It is proposed to take Nos. 2 and 5. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders that: (1) No. 2 shall be taken and decided without debate; (2) in the case of the Second Stage of No. 5 the following arrangements shall apply in relation to the debate; (i) the opening speech of the Minister for Finance and of the main spokespersons for the Fine Gael Party, the Progressive Democrats Party and the Technical Group shall not exceed one hour in each case; (ii) the speech of each other Member called on shall not exceed 20 minutes; and (iii) the Minister shall be called upon to make a speech in reply not exceeding 30 minutes. Private Members' Business shall be No. 9.
Order of Business.
Is the proposal that No. 2 be decided without debate agreed?
Though the Department of the Marine and the Department of Defence have the same Minister and the same Opposition spokespersons each is the subject of a separate committee. This causes a problem in that the Opposition spokesperson has to be appointed to both committees. Given that attendance at the Select Committee on Legislation and Security and the Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy will place heavy demands on time, that seems to be a poor arrangement. Would it be possible that both the Departments of Defence and of the Marine be dealt with by either of the committees, and not by both?
Deputy Barrett already raised this matter with me and I promised that I would review it. It is not necessary for a Member to be appointed to both committees in order to attend at either. Any Member can attend and participate at any of the committees. Therefore it is possible for Deputy Barrett as Opposition spokesperson to attend either committee.
I am only human.
Is the Minister aware that in practice matters affecting a Department may come up without notice and if the Opposition spokesperson is to cover his brief properly he should be present at the committee meeting all the time? It is not practical to be present at both committees all the time. Would he agree to put the Department of the Marine under the Committee of Legislation and Security for a period to see how it would work and if there were difficulties it could be then changed?
I believe we should leave these matters for the committees to resolve.
This proposal relates only to the discussion on the Estimates. Some committees were not aware of the Estimates they would be discussing and we clarified this by assigning specific areas to each committee. If a matter relating to the Department of the Marine comes up, it will come under the Committee of Enterprise and Economic Strategy.
These matters can be clarified by the committee themselves.
There is a problem in that the spokesperson may not be informed when matters relating to the Marine will be dealt with. For that reason will the Minister of State agree that the Department of the Marine be within the remit of the Committee on Legislation and Security until such time as we see how the system works? In effect the two committees could be sitting at the same time and it would be impossible to cover both. There could also be different sub-committees. While attending one committee, the Minister for Defence could be required to deal with marine matters at the other committee. Indeed the Minister for fish and ships, agrees entirely with my sentiments on this matter.
The Minister should be referred to by his appropriate title. Let us not have a debate on this matter as it is primarily one for the committees in question.
When we assign Departments to committees, there is nothing the committees can do to change that. It is a matter for this House to make that decision and I am putting it to the Minister that he should agree to amend his motion to the effect of moving the Department of the Marine to the Committee on Legislation and Security. If he so agrees, it can be done now by agreement of this House. If there is a problem later we can change it, but in the first instance we should try it.
It is very stressful on the Minister as well.
Is this a matter for the committee or for the House?
The reason the Department of the Marine comes under the Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy is that the Government regarded it as an integral part of its enterprise and economic strategy. It is not appropriate to have it under the Committee on Legislation and Security, as Deputy Bruton suggests. Having discussed this matter a number of times, is Deputy Bruton prepared to let matters stand and see how they work out? Once again I am giving an undertaking that if it is not working out I will, with the agreement of the Whips, change it. I will undertake also to communicate with the clerks of the committees to ensure that both committees will not meet at the same time and that Deputy Barrett will be informed when marine matters come up at the committee.
This is a time perhaps where the Minister could show openness in Government and accept a very good suggestion. He has ensured, by having one committee for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, that the Minister concerned, Deputy Michael Higgins, is not turned into a schizophrenic. The brief of one Minister is being divided, that is the Minister for the Marine and for Defence. If the Minister does not want to facilitate the Opposition, would he facilitate the Minister from his own party?
Would the Minister change his mind?
I do not wish to hold up the proceedings but will the Taoiseach or the Minister of State give me a positive answer?
I would have left it to yourselves.
There is no problem.
It is a matter for the House.
If Deputy Bruton were a little more patient, he would have heard what I was going to say but as he is not interested, he can carry on.
The Taoiseach is over seven years of age and he does not have to behave like that.
Some of the Members over there have not reached the age of reason.
There are practical difficulties. If the committees are to operate effectively, one could be engaged in committee work two or three days per week——
Like hell.
——between sub-committees and other related matters. There are only seven days in the week and I like to take Sunday off, so if one is engaged in two committees one would be involved all week. Although equality spreads over the work of a number of committees, for obvious reasons the Department for Equality and Law Reform will come under one committee. The same applies to the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht. Only one other Minister covers two areas, that is the Minister for the Marine and for Defence, and that poor man as well, like me, is under severe pressure. I am making this appeal on behalf of my constituency colleague as well as on my own behalf because we cannot be in two places at the one time. Instead of this long debate, there should be a trial period whereby Marine and Defence matters would be dealt with by the Select Committee on Legislation and Security. If there are matters appertaining to Marine that come under Enterprise and Employment I would be delighted to attend as an observer——
The Deputy has made his point.
