asked the Taoiseach if he will specify the working papers and reports produced by the Law Reform Commission since 6 November 1984; the action which has been taken in respect of these reports; whether any of these reports has been implemented in whole or in part into legislation; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

2.

asked the Taoiseach the costs and expenses of the Law Reform Commission for the last three years for which figures are available and the estimated figure for 1986.

3.

asked the Taoiseach the further action which has been taken on any of the working papers on reports of the Law Reform Commission received prior to 6 November 1984, since his last reply to Dáil Éireann on the subject on that date.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together. The information sought by the Deputy is contained in a statement which I propose to circulate in the Official Report.

Following is the statement:

(1) Working Papers produced by Law Reform Commission since 6 November 1984 None

(2) Reports produced by Law Reform Commission since 6 November 1984

(a) Report on Recognition of Foreign Divorces and Legal Separations;

(b) Report on Vagrancy and Related Offences;

(c) Report on the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and some Related Matters;

(d) Report on Competence and Compellability of Spouses as Witnesses;

(e) Report on Offences under the Dublin Police Acts and Related Offences;

(f) Report on Minors' Contracts;

(g) Report on The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters;

(h) Report on the Liability in Tort of Minors and the Liability of Parents for Damage Caused by Minors;

(i) Report on the Liability in Tort of Mentally Disabled Persons;

(j) Report on Private International Law Aspects of Capacity to Marry and Choice of Law in Proceedings for Nullity of Marriage;

(k) Report on Jurisdiction in Proceedings for Nullity of Marriage, Recognition of Foreign Nullity Decrees, and The Hague Convention on the Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriages (1978).

(3) Action, including legislative action, taken to implement the reports at (2) above—

(a) The recommendations made in this report and the commission's report on Domicile and Habitual Residence as Connecting Factors in the Conflict of Laws are related. A Bill will be available soon to abolish the domicile of dependency of married women and to deal with related matters including the recognition of foreign divorces.

(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k): In relation to (e), the recommendations relating to road traffic offences are being examined in the context of preparation of a Road Traffic Bill which the Minister for the Environment expects to bring before the Dáil next year.

The provision regarding the other recommendations in these reports, all of which were published recently, is that they will be considered as soon as possible.

(4) Action taken since 6 November 1984, on any working papers or reports of the Law Reform Commission received prior to 6 November 1984

First Report on Family Law

Matrimonial Property: Legislation concerning the rights of ownership in the family home is at an advanced stage of preparation.

Enticement and Harbouring of a Child, Loss of Consortium, Personal Injury to a Child and Seduction of a Child:

The general scheme of a Bill is in course of preparation.

Report on Civil Liability for Animals

Legislation was enacted in 1985, that is, the Animals Act, 1985, which was brought into operation by ministerial order on 20 September 1985.

Report on Illegitimacy

The Minister for Justice published a memorandum entitled, "The Status of Children", incorporating a draft Bill, in May 1985. The draft Bill is being re-examined in the light of the views received on the memorandum.

Report on the Age of Majority

The Age of Majority Act, 1985, has since been enacted and its provisions came into effect on 1 March 1985.

Report on Domicile and Habitual Residence as Connecting Factors in the Conflict of Laws

See reference at 3 (a) above.

(5) Costs and expenses of Law Reform Commission for 1983, 1984 and 1985 and estimated costs and expenses for 1986

In view of the total evasiveness, perhaps deliberate, of the Taoiseach's reply I want to ask him if, in view of the fact that the present Law Reform Commission have not, effectively, been operating since 1 October, the Taoiseach and the Government have any intention of reappointing the commission.

I ask the Deputy to listen to me. The Chair has no control over the answering of questions as to how they are answered, but the Chair has made a firm rule which has been accepted by the House that once a statement is made by way of a tabular statement no supplementary questions are allowed.

Surely in relation to a matter of such importance to this House as the Law Reform Commission and the very valuable work which has been undertaken by that commission, the least the Taoiseach could do is give the House an undertaking that it is his intention to reappoint them?

That is a separate question. The Deputy will have to raise this matter in another way.

On a point of order, Sir, did you say "tabular statement"?

I said a statement.

You said "tabular statement".

Well, a statement.

Surely Questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 cannot be answered by tabular statement.

The Chair has no control over the answering of questions.

You are making a ruling that the Taoiseach has given a tabular statement and therefore there can be no supplementary questions. Let me put it to you, Sir, that the Taoiseach has not given a tabular statement.

I am making a ruling, Deputy Haughey, and I ask you to accept it, that once the Minister answering a question says that he is making the answer by way of a written statement which will be circulated, there is nothing the Chair can do about it.

