It is proposed to take No. 8 (resumed).
Order of Business.
I wish, in accordance with notice given to the Ceann Comhairle, to raise as a matter of urgent public importance, under Standing Order No. 30, the question of the demolition or excavation work being undertaken at Wood Quay. I raise the matter, first, because it is a matter in respect of which the Government have responsibility. This is demonstrated by the Government's statement of 10 October last which said that, when certain excavation work had been completed by archaeologists, the corporation, unless some new archaeological finding of great importance had been made, would be granted permission to proceed with the building of civic offices. It is further shown by a statement by the Minister of State, Deputy Wyse, in the Seanad of 7 December 1978, when he spoke of getting further opinions before making final recommendations to the Government which he hoped to do within the next week. He said that whatever decision is made was unlikely to satisfy everybody but hoped that all sensible and reasonable people would accept it as a fair solution. It is evident that this is a matter in respect of which a Government decision is pending and the Government have accepted responsibility. No such decision has been announced.
Secondly, my motion is within the Rules of Order, because I am raising the matter without delay. The demolition work started at 6.15 p.m. last night. It is a sudden emergency and I am raising it without delay. The work being done could do irretrievable damage; therefore it is a matter of such a nature that a delay in discussing it might prevent effective action being taken. It is within the executive office of the Government and the Minister, as I have explained. Therefore, on those grounds, in accordance with precedent, the matter is one of urgent public importance.
There is a further related issue, which is that a consent given in August last year by the commissioners, but not agreed until January, is phrased in terms which permit work to take place to the extent necessary, to wit, the completion of a certain part of the contract. Although evidence was given in court that only half of the site is involved, the commissioners do not know what that half is, because it has not been defined anywhere at any time. Therefore, it is a further question that arises as to whether the work now being carried out is within the terms of the consent or not. For all those reasons I move that the matter be considered by the House as a matter of urgent importance.
Immediately before coming in the Leader of Fine Gael announced that he intended to raise this matter. To be quite honest, in the short time at my disposal I have been unable to establish what the Government accountability may or may not be in the matter. On the information available to me I could not agree to have the matter raised in this way at present. There are other procedures the Deputy might try. Unless the Government have agreed to something I am not aware of, that is, to have the matter discussed, I cannot see that I can give permission to have it raised in this fashion. When I have time to consider it further and see what the accountability of the Government may be in the matter, the Deputy can raise it again on Tuesday.
Dr. Fitzgerald
The matter is clearly of urgent public importance because the damage being done is irretrievable. I would ask you, a Cheann Comhairle, whether you could consider—and I understand your difficulty—this question of Government accountability urgently and give a decision later on in the course of the day. I have given my reasons for saying the Government admitted accountability. Otherwise the whole procedure for debating matters of urgent public importance would have no value whatever. The whole purpose of it is to enable something to be stopped which is irretrievable. Postponing it until Tuesday would obviously fail to give effect to this procedure. Therefore, while I appreciate the time required by you to consider what is the Government's accountability, I would urge you, a Cheann Comhairle, to consider it urgently to inform the House of your decision as soon as you have taken it later today.
The Chair does not take lightly the importance of matters which are sought to be raised as matters of public importance requiring urgent consideration. The Chair is not influenced by anything other than being exact and correct in the decision given. I am not sufficiently versed in the question of whether or not there is Government accountability. If I gave that decision now, as I am giving it, it could not be raised later today. It would have to wait until Tuesday.
A Cheann Comhairle, you said, and understandably so, that you had not time to establish whether or not there was Government responsibility in the matter. The Taoiseach and most of the Cabinet are present, and surely the Taoiseach could now indicate whether or not the Government recognise that they have responsibility in the matter.
I was not aware of what took place between the parties in this matter but, at this stage, it is a matter entirely for the Chair. The Chair is ruling that it is not in order under this procedure. There are other procedures. The matter could be raised again after today.
With respect, I urge you to reconsider that decision. In that event, Standing Order No. 30 could have no value. Obviously the question of Executive responsibility is involved. That has been decided in an earlier precedent. I have given the grounds for saying it is involved, the statement of the Minister for State and the statement issued on behalf of the Government. I have furnished you with those and shown them to you. You may require a little time to study them. I accept that, of course. But that you should rule that it is not a matter of urgent public importance because you have not yet been able to examine and read the relevant documents, and therefore rule the matter out completely under this Standing Order, would vitiate the purpose of the Standing Order. I would urge you, therefore, to reconsider the matter, to take some time and to give a decision later today. Otherwise the Standing Order could have no value at all. To raise it on Tuesday would be useless because at that stage the damage will have been done.
