It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 16 (resumed), 17 and 18. Private Members' Business will be taken from 7 p.m. to 8.30 p.m., item No. 42. By agreement, the House will sit later than 8.30 p.m. today and tomorrow and later than 5 p.m. on Thursday. Business will be interrupted at 10 p.m. on each of these days. The House will sit on Friday at 10.30 a.m. and will adjourn not later than 4 p.m. and the business will be confined to Estimates for the public services. If a division is demanded on any Estimate the division will be postponed until 8.30 p.m. on the next Wednesday on which the Dáil sits until that hour.
Order of Business.
On a point of order, on last Wednesday when we were discussing the notorious Talbot agreement I asked the Taoiseach if he would indicate the cost to date and the cost implications for the future. The Taoiseach replied, "If the Deputy puts down a question about that I should answer that". Today, Sir, I got a letter from you which states that the question was transferred to the Minister for Industry and Energy, which we suspected at the time. Then I was told that it was a repeat of Question No. 749 of 3 June 1982 and the reply to that question. It is not a repeat of that question. That question asked for the cost for the year 1983. My question asked what everybody in Ireland is asking at present, for the cost implications for the future, because even if the cost remains as it is at present it could be upwards of £20 million if inflation continues as we have it and that agreement could cost £40 million to £50 million. I submit that it is not a repeat. I asked for the cost implications for the future, which is different altogether from the cost for 1983 which was asked in Deputy Barry Desmond's question. I believe the Taoiseach gave us his word that he would answer it. Is he man enough today to answer that question?
The question came to me. If you have any problem about it you are welcome to come up and discuss it with me and we will look at the matter again.
The Taoiseach has undertaken to answer this question in the House and we ask that he fulfil his undertaking. I do not think that you are in a position, Sir, to rule that the Taoiseach may not give information to the House which he has undertaken to give to the House.
If it is a repeat question it will not be allowed, but it will have to be examined again and you are welcome to come up for that purpose. When any question is disallowed the matter may not be raised here in the House. The Deputy has all the facilities available. He can come up and discuss it and if a mistake has been made we will rectify it through the office.
If that is the procedure which is being adopted, what I am concerned about is that the Taoiseach should tell the House that he will fulfil the commitment he has entered into and give the House this information. I am entitled on the Order of Business to ask that. He has said that he would make a statement on this in reply to the question. I am asking on the Order of Business when he will do so.
When a question has been asked it cannot be put on the Order Paper again for six months and even if a supplementary question to a question were asked it does not mean that that supplementary would form a question by itself within the time span.
I do not wish to become involved in discussion about that. I am concerned to ask the Taoiseach on the Order of Business when he proposes to give the House the information which he assured the House he would give. On the Order of Business I am raising that question for the Taoiseach to answer.
I do not recollect exactly what I said on that occasion but the import of what I said was that if Deputy L'Estrange put down a question he would be given that information. The Government will discharge their duty if the appropriate Minister supplies Deputy L'Estrange with the information requested.
No, the Taoiseach said, "If the Deputy puts down a question about that I should answer that" and he should answer it. The House now requires that he answer it. Will the Taoiseach tell us if he proposes to repudiate the commitment given to this House to give this information to it?
The Deputy is being quite ridiculous about these matters.
(Interruptions.)
The obligation of the Government is to supply the House with information on these matters. I suggest to Deputy L'Estrange that he put down a question and the information will be supplied. It is the custom for the Minister involved to give the information and the information will be given. I have nothing more to say on the matter.
The Taoiseach said that if the Deputy put down a question — he has put it down —"I should answer it". I am asking him to fulfil the commitment which he gave to the House. Deputy L'Estrange has done his part well. The Taoiseach should do his part.
The Deputy knows perfectly well that the question will be answered by the appropriate Minister.
It is difficult to know what the Taoiseach meant.
The Deputy knows perfectly well that when I gave that undertaking I was giving it on behalf of the Government and the procedure is for the appropriate Minister to answer it. There is no great mystery about it. The figure can be given any time the question is put down.
