It is proposed to take Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 1 and 2.

It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that (1) Nos. 5 and 6 shall be decided without debate; (2) the proceedings on No. 7, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 1.30 p.m. today and the following arrangements shall apply; (i) the speech of a Minister or Minister of State and the main spokesperson for the Fine Gael Party, the Progressive Democrat Party and the Technical Group shall not exceed 30 minutes in each case; (ii) the speech of each other Member called upon shall not exceed 20 minutes in each case; (iii) Members may share time; and (iv) a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon not later than 1.15 p.m. to make a speech in reply; (3) the proceedings on the Second Stage of No. 8, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 4.45 p.m.; (4) the Dáil on its rising this evening shall adjourn until Wednesday, 2 November 1994.

Are the proposals for dealing with Nos. 5 and 6 satisfactory?

Most Members should agree that the proposal to take No. 5 without debate is absolutely outrageous. What is being proposed is a major infringement on the very few rights left to Deputies in the House. As far as I know, this proposal has not been discussed by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and as far as I have been able to find out——

I must dissuade the Deputy from making a speech at this time.

If this motion is passed there will be precious little opportunity for us to make speeches anywhere else. As far as I know, this proposal has not been discussed by the parliamentary parties of any of the groups represented in this House.

Why does the Deputy not address them in the House? He is aiming at the wrong target.

This is a shameful move by the Whips of all the parties.

The Deputy should not attack his Whip.

He is touching a raw bone.

It is entirely in keeping——

Please, Deputy.

Democratic parties are being asked to deliberately——

I take it the Deputy is opposing the proposal for dealing with No. 5. I will put the question.

It is——

The vote ends the debate.

In regard to this matter, a request was made by the Fine Gael Whip and the Government did not oppose it in order to facilitate that party.

They are trying to keep the boys in line.

Where is the Labour Party?

We will hardly be defending the Deputy.

They are like sheep.

Back to the corral.

The Deputies opposite cannot even see where it is.

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 7 satisfactory? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 8 agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal that the Dáil on its rising this evening shall adjourn until 2 November satisfactory? Agreed.

With regard to the Adjournment of the Dáil, it was agreed at the Whips' meeting that the Dáil would adjourn until next Wednesday and also sit on Thursday. There was an element of speculation in the media that this House would adjourn for a two week period and would not sit next week. There reports were completely erroneous and the people responsible for writing such irrelevant detail and trivia should correct them.

Hear, hear.

They are in the press gallery.

They are blushing.

In the interests of fairness and clarity, yesterday in reply to Private Notice Questions from Deputy Hogan and others the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications stated: "I am saying clearly I had no such participation, nor did my Department have any such——

Sorry, Deputy Owen.

Will you allow me the same freedom you gave the Taoiseach when he referred to this matter? I appeal to you——

Fairness and impartiality have always been keynotes of my office and my decisions.

Will you hear me out?

Not on that subject.

You heard what the Taoiseach had to say on it.

I have advised Deputies how to proceed.

Are there different rules for the Taoiseach?

I have advised Deputies that they might raise this matter by way of substantive motion.

That is a challenge, which the Deputy should take up.

I will.

The House knows full well the amount of time devoted to this matter yesterday and the day before. I can hear no further comment now on this subject.

On a point of order, there is a precedent where Ministers and Deputies who have given misleading information to the House——

Wrong.

Disgraceful.

——can make a personal statement in the House. It is clear from the press conference held by a civil servant last night, at which he admitted he had intervened in this matter, that the Minister is hiding behind——

That is not true.

This is not appropriate to the Order of Business.

If you have any role in this House you must allow us to have clarification of the seriously misleading statement——

I have advised the House how to proceed.

I am asking you to follow a precedent.

This matter is not in order now.

It was in order for the Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach concluded the matter.

Before the Taoiseach read the Order of Business he read a statement.

The Chair did not stop him.

It was not an extempore statement but a printed one.

I did not read it.

It looked as if he read a statement because he turned over a page.

There is to be no debate on the matter now. Deputy Owen has made her point and she may not go any further on this subject.

I want to raise a question on promised legislation. Is that all right?

I hope so.

Under the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924——

There is no legislation promised in this area.

——a Minister is responsible for everything that happens in his or her Department. May I ask the Taoiseach if he intends transferring responsibility in certain areas from Ministers to civil servants? When will he bring forward an amendment to the legislation?

Is legislation promised in this area?

No.

In view of the way civil servants——

Deputy Owen must now desist.

Yesterday Deputy Hogan——

The Deputy knows the procedure at this time.

——was accused by the Minister of casting aspersions on him and on civil servants——

Of peddling untruths for the past two days.

He did no such thing. A Cheann Comhairle, did you hear that comment?

