It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 10 (resumed), 11 (resumed), 12 (resumed), 13, 14, 15 (resumed), 16, 17 and 3. Private Members' Business from 7 to 8.30 p.m., item No. 28 (resumed). I will make a statement on the European Council Meeting held in Venice on 12 and 13 June immediately after Question Time today.
Order of Business.
Would the Taoiseach say if the White Paper on Education will be published before the end of this session? He will recall that earlier in this session I received assurances from the Minister that the White Paper would be published before the end of the session and I have been making this request for the past nine months.
The final polish is being put on the White Paper and it will be, as is the tradition with this party, progressive, radical and forward-looking.
Facing two ways at once.
(Interruptions.)
Fianna Fáil were not too progressive according to the Berry files.
Any worth-while advance in education was made by the Fianna Fáil Party.
(Interruptions.)
Please, Deputies. The question has been answered by the Minister.
There are low standards in high places.
(Interruptions.)
The question has been answered and we will move on.
They crossed the Border with their uniforms.
(Interruptions.)
Is the Chair to be ignored? Deputy L'Estrange, please.
If Fianna Fáil are progressive, God help Ireland.
If Deputy L'Estrange continues he will be put out of the House. Deputy Collins asked a question and it has been answered.
Let them leave out their political digs——
We are moving to item No. 10.
Did the Minister not agree that an undertaking was given in the last national understanding that the White Paper would be published——
The question has been answered. I am calling Deputy Griffin.
Its progressiveness will disappoint Deputy Collins as every other progressive move has done.
(Interruptions.)
In the 1977 manifesto it was published that——
The stagnation was so bad that it took me two or three years to clear it up.
Minister and Deputies, please, let business continue. Deputy Griffin wishes to ask a question.
(Interruptions.)
This sort of thing is not good enough.
For a start, the Chair should direct his remarks to the Minister.
I am directing my remarks to all sides of the House.
In view of the commitment given to the House by the Taoiseach that the Irish Film Board Bill and the National Film Studios of Ireland Limited Bill 1979 would be introduced before the summer recess, could he give the reasons why this has not happened?
I am not aware of the latest position but I will communicate with the Deputy.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister for Industry, Commerce and Tourism says that it is not important and the Taoiseach says it is. Does the view of the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Tourism prevail in this matter?
Deputies, have some respect for the Chair. Deputy Enright.
On the Order of Business——
He is a little more progressive than many of his party.
The Minister for Energy made a statement in Laois or Offaly last Monday that grants would be made available through some Department—he did not say which——
The Deputy may not raise a matter like that at this time. There are other means of raising this kind of subject. The Chair is proceeding with the business of the House. Item No. 10.
This is something that is——
I did not make any such statement.
There were remarks attributed to him published in the Irish Independent——
I did not say it.
(Interruptions.)
In regard to your ruling that rent control should not be discussed here because it was sub judice, I would like to ask you to reconsider your ruling because it seems——
If the Deputy comes to my office he will get a full explanation.
I understand that a decision of the court which is pending is not a topic for discussion. Nonetheless, given the fact that if the decision were upheld, immediate and serious consequences would follow for many people during the recess if the decision came at that time, the Dáil cannot be precluded from legislating on anything that is sub judice. Therefore we are entitled to discuss this matter.
The decision is not yet out of the courts, as the Deputy has been informed.
The point I was trying to make is that nothing going through the courts can preclude this House legislating——
The Chair has given a decision in keeping with decisions made down the years.
The decision given by the lower court, if upheld, would place an urgent need for legislation which could not be introduced during the recess. I suggest your ruling should be reconsidered.
The Chair will look at the ruling.
I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
With regard to the subject matter raised by Deputy FitzGerald, this could become a matter of grave urgency, because a large number of elderly people are under threat of eviction by a new form of speculation——
The Chair has already promised it will have another look at this question which was ruled out in accordance with precedents.
The Government are also aware of the difficulties to which both Deputies have adverted.
Has the Taoiseach any proposals to deal with this subject should the situation arise during the recess?
Yes.
There will be legislation before the recess?
Not necessarily.
Would the Taoiseach elaborate on how he proposes to deal with this question?
Not at this stage. Deputy Harte wishes to ask a question.
On the last point raised, in the light of the High Court decision the only people bound by the undertaking given to the court are the parties to that case and other landlords all over the country are entitled to proceed now in the light of the High Court decision and are so proceeding.
I am aware of that.
We cannot debate the matter now. Deputy Harte, please.
If the Taoiseach is aware of it, what action does he propose to take?
The Chair has called Deputy Harte. Deputies are debating a matter which should not be debated now.
Can we take it that evictions will not take place?
On the Order of Business it is appropriate to raise a question on what legislation is proposed as a matter of urgency. We have a reply from the Taoiseach that the Government are considering action, but he then says, not necessarily legislation. We are entitled to ask what the Government intend doing to clarify the point.
It would be unwise for the Government to give any particular indication of what action they propose until the matter is disposed of by the courts. The Government are very much aware of the difficulties which are arising and have the situation under review.
People other than those who took the case can and are taking action at the moment. What does the Taoiseach propose to do now?
We cannot debate the matter at this stage. I am calling Deputy Harte.
On a point of order, nobody is trying to make a political football out of this. There are a large number of elderly people at present under threat of eviction.
I understand that, but we cannot debate it here this morning.
We want a clear and unequivocal assurance from the Taoiseach that these people need not have that fear. Surely that is a reasonable request.
The Taoiseach has answered that.
He has not. That is our difficulty.
I am in a difficulty in that I do not wish to comment on something which is still before the courts, the outcome of which we are not yet aware. I assure the House that the situation of the people about whom the House is concerned will be taken into account by the Government. I cannot go any further at the moment.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Pious promises.
I have called Deputy Harte.
With your permission, Sir, I wish to raise on the Adjournment the behaviour of the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry in going to Donegal at public expense and ignoring the plight of the Donegal fishermen.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.