I want to suggest that you said that the Taoiseach has a tabular statement, therefore you could not allow supplementaries. I want to submit to you that tabular statements are used by Ministers when a number of figures are involved. This is a question about working papers and reports. I submit to you that it is perfectly in order for us to ask what the position is about the Law Reform Commission. There are now no members of the Law Reform Commission.

We are dealing with the principle of it now and if Deputy Haughey would listen to the Chair——

A Cheann Comhairle——

I am answering a point of order that has been raised. Standing Order No. 35 (2) reads as follows:

Where a Question put down for oral answer is of such a nature as to require a lengthy reply or a reply in the form of a tabular statement, the Ceann Comhairle shall, at the request of the member of the Government to whom the Question is addressed, direct that the answer be furnished in the Official Report of the Debates.

That has absolutely nothing to do with this series of questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the name of Deputy Taylor. I will give way to Deputy Taylor in a moment. This is a totally new interpretation of a tabular statement. There is now no member of the Law Reform Commission. All the members have gone out of office.

Deputy Haughey is now going into the merits of question——

I am not.

I am ruling now——

I am challenging your ruling because this is going too far.

The Deputy will challenge it in an orderly way. There is a method laid down in Standing Orders for challenging it.

On a point of order——

I am giving my ruling.

I am raising a point of order.

Before the Chair rules on this matter I should like to raise a question in regard to it. As the person who put down the question I should like to point out that if the Standing Order so provides how is it that on 6 November 1984 the Taoiseach gave an appropriate full and lengthy reply to virtually an identical question. If that was the Standing Order then it is the Standing Order now. By giving that reply surely a precedent has been established under which a reply giving the information sought is given in the House.

The reason is that the Taoiseach is ashamed of the position that has developed over the last 12 months.

Will Deputy Taylor, and other Members, listen to the Standing Order in question. It states:

Where a Question put down for oral answer is of such a nature as to require a lengthy reply——

I am satisfied in this case that the reply is lengthy.

It is not a lengthy reply.

How is it that the Chair knows it is a lengthy reply? He does not know.

Deputies should keep cool. As a matter of courtesy the Chair is supplied with copies of all replies and I have the reply in question before me. That is how I am aware that it is a lengthy reply.

It is a very short reply.

I have a copy of the reply before me.

On a point of order——

The Deputy should wait for a moment. The Standing Order states:

Where a Question put down for oral answer is of such a nature as to require a lengthy reply or a reply in the form of a tabular statement, the Ceann Comhairle shall, at the request——

I have been requested by implication.

By implication?

Yes, and the Standing Order states, if requested.

May we hear the Taoiseach's answer again to see where we stand on this matter?

The information sought by the Deputy is contained in a statement which I propose to circulate with the Official Report. That is precisely the answer I gave to a similar type of question on 6 November 1984 as reported at column 1091 of the Official Report in reply to Deputy Taylor.

I am sorry but I cannot allow any debate on this.

I am not terribly concerned whether you are sorry or not. I am going to insist on my rights here. I submit, on a point of order, that the Taoiseach has given a dismissive reply to three questions and you are availing of that to stop us asking supplementary questions. I think that is a disgraceful ruling on your part.

If Deputy Haughey wishes to raise that there is another way of doing so.

I am raising it now.

The Deputy may not raise it now.

I want to insist on my right to ask supplementary questions.

I will not allow the Deputy.

You are muzzling this House and being disorderly in your behaviour.

The Deputy will withdraw that remark. I do not want any unpleasantness or heat but I must request Deputy Haughey to withdraw those remarks.

Which remark do you wish me to withdraw?

The Deputy has made allegations against the Chair, that I am muzzling the House and that I am being disorderly in my behaviour.

What particular remark do you want me to withdraw?

I want the Deputy to withdraw the remark that I am muzzling the House and that I am unfair or unfair in my rulings. I must insist on that.

I cannot withdraw my statement that you are not permitting a legitimate supplementary question on Questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3. I cannot withdraw it because it is the truth.

I am acting on Standing Orders.

On a point of order, is it a fact that there were up to 15 supplementary questions allowed on the same question when this issue was last raised in the House?

I am not going to have an argument on this.

The Chair is not being asked to argue; he is being asked about a statement of fact.

I would not be aware of that at this stage.

On a point of order, will the Chair say if the statement which he says allows the Taoiseach to have his answer circulated to Members is shorter than a number of statements made in this House by members of the Government who tried to play out time on the Priority Questions over the last four or five weeks? You have allowed longer statements to be read in the House and by not allowing supplementaries in this case you are allowing the Taoiseach to get away with it.

