asked the Minister for Health if his attention has been drawn to a newspaper article (detailed supplied) attributing a statement to the Director of the Medico-Social Research Board that cannabis appeared to do little harm and was not as dangerous as cigarettes and the action it is proposed to take in this matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Cannabis Statement
29.
I have seen the article referred to. It reflected a personal view. I am aware that this view is not accepted by all experts in this field.
Cannabis and the controls which should be exercised in relation to it were discussed in considerable detail when the Misuse of Drugs Bill was being considered in 1977. It was then decided, on the evidence available to the House, that its sale or distribution should not be legalised. I have no reason to think that any change in that decision should now be made.
Arising out of the Minister's reply, is the Minister aware that the taking of soft drugs very often leads to the taking of hard drugs? Is the Minister further aware that, even if it is a personal opinion, a statement like this can do untoid harm to youths who are often mislead by foolish statements made by woolly-thinking individuals who should know better? Does the Minister intend to take any action in the matter?
I have made my position very clear by stating in the House that I have no reason to think any change in the decision made by the House previously should now be made.
The question I asked concerned people making such statements. Surely the Minister knows that making a statement like this is encouraging people to break the law of the land and that indeed, the drug squad have a hard enough time at present trying to deal with the increased number of individuals in Ireland who unfortunately are taking both soft and hard drugs. Can the Minister take no action against those people, who may call themselves progressive members of society but who are woolly-headed individuals, to make them cease making such statements?
The Deputy must bear in mind that he is referring to a newspaper report of a letter and if he reads the original letter he will find that it is not quite as the reporter put it. It made quite clear that: "Nevertheless, I do not know that we should go so far as to legalise yet another drug". That aspect was made quite clear in the letter. It was something that was taken out of context subsequently.
A prominent doctor made a similar statement a few years ago.
: I am not responsible for the personal statements or views of individuals.
: Perhaps, Sir, you could assist me in the following matter. I tabled two questions to the Taoiseach both of which were ruled out of order. One of them possibly could have been ruled out of order on the basis that it was a repeat. The other one, asking the Taoiseach how many times he had given permission for the British Army or Northern Ireland security forces to cross the Border, was not a repeat. I have here the Official Report, unrevised, to which you referred me in your letter.
: The Deputy is well aware that he may not raise this matter in this fashion now.
: If a question to the Taoiseach on Border security and British forces operating within our jurisdiction is ruled out of order on a false premise, surely I am entitled to raise the matter.
: The Deputy is not entitled to raise a decision when it has been conveyed to him, after due consideration by the Chair. It may not be questioned here now.
: I have your letter here. Your due consideration is based on the fact that it is a repeat question and you listed a series of questions. I have here the Official Report, unrevised. Nowhere in this is that question asked, so on what basis am I ruled out of order?
: My views have been conveyed to the Deputy already.
: What has been conveyed to me was not factual and that is why I am raising it now. If the Taoiseach for political reasons refuses to answer such a question, that is a political decision for which he must take the consequences, but that is not the function of the Chair.
: The Deputy must know well that this is an old device of trying to raise a matter that was ruled out of order. The Taoiseach is not the person who rules it out; it is the Ceann Comhairle who is responsible for it being ruled out. The reasons are conveyed to the Deputy. The Deputy may discuss them outside the House with the Ceann Comhairle if he wishes, but not in the House.
: Surely if I have a letter from you which rules a question of mine out of order on a basis which is not factual and I have the Official Report here which shows that it is not factual——
: Because Deputy Haughey told the Chair that he would not reply.
: That is an appalling reflection on the Chair.
: The Ceann Comhairle in deciding whether questions are in order does so on the advice before him and on his own responsibility without reference to the Taoiseach.
A Deputy
: Advice from the Taoiseach?
: That is an appalling reflection on the credibility of the Chair.
: Sir, if I bring to your attention the fact that the advice given to you is not in accordance with the facts and the basis on which you are disallowing the question is not factual, surely——
: The Deputy has gone far enough with this. Deputy Cluskey may write to me in relation to any matter he thinks is irregular.
: Would I be allowed to raise on the Adjournment the matter of the allegation of permission given by this Government and by the Taoiseach for the British army and the Northern Ireland security forces to operate within our jurisdiction?
I will consider what the Deputy wants to raise and I will communicate with him.
: Will the Ceann Comhairle communicate with me further on the basis of the incorrect disallowal of my question?
: The Ceann Comhairle may not communicate with any Deputy on a matter that is raised irregularly and irrelevantly in the House. It has never been allowed, and Deputies know that very well. There is no good in persisting in something of which the Deputies are very well aware.
If it is not based on the facts——
The Deputy is free to reply to my letter if he wishes and to seek further information. That is not a new ruling, and the Deputy knows that perhaps better even than the Chair.
: This undoubtedly is a new ruling motivated by the political cuteness of the Taoiseach.
: Deputy Haughey does not want——
: The Chair will take this opportunity to say that it is not motivated by anything other than the Ceann Comhairle's own consideration and by the advice available to him. It is not on the Taoiseach's advice.
: The Taoiseach's Department said that they did not want to answer the question.
: That is an appaling reflection on the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle.
: According to the Ceann Comhairle's own letter, the Taoiseach referred it initially to the Department of Foreign Affairs when he had not the political guts to answer it here and then you. Sir, disallowed it.
: Any Department has the right to refer a question to another Department if the matter is not relevant to itself.
: Deputies have a right within the rules of this House to raise relevant matters and that is why I am requesting it.
: It went to the Taoiseach's Department.
: Is the Deputy trying to establish that when a question is ruled out of order he is entitled to raise it in the House? That is not the case and it has never been nor will ever be the case.
: I have an obligation to raise it in the House.
Unless the Deputy wishes to have Standing Orders and precedents changed——
: I want a reply.
: The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.