I have a request from Deputy Fitzpatrick (Dublin Central) under Standing Order No. 30.
Adjournment Debate [Standing Order 30] Request.
(Dublin Central): I beg to move the adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order No. 30 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter of public interest requiring urgent consideration, that is, the inadequacy of the steps taken by the Minister for Finance to prevent Irish Life, a State body under his control, from purchasing their requirement of office furniture from a foreign manufacturer.
I received notice of this matter from the Deputy in accordance with the terms of Standing Order No. 30. I have considered it in the light of the guidelines which the informal committee on reform of Dáil procedures recommended and which are being followed by the Chair. I find that the matter fails to satisfy three of these requirements.
Suppress the Opposition.
Accordingly the motion is not, in my view, one contemplated by this Standing Order. One of the requirements is that a matter must be within the current responsibility of the Government. The placing of a contract by the board of Irish Life is not a matter in which the Minister for Finance has current responsibility.
He is a 90 per cent shareholder.
Please allow the Chair. His only standing in relation to the company is that of a major shareholder.
Furthermore, this matter has been ongoing for over a month and, in my view, does not satisfy the requirement that, for the purposes of Standing Order No. 30, the matter to be raised must be one which has arisen suddenly and is likely to develop significantly, before the Dáil can, in practice, have an opportunity of discussing it. Therefore, with regret, I cannot accede to the Deputy's request.
(Dublin Central): I agree it has been going on for some time but this is the first opportunity we had to raise it in this House. This is of public importance. There is public disquiet about this matter. The Minister for Finance is a 90 per cent shareholder in this company.
The Deputy has heard my ruling on this matter. It may not be discussed at this stage.
It is a disgraceful ruling.
(Dublin Central): It is of major importance.
I want to say in support of my colleague, Deputy Fitzpatrick, that we believe this is exactly the type of matter contemplated in the Standing Order. It cannot be suggested that the Minister has no direct responsibility to the House when, as Deputy Fitzpatrick pointed out, the Minister is a 90 per cent shareholder in this company, shares which he holds on behalf of the people and in respect of which he is responsible to the people. The only way he can exercise that responsibility and answer for it is through this House.
As far as the urgency is concerned, as Deputy Fitzpatrick pointed out, this is the first occasion on which we had an opportunity to raise it in this House. This is also a matter which we are told the Government are investigating at present and, within hours or days, for all we know, the Government may come to a decision on it and we might have no opportunity of raising it here. I think, Sir, the ruling you have made is contrary to the spirit of the Standing Order under which the matter was raised.
The matter has been given the fullest consideration. The position is as I have outlined it.
(Dublin Central): This discussion was caused by the negligence of the Minister for Finance. I raised this matter in the House on December 10th. I informed the Minister for Industry and Commerce on the IDA Bill that this contract was going abroad.
The matter cannot be debated now.
(Dublin Central): The Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Local Government knew this order was going abroad and allowed it to happen.
That is not true.
(Dublin Central): It is true.
(Interruptions.)
Surely Deputy Crinion has not got the hard neck to talk to me across the House.
The Minister was lucky once.
I did not tell Deputy Crinion anything. I do not talk to the fellow.
Considering the fact that all parties in this House in their various statements in recent weeks have indicated their disquiet about this matter, might I suggest, since the ruling of the Chair must be as it is that the Taoiseach might consider making time available for discussion on this transaction and a hell of a lot more which concern not only these types of bodies but also some public bodies and some Departments.
Did I understand you to say that one of your reasons for disallowing Deputy Fitzpatrick's motion was that the Minister for Finance had no current responsibility for this matter? In coming to that decision, a Ceann Comhairle, did you take into account the fact that both the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce indicated in public — or rather the Government Information Services indicated in regard to them — that they have investigated and reported to the Government about this matter. Were these matters taken into account?
All such matters were taken into account.
They could not have been.
Order of Business.