It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 1, 9, 5, and in No. 5, Votes 44 and 45, and No. 10 (resumed).
Order of Business.
Would the Taoiseach comment on the statements made in Cork last evening by the Minister of State, Deputy Brady, about financial allocations for Cork city? The Minister had been on a two-day visit and everybody in Cork expected an announcement of major financial allocations to the city. When the Taoiseach was in Cork a month ago he said Cork would be given serious consideration, but last night we had a statement from the Minister of State in which he seriously misrepresented the facts——
The Deputy may ask the question but not make a statement.
There is no by-election in Cork.
Funds that should have gone to Cork are being ploughed into Dublin West. I am asking the Taoiseach to make a statement. In an Adjournment debate last week the Dáil was informed that serious consideration would be given to the allocation of funds for development in Cork. We are only looking for what Dublin got in the Gregory deal.
I suggest that the Opposition are beginning to turn the House into a farce. On the Order of Business, apparently any Deputy can raise any question he likes and accordingly the Order of Business has become a meaningless procedure and we have no way of conducting our business in the House in an orderly manner. As far as I can see, every Deputy in the House can raise on the Order of Business any matter he feels like raising. Therefore, we cannot possibly conduct our business properly.
When we were in Government Deputy Haughey and others repeatedly raised matters and we never refused to answer.
The running of the country is being reduced to a farce.
I raised a matter yesterday and I understand the Minister for Justice will make a statement at 3.30 on the problem in the District Court in relation to the court clerks. Can I now ask the Taoiseach if the Minister, when dealing with this matter, will also deal with the problem that has arisen due to his failure to publish rules of court, both District Court and Circuit Court? It has become virtually impossible for legal practioners——
You will have to await the statement at 3.30. If we were to continue like this I do not see any purpose in having the statement.
In order to co-operate with the Chair yesterday, and to be helpful, I indicated that I would ask the Minister to make a statement on this matter. Now Deputy Shatter proposes to raise another matter. It seems to me that there is no end to this procedure, and the Government will not be able to conduct their business if we proceed in this manner.
Deputy Shatter raised this point yesterday.
I raised both points.
It has been indicated that the Minister for Justice will make a statement at 3.30. Deputy Shatter, therefore, may not now proceed to make a statement or to ask a number of questions. He has been assured a statement will be made and he must abide by that. He, then, will have an opportunity to make a statement.
I wish to comment on that. We are prepared to supply information to the Deputy on the point he raised, in deference to the Chair; but if this is to proceed in the usual way, than I must object to the procedure. Under the procedure for making statements, the Minister would make a statement, the Opposition party would have an opportunity to make statements arising out of the Minister's statement, but the Minister would not have an opportunity to reply. That is the situation we are not prepared to countenance.
What course of action is open to me, in view of the conflicting statements made by two Ministers about financial aid for Cork city?
The Deputy will be welcome to come up to me afterwards to discuss the matter. If he comes to my office we will endeavour to help him as much as we can. I am calling Item No. 1.
I wish to give notice that I want to raise on the Adjournment today the subject matter of Question Nos. 5 and 6 on last Thursday's Order Paper.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
Since the new Dáil met and Deputy Haughey became Taoiseach I have been trying to table a question to get information from the Taoiseach about any deal between the Taoiseach——
I disallowed that ——
Yes, and we have become great pen-friends, writing backwards and forwards to each other.
Unfortunately I am not able to discuss it now. If you wish, you are welcome to come up to my office and I will explain it to you. I will not explain it to you in the House. That applies to any Deputy.
On a point of order——
I am calling on the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.
On a point of order——
(Interruptions.)
On a point of order——
Deputy Harte, on a point of order.
Why is it that you just ignore me on a point of order?
I told you I did not hear you in regard to the point of order.
(Interruptions.)
I am concentrating now on the Order of Business. If the Deputy has a point of order I will be glad to hear it.
Do you seriously feel that I should accept that from you, Sir?
If you do not wish to accept it it is not my fault.
On a point of order, I want an explanation from you as to why——
The Deputy cannot get that explanation. He is not entitled to that explanation. It is not a point of order.
I have put down parliamentary questions to you almost identical to those submitted by Deputy Gregory and you have refused to accept them.
They were ruled out of order.
I want to know why.
If you want to come up to my office I will explain, but I am not going to explain it to you now. That is my answer. I am not obliged to explain it to you now but you are welcome to come to my office.
You and I will continue to be pen friends and you will protect the Taoiseach.
I am sorry Deputy, I cannot continue on that.
There is a problem. When rulings appear to be inconsistent Deputies suffer from a sense of grievance unless an explanation is given. I do not know about this correspondence, but unless in the correspondence you have explained why questions can be put down about the Gregory deal but not about the Blaney deal the Deputy is bound to feel a grave sense of grievance and will want to ventilate it in the House. The matter has been raised in an orderly way by correspondence and when rulings appear inconsistent the Chair should explain the reason for the distinction so that the Deputy will not have that sense of grievance and will not have to appear to be disorderly in the House. I suggest that the Chair try to maintain consistency in rulings and to ensure that the rulings are seen to be just as well as being just.
Deputy FitzGerald, I want to assure you that every question that comes up to me is examined by me in consultation with my advisers. I do not just casually say no. I try in every way possible to ensure that a Deputy is satisfied about it. I have written to Deputies about this telling them that they are entitled to come up and discuss any matter such as this. You can be assured that they are not just casually rejected. Far from it; I go to no end of trouble to try to get the questions accepted and a number of your colleagues in your party will know this.
I accept that, but I am suggesting that the problem that has arisen at the moment could now be resolved if in the correspondence with Deputy Harte you had explained the reason for the different treatment as between questions on the Gregory deal and questions on the Blaney deal. If he had that explanation he would not have to raise it here. Perhaps that could be arranged.
The Deputy is right. Any Deputy who gets a rejection can write asking why. We endeavour to give the reason but if it is not satisfactory he is entitled to write asking why and I will certainly facilitate him. If the Deputy comes up to my office I will explain it to him.
Thank you very much, Sir, but I have other things to do. I have written to you and I would like you to give me the reason you have refused to accept about six or seven——
I am not giving it in the House.
I do not want you to give it in the House. I am asking you to give it to me in writing.
Certainly, Deputy Harte.
(Limerick East): Will the Minister for Industry and Energy make a statement on the redundancies in the Burlington factory in Limerick? Will he include in the statement a statement on the condition of the textile industry in the country due to the serious situation which has now arisen?
That can be submitted by way of Private Notice Question or ordinary question. There are other means as well. I am not saying it will be accepted but consideration can be given to it being raised on the Adjournment.
(Limerick East): It is a matter of extreme urgency. That is why I chose to raise it on the Order of Business.
The Deputy could also consider raising it by way of Private Notice Question if it is urgent.