The Deputy is very well aware, I am sure, and all other Deputies in the House, that it is a matter for the Chair to decide. The Chair is not satisfied that it is a matter of public importance requiring urgent consideration. I am not in a position to say whether or not there is Government accountability. Therefore, I rule against it.
Could I ask the Taoiseach whether the statement made on behalf of the Government by the Minister of State about taking a decision on the matter after 7 December is not an acceptance of Government responsibility? Have not the Government publicly accepted that, as they did in the statement of 10 December?
I have only one observation to make at this stage. Deputy FitzGerald raised this matter with me but it was about one minute to 10.30 a.m. I understood from him and from my private secretary that he endeavoured to contact Government Buildings earlier on but, because of the postal dispute, he was not able to get through. When he spoke to me just before 10.30 a.m. I told him naturally that it was a matter I would like to consider. I should like to consider very seriously the position of the Government vis-à-vis the decision of the Supreme Court yesterday. I have not seen the judgement. I should like to consider it fully. I just looked at the newspaper reports of it. It is a matter which would have to be examined very carefully to see to what extent the suggestion made by Deputy FitzGerald about Government responsibility in the matter is relevant to the situation. That would have to be examined against the background of the Supreme Court decision.
I should like to thank the Taoiseach for his response which I appreciate and to ask him if, in order to give him time to consider the matter which I quite understand he needs, he would ask the corporation to cease the work until he has time to examine it. Otherwise the thing would be futile. Is the Taoiseach willing to do that?
I do not know if I could do that in the light of the Supreme Court decision.
Work has now started on the site and all this talk may become redundant within the next two days. I respectfully ask you, Sir, to examine the position raised by Deputy FitzGerald so that this House later today, but no later than today, can have an opportunity to discuss the matter under the standing order mentioned by Deputy FitzGerald. Irrespective of whose responsibility the decision is, if it is not raised today, there will be no matter to discuss by next Tuesday. That is a fact and it is known to everybody in this House who studied the matter. There is a question of democracy here. Could I have some undertaking from you, Sir, that if you satisfy yourself that it is the Government's responsibility, as we believe it is, this House will have an opportunity to deal with the matter some time today before the Dáil adjourns.
There are other procedures. The standing order makes it quite clear that the Ceann Comhairle's decision must be given thereupon and I have given my decision.
While there are other procedures, arising out of yesterday's decision on questions, one person's interpretation of a procedure might not coincide with that of another. I am asking the Ceann Comhairle if he is satisfied that there is Government responsibility, to give us an opportunity to discuss it later today. If it is left to other procedures we could have a similar dispute about the interpretation.
The Deputy has tried to draw an analogy with yesterday's discussion on the submission of questions. There was nothing contrary to Standing Orders in what was discussed yesterday. Some people seem to have thought there was. My point was that if it is to be changed the Committee on Procedures and Privileges is the place to change it.
It is understandable that since this matter was raised shortly before 10.30 a.m. when the House sat, the Taoiseach has not had time to consider it. You have also indicated, Sir, that you have not had sufficient time to establish where responsibility lies and if there is Government responsibility. In view of the unique circumstances surrounding this case that, if a decision is not taken in the immediate future irreparable damage can be done to the national heritage, would the House and the Ceann Comhairle consider adjourning for an hour to give the Taoiseach an opportunity to establish whether or not there is Government responsibility?
I do not think this matter requires that type of decision. I have given my decision under Standing Order No. 30. The decision must be given now. The matter may be raised again. There are other procedures which can be considered.
I have quoted from the Official Report in which a Minister of State told the Seanad that he would be making final recommendations to the Government. He referred to the Government decision and said whatever decision was made was unlikely to satisfy everybody. There is therefore a public record, on the record of the other House, of acceptance by a member of the Government, of a responsibility to make a recommendation to the Government and the Government to make a decision, a decision which had already been announced in a Press release of 10 October. That is a prima facie case.