Deputy Owen, I must ask you to resume your seat.

A Cheann Comhairle——

Deputy Owen, if you persist you know the procedure the Chair must adopt.

He cannot stand over it.

He will stand over it.

He should repeat it outside the House.

May I make a further point? A civil servant——

Sorry, Deputy, it does not arise now.

It does.

There are many ways open to the Deputy to raise the matter.

He should repeat it outside the House.

The Minister can read it in today's edition of The Irish Times.

That is his version of the truth.

The matter must be discussed in accordance with the procedures of this House. I call Deputy Mary Harney.

Can you ask the Minister under the procedures of the House to make a personal statement clarifying the misleading statements and accusations he made——

I cannot ask any Member to make a personal statement in the House. That is a matter for the Deputies or Ministers concerned.

The Deputy should ask Deputy Hogan to repeat his statements outside the House. We will then see who has credibility.

It is printed in the press today. That is outside the House.

I will examine it.

The Minister is a coward and he is hiding behind his civil servants.

Deputy Owen, please have regard to proper parliamentary language. The word "coward" should not have been used as it is unparliamentary.

I never did anything of the sort.

He is letting civil servants take the blame for something that is his responsibility. The buck stops with the Minister.

That is incorrect. We did nothing wrong.

Who is "we"?

Who tampered with the report?

No one tampered with it; it was amended. The Deputy should read the statement.

Who arranged for the report to be changed?

The Deputy should read the statement.

Civil servants have——

I will not be shouted down by the Deputy.

The Minister is hiding behind civil servants, an act of political cowardice.

Deputy Mitchell must restrain himself. Deputy Mary Harney.

He should be quiet for the sake of the children in the public gallery.

I want to hear Deputy Harney, and I am sure the House does also.

Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle. I think you will agree that it is in order for you to give Members the same opportunity you gave the Taoiseach yesterday morning and this morning. I want to repeat what I said yesterday: there was improper interference in the planning process.

I deny that.

I asked the Minister relevant questions which have not been answered. I want to challenge him on a point.

Please, Deputy Harney.

The Minister's office handled this matter and he wheeled out civil servants in the company of his press officer——

I ask Deputies to refrain from making accusations across the floor of the House.

The Minister is accountable to the Dáil, yet he did not answer my questions. This is a very serious matter.

Deputy Harney, I said earlier——

Did the Minister discuss this matter with the Secretary of his Department?

The Deputy must listen to the Chair.

I will, but I am entitled to make a point.

I have said earlier there are procedures whereby Members may raise this matter. I have recommended that if serious charges are being made, as indeed they are, and unparliamentary terms are being used such as the word "coward"——

Did you hear the word "untruth" from the other side of the House or have you difficulty in hearing with your left ear?

I advise the Deputies to take this matter up by way of substantive motion in Private Members' time.

We raised this matter yesterday and my questions were not answered.

If Deputies are dissatisfied with Ministers' replies they have the usual remedy.

After a meeting between the Taoiseach, the Chief Whip and the Minister, Deputy Cowen, pressure was put on the civil servant——

That is an untruth. I have not spoken with the Taoiseach or the Chief Whip since I was in this House.

That was improper interference and the Minister was aware of what was happening.

I was not aware of it.

The Minister is accountable.

I am coming now to the Order of Business proper.

If this disorder continues I will have no option but to adjourn our proceedings for a considerable period. I call Deputy De Rossa and I hope he will help the Chair by raising a matter appropriate to the Order of Business.

Deputy De Rossa rose.

I am trying to maintain order.

Deputy Harney has made a very serious accusation across the floor of the House saying that Deputy Cowen and I had a meeting with a civil servant to put pressure on him, if I heard her correctly. If she did not say that——

I did not say——

The Deputy said there was a meeting.

There was no meeting between Deputy Cowen, myself and the civil servant. I had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

It never happened.

There was no meeting with the Minister, Deputy Cowen, with or without the civil servant, to put pressure on anybody to interfere with the planning process. There was no meeting whatsoever. Withdraw the allegation.

I cannot permit the debate.

If the Deputy is hoping for votes in Cork, is that the best she can come up with? I know the game she is playing.

I know the game the Minister is playing.

Tell us why it happened.

The Minister is hiding behind civil servants.

The interruptions should cease on both sides of the House. Deputy De Rossa, please.

There is no doubt whatsoever that serious damage has been done to the credibility of the planning process as a result——

The Deputy is embarking on a statement which is not in order.

——of actions taken by the Minister's Department.

I am proceeding now to the Order of Business proper.

You have not heard me out.

You have made your statement. Deputy, which is not in order.

I am entitled to speak in this House.

Yes, in strict accordance with its procedures which you laid down as Members.

I intend to comply with them if you will give me a hearing.

Let us hear it.

