Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 21 Mar 1991

Vol. 406 No. 8

Private Business. - Standing Orders: Motions.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. V. Brady)

I move:

That the following be adopted in substitution for Standing Order 30 of the Standing Orders of Dáil Éireann relative to Public Business—

30. (1) Leave to move a motion for the Adjournment of the Dáil on a specific and important matter of public interest requiring urgent consideration may be sought on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday on which the Dáil sits if a member gives notice in writing to the Ceann Comhairle not less than 45 minutes before the opening of the sitting. Such notice shall state the matter which the member seeks to raise and may refer to the merits of or reasons for raising the matter in a manner which the Ceann Comhairle considers to be brief and concise.

(2) Where the Ceann Comhairle is satisfied that the notice complies with the requirements of this Standing Order, the member shall be called upon by the Ceann Comhairle at the commencement of Public Business, whereupon the member shall rise in his place and state that he requests leave to move the adjournment of the Dáil for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter of public interest requiring urgent consideration and shall state the notice given but may not elaborate thereon.

(3) If the Ceann Comhairle considers the motion to be one contemplated by this Standing Order, he shall thereupon desire the members who support the request to rise in their places. If not less than twelve members rise accordingly, he shall give leave to make the motion, which shall be moved at 7 p.m. on a Tuesday or Wednesday, or 3.30 p.m. on a Thursday, or at such hour on the day on which the request is made as the Dáil may appoint.

(4) A matter submitted in pursuance of this Standing Order which fails to obtain the requisite support cannot during the following six months be again brought forward under this Standing Order.

Motion 10 proposes amendments to Standing Order 30 in the light of difficulties which have been encountered on the Order of Business with the present operation of the Standing Order and the frequency with which this Standing Order has been invoked recently.

It must be remembered that this Standing Order is reserved for specific and important matters of public interest requiring urgent consideration and that this Standing Order was never intended as a mechanism for raising topical or current matters. The rulings of the Chair under this Standing Order in the past have been carefully and consistently applied, as the statistics show. Of the 50 requests made under this Standing Order since 1973, only five were successful, 32 have been made in the last two years and 11 in the last two months alone.

In considering amendments to the operation of the Standing Order, detailed consideration between all parties took place both at the Working Group on Dáil Reform and at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The motion now before the House reflects the agreed outcome of these detailed discussions.

The amendments submitted and circulated by The Workers' Party last night have been tabled at the last minute and too late to afford an opportunity for consideration by the working group and the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Therefore, they are not acceptable in the light of the consensus already reached. Furthermore the proposal to allow one minute to state the notice given could lead to every application under this Standing Order lasting one minute and, therefore, a number of one minute statements on the Order of Business which is not intended in this amendment. Indeed, I might mention that the original version of the motion has already been amended to include a proposal by The Workers' Party.

The Working Group on Dáil Reform, who meet on a regular basis and are currently examining other areas of Dáil reform, have given very detailed consideration to this matter. The group have always striven to achieve unanimity in their proposals. It is regretted that on this occasion we have two amendments tabled to a motion arising from detailed discussions by the group.

I must re-emphasise that this Standing Order was introduced to cater for specific and important matters requiring urgent consideration and that the House must guard against its misuse. The motion now proposed is designed to do this; while providing for the more orderly operation of the Standing Order it retains and protects its underlying principle. It is hoped that opposition parties will respect this.

In relation to Motion No. 11, the Government have endeavoured to meet the requests of the Opposition parties by, first, introducing a new statements procedure in grievance time. The procedure has been under-utilised to date and the Government have examined ways in which changes could be made to meet the wishes of Opposition parties.

This motion proposes amendments to the statements procedure by extending the total time allowed to members from 15 to 20 minutes and by extending the time for raising each matter from one to two minutes. In addition, the Minister will now give an immediate response to each matter raised, thereby replacing the composite reply procedure which applied heretofore.

I would like to remind Members that this Government have extended the time allowed for adjournment debates to 50 minutes and increased the number of matters which may be raised to eight. It is to be hoped that this response by the Government in providing additional time and facilitating Opposition parties by amending the procedure will be recognised and fully utilised by the Opposition parties, as was the original intention.

