It is proposed to take No. 4. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders that: 1. The following arrangements shall apply to the resumed debate on No. 4: (i) the speech of each Member called on shall not exceed 20 minutes and (ii) Members may share time. 2. Business shall be interrupted a 4.45 p.m. today. 3. The Dáil shall meet tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. and shall adjourn not later than 4 p.m. 4. Statements shall be made tomorrow on the Juvenile Crime Report of the Select Committee on Crime and the following arrangements shall apply: (i) the Statement of each Member called on shall not exceed 20 minutes and (ii) the Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon not later than 3.40 p.m. to make a statement in reply not exceeding 20 minutes.
Order of Business.
Are the proposals for dealing with No. 4, the budget debate, satisfactory and agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal that business be interrupted today at 4.45 p.m. agreed to? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with the statements tomorrow satisfactory and agreed to? Agreed.
In respect of legislation which has been promised and which can be anticipated, will the Taoiseach state when the Government, will introduce legislation which was promised to deal with the outcome of the X case?
It is in the early stages of preparation and will take some time.
Will the Taoiseach indicate when the Social Welfare Bill will be circulated and introduced to the House for consideration? Will he ensure that sufficient time is given between the publication of the Bill and its discussion in this House to enable Deputies, spokespersons and indeed welfare organisations outside the House to consider its contents?
We expect to circulate the Social Welfare Bill at the end of next week. The Whips can then arrange for its taking and the time allocated to it.
Will the Taoiseach agree that there is an urgency in relation to the promised legislation to regulate the position in regard to abortion, given the statement last night from the Irish Medical Council, which seems to be in conflict with the law at present? The matter is made even more urgent by the confusion in the medical profession.
Has legislation been promised in this area?
I have already answered that question in reply to Deputy Bruton.
Will the Taoiseach state when it is intended to publish legislation to reform and update the law on occupiers' liability which is hindering economic investment in certain areas at present?
Has legislation been promised in this regard?
It has not.
It is promised legislation in the Programme for Government.
I have already referred to legislation promised in this House by the Government.
The dream team.
On a point of order, Members face a particular problem in complying with your ruling, Sir, in view of the fact that Dáil debates are not being published and that therefore Members are not in a position to peruse the records of the House to establish whether legislation has been promised. Your ruling, therefore, is impossible to implement in the absence of the availability of records of proceedings to Members——
I accept the point made by the Deputy that there is an industrial dispute and that documents and reports are not as readily available as perhaps they ought to be. However, the rulings I made are consistent with the rulings made by my predecessor over a long period of time.
I submit——
The Deputy should not get into an argument with the Chair as these are matters for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and, ultimately, for his House.
It is a matter of concern to me that this House is not seen to be irrelevant. It is also a matter of concern to all that the circumstances which applied when the rulings were made no longer apply in that Members do not now have records available to them to establish whether legislation was promised in this House. Sir, you must take account of that reality in interpreting the ruling in this case, because without the record it is impossible to establish whether a particular question complies with your ruling. I respectfully submit that it is also impossible for you to do so because we do not have records, which is not the fault of Members of this House.
I understand that the debates have not been published for two weeks. However, I understand that they will be published from now on.
That is welcome news, but I hope you will agree that until such time as they are available to Members your rulings should be interpreted in a way which will not make this House appear irrelevant.
Deputy, please. My rulings are not instantaneous; they are in accordance with practice, procedure and former rulings of the House. I call Deputy Rabbitte.
On a point of order, surely Standing Orders should take precedence——
There are points of order and points of disorder. I have called Deputy Rabbitte and he should be heard.
Despite what may appear, everybody in the House agrees, Sir, that you have on occasion an impossible job. That is appreciated. However, is it not the case that the difficulty in raising major events in the Dáil is the prime defect in procedures? Perhaps consistently applying the precedents of the past, as you have done, is not the way to deal with this major defect. Indeed, 1991 may as well be as long ago as 1881 because we should be looking forward. Irrespective of Dáil reform, you should not be afraid to create new precedents in terms of the interpretation of the particular Standing Order to enable us to raise major pressing matters in the House.
I would be happier to do so with the support of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and this House, which is supreme in such matters. I cannot act outside it.
I respectfully submit, Sir, that you are bound by Standing Orders, but you are not bound by precedents. It is open to you to change the precedent set by your predecessor and that has always been the case.