I do not want to have to adjourn the House but unless I get order I will.

You may have to.

I am calling the next question.

On a point of order——

Tenders for the disposal of the assets of VCD in various lots——

The Minister should obey the rules of the House and have manners.

On a point of order, I should like to ask the Chair if today's decision is to be taken as a precedent——

That is not a point of order.

——whereby if the Taoiseach or members of the Government are too embarrassed to answer a question tabled by this side of the House they can invoke it? Will it be invoked for the purpose of protecting the Taoiseach and preventing us asking questions?

The Deputy will have to withdraw that remark. I must protect the Chair.

I cannot withdraw the remark.

If the Deputy does not withdraw the remark he will have to leave the House.

I cannot withdraw the remark. It is unfair to ask me to do so. I am anxious to ask supplementary questions in regard to questions tabled by Deputy Taylor. Those questions are legitimate and the Chair is protecting the Taoiseach from having to reply to those questions. If this precedent is to be established in the House it will be most unfair to Members.

The Deputy is being disorderly.

I am not being disorderly and it is never my intention to be disorderly.

I must ask the Deputy to withdraw, on reflection, the allegation he has made against the Chair, that he is protecting anybody. That statement is grossly disorderly.

The Chair should allow the supplementary questions.

What other assumption can I come to?

The Chair should allow supplementary questions in the ordinary way.

I am acting strictly in accordance with Standing Orders.

Will the Chair give details of the Standing Order which forbids supplementary questions?

I have read it out three times.

You have not.

The Standing Order referred to by the Chair does not have anything to do with supplementary questions.

I had an argument here with Deputy Haughey for ten minutes on one occasion and it was eventually accepted that when a question was answered by way of a circulated statement there would not be any questions.

Never.

I must point out that the explanation given by the Chair——

Very reluctantly I will have to adjourn the House unless I get order.

On a point of order, I propose to raise a supplementary question having regard to the fact that the precedent was established on 6 November 1984 when the Taoiseach circulated a statement in reply and the supplementaries on that occasion ran to four pages of the Official Report. Having regard to that precedent am I in order in raising a supplementary question?

The precedent is there.

On that occasion, as far as I know — I cannot recall everything — a statement was not circulated. The ruling I am relying on states that if a question is answered by way of a circulated statement I do not allow any questions.

May I read what it says? It stated:

The Taoiseach: I propose to circulate a statement giving the information sought by the Deputy.

The Taoiseach has just confirmed that.

I am not allowing any supplementary questions. Perhaps, since that occasion I have had a long discussion about the matter. I am adjourning the House for 15 minutes.

Ceist a 4.

On a point of order, a Cheann Comhairle, before you decided to adjourn the House, you gave your interpretation of Standing Order 35 (2). With all respect, I again question your interpretation of that Standing Order which says:

Where a Question put down for oral answer is of such a nature as to require a lengthy reply or a reply in the form of a tabular statement, the Ceann Comhairle shall, at the request of the member of the Government to whom the Question is addressed, direct that the answer be furnished in the Official Report of the Debates.

I submit that that Standing Order in the first instance relates to a question. In this instance we are dealing with three questions which have been tabled by Deputy Taylor. There is nothing in that Standing Order which would prevent the asking of supplementary questions and I have read the entire section. There is nothing in it which would prevent any Member of this House, including Deputy Taylor who tabled the question, from asking supplementary questions in relation to it. Therefore I submit with respect, and having no desire for conflict with the Chair, that your interpretation of that Standing Order was not correct and that we should have been allowed to ask supplementary questions in relation to it.

First of all, I ask the House to co-operate with the Chair and to accept his rulings, or to act under his rulings. If they are dissatisfied with those rulings to such an extent that the Members want to question them, they may do so by putting down a formal resolution and bringing it before the House. In regard to my rulings, before I was very reluctantly compelled to adjourn the House. I was relying on Standing Order 35 (2) which Deputy Hyland has just read. I was also relying on Standing Order 37 which confers upon me absolute discretion as to supplementary questions and I was relying on rulings made by my predecessors over the years, the relevant one of which reads:

When reply is to be printed in the Official Report and not given orally, Member should await reply rather than pursue the matter by supplementary question.

I am not saying for one moment that that ruling has not been breached, but since I took this Chair I was of the opinion that if a question is answered by way of a written statement, it is inappropriate for the Member who put down the question, or any Member, to put supplementary questions which are meant to elicit further information, when the Member had not the reply before him or her. That would seem to correspond with the ruling of my predecessor.