The matter is not at all as simple as the Deputy endeavours to make it. I think we have had sufficient discussion. I do not think I can give any further explanation.
I think I am entitled here to say that when a Minister of State has announced in one of the Houses of the Oireachtas that he has made a recommendation to the Government and that the Government have taken a decision, the Chair cannot then say that it rules something out as not being a matter of urgent public importance because there is not Executive responsibility. I submit that admission by a Minister of State requires the Chair in those circumstances to give a decision in favour. If the Chair wishes time to consider it further, then that can be taken and the matter can be reconsidered in an hour's time, or by 12 o'clock or 1 o'clock. But for the Chair to refuse in the face of that prima facie evidence even to consider the matter is to vitiate the whole purpose of Standing Order No. 30.
The Chair does not agree. The Chair is in a position where it must take a serious view of this matter. Certainly I would not be happy in giving a decision to permit a debate. The Chair is not aware, in regard to the many negotiations that were taking place and statements made in this House, in the other House and outside the House regarding Wood Quay, to what extent all these have been superseded by a decision of the Supreme Court. The Chair is not aware, and I am now taking a decision. I will not permit a discussion on the matter.
The Chair has stated repeatedly that the Chair is not aware of what is the actual position. The Taoiseach has stated, and understandably so, that he had been informed only shortly before coming into the House. I suggest that this matter is of such supreme national importance we should adjourn the House for an hour. The House has been adjourned on far lesser issues.
Deputies are aware that the Chair's decision must be given immediately and I have given my decision. There are other procedures which may be sought. I propose to go on with the Order of Business.
I protest about a decision being taken on the grounds that the Chair is not aware of Executive responsibility when the record of one of these Houses shows acceptance of Executive responsibility. I have to submit that that decision is one which is indefensible. I would urge on the Chair to give it further consideration and, if he needs more time to consider it, to adjourn the House for an hour to enable him to do so.
I have agreed to permit the Deputy to raise the matter again on Tuesday.
The purpose of this procedure—if I may read from precedents—the purpose is that the matter must be some sudden emergency; prima facie urgent to be raised without delay, of such a nature that delay in discussing it might prevent effective action being taken. I submit that that is self-evidently the case, that the Chair cannot and is not entitled to rule that I raise this matter again as a matter of urgent public importance next Tuesday. That would be contrary to Standing Orders, because Standing Orders are concerned with matters in respect of which delay in discussing them might prevent effective action being taken.
The Chair has taken a decision that it will not permit discussion on this matter. There are other procedures if the Deputy wishes to use them during the day or any other time.
It would be a pity if this were to escalate into a political brawl. The Chair has persisted that the matter cannot be raised until Tuesday next. The Taoiseach was requested to ask the corporation to cease any demolition on the site pending the matter being raised on Tuesday. The Taoiseach has said, understandably, that he is not quite clear what his responsibilities are in this matter. Nobody is asking the Taoiseach at this point to instruct the corporation. All that is being asked is: would the Taoiseach request the corporation to cease any operation on the site until Tuesday? Would the Taoiseach agree to do that?
And until the Taoiseach has had a chance to consider the position and inform this House as to whether the Government have yet taken the decision mentioned in the Seanad and as to what that decision is, if the Taoiseach would request the corporation to hold action until he has had a chance to consider it.
I certainly will consider that. I do not know what are my rights in this respect, especially having regard to the decision of the highest court in the land. Naturally, one must respect that decision and one does not say lightly that one is going to in any way flout it, even though unintentionally. Certainly, I shall consider to what extent I would have any right or duty in that respect.
Thank you.
I should like to thank the Taoiseach for his response. With the permission of the Chair, I should like to raise this matter on the Adjournment this afternoon.
(Cavan-Monaghan): It is clear that the effect of the Supreme Court decision——
The matter has been dismissed.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am only going to say one sentence. I am entitled to. The effect of the Supreme Court decision is that only the Government can now stay the building on the Wood Quay site. That is the net effect of it.
The discussion on the matter is now closed. Item No. 8.
Might I ask the permis-sion of the Chair to raise on the Adjourment the subject matters of Ques-tions Nos. 21 and 22 on yesterday's Order Paper and No. 45 on today's Order Paper, which is down for written reply.
I shall communicate with the Deputy.