I do not feel I should do that on my own volition as I would much prefer to have the support of this House and the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I am not prepared to act outside that as I do not have a mandate to do so.
You do; you set them up.
If we are talking about precedents, may I draw to your attention, Sir, that in the last Dáil it was accepted that commitments to introduce legislation in the then Joint Programme for Government were considered proper to be raised on the Order of Business? From what I can gather from what you said this morning the commitments in this document are worthless and cannot be raised on the Order of Business. I suggest therefore that if we are to follow precedent we should be entitled similarly to raise with the Taoiseach on the Order of Business the specific commitments to introduce legislation outlined in the programme.
I would much prefer if these matters were tidied up in the appropriate way. In reply to Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, I am aware that a former Taoiseach decided to answer questions here in respect of his policy document——
That was another Taoiseach.
That was something which upstaged the Chair in that regard. However, it was another Taoiseach and another Government and I am not bound by that.
Do I take it that the previous Taoiseach would answer questions on the last Programme for Government but that this Taoiseach can decline to face the House and answer questions on his Programme for Government?
That is not for me to decide.
The previous Taoiseach was the boss.
I will always abide by the rulings of the Chair and this House would be better if everybody else did the same.
On a point of order, I believe, Sir, that you were the Ceann Comhairle when the previous Taoiseach was allowed by you to answer these questions. It seems to me that if you now prevent these questions being asked you are effectively handing over to the Executive — the Government — the right to interpret Standing Orders. Under the rules that is your prerogative and if you allowed it in the past you set a precedent which you can now follow. I suggest that you should allow questions on the Programme for Government because it is ludicrous to allow a Government to be formed on the basis of a programme and not to allow questions on it.
I will not hear any more of this. I put my views on the record of the House this morning for its consideration and that of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I have said that whatever you decide I will faithfully implement. Until then the existing rules and regulations apply.
When will this change be implemented?
This Government has the largest majority in the history of the State.
I am not concerned about that, Deputy.
Sir, as an independent officer of this House, you have a special obligation to protect the rights of the Opposition in the face of a Government with the largest majority in the history of the State.
I shall do that.
Are Members clear that it is the Taoiseach who is refusing to answer our questions. Can we not have an explanation as to why he is refusing to follow the precedent set by his predecessor?
Put down a question.
Sir, what are your expectations about getting the procedures on the Order of Business changed as it is the Government who has the majority in this House and the majority on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
Correct.
May I ask you, Sir, when you expect we will get a Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
That is a matter for the Whips and I am available to them——
——for the Government Whip.
——to convene a meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges at the drop of a hat.
At the request of the Government.
As you are the officer in the House charged with the protection of all Members, I rise to inform you that a Member abandoned his car in the carpark of this House yesterday to the inconvenience of Senator Crowley who could not park his car. I ask you, Sir, to ensure that this Member — whom we have often heard pleading other cases — is more careful and shows consideration for other Members. The Member concerned deliberately refused to move a car over a long period.
This is the first I have heard of any such incident I will have the matter looked into.
Perhaps the Chair could write directly to the Member.
I am sure, Sir, you are aware of the fears of the Opposition which now faces the largest Government majority in the history of the State——
For four solid years.
We are worried about the information which is given in response to questions at Question Time. We also have to face the prospect of legislation being promised outside the House and not in the House.
We are having a debate.
Will the Chair be somewhat more liberal in the interpretation of "promised legislation" where such legislation has been promised in the newspapers. When we ask about it in the House the Taoiseach, and his Ministers, refuse to answer our questions.
I have advised the House on how to proceed.
With regard to Deputy Bruton's interpretation of the role of Ceann Comhairle, may I draw his attention to my interpretation of that role which is not just to protect the rights of the Opposition but the rights of all Members?
We are Members too.
The Deputy should get it right.
It seems that the rights of the Opposition need to be protected.
We are not part of the family circle.
The rights of the Opposition need to be protected. The Chair has said we are governed by precedent but it seems he is selective as to what precedents we are governed by. The Taoiseach is passing the buck now and he is certainly not following the precedent of the former Taoiseach. May I ask the Taoiseach why he feels he has the right not to carry on the precedent that has been set, and, second, if he is going to pass the buck in relation to introducing legislation arising from the Supreme Court decision in the X case? That decision has an impact on legislation and will we see a rolling back on the Supreme Court decision?
We cannot debate that matter now. I have allowed much latitude to the Deputy but we are getting into a rather garbled debate.
