It is proposed to take Nos. 1 and 2. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that No. 1 shall be decided without debate.
Order of Business.
Is the proposal for dealing with item No. 1 satisfactory and agreed?
I wish to put down an amendment to item No. 1. I would like to read the amendment and hope it can be taken.
Before the Deputy reads his amendment he will appreciate that this matter was before the House yesterday on the Order of Business. I am concerned that he would move an amendment at the last minute, so to speak.
It is fair to say——
I would much prefer if this amendment had been put down — there was ample opportunity for the Deputy to do so — long before the commencement of business now.
——that for the last two weeks the Fine Gael Party has given ample notice to the Government of its intention to seek what we are seeking in this amendment which is that there should be a question and answer session on Saturday from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. involving the Taoiseach and Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry in respect of questions arising in the debate. It is totally unacceptable for the Taoiseach to come in at the beginning of a debate in which answers are supposed to be given in respect of beef tribunal issues and not remain to answer the questions that arise in the debate.
I agree with Deputy Bruton. The debate we are about to commence is important. The Taoiseach promised open Government. We should have an opportunity at the end of the debate to put questions to the Taoiseach and to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry. We will have no further opportunity to question the Taoiseach about the findings of the report when the debate closes on Saturday. That is unsatisfactory given the nature, importance and length of the report. Given the Taoiseach's commitment to open Government I cannot see why he would refuse to take questions in the House next Saturday.
We need a period for questions and answers on this report which runs to approximately 1,400 pages. We are engaged in a fairly limited three day debate and it will be impossible for us to cover all the aspects of the report which are bound to give rise to questions. It is important that Members of the Opposition are allowed to put specific questions to the Taoiseach and get specific answers to them.
The tribunal lasted a long time and all possible questions were answered. This House gave the widest terms of reference possible to the tribunal and supported its establishment. The sole member of the tribunal spent approximately three years trying to get all the information which could be got. If someone is trying to suggest to the House that despite hiring the best legal brains and, if I may say so, the most costly legal brains, to help elicit that information——
You set the fees.
Are the members opposite now suggesting that we should set up another tribunal? Who would chair such a body?
(Interruptions.)
It is wrong for any Deputy to anticipate what will be thrown up by this debate. When he has heard my speech Deputy Bruton may have questions, but I will be anticipating many questions and answering them.
A Deputy
Infallible.
Ministers will be contributing to the debate and the Deputies opposite can take it from me that any questions which arise will be answered. Even if someone is trying to rewrite the findings of the report and to have another tribunal, we will not take on board any questions to which Mr. Justice Hamilton got answers. It is his findings that matter. I doubt if Deputies Bruton, Harney or De Rossa will make their request at the end of the debate because I expect that any appropriate questions raised will be answered.
Does the Taoiseach have something to fear from questions?
We will not go behind the findings of the tribunal which are final. This House asked the tribunal to investigate the matter and it has done that. We should proceed with the debate in the normal way.
Of what is the Taoiseach afraid?
There are questions not only for legal brains but questions of political accountability. Questions must be answered in the House so that there is political accountability from the Taoiseach. It is not adequate for him to say that Ministers will answer questions about his conduct, because some of the matters reported occurred at meetings at which the Taoiseach alone was present with the people with whom he was dealing.
Let us not anticipate the debate.
It is not possible for other Ministers to answer for him——
Please, Deputy.
It is his responsibility and he must be willing to answer those questions in the House.
The debate is scheduled to take place over three days and Members will have ample opportunity to vent their feelings on the matter during that long period. Any Deputy who wishes to participate in the debate will be afforded an opportunity to do so.
I wish to put——
I am sorry, Deputy Bruton, but in accordance with normal practice this matter should not give rise to debate at this time. I have always allowed Members of the Opposition to give their brief views on matters but it should not give rise to debate.
I do not wish to prolong the debate but I will put my amendment and I hope the Labour Party will support the idea of the Taoiseach answering questions on this issue in the Dáil. The Labour Party entered Government on the principles of transparency and accountability——
Please, Deputy Bruton.
What we need are answers to questions.
It was the failure to answer questions in the Dáil which led to the establishment of the tribunal in the first place. The Government is now refusing to take questions on this issue. Given what the Taoiseach has said——
We have had sufficient of that aspect of the matter.
——I do not know what he is afraid of. He seems to think he has all the answers. Why does he not want to answer questions and, as he said, let in the light?
I will.
Why does he not want to practice open Government?
Please, Deputy Harney.
At a Whips' meeting a number of weeks ago all Opposition Whips clearly signalled that they regarded a question and answer session as fundamental to this debate. In refusing this request the Government indicated that the debate which will take place during the next three days is a standard form of debate and that questions will be answered by Ministers on behalf of the Government in reply to the debate. This is not the case. A clear precedent for public and political accountability was set by the Minister for Finance during the debate on the Greencore issue. Given that the Taoiseach has said publicly that he is looking forward with enthusiasm to this debate——
The Deputy is now raising a different subject matter.
——that the Tánaiste has continually called for accountability in public life and that this report is the most costly in the history of the State——
The question is: "That the proposal for dealing with No. 1 be agreed to".
On a point of order——
It is very wrong and disorderly for any Deputy to challenge the Chair when it is putting a question to the House even by way of a point of order.
Are you going to allow us to table our amendment to item No. 1?
I am most reluctant to do so because of what I said earlier — there was ample time for the Deputy or any other Deputy to put down an amendment and it is not good enough to come into the House without the Chair being aware of the matter and put an amendment across the floor. This is too serious an issue——
We only received the order this morning and it was not possible for us to table an amendment to it until this morning. One cannot amend something one has not seen and the order was only made available to us this morning.
The subject matter was contained in yesterday's Order Paper.
It is different from the order on yesterday's Order Paper.
Question "That the proposal for dealing with No. 1 be agreed to," put.
Will the Government move motion No. 1?
Naturally.
On the Order of Business.