Indeed as I was requested to do in a general way to bring order back into the House, I took a stand that there should not be supplementary questions when the question had been answered by way of written statement. It took me a good while to get that ruling accepted.

It is not accepted.

I thought that it had been fully accepted since we came back to this session, after a long and somewhat heated discussion about it. It is my ruling now, but I am not infallible. I request the House to obey it and if they want to challenge it, they can challenge it in an orderly way.

On a point of order, a Cheann Comhairle, I am at a loss to understand your statement that a ruling about supplementary questions in regard to a statement was accepted. May I suggest to you that the tradition, precedent, or whatever you like to call it, is that where a Minister gives a reply by way of a tabular statement containing statistical information, supplementary questions are not normally asked in regard to that statement, though I know and you know that that has frequently been breached also, and that Members have been given by way of supplementary answer the total of a column or something of that nature.

My understanding — and I suggest that your understanding and memory should be the same — is that it is only on the question of tabular statements containing statistical information that there has been general agreement that supplementary questions are not asked. I also submit to you, Sir, that if this ruling that you are now laying down for us becomes a precedent and accepted and binding then we might as well forget about the whole matter of supplementary questions. All a Minister has to do is prepare an answer of indeterminate length and no supplementary questions can be asked. I cannot accept that this is what you have in mind. I cannot accept that you would be prepared to let that sort of situation develop, but that would be the ultimate outcome of the ruling you are now purporting to make.

That is not my interpretation of Standing Order 35. I am satisfied that it was not the interpretation put on it by my predecessor when he made this ruling. When a reply is to be printed in the Official Report and not given orally, Members should await reply rather than pursue the matter by supplementary questions. I cannot allow this matter to be discussed any longer.

On a final point of order, it has been suggested that if we want to challenge this there is a procedure open to us. I am suggesting that we have no alternative but to challenge it. I want to ask you how we may go about having this ruling changed through the Committee on Procedure and Privileges without in any way reflecting on your competence or confidence. We do not wish to have a vote of no confidence in the Chair but this matter is of such importance to us, affecting as it does our right to ask supplementary questions, that we must raise it in some fashion. I want your guidance as to how it can be brought before the Committee on Procedures and Privileges without going to the lengths, which none of us at this stage wants, of expressing any decision of confidence or no confidence in your good self.

There are three parts to that question. Firstly, my ruling cannot be questioned. My ruling is final and absolute. If it is sought to pass a vote of no confidence in the Chair — that has been done already here today, if what has been said about the Chair is correct one could not have confidence in him. If a vote of no confidence is sought, a formal resolution must be put before the House. If it is sought to change Standing Orders — apparently that is what the Deputy has in mind — the practice is that a member of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, usually the Whip of the party concerned, brings the matter before the committee where it is considered carefully and if an advice is given that Standing Orders should be changed, then a resolution must be put down before the House to change Standing Orders.

I am not asking that the Standing Order be changed. I am concerned with your interpretation and your ruling resulting from that interpretation. I am asking how we can challenge that ruling or have it overturned in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

On a point of order, I intervene in order to be helpful. I can understand the fear of abuse that the Leader of the Opposition has expressed. The point at issue here is that when a question is asked or questions are asked on a series of matters which involve lists or tabular statements, then the formal reply I have given can be seen as appropriate. Of course, if that were abused and a question were asked which did not take that form, that would be undesirable. If the Leader of the Opposition has any fear of that, I suggest that he could pursue it in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges on the question of the form of the Standing Order.

I am grateful.

On a point of order, I submit for your consideration that Question No. 3 in particular, which asks the Taoiseach the further action which has been taken on the working papers or reports of the Law Reform Commission, does not and could not possibly come within the parameters of Standing Order 35 (2).

If the Chair were to allow a position to develop where his ruling on the day were to be argued and debated in the House, then there would be an end to the Chair's authority. I will not allow any further discussion on this. I have explained what the Chair thinks the various options are for the people who have a grievance. I am calling Question No. 4 and I would ask the Minister to reply.

On a point of order, I have the utmost respect for the Chair.

The Deputy should show it.

The Taoiseach has placed the Chair at a total disadvantage in requesting the Ceann Comhairle to accept the situation where a tabular statement would be accepted by this House and many ——

Deputy Hyland is being disorderly. I am asking him to resume his seat. Question No. 4.

You have always adhered very strictly to precedent. I put it to you that the precedent has already been set, as pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition, whereby, on replies of a tabular nature, you have previously permitted supplementary questions. In view of the fact that a precedent has been created, surely in this instance you should allow supplementary questions.

I have given a ruling and explained that I had a long discussion on this matter and finally ruled since the House came back in October.