Mr. G. Mitchell

Any change that will improve the Standing Orders is welcome, but at the very top of the political agenda of all the items needing to be addressed, is that of parliamentary reform. This Parliament has become something of a joke. It is impossible for Members to raise issues urgently. In this respect I have to say that, over the years, one Government have been as bad as another. Whereas the Government are effectively no more than a committee of this House, this House, instead of having the Government accountable to it, has become accountable to the Government and to government more widely.

It is the considered view within the public service that this House is a nuisance, that somehow this House should be circumvented at every turn, that the first thing one should do when a Deputy asks a question is to seek to find some reason that one's Minister does not have to answer the question, to seek to circumvent Members' rights to come into this House and ask questions.

Already the televising of Parliament clearly illustrates that this is a stuffy, staid House where it is practically impossible to raise urgent matters without giving all sorts of notice or having rulings on the notice given. It appears that in other parliaments members can rise, ask questions, when a series of Ministers are there, prepared and briefed on the issues of the day and can reply. That does not apply in this Parliament, not merely in the case of the present Government but it has not applied for some considerable time. The whole question of the constitutional accountability of the Government to the Dáil specifically provided for is being circumvented by the way this House has tied itself up in knots.

I particularly regret that the sub judice precedent is now being used even when matters are not sub judice. For example, if a Garda investigation has begun in the case of somebody having referred a file to the Garda, that is now considered to be sub judice; everybody has rights; the Garda have rights; civil servants have rights; the Government have rights but, increasingly, this House has lost its rights. We have responsibilities but no authority.

The latest national agreement, the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, agreed with the social partners — comprising trade unions, business people and civil servants — decide on issues proper to this House — I cannot understand why an issue such as condoms should fall within the ambit of such a programme; however, I will not raise that here this morning. It is not proper to the programme for Economic and Social Progress. Yet they decide to make recommendations on such issues while we cannot discuss them in this House. Increasingly the agenda on politics is being set out by the media. Legislation is being enacted as much by judges as it is by this House.

If we are to deal with the serious problems facing this country — on which by and large, there is cross-party agreement, we must do so collectively. For instance, in the Committee of Public Accounts we can work as a team and reach agreement by a uniformity of approach. I contend that across this House probably there is a consensus on the major issues facing this country and on how they might be tackled, but we never get together to deal with them because we are all isolated in little blocks. The formal, stuffy procedures of this House prevent Deputies from coming to terms with the important issues, as we see them, those of unemployment, emigration and the various other areas of legislation needing to be updated.

We still do not have legislation to update the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General which date from 1986. These changes, minuscule as they are, are at least a few inches in one direction in that they may assist in giving us more time for debate. The whole stuffy control of what Members say in this House has gone beyond acceptability. It is becoming increasingly irrelevant to raise matters in this House. I ask the Minister of State, who is the Government Chief Whip and who has a major role to play in this, to take a major step forward. I suggest that this House agree that the Ceann Comhairle call a Speakers conference which would report to this House, completely independent of any party here, on what needs to be done to update and modernise the powers of this House before we become a complete laughing stock.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am calling Deputy Howlin.

Proinsias De Rossa

On a point of order, before Deputy Howlin speaks may I ask if a copy of the Minister's speech is available? It has arrived.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am calling Deputy Howlin. The House will recollect the order this morning which limits the speeches at this stage to five minutes.

Mr. Howlin

I welcome the opportunity to comment on the two amendments to Standing Orders. Sometimes people are put off by a procedural debate. It is probably true that many Members would be unfamiliar with the Standing Orders of the House. If I referred to Standing Order 30 or Standing Order 20 members would not instantly recognise them. One of the positive effects of being a party Whip is that one becomes familiar with the mechanics that govern the House. I share very strongly the view expressed by Deputy Mitchell that increasingly — I am not sure if it was ever much better — the rights and the level of input into real decision-making of the individual Deputy is being eroded in this House. Increasingly programmes, whether in relation to the economy, foreign affairs or any other issue, are presented as a fait accompli to this House and Members have a very limited scope to amend or change them. Even in relation to primary legislation that comes before this House one is dependent on the attitude of the Minister who is guiding the particular Bill, as to whether any amendment can be adopted. Although the Opposition win the argument in this House when the division bells ring and if we have a Minister who is unwilling to concede ground for some peculiar reason such as that it would somehow be a sign of weakness, the Government have the bodies to vote through legislation.

