I am calling on the Chairperson of the Special Committee, Deputy Madeleine Taylor-Quinn, to move the appropriate motion.
Report of the Special Committee on the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Bill, 1987: Motion.
As Chairperson of the Special Committee that sat to consider the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Bill, 1987, I wish to report as follows:
The Special Committee has considered the Bill and has made amendments thereto. The Bill, as amended, is reported to the Dáil.
I move:
(1) that the report and proceedings be printed;
(2) that the Bill, as amended in the Special Committee, be printed.
Question put and agreed to.
This Bill, of course, goes into Private Members' Time.
Did I understand the Chair to say that the Bill goes into Private Members' Time?
In the absence of an indication from the Government that they are granting time for it, that is the assumption of the Chair and it is the only assumption I can come to.
That, perhaps, is in the absence of an indication from the Government but it is certainly not my intention that that Bill will go into Private Members' Time, as I made clear earlier this morning. I want that Bill debated in the House in Government time.
That is another matter.
It can be taken either way but it is a Private Members' Bill.
Is the Tánaiste aware that if this Bill goes into Private Members' Time it will take up Private Members' Time across the board thus preventing any other Private Members' business being debated in the House? I am sure that the Tánaiste, if he considers that, will be reasonable and generous enough, as he normally is, to provide Government time to debate it.
I understood earlier that this matter could be resolved by the Whips.
On the question of where the future of the Bill might now lie, it is clear that the Government must have considered whether Government time will be allocated for the Report Stage of the Bill. The matter to be decided by the Whips, traditionally, is the question of what day or what week a Bill should be taken but the question in principle of whether Government time will be given for the debate is a matter for the Tánaiste, representing the Taoiseach, and the Cabinet.
It has already been decided that item No. 1 should be taken without debate and the Chair must adhere to that resolution of the House.
I am not trying to debate the issue.
The Deputy is making a good effort at it.
I am not; I am trying to get a particular response which will not be obscured later.
A question would suffice.
Have the Government decided in principle, yes or no, to give Government time for debate of the Report Stage of the Bill?
I answered that fully.
The Tánaiste did not.
Will the Tánaiste give a reply, yes or no?
Will the Tánaiste give Government time to debate Report Stage of the Bill? Surely the Tánaiste will comply with the request of the Ceann Comhairle which was put succinctly in regard to that?
I have already answered that question.
On a point of order, is it not correct to say that when a Bill is passing to Report Stage a day must be nominated for that debate? Therefore, from a procedural point of view is it not important that we should be told whether the Bill will be taken next Tuesday, subject to agreement between the Whips? Surely we must be told when Report Stage will be taken, as is normal? If it is decided by the House that the Bill should be debated in Private Members' Time we will be debarred in the future from seeking Government time. It is vitally important, therefore, that we follow normal procedures and that we be told when it is proposed to take Report Stage.
I should like to put a similar point to the Tánaiste. In the context of the Bill I should like to draw the Government's attention to two points. It is a matter for agreement between the Whips as to the date on which Report Stage debate may take place; it is a matter for a decision by the Government as to whether the Report Stage debate takes place in Government time or, for example, on Fridays when the Government's legislative programme would not be disrupted. Through the Chair I should like to ask the Government to state by early next week on the Order of Business whether Government time will, or will not, be granted or whether the Bill will inevitably have to take up Private Members' Time for a number of weeks. That would be an unsatisfactory and fragmented way to deal with important legislation. Will the Tánaiste indicate if he will tell us on the Order of Business next Tuesday the Government's decision on this issue?
I will elaborate on this for the House's benefit but I have fully explained our position in regard to item No. 1. The position is almost as Deputy Shatter has adumbrated, that automatically this Bill goes into Private Members' Time as a result of the motion being moved.
Not automatically.
It is a matter for the Government to take it out of Private Member' Time and take the other route. As I said in reply to Deputy Dukes, there are two routes open. We either take it in Private Members' Time or the Government give their time to it. We have not decided which of those routes to take, as I explained this morning.
We are inviting the Tánaiste to be generous.
We are inviting the Tánaiste to tell us if he will be in a position next week to indicate to us what the attitude of the Government is.
The Deputy's Leader, Deputy Dukes, indicated his view on the matter earlier and I responded to him.
As I understand it, the idea of Government time and Private Members' Time is laid down in Standing Orders and it is open to a majority of Members at any time to introduce a motion to vary those Standing Orders and provide that Government time be made available for this purpose. It is an unsatisfactory breach of convention perhaps, but this Party will support a motion to make Government time available and whether the Government like it or not, their time will be used for this purpose if a majority want it to be. We will not allow our Private Members' time to be abused in this manner. I would make it clear that we will support anybody in this House who moves that time be taken from the Government by way of motion to vary Standing Orders to make that possible.
The House is tending to debate a matter on which they have already decided that there shall be no debate.
On a point of order, am I correct in saying that a day must be nominated in respect of taking this Bill?
Not in respect of a Private Members' motion.
Having completed Committee Stage?
It is not a Private Members' motion. It is a Bill that has completed Committee Stage. Is there not a procedure for nominating a date for the taking of Report Stage?
It is not usual in respect of a Private Members' Bill of this kind.
With respect I do not mean to be argumentative but it is not a question of it being unusual. This is the first time in the history of this Dáil that a Private Members' Bill has got to Report Stage. My point is that normal procedure in relation to legislation must be followed, and that is that, having completed Committee Stage, a day is nominated for the taking of Report Stage. That is the normal procedure whether legislation originated as a Private Members' Bill or as a Government Bill. I would like an answer to that point as it is very relevant.
I have already indicated to the Deputy that there is some ambiguity as to whether this Bill will be taken in Private Members' time or in Government time——
It is a question of nominating a day.
The Deputy is asking the Chair to arbitrate on a rather hypothetical situation. We will come to that matter when the Bill comes before us.
(Interruptions.)
As Deputy Barrett has said, this is the first time a Private Members' Bill has reached this Stage in the House.
It is not.
We are therefore not dealing with——
(Interruptions.)
This is number 7.
It is the first time an Opposition Private Members' Bill has got this far.
(Interruptions.)
Will Deputies just wait and listen for a minute? I am trying to be helpful to the House. We are in a position where we will be setting a precedent for Bills of this kind. I hope we will see more of this in the lifetime of this and future Governments as it is an extremely valuable way of doing business. I hope that the Government will have enough generosity of spirit to take a generous and democratic view of this and allow this Bill to be treated in the House in the same way as Government Bills.
There are precedents for dealing with this matter and the Chair is following that precedent. I am now proceeding to deal with Item No. 13.