I listened with interest to the Chair's statement and found it helpful in the context of the issues we have been trying to resolve over a number of weeks. The Chair has offered to circulate his statement but would he consider making further clarification on the change since 1989 when the procedures were tightened up a great deal? It was from that point that we experienced frustration in trying to raise questions about legislation which was promised outside this House. Will the Chair clarify how this change came about? Was it as a result of a request from the Office of the Taoiseach of the day? What was this decision based on? This is one of the major sources of frustration in the House.
I accept that the other issues raised can only be resolved by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The Chair's decision in 1989 altered the procedure and frustrated many of our attempts to raise commitments made by the Government to introduce legislation.
Most Members have not heard the Chair's statement this morning in which he indicated that the time has possibly come for change in some of the restrictive areas. The Opposition must be aware that the Whips have discussed at length the possibility of such changes in future Dáil reform but this has been opposed vehemently by the Opposition. It was suggested that we should have the opportunity to discuss topical matters on a daily basis instead of misusing the time on the Order of Business. This removes the opportunity to debate the budget which everybody is supposed to be so interested in. May I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition consult with his Whip who has been privy to all the discussions with the Whips over the past number of months?
The Deputy should be listed for a job.
May I say to Deputy Ferris that his party can at enormous expense appoint programme managers to monitor what we are not being allowed to question in this House?
At the risk of being in order — may I ask a question in relation to legislation promised in this House? May I ask the Taoiseach when it is proposed to introduce legislation to give statutory effect to the national education and training certification board?
Is this in the programme?
This is at a very early stage of discussion. May I take the opportunity of saying that if it is out of order for an Opposition Member to raise a matter it is equally out of order for the Taoiseach to respond.
I want to proceed with the business as ordered.
I wish to make a relevant point. Many questions on the procedures of the House have been raised by Opposition Deputies. We have had the spectacle of Government backbench Members responding to them while the Taoiseach refused to do so.
They were out of order like everybody else.
Will the Taoiseach indicate his view on the points raised; is the Government prepared to allow for greater flexibility on the Order of Business?
This is not the time to debate the matter.
The Government backbenchers clarified the point.
When questions are asked about promised legislation, the Taoiseach does not know the answer as to when the legislation is going to appear. In the last Dáil a list was circulated at the beginning of the session showing what legislation was to be introduced in that session, what was going to be circulated and what was in preparation. A month after the reconvening of the Dáil, will the Taoiseach say if he is going to circulate a list of legislation for this and, indeed, the next session?
The Deputy has made the point, perhaps, a very relevant one.
May I ask the Taoiseach if he will circulate a list of legislation for this session and, indeed, for the next one?
Deputy Jim O'Keeffe with a final question, please.
The list of legislation to which the Deputy referred was circulated three weeks ago, on 17 February.
That was in the last session.
It was circulated and the Deputy need not blame me for not being here for three weeks. The list was circulated some three weeks ago. We have now wasted half an hour arguing this morning and this is going to happen every morning.
The Chair is wasting time.
We are anxious to have this matter resolved and the Government Whips are there to resolve it, as Deputies Ferris and Dempsey said. It is the Opposition who are holding it up and who then complain about the procedures of the House. We are anxious to make the most efficient use of the time available in this House and now a half hour has been wasted arguing about rank.
What is the Taoiseach talking about? We are not holding anything up.
Deputy Gilmore rose.
Sorry, Deputy, I am calling Deputy Jim O'Keeffe for a final question. I hesitate to disallow the Deputy because very few Members on that side have spoken.
They are like sheep.
In line with the commitment of the Government to be fully accountable to the Dáil for their policy decisions and actions, as outlined in their programme for Government, will the Taoiseach tell us now when he expects to introduce the freedom of information legislation which has been promised?
If the Deputy reads the programme for Government he will discover that that matter will be considered.
Considered?
I answered that question last week and the week before last and we are back here again——
We have had our share of freedom of information.
If Deputy O'Keeffe was not in the House for my replies perhaps he might check——
Please, Deputies. I am calling Deputy Batt O'Keeffe.
Given that we have spent some time in defining the role of the Ceann Comhairle in protecting the interests of Members of this House, could I ask you, Sir, to consider protecting the rights of Deputy Bruton and, particularly, to exhort those members of Fine Gael who have refused to act as Front Bench spokespersons, to reconsider their decision?
We now move to item No. 10 and Deputy Jim Higgins is in possession.