Thank you. I pointed out that serious damage has been done to the credibility of the planning process as a result of actions taken——

I fail to see what this has to do with the Order of Business.

——either by the minister, his secretary or his assistant secretary.

The Deputy is flouting the ruling of the Chair. Is there any other legitimate——

How does the Minister intend to restore credibility by making a claim——

Will the Deputy stop casting aspersions on their integrity as he did all day yesterday?

That has nothing to do with the Order of Business.

I was never involved in the planning process.

Did the Minister speak with the Secretary?

I am proceeding now to item No. 3. I will have no more of this disorder.

Did the Minister speak with the Secretary of his Department?

This is a very serious matter.

There are procedures laid down in this House for dealing with this matter but not now.

The integrity of the planning process is at stake and that is a serious matter. A slur has been cast on my integrity by the Minister and I am seeking——

The Deputy is the one who has called into question the integrity of Kilkenny County Council.

The Deputy is proceeding to raise the same issue.

Will the Taoiseach bring forward a token Estimate for the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications to enable the House to discuss this matter?

That is a matter for the Taoiseach.

In view of the fact that new information was released last evening by a civil servant in the Department will you allow a Private Notice Question on the matter?

I do——

Will you give it careful consideration?

It is a hypothetical question. Deputy Rabbitte, I want very much to get off this subject which is quite out of order. I trust you will facilitate me.

You have communicated that very clearly, Sir. Is the Taoiseach concerned about the fact that twice in recent months it has come to light that material alterations have been made by officials to documents of import?

What has this to do with the Order of Business?

It has to do with the order of public affairs.

Perhaps so. Doubtless the Deputy will have an opportunity to ventilate his views on that matter.

Is the Taoiseach concerned having regard to the fact that he was the victim himself, as he presented it in the beef tribunal, of an official altering documents that could have avoided——

I am sorry, Deputy Rabbitte. This is quite out of order.

The Deputy blamed the Revenue Commissioners in the wrong and now he is accusing my civil servants.

I am calling Deputy Gay Mitchell to move his Bill.

Yesterday the Minister made a statement which does not stand up. The same happened at Question Time on Tuesday when the Minister for Justice answered questions. I have already written to you about it. Will the Taoiseach bring forward an Estimate for the Houses of the Oireachtas so that the continual misleading of this House can be dealt with?

The Deputy should not make an allegation of that kind without the fullest consideration and fairness being self-evident.

I am asking that that Estimate be brought forward because Ministers are misleading the House with all sorts of twisted——

I have to say also that I received no communication from you whatsoever on the subject. I am calling Deputy O'Malley.

The Opposition have plenty of opportunities to have any of those matters discussed. They have Private Members' Business next week, they have questions and they have the opportunity to table Private Notice Questions. Also they can put down a substantive motion if they believe in what they are saying. Of course, they do not believe in what they are saying. They just want to keep it going for the duration of the Cork by-election. That is the ultimate objective.

Then will we get answers.

I draw your attention to the provisions of Article 28.4.1º of the Constitution which states:

The Government shall be responsible to Dáil Éireann. The Government shall meet and act as a collective authority and shall be collectively responsible for the Departments of State administered by the members of the Government.

Do you consider, Sir, that that Article is complied with when a Minister refuses to answer questions in the House but at 8 p.m. wheels out a civil servant to answer questions to a limited number of members of the press?

It is not the function of the Chair to interpret the Constitution.

It is one of the duties of the Chair, I submit, to support the Constitution and to vindicate the rights of the people under it.

Deputy O'Malley must find another time to ventilate his views on that subject. It is not in order now.

Can I take it that my interpretation of the Constitution in your view is right?

The Deputy should check that with the Deputy beside him.

I will not be cross-examined by the Deputy. I have always adhered to the Constitution and I would ask the Deputy to adhere to the rules of the House and desist.

I hope that it is not the result of this that you are prepared to deny the validity of these provisions and allow them to be circumvented in which they have been.

That is disgraceful.

The Deputy's allegations are so absurd that I treat them with contempt.

I am calling Deputy McCormack.

It is questionable whether the provisions of the Constitution itself can be treated with contempt.

You are completely out of order, Deputy.

In view of the fact that the gate was closed when the horse had bolted twice in the past week may I put a question to the Taoiseach, in regard to promised legislation — the Ethics in Public Office Bill and the Electoral Bill — in the form of a limerick?

A little light relief would be welcome, Deputy.

If the Tánaiste's hand was in command. Would Cowengate on the backbenches wait to reinvest his grand?

I am coming now to item No. 3.

Not bad for a——

At least it rhymes.

I am proceeding to item No. 3.

How about a response to the limerick?

Could we have an opinion from the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht on that?

It is one of those that hits you late.