending for printing, printing and publication in the normal way.
That is not so.
We followed that timetable exactly and the only intervention in that normal process was Deputy Shatter's bringing forward his Bill on Wednesday night for mention here on Thursday.
We are not going into it any further.
Would the Taoiseach say when the Government meeting took place at which this Bill was approved? I should like him to accept my assurance that Deputy Shatter's Bill was brought forward about three weeks ago, discussed at the Fine Gael parliamentary party meeting last week and brought before a Front Bench meeting this week. Any suggestion that it was brought out in a rush or with any idea that a Government Bill was being introduced is an unworthy and false accusation. Would the Taoiseach accept that and tell us the date of the Government meeting at which the decision was taken about the Government Bill?
I have nothing more to say.
I see.
(Interruptions.)
We cannot go into the Bill and the matter has been clarified.
The Taoiseach is snookered.
Would I be in order in asking if the Taoiseach has misled the House by saying that it was approved at the Government meeting?
It is against all practice and procedure to disclose Government business but in view of the fact that Deputy FitzGerald is as usual imputing some unworthy behaviour to me, which has more or less become constant practice in this House——
Scandalous behaviour.
——I will say that our Bill was approved by the Government in the normal way for final printing on Tuesday.
In the circumstances we will not pursue that matter any further. Is there something else on the Order of Business?
I have to ask some questions.
Not on that issue.
This is important because I want this matter referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
The Members of your party on that committee can take that action.
I must make this point. The fact is——
It is not in order to raise a matter like that now.
This is very relevant and I have to insist that I make these points.
Allegations of sharp practice have been made by the Taoiseach.
Yes, but the evidence would seem to suggest the direct opposite. The Taoiseach said that this was decided upon by the Government for printing on Tuesday, yet we happened to be told yesterday——
I am sorry but I cannot allow this. We have gone round and round this problem. Deputy John Kelly has been trying to raise a matter on the Order of Business.
I have a point bearing on the order of this House, inspired by something which the Taoiseach said a few moments ago, which does not bear directly on Deputy Mitchell's problem. I heard the Taoiseach say clearly, when not provoked by anybody, that the Bill under discussion was considered and approved by the Government at their Tuesday meeting for publication on Thursday. That is the kind of detail this House rejoices to get. I would ask the Taoiseach to explain as a matter of order how he feels able to give this information about this Bill but felt able two days ago to draw with the utmost unctuousness the veil of Government confidentiality over the proceedings in regard to the Talbot deal, in relation to which we still have not discovered——
This place would be thrown into chaos if this continued.
On a point of order——
Two days ago we were told that Government proceedings——
Deputy Mitchell wishes to raise a point of order.
I want your advice, Sir, on how I raise a suggestion made to me that a Bill was referred yesterday to Cahills, the printers, by the Government and they were told to print it without proof reading in order to get it out. Was that the Criminal Justice (Community Service) Bill? How can I raise the matter?
The Members of your party on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges can bring that matter before the committee. I have told you that already.
The Government asked Cahills to print it without proof reading. Will the Taoiseach deny that?
Item No. 12. Deputy De Rossa.