It is proposed to take No. c7, motion re referral to select committee of proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the terms of the Arms Trade Treaty; and No. d7, motion re Standing Orders 19, 20, 21, 23, 27, 27A, 28, 33, 35, 36, 38, 41, 56, 57, 82A, 83, 88, 117, 117A, 121, 123A, 124, 125 and 141A. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that No. c7 shall be decided without debate; the proceedings on No. d7, including any amendment thereto, shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 50 minutes by one question and the following arrangements shall apply: the speech of the Tánaiste, a Minister or a Minister of State and the leaders of Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin and the Technical Group, or a person nominated in their stead, who shall be called upon in that order and may share time, shall not exceed five minutes in each case, and the speech of Deputy Emmet Stagg and Deputy Joe Carey and the main spokespersons for Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin and the Technical Group, or a person nominated in their stead, who shall be called upon in that order and may share time, shall not exceed five minutes in each case; Private Members’ business, which shall be No. 110, motion re bilateral cochlear implants, shall be taken at the conclusion of No. d7 and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after three hours and the order shall resume thereafter with Topical Issues and Oral Questions; and subject to the agreement of No. d7, motion to amend Standing Orders, the next fortnightly Friday, for the purposes of Standing Orders 88(2) and 117A, shall be Friday, 8 November, the time and date by which notice of a committee report or Bill in connection with that sitting shall be received by the Clerk shall be 11 a.m. on Friday, 25 October, and related Standing Orders shall apply accordingly.

There are four proposals to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with No. c7 agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. d7 agreed to?

It is not agreed. I am very surprised that the Government has brought forward this motion to debate amendments to Standing Orders, given the lack of fundamental reform contained in these Standing Orders regarding how this House operates, the relationship between this House and the Government and the parliamentary system in general. We have just come through a referendum on the abolition of the Seanad, when the Government's spokespeople promised fundamental reform of how we did politics and how the Dáil operated and behaved. What we are getting is fundamentally different. Even worse, there has been precious little consultation with Members of the House on the reform programme. I attended one meeting convened in the middle of the referendum campaign, hours before the referendum debate on the Vincent Browne programme that night. The meeting lasted for about an hour and was to say we had had a meeting. We handed over 90 reform proposals to the Government which we had published earlier.

There was not much in them.

The Deputy's party had 80 years to do it.

When the Government published its reforms, it did not consult anybody that night. It is now stating we only have 50 minutes to discuss the issue of reform of the Dáil. That shows how untrue all the rhetoric was during the campaign, when people were saying they were really committed to reform. The bottom line is that there will be 50 minutes for debate, after which it will be guillotined. There will only be one vote. Look at the list of amendments we are being asked to pass today.

The Deputy is only entitled to give a short explanation of why he is opposing the proposal.

I accept that, a Cheann Comhairle, but you must accept that this is a very serious issue for the House, short of Deputies walking out of here and just not co-operating with the Government. The motion does not take on board what the Opposition parties are stating about how the House is operating.

The Deputy's party Whip agreed with most of it.

It does not take on board what is being said. As I said, we had a meeting, of which the upshot is a motion, one vote and that is it. There will be no votes on individual amendments and I will have five minutes to speak on the issue of Dáil reform.

The Deputy had 14 years of silence.

Please allow the Deputy to make his point.

We had a referendum during which Dáil Deputies and the Government said there would be a meaningful debate, but, as Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party, I am getting five minutes to discuss these amendments. Let us be honest, the sum total of these amendments is about sitting more often and doing less. That is essentially what is involved.

Even if I call a vote on this proposal - it will not be changed at all - we will lose time for the Order of Business. That is how debate is being suppressed.

I call Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh who is entitled to make a short contribution on the reason he is opposing the motion but not a speech. I am not saying he is about to make one.

I have no problem with that. Sometimes I go on a bit, but today I will try to be brief.

The Government intends to change the list of Standing Orders outlined in the motion. At the Whips meeting I did not argue specifically for more time because I was in the middle of bringing forward an amendment which is on the Order Paper also. It also has to be dealt with in that short period of time. The amendment runs to six pages. We can argue about it, but all Deputies in the House will be affected by these changes.

Positively.

Positively or not, they will all be affected. Workers in the Houses and even the Fourth Estate will be affected. While some of the changes are positive, the vast majority are not practical in many ways. There are alternatives, but I will not be able to go through each of the changes and debate with Members the benefits of what I am or the Government is proposing. There will not be time to do so in 50 minutes. To give an example of one of the problems with this-----

No thanks.

It is an example because it is tied-----

The Deputy is not to give any example.

These are tied to a proposal to limit the time in this case. Next week the Government will limit the time available to discuss the Social Welfare Bill which has not even been published, contrary to the changes to Standing Orders suggested by the Government in its Dáil reform proposals. The same is true of the local government Bill which will be introduced on Tuesday. Members of the House will not have a copy.