On the general principles there is a fundamental need to have a root and branch look at national Government and national Government reform here in the same way that the Government have promised to look at local government.

The specifics of the motions before us arise from changes that have begun to take place in this House. A very significant change was the introduction of television. I was very privileged to be on the working group on broadcasting the Dáil. That has already brought a breath of fresh air into these Houses and has made all of us reassess how we do our business here. That will increase and steadily the relevance of this House can be drawn back to us, the elected Members.

The motions before us do not go far enough. I was very upset at and resisted the proposals when they first emerged because I saw them as an attempt by Government to limit the scope of individual Members, particular to raise matters on the floor of the House. I acknowledge the positive attitude of the Minister of State who did not, although he had the numerical strength, force them through the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Instead he referred them back to the Committee on Dáil Reform and accepted a number of significant amendments that made it more acceptable to the Opposition benches. We had a number of meetings about these two motions and for that reason I do not intend to oppose them. I am not satisfied with them but, at least, the attitude of the Government calling all the shots and bullying their way through the Standing Orders of this House has not taken place and for that I accept the small step forward that these resolutions encompass and I hope for greater things as Dáil reform takes on apace.

The grievance time procedure has not worked. I hope the minor amendments we are making will improve it. Further amendments were suggested and rejected by the Government which would make it more relevant still. I am hopeful that in the fulness of time they too will be taken on board. I welcome the fact that the number of issues to be raised on the Adjournment Debates has increased to three per day. That debate gives us the opportunity to make the House more relevant. Increasingly local radio are looking into the procedures of this House and wish to take slots of the business of this House to broadcast to the local area. Issues that are not national in the sense of being relevant to every Member of this House can be addressed on Adjournment Debates.

The Labour Party's attitude is that we want substantial change in this area. We hope this is only a first step and we will not obstruct the Minister in taking one step but will positively encourage him to go a long way further.

Proinsias De Rossa

First, I express some concern at what I perceive to be an urge or a drive within the Government to tidy up what they see as untidy events surrounding the Order of Business. I can well understand the Government's reluctance to be seen to be under pressure on the Order of Business but it is unethical and unfair of the Government to attempt to restrict — as they have been doing — the efforts of Opposition Deputies to raise matters of concern on the Order of Business. The fact that the Minister can point out that since 1973 only 50 or so requests have been made for Standing Order 30 debates or adjournments is an indication in itself that up to recently that particular procedure was not in any way abused. He points out that in the last two months 11 such requests were made. That is precisely because of the increased restrictions on the rights of Deputies in this House on the Order of Business, the tightening of the way in which Deputies can raise matters. We are pushed back into using the devices which are available to us under Standing Orders and the response of the Government is to come forward with proposals that they will now restrict Standing Order 30 applications.

I see an unhealthy urge and drive in the Government in relation to Dáil reform. There was a specific promise in the Programme for Government in 1989 that the Government would introduce a programme of Dáil reform. Yet, since July, since the sub-committee of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges has been sitting — the Minister of State, who represents the Government on that Committee, has adamantly refused to produce any programme of reform for the Dáil. The sub-committee have been dealing with important but, nevertheless, minor aspects of the orders of this House in an attempt to restrict the options open to Deputies. Any leeway given has been given at the tail end of the night, any reform of times has been of Opposition time, not of Government time. The Government have not weakened in any sense in relation to giving additional time to the Opposition parties out of the traditional Government time allowed in this House. I see a very strong drive from the Government not to give greater powers to the Opposition but to restrict their powers and their rights to raise issues in this House.

I have put down two amendments to the proposals and I make no apology whatsoever to the Minister of State for doing so. The Workers' Party Whip notified the Minister of State a week ago that we had two amendments and he requested the Minister of State to defer consideration of these proposals until such time as the sub-committee had an opportunity to discuss those amendments and the Minister refused to do so.