I am asking the Taoiseach to forget the upset he suffered a few minutes ago——
I do not have a problem; the Deputy has a problem.
——and to agree here and now to a trial period in which Marine and Defence matters would be dealt with under that committee.
The Deputy is putting the argument in reverse.
Is there any good reason for deciding this matter now? Could it be decided on the Order of Business tomorrow morning, thereby giving time to the Whips to see if the request of Deputy Barrett and Deputy Bruton can be met? It is obvious that logistical problems are involved.
We have discussed this matter ad nauseam. The motion before us pertains only to the Estimates. I am giving an undertaking to Deputy Barrett that two committees of which he is a member will not meet at the same time. I have given an undertaking that I will reconsider this matter at the end of the summer term. I would point out that other Members of this House, apart from Deputy Barrett, are members of two or three committees of the House——
That is not the point.
——it will be the job of the conveners and the chairmen of these committees to ensure that there are no clashes and that Deputies will not be overworked.
The Deputy cannot accept a reasonable proposition from this side of the House.
Question: "That No. 2 be decided without debate", put and declared carried.
Are the proposals for dealing with No. 5 — The Finance Bill — agreed? Agreed
Is the Taoiseach aware that the Stock Exchange, which is now investigating the Greencore shares controversy, has no power under law to compel the giving of evidence to it by third parties outside the exchange and that this weakness undermines, in some respect at least, its investigation? Is the Taoiseach aware that the Minister for Finance, Deputy Bertie Ahern, promised ten months ago to introduce legislation last autumn to grant such powers for investigations by the Stock Exchange? Why has this legislation been delayed and why did the Minister fail to introduce it before proceeding to sell, through the Stock Exchange, shares that belonged to the taxpayer without the Stock Exchange being properly regulated?
I take it legislation is promised in this area?
I am sure the Deputy is aware that the London Stock Exchange and the Dublin Stock Exchange are separating and this gives rise to the need for legislation, which is in course of preparation. The stockbrokers concerned have made a public statement to the effect that they will fully co-operate with the Stock Exchange and with all inquiries into the matter.
May I ask——
This should not give rise to debate. We have had Private Notice Questions on this matter.
Is the Taoiseach aware that, in carrying out this investigation, while the Stock Exchange has sanction to get information from its members it does not have sanction to get information from third parties? Therefore, the investigation will be inherently incomplete due to the lack of legislation which was promised here ten months ago by the Minister, Deputy Bertie Ahern.
I have to dissuade Members from the notion that they can turn the Order of Business into a mini Question Time. That is not in order. I am calling Deputy Proinsias De Rossa.
You cannot blame the parliamentary draftsman any longer.
It has been announced by the Tánaiste that the Government has made a decision to amend the Defence Act. Will the Taoiseach state when it is intended to introduce such amendment to this House and if it is intended to follow through on the commitment by the Minister for Defence at last Friday's committee that he would bring before that committee a discussion on the changing role of the Defence Forces before any such changes are implemented?
The Government decided today to authorise the Minister for Defence to have the legislation in question prepared and brought before the House at the earliest possible date.
The Taoiseach did not reply to the second part of my question relating to whether it is intended that the Minister will again come before the select Committee on Legislation and Security. Last Friday the Minister gave a commitment that he would discuss at the committee the changing role of the Defence Forces. Will that commitment be followed through?
I have no doubt the Minister will follow through on that commitment.
Before the introduction of legislation?
Arising from the answers we received on this issue will the Minister for Foreign Affairs arrange a discussion on such legislation at the forthcoming meeting of the new joint committee on foreign affairs in view of the implications for relations with other countries as they refer to changes in the Defence Act?
I must direct the question to the Taoiseach.
I have no doubt that the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence will make arrangements for discussion at appropriate committees in due course.
Will the Taoiseach make time available today or tomorrow to the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications to make an announcement to this House about telephone charges?
That is not in order. I am proceeding now to deal with the Order of Business proper.
Will the Taoiseach confirm that such an announcement is being made at this very moment outside the House?
The matter to which the Deputy refers is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
In regard to Standing Order 33 which states that the purpose of questions "is to elicit information upon or to elucidate matters of fact or of policy, that it is as brief as possible, that it does not seek information provided within the preceeding four months, and that it contains no argument or personal imputation," may I seek your guidance, Sir, as to why the Taoiseach refused questions today on whether he had a meeting with the chairman of the Mayo regional technical college on 14 March——
The Deputy may not challenge the ruling of the Chair in this fashion and he knows that. He must desist.
We are entitled to information on this public meeting.
If the Deputy wishes further elaboration or elucidation of my ruling my office is at his disposal. It is totally disorderly of the Deputy to challenge the Chair in this fashion. I must ask him to desist forthwith and to resume his seat.