There is no point in debating Dáil reform unless it is genuine and will be implemented properly. Even today, while discussing this, the Government is doing the opposite. We need more time and it should not be concluded today. Deputies should see the implication of what they are voting on in their lives and in their parliamentary lives.

There has been much talk about Dáil reform and it is time to do something about it. There were eight formal and informal meetings between the Whips to discuss the proposals on Dáil reform. I attended the meeting to which Deputy Martin referred and I thought it was a good, productive exchange. At the end of the meeting, there was a willingness to give the changes a go, see how they work and then review them. We are proposing a range of changes that provide for an earlier start in the morning. It is not unreasonable for the sitting to start at 9.30 a.m. Most people have already started work and it is not unreasonable that the House should commence its business at 9.30 a.m. It provides for-----

It is tokenism. The Tánaiste promised he would come back on this point.

It is not tokenism.

Can we deal with the motion before the House? It is a time motion.

A range of changes are proposed. We all complain about Question Time, which is a sterile exchange and must be improved. This provides for an improvement and for better interaction between Members of the House and Ministers.

The Tánaiste is reducing the capacity to do so.

This provides for a range of ways in which debate can be improved in the House. What I suggest-----

Fifty minutes to debate the entire package of Dáil reform is preposterous.

Deputy Donnelly is preposterous.

Deputy Stagg is sharp this morning.

This is what is wrong.

This is a time motion; we are not debating the issue. This concerns Members objecting to less time and pointing out the need for more time. It is not about the content. Let us get back to where we are.

I am not talking about the content; I am talking about giving Members of the House-----

No, it is about the time motion.

-----the opportunity to have a discussion about Dáil reform-----

I do not care if the Deputy has a motion. We will deal with it. This is a time motion.

Last week it was 30 minutes.

What I am suggesting is that we agree these changes today and see how they work during the session and come back and review them in January.

We cannot trust the Government.

I do not think we can postpone this and keep talking about Dáil reform forever. We must get on with it today and we will get back to it in January and see how it works.

On a point of order-----

I am now putting the question. There is no point of order on a time motion.

It is very important-----

There is no point of order on a time motion.

This is fundamental to how the House-----

Will Deputy Martin please resume his seat?

The Taoiseach promised Deputy Adams and I that-----

Will Deputy Martin please resume his seat?

-----he would meet us to discuss issues to do with fundamental reform of the House. That is not happening-----

Deputy, I am on my feet. Deputy Martin-----

That is not happening-----

Deputy Martin-----

We cannot trust the Government.

Deputy Martin-----

We cannot trust the Government to deliver any meaningful reform-----

Deputy Martin, there is a tradition in this House that Members respect whoever is in the chair. When I rise, I ask Deputy Martin to resume his seat.

I am in my seat.

We are not debating the issue. The question is whether 50 minutes is acceptable. Deputy Martin has had his say and I am now putting the question.

The third item to be put to the House is the proposal for dealing with Private Members' business. Is that agreed to? Agreed. Fourth, is the proposal for dealing with the sitting and business of the Dáil on 8 November agreed to?

This is a highly irregular and presumptuous proposal. It presumes that the motion we are about to debate on the Standing Orders will be passed and, therefore, these new criteria will kick in straightaway. I object to a motion such as that, presuming what the House would do. That is not the way to do business in any form. I have no difficulty with a Friday sitting, as we have had in the past in dealing with Private Members' Bills, but it is highly irregular to have a motion presuming the Dáil will take and discuss Dáil reform proposals.

I concur with what Deputy Ó Snodaigh has said. It probably confirms the arrogance at the heart of the Administration.

Deputy Martin would not know anything about that.

It now anticipates-----

All right, the Deputies have made their point.

A motion like this should not be put before the House until the debate has-----

Obviously, it is the PR line Deputy Martin has been given, is it?

I am sorry.

One might like to think-----

How many bankers has Deputy Shatter locked up today?

I would have presumed that during the debate we are having-----

Would you please stop shouting down the speaker?

We are having a debate here for 50 minutes, during which people will make suggestions. Clearly the Government has no intention of entertaining any suggestion-----

The Deputy had three years.

-----from any Deputy. Keep quiet, Deputy Stagg, will you?

Would you please allow the Deputy-----

Deputy Stagg is the most orderly Whip I have ever come across. I ask the Tánaiste to withdraw the proposal, allow the debate to take place and see what we will do after that.

Has Deputy Martin washed out his ears after 14 years?

Please allow the Tánaiste to continue.

If Deputy Ó Snodaigh and Deputy Martin had read the Order Paper they would know that it is subject to the agreement of No. d7. I have heard the views of both Deputy Ó Snodaigh and Deputy Martin. I do not wish us to do anything here that presumes the outcome of the debate we are about to have. Therefore, I will remove this item from the Order Paper and it will be taken on Tuesday next, if the other motion is passed today.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

As time for the Order of Business has expired, we will deal with the next business.