Mr. V. Brady

The Deputy had already agreed.

Proinsias De Rossa

The Minister cannot come in here and complain that he did not get adequate notice of these amendments. I would also make the point that the most important amendment is No. 1 which seeks to enable Standing Order 30 requests to be taken any day the Dáil is sitting. As the order stands and as the proposed amendment reads, they may only be taken on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. In recent years this House has frequently sat on a Friday. There was a major controversy here last year when we sought to adjourn the House on a Friday to discuss a very important matter. This was ruled out of order because it was not specifically stated in Standing Order 30 that Fridays were days on which the Dáil sat.

We are simply seeking to delete the reference to "a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday" and replace it with "any day" on which the Dáil sits, in other words, that it would be in order to make a request under Standing Order 30 any day the Dáil sits. The Ceann Comhairle will still have the power to refuse it in line with the criteria which have been established over time, but it is important that we have this right to make the request in respect of urgent and important matters any day the Dáil sits.

I urge the Minister of State to come down off the fence and present the programme of Dáil reform which the Government promised in 1989. They should not be fiddling around with minor changes here and there and pretending that action is being taken to make this House more relevant.

Mr. Shatter

One of the greatest complaints which can be made about the manner in which this House operates is that it is effectively a throw-back to Irish colonial times. This House is modelled on the Westminster Parliament as it functioned in or around 1920. However, while that Parliament has radically changed since 1920 there have only been minuscule changes in the approach adopted by Dáil Éireann.

Since Fianna Fáil came into Government in 1987 and again under the Coalition arrangement with the Progressive Democrats we have gone backwards rather than forwards in Dáil reform. A number of the Dáil committees established during the 1981-82 period have not been re-established and the Government have effectively blocked their being set up. There is also the farce that this Parliament is the only Parliament within the European Community which does not yet have a committee on foreign affairs. Again this morning we had the Taoiseach effectively kicking to touch on this issue. We should have a committee on foreign affairs. The need for such a committee can be seen from the volatile international atmosphere which has been in place over the past 12 months. We should not be debating international issues which impinge on Irish foreign policy weeks after events have occurred and weeks after this country can make any impact on them.

We do not yet have a crime committee. This Parliament had a crime committee during the 1982-87 period. We have a growing crime problem. This is a particular problem in our cities. Yet we do not have a specialist committee to deal with the whole criminal justice area. We need a series of committees which the Government are refusig to establish.

We need a new system to deal with Private Members' Bills. It is extraordinary that during the past 32 years only one Private Members' Bill, the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, has been enacted by the Oireachtas. Hopefully, the Recognition of Foreign Adoptions Bill will be the second such Bill.

People outside this House want to see TDs acting as legislators. It should be an acceptable part of the parliamentary system that members of the Dáil, be they Government back benchers or members of the Opposition parties, be allowed and encouraged to bring legislation of a constructive nature before this House to tackle issues which the Government have neither the time nor, on occasion, the commitment to tackle. There should be regular Friday sittings of this House for the purpose of processing Private Members' Bills. This should be part of the normal business of this House.

There is a need for a different system of putting down questions to the Taoiseach so that urgent current issues can be raised without the Taoiseach having to be given, in effect, a week's notice in advance of questions being tabled. No other members of Parliament in Europe are so constrained in questioning the Government of the day on issues of immediate and vital concern.

Many areas of reform are not being tackled. The Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats programme promised substantial parliamentary reform. However, this reform is being blocked by the Fianna Fáil Party. No reasonable explanation has been offered to this House as to why the reforms all of us on this side want to see have not been brought before the House. In effect, a stonewalling operation is being carried out. While I welcome the reforms being introduced today, they are only miniscule in the context of the overall operation of this House.

