It is proposed to take Nos. 9, 1, 10, 2 and 14. It is also proposed notwithstanding anything contained in Standing Orders that: (1) Nos. 9, 1 and 10 shall be decided without debate and any division demanded on No. 10 shall be taken forthwith; (2) the Second and remaining Stages of No. 2 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 4.45 p.m. by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall in relation to amendments include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Equality and Law Reform; (3) business shall be interrupted not later than 4.45 p.m. today.
Order of Business.
Are the proposals for dealing with Nos. 9, 1 and 10 satisfactory and agreed? Agreed.
Are the proposals for dealing with item Nos. 2 agreed?
Will it be possible for the House to provide a period to deal with the Committee Stage specifically? There is not a specific provision here and it is quite possible that the Second Stage debate may take up the whole time. I am anxious that at least the period after Question Time up to the Adjournment should be allocated to Committee Stage if it is not reached by then.
That is a matter for the Whips.
I am getting an indication that it is accepted.
Yes, if it arises.
I take it that proposal is agreed. Is the proposal that business shall be interrupted not later than 4.45 p.m. today agreed? Agreed.
In relation to promised legislation, Fine Gael has long held the view that the role of the Office of the Presidency should be expanded. In advance of legislation promised in the Programme for Government on the expansion of the role of the Presidency, will the Taoiseach allow time for a debate on the changes?
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy——
It is about legislation.
No, Deputy. I must remind the House and the Deputy that it is a long standing rule of the House that the President should be outside and above debate here.
It is the Office of the Presidency to which I am referring.
I cannot and will not allow the Office of the President to become a subject of controversy.
(Interruptions.)
Will the Chair hear me out? It is in order.
I will hear not further reference to the President.
Will the Taoiseach say what legislation it is proposed to bring forward in relation to the Office of the Presidency — not the President, but the Office of the Presidency——
The Deputy is seeking——
——as promised by the Tánaiste and in the Programme for Government?
——to circumvent my ruling, and I will not have it.
I am not. We want a debate on the role of the Presidency and the Taoiseach knows that has been discussed by Government.
I am sorry, Deputy. I cannot facilitate you now.
I am not trying to obstruct, a Cheann Comhairle. I want to know. I am sure the Taoiseach will give us during that debate, the legal advice he is getting on the particular controversy.
I must remind the House that the Office of the President is one of the three constituent parts of the Oireachtas under Article 15.1.2º of our Constitution and it is a long standing rule of the House that the separation of these constituent parts should and must be respected.
We will have to change that rule.
On a point of order——
I am calling Deputy Harney. Deputy Owen, I hope I have made myself clear to you.
You are trying to muzzle her.
If you want to bring the Presidency into controversy, you cannot do it here, Deputy.
A Cheann Comhairle, I need your help on a point of order. Some weeks ago this House debated changes in the Presidential electoral law. That was dealing with the Office of the Presidency. Why is it out of order now to raise not the President——
We discuss in this House the Estimates for the Office of the President and that is a separate matter.
——not Mary Robinson, as President, but the Office of the Presidency? I think the Taoiseach would like to answer. I am sure he would like to clarify the situation.
Tell us what is really happening.
Sir, I wish to discuss the Office of the Attorney General. Given that the Attorney General's advice on the Matrimonial Home Bill was found unconstitutional when the President referred the Bill to the Supreme Court, would the Taoiseach accept that the Attorney General may well be out of order on this occasion?
The Deputy is seeking to continue to raise the matter by invoking the Attorney General——
Sir, you might as well abolish this House. Can we discuss anything?
Order, will the Deputy please resume her seat?
Can we take the matter up in the United Nations?
I want to assert that it is a long standing rule of this House that the Government of the day is not officially responsible to the Dáil for advice sought or received from the Attorney General.
We heard it on the radio this morning.
It is perfectly in order to question the Taoiseach on the Office of the Attorney General and it has happened on many occasions. This House passed legislation that was struck down by the Supreme Court because it was not constitutional. If we had had the Attorney General's advice——
If Deputy Harney has a question to table on the matter I will look at it most carefully.
What has happened is unprecedented. Our President has had to obtain her own legal advice because the Government wants to muzzle her——
And keep her on a leash.
It was a great honour for this country——
(Interruptions.)
It is a disgrace.
The Chair has sought desperately to avoid bringing the Presidency into controversy of this kind.
Deputy Harney supported the Matrimonial Home Bill.
I did support it but the Government obtained the Attorney General's advice.
Has the Taoiseach given any consideration to the advice he is receiving from the Attorney General in view of the series of controversial decisions that have been made by him in recent times? Is there any intention either to replace the Attorney General or to seek alternative advice on issues which clearly have political implications?
The Deputy is seeking to circumvent my ruling on this matter.
Would the Taoiseach consider bringing forward the Estimate for the Office of the Attorney General so that we can have a civilised debate on the issue without bringing the President into the controversy because there is a great deal of concern about the reports that the President has had to get independent legal advice?
I will allow the question on whether the Estimate can be brought forward in respect of that Office.
This matter can be discussed by the Whips. It is important to put on the record that it is regrettable that the Members opposite would try to bring the Office of the President into a controversial debate. I wish to put on record that the relationship between the President and the Government is and always has been excellent and will continue to be.
I will allow no further reference to the matter.
That is not what I was doing; I was asking a question about legislation. I do not want my good name besmirched by the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach knows I was asking about legislation to do with the Office of the President and not about the President.
The Deputy's good name has not being impugned.
Members on this side of the House were not trying to do what was alleged. Have the Taoiseach or the Tánaiste had any success in tracking down the mole who was responsible for leaking information some time ago and who seems to be at it again this morning?
That is a good question which should be tabled in the ordinary way.
When is it proposed to bring the legislation on abortion information before the House?
As soon as possible.
Are the Government still finding it difficult to agree to it?
Has the Taoiseach any plans to legislate to preserve the rights of Irish citizens, especially those involved in farming, who are experiencing problems with the payment of their European Union subsidies?
That is a good question, Deputy——
It is a very important question.
——and can be raised in the ordinary way.
Will the Taoiseach indicate if he intends raising with the British Prime Minister the view of the Irish Government that THORP is illegal when he meets him shortly?
That is not in order.
May I, seek your advice, a Cheann Comhairle, on the refusal of the Minister for Social Welfare to give information in response to questions in this House?
I am proceeding to the business as ordered. This is quite disorderly.
I have been seeking information on social welfare payments under the equality Act for the past four months and the Minister is refusing to disclose the relevant information.
The Deputy must try again through the proper channels.
I would like to take the matter up with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
I have ruled the Deputy out of order. Will he please resume his seat?