A Cheann Comhairle——
Resume your seat, Deputy.
A fortnight ago——
Resume your seat.
I would like the Taoiseach to say whether such a meeting was held. It was stated in newspapers and on radio that interviews were held——
If the Deputy does not resume his seat I shall have to ask him to leave the House.
On a point of order——
On promised legislation——
On a point of order——
I will hear no point of order in dealing with disorder.
A Cheann Comhairle——
May I raise a point of order?
I am calling Deputy Rabbitte. I will hear the Deputy on promised legislation and I will then go on to the Order of Business proper.
I have been offering on promised legislation.
I called the Deputy earlier.
Will the Taoiseach state if the reasons for the non-implementation of the announcement he made in my constituency more than a year ago to favour many hundreds of social welfare recipients relate to the difficulties in drafting the legislation?
Deputy Rabbitte should have regard to what is in order.
The question put down to the Taoiseach has been transferred——
I am proceeding to item No. 2, motion re select committee, without debate.
The Taoiseach wants to reply.
No, he may not reply.
The question was down on today's Order Paper and was removed——
Deputy Rabbitte will now resume his seat.
Why was the question removed from the Order Paper today?
Deputy Rabbitte, please. The Deputy seems to tangle with the Chair quite a lot on the Order of Business.
Are we not entitled to put down a question on the Order Paper that relates directly to the Taoiseach?
I am asking the Deputy to desist or leave the House. I am calling Deputy Doyle.
I wish to raise a point of order in relation to——
The Deputy sought to raise a point of order when I was dealing with disorder in respect of his colleague, and I will not entertain that.
You do not know, Sir, to what the point of order relates.
If you want to challenge the rulings of the Chair, there is another place for it.
I want to raise a point of Order. I am not challenging the rulings of the Chair.
You may not do that here.
Why not?
Deputy Avril Doyle has been offering.
This is getting to be dictatorship. Surely I can raise a point of order?
You can raise a point of order at the appropriate time, Deputy. I have called Deputy Doyle.
When is the appropriate time?
I have called Deputy Avril Doyle and she will be heard.
I have attempted three times to raise a point of order and you have not allowed me. Why?
I have given a reason, too, Deputy.
Would the Taoiseach say when we might expect to be in a position in this House to ratify the European directive on the freedom of access to environmental information, and also the European charter on local self-government?
Item No. 2 please.
I am aware——
Can I raise my point of order?
Let us hear it.
I did not hear the Taoiseach.
(Interruptions.)
I did not hear the Taoiseach answer my question.
The Deputy should not make a mockery of the Chair.
Which Deputy are you referring to? A Cheann Comhairle, I did not hear the Taoiseach's answer to my question. Perhaps the Taoiseach did not hear me.
A Deputy
He was chatting away to Bertie.
It is not promised legislation.
It is promised legislation.
What Bill?
Please, Deputy Doyle. This is quite disorderly.
I just want your guidance. Surely European Directives are in order on the Order of Business.
Leave the Chair out of it, Deputy.
(Interruptions.)
The matter you adverted to was not promised legislation.
It is. It is a European Directive that has passed its implementation date here and the Minister for the Environment has promised it.
Please, Deputy Doyle, let the proceedings go on in an orderly fashion.
Perhaps we can have some freedom of information for Deputies in this House some day. Please can I have an answer to all these questions?
Deputy O'Keeffe.
In relation to the Rulings of the Chair, page 135, the second paragraph is as follows——
Deputy O'Keeffe, you cannot challenge the ruling of the Chair.
(Interruptions.)
I am not challenging the ruling of the Chair, I am making a point of order.
It is not a point of order. If you want to challenge the rulings of the Chair put down a substantive motion or raise the matter with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. You cannot do it in the House.
I do not want to challenge the rulings of the Chair. I want to raise a point of order.
I have allowed you to do so and you are challenging the ruling of the Chair.
No, Sir. Will you calm down for a second, and let me raise the point of order?
I do not like this.
According to the Rulings of the Chair, when a doubtful question is tabled, the Chair in accordance with established practice consults the Taoiseach or the Minister as to whether or not he has jurisdiction. If the Taoiseach or the Minister has no jurisdiction, the question is not allowed. The point of order I want to raise — are you on your feet, Sir?
I am on my feet.
Can I raise my point of order?
(Interruptions.)
You have raised the point of order. I have repeatedly said in this House that the Chair has no responsibility for the transfer of questions.
That is exactly the point of order I want to raise. The Chair is still on his feet. I am not allowed to speak while you are on your feet.
(Interruptions.)
In the light of what the Chair has to say and in the light of that ruling, the point of order I am raising is as to who decides to refuse to take the question? Who decides on the transfer if the Chair says he has no responsibility? We have tabled many questions to the Taoiseach which have been transferred. Is it the Taoiseach who decides to transfer those questions? That is the basic point.
A good question.
I understand this question is tabled for the next meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and will be dealt with there.
Will we have clarification then? Will we bring the Taoiseach out of his bunker at that stage?
Item No. 2.