There are also other problems in the operation of this House. I have considerable reservations about the manner in which RTE are approaching both the televising and broadcasting of the Dáil. It is outrageous that Century Radio and the other independent radio stations do not seem to currently have available to them the facility of rebroadcasting the proceedings within this House, or if they have those facilities available to them they are not using them. RTE who had a monopoly on sound broadcasting for some years manage to broadcast only one or one and a half minutes of what happens in the Dáil on "Morning Ireland" and rarely give any accurate picture of what has taken place. The televising of the Dáil is going through teething problems also. I hope that far greater use will be made by RTE and the other broadcasting media of the proceedings of this House so that the general public will be more aware of the work being done and put pressure on the Government to reform the antediluvian and anachronistic procedures we apply. We need a more modern parliamentary system to tackle the problems of a modern Ireland.

An Ceann Comhairle

I call Deputy Michael D. Higgins.

Mr. V. Brady

On a point of order, will I have an opportunity to respond?

An Ceann Comhairle

Regard will be had to the overall——

(Interruptions.)

Proinsias De Rossa

If the Minister had allocated more time for this debate he would have had the opportunity to respond.

Mr. V. Brady

You cannot have it both ways.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am assured that regard will be had to the overall time limit of 30 minutes. I believe the House would want to hear the Minister of State.

Proinsias De Rossa

The Minister of State should cop himself on and introduce some real reform.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. M. Higgins

I am anxious to be of assistance to you, a Cheann Comhairle, so I will be very brief. I want to make a few relevant remarks.

I do not think it can be stated loudly enough that the procedures in this House are not the only matters which need to be reformed. The arrangements for the ordering of business are outrageously antiquated. We are just past the age of the typewriter — I recall the long delay in introducing computer facilities. The National Board for Science and Technology prepared a report on bringing this House into the modern age in relation to communications, including the use of computers, information systems and the processing of information. That report was allowed to die. I think what happens is that in an atmosphere where parliament and parliamentarians are under attack daily they lose respect and lose their nerve in not asking for better facilities in which wo do their business. There are of course a further range of problems feeding into the problems of the reform of parliamentary time. I will not take up the time of the House discussing these problems.

If we take this Parliament as a Westminster-model Parliament, it suffers from the same defect as the British Parliament, that is Cabinet dominance. The people who govern this House are the Cabinet and they enjoy a unique monopoly in the drafting of legislation in a particular relationship with the public service which excludes any access by the Opposition. This is made more acute by comparison with, say the Scandinavian model, by the absence of a committee system. In such systems members of committees would have access to both the legislative drafting process and the public service. In addition, there is the regular breach in practice of existing Standing Orders. It is a dreadful waste of time to have monotonous Second Stage speeches read tediously comma by comma by Ministers when many of these speeches, which are so repetitious that they assume the status of a mantra at the beginning, could be circulated in advance. If Ministers do not want to circulate their speeches in advance could we not stick to the Standing Order of this House that they be not read? If Ministers feel unable to give speeches from headings could they not circulate these large slabs of language in advance?

As the author of the idea of a foreign affairs committee and with sufficient tolerance to respect the conversion of others to the idea, I want to say that the absence of a foreign affairs committee and committees on many other areas is simply outrageous. If it is to work it will have to be an effective committee with adequate terms of reference.

Finally, in relation to the public's attitude, all of the elements of the system interact. If the electorate's expectations are of a localised and personalised service, that is going to be a constraint. If there is no public service reform, that will be a constraint and if there is no loosening of the Cabinet's grip in relation to the drafting of legislation that will be a constraint. What we are talking about here this morning are mere tiny steps but it is most important that we realise that parliaments all over Europe are in decline in terms of the quality of decision making and their status in the societies in which they work. If they are to be effective we cannot continue in the way we are, for example, my going for carbon paper and being handed a box with the year 1934 stamped on the bottom. If Members of this House are prepared to put up with such an antiquarian set of procedures, arrangements and physical facilities, accountability and democracy will be the losers. I join with my colleagues in urging the Minister of State to be courageous in publishing a paper and bringing detailed proposals on general and structural reform before us.

An Ceann Comhairle

I must advise the House that there are some three minutes now remaining of the time available to us for this debate and ask whether Deputies wish to hear the Minister of State reply at this stage.

Mr. McCartan

I wish to contribute——

Mr. V. Brady

On a point of order——

Mr. McCartan

——and I have no doubt that if the Minister of State made adequate time available for a proper debate we would hear him.

An Ceann Comhairle

A point of order has been raised.

Mr. McCartan

I would suggest to the Minister of State that he bring his response to the so-called sub committee on Dáil reform and that we could deal with it there.

Mr. V. Brady

The Deputy would not accept it and would still come back into the House, as he is entitled to do. May I suggest to the House, that when Deputy McCartan has concluded, that is, after he has taken his three minutes, I be given two to three minutes to respond?

Proinsias De Rossa

No, I object and I objected this morning on the Order of Business——

Mr. V. Brady

That is typical of The Workers' Party. They shot down everything this morning.

Proinsias De Rossa

——that half an hour, with five minutes per speaker, was far too short.

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

Do not be so petty, you are the leader of a party.

Proinsias De Rossa

I am not being petty, I am trying to teach you people some manners.

Dr. Woods

You are being petty.

Proinsias De Rossa

Perhaps the Minister of State would accept that one needs to have some manners in dealing with the Opposition parties in the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

The precious few minutes available to us are being eroded.

Mr. Howlin

On a point of order, I would like to hear the Minister of State's response to the very important points raised.

Proinsias De Rossa

I object.

Mr. Shatter

On a point of order, I very much appreciate Deputy De Rossa's view that greater time should have been made available for this debate, but if we are serious about parliamentary reform we will have no credibility if we deny the Minister of State the two minutes he is seeking in which to respond.

An Ceann Comhairle

May I have a consensus on that? We will call Deputy McCartan for a few minutes——

Proinsias De Rossa

The Minister of State must learn to have respect for the Opposition. We must insist that when he introduces orders in this House he provides adequate time both for the Opposition and for himself to respond.

Mr. V. Brady

Jackboot tactics.

Proinsias De Rossa

The Minister of State knew last night that he would want to respond——

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy De Rossa has made his point very effectively.

Proinsias De Rossa

——and he should have made provision for that in the order he brought before the House.

Mr. V. Brady

The Deputy should not treat the House in that manner.

An Ceann Comhairle

I now propose to call on Deputy McCartan for, say, two or three minutes and to give the Minister of State a few minutes in which to reply.

Proinsias De Rossa

I am objecting to that proposal. I am not going to allow it to go ahead. If you want to push it we will vote on it, but I am objecting to it.

An Ceann Comhairle

The order of the Dáil of this morning provided for 30 minutes——

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

The order of the Dáil of this morning provide for 30 minutes for this debate. That time has now expired. I am formally asking that amendment No. 1 be moved.

Mr. V. Brady

May I just say——

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry, but the time is up.

Mr. V. Brady

——that I am very disappointed with The Workers' Party, but not surprised. This shows just how interested they are in Dáil reform. If Deputy De Rossa spent less time in Brussels and more time in this House we might have more time to discuss these matters.

(Interruptions.)

Proinsias De Rossa

I move amendment No. 1:

In subsection (1) to delete the words "a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday" and substitute "any day".

An Ceann Comhairle

The question is: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand".

Proinsias De Rossa

Votáil.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Members who claim a division please rise?

Deputies De Rossa, Mac Giolla, McCartan, Gilmore, Rabbitte, Sherlock and Byrne rose.

An Ceann Comhairle

As fewer than ten Members have risen, I declare the question carried. The names of the Deputies dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Dáil.

Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

In accordance with Standing Order No. 59 the names of the Deputies dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Dáil.

Proinsias De Rossa

I move amendment No. 2:

In subsection (2) after the word "thereon" to insert the following:

"and the time allocated for such statement shall not be more than one minute".

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the amendment being pressed?

Proinsias De Rossa

Yes.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Question, "That the motion in respect of Standing Order No. 30 be agreed", put and agreed to.

Mr. V. Brady

I move:

That, with effect from the first sitting day after the adjournment of the Dáil for the Easter Recess and until the adjournment of the Dáil for the Summer Recess, the following shall apply in substitution for Standing Orders 20 and 21 of the Standing Orders relative to Public Business:

20. (1) Unless it shall otherwise resolve, the Dáil shall meet every Tuesday at 2.30 p.m. and every Wednesday and Thursday at 10.30 a.m. and shall adjourn not later than fifty minutes after the interruption of business provided for in paragraph (2) of this Standing Order.

(2) At 8.30 p.m. on Tuesday and Wednesdays, and at 5 p.m. on Thursdays, subject to the provisions of paragraphs (8) and (9) of this Standing Order, the proceedings on any business then under consideration shall be interrupted (or if the Dáil be in Committee, progress shall be reported and leave asked to sit again): Provided that if an Order shall have been made under Standing Order 21, that the hour at which business is to be interrupted be other than that specified in this paragraph, the provisions of this Standing Order with such substitution shall otherwise apply.

(3) Any member may give notice in writing, not later than 12 noon on Tuesdays and Wednesdays or 11 a.m. on Thursdays, of a matter which he wishes to bring forward for discussion on the interruption of business by way of

(a) a five minute speech (in respect of which the provisions of paragraph (6) of this Standing Order shall apply) or

(b) a two minute statement (in respect of which the provisions of paragraph (7) of this Standing Order shall apply),

but the Dáil shall not divide on any matter arising out of such discussion, nor shall opposed business be taken after 8.30 p.m. or 5 p.m., respectively.

(4) A member may give notice that he wishes to raise a matter in both of the above-mentioned ways but must express a preference.

(5) After Questions, the Ceann Comhairle shall advise the Dáil of the matters in respect of which notice has been given under paragraph 3 (a) of this Standing Order and the name of the member concerned in each case. He shall also, at the first convenient opportunity, advise the Dáil of the matters which he has selected for discussion.

(6) The Ceann Comhairle shall select three matters upon which the member concerned may make a five minute speech. In each case a member of the Government or Minister of State shall be entitled to not more than five minutes for a speech in reply. The matters selected must relate to public affairs connected with a Department of State or to matters of administration for which a member of the Government or Minister of State is officially responsible.

(7) The Ceann Comhairle shall select five matters upon which a two minute statement may be made by the member who has given notice. The matters selected must relate to public affairs connected with Departments of State or to matters of administration for which a member of the Government or Minister of State is officially responsible. Furthermore, the matters on which statements are to be made shall be selected having regard to the following rota:

	Matters appropriate to the following Departments:
Day one	Social Welfare and Justice,
Day two	Environment and Health,
Day three	Education and Defence,
Day four	Tourism, Transport and Communications and the Marine,
Day five	Foreign Affairs and Finance,
Day six	Agriculture and Food and Industry and Commerce,
Day seven	Labour and Energy,
Day eight	Rota to recommence.

The statements, in respect of each of which a member of the Government or Minister of State may make a two minute statement in reply, shall be made at the end of the discussions comprehended by paragraph (6) of this Standing Order.

(8) If, at the time appointed for the interruption of business as provided in paragraph (2) of this Standing Order, the closure is moved or proceedings under the closure are in progress, the Ceann Comhairle will not effect such interruption until the proceedings under the closure, and on any such further motion as is specified in the Standing Order as to closure [S.O. 58] have been completed.

(9) If, at the time appointed for the interruption of business as aforesaid,

(a) a division is in progress or has been ordered to be taken or

(b) the debate on an item of business has concluded,

the interruption shall not take place until after the decision has been declared from the Chair. If the decision is on an amendment, or on an amendment to the amendment, the Ceann Comhairle shall proceed after such declaration to put in proper sequence the Questions necessary to bring proceedings on the item of business to a conclusion, but if any member offers to speak thereon or objects to further proceedings, the interruption shall thereupon take place.

21. A motion that the hour at which business is to be interrupted on a particular day be other than that provided for in Standing Order 20 may be made by a member of the Government without notice not later than 6.30 p.m. on a Tuesday or Wednesday or 3 p.m. on a Thursday: Provided that a member of the Government may move after notice that, for a specified period, the hour at which business is to be interrupted be other than that provided for in Standing Order 20. If such motion be agreed to, the provisions of Standing Order 20 with such substitution shall otherwise apply."

Question put and agreed to.