On a point of order, is the Taoiseach aware that the agreement is not even signed on behalf of the Government or on behalf of any Department? It is signed on behalf of the Taoiseach by Noel Whelan and a name which I cannot read — Pádraig Ó hUiginn, on behalf of the Taoiseach, not on behalf of the Government.
We cannot have a debate on the matter now. It does not arise on the Order of Business.
The Taoiseach is answerable to this House, and not only is he answerable to this House for his actions but he has in this instance assured the House that he will answer to this House the question put down. That has been done and the Taoiseach's undertaking that "in those circumstances I should answer that" is not fulfilled.
The question is not allowed.
Then he should give the House that information.
(Interruptions.)
Would you, Sir, say what procedure can be adopted to ensure that when the Taoiseach takes an action, as he does, and is answerable to the House, as he must be, when he promises to give information and does not give it ——
The Taoiseach gave an answer. Whether the answer is satisfactory or not is not a matter for the Chair.
He has not given any answer whatever.
I was not aware that Deputy L'Estrange put down a question. Presumably it was put down to the appropriate Minister. My obligation to the House and what I intended to say on that occasion was that the information would be supplied if Deputy L'Estrange put down a question. The information will be supplied now that he has done so.
The Government accepted a Labour Party motion on the Ardmore Studios to take whatever steps were necessary to maintain them. Would the Taoiseach clarify the position after the statement made by Deputy Reynolds at the weekend that the Government propose to continue with their intention of selling the Ardmore Studios which would make it impossible to retain the skills of film-makers in that studio or develop the studio. The Government accepted our motion and we are now unsure of the exact position of the Government and their commitment.
The Deputy should put down a question to the appropriate Minister. That is what the procedure is all about.
When a motion is discussed in the House and a solemn agreement entered into on the floor of the House on a matter of public importance and when a Minister, who is not present at any stage of the debate, returns from America at the weekend and on a radio programme disowns a commitment entered into by the Government, surely it is only right and proper that the Taoiseach should clarify the position.
(Cavan-Monaghan): He out-Lenihans Lenihan.
I am certain that if the Deputy puts down a question on that matter it will be answered by the appropriate Minister ——
(Interruptions.)
When do the Government intend to publish their White Paper with proposals for a national youth policy which they indicated they would do during the February election?
I have no notice of that, but if the Deputy puts down a question on the matter it will be answered.
I wish to raise on the Adjournment the on-going dispute of the District Court Clerks which has caused a crisis, specifically for women, with regard to the issuing of barring and maintenance orders.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy. I apologise to the Deputy. She brought to my attention on Friday that I had said "men" when I thought I said "Members". I have since learned that the Deputy was correct.
It was chivalrous of the Chair to apologise.
Was that a Freudian slip?
I wish to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of Question No. 20 on the Order Paper of 1 April 1982.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
I should like to ask the Minister for Health when he intends to make a statement on the circumstances surrounding the death of two young children which resulted in the parents being prosecuted and convicted of criminal offences.
Very shortly.
I should like to ask the Minister for Labour to make a statement on the closure of the Eagle Printing Company in Cork and on his intervention between the unions and the Jefferson Smurfit company. The company has refused to meet the unions to discuss the matter of severance pay and redundancy payments.
This does not arise on the Order of Business. The Deputy has other means at his disposal. He can seek to raise it on the Adjournment.
The Minister intervened and what I am asking is: will he make a statement to that effect?
The Deputy cannot do this now. He may seek to raise it on the Adjournment.
I wish to do so.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
I recently met the trade unions and had discussions with them.
What about Jefferson Smurfit? They refused to meet the unions.
I will communicate with the unions again.
Arising from the point raised by the Labour Party Leader in connection with Ardmore Studios and the motion the House passed unanimously last week, has the Minister for Industry and Energy changed the instructions given to the liquidator by the Government as a consequence of the democratic unanimous decision taken in the House?
That does not arise on the Order of Business.
Would the House not agree, and it is a matter for the House——
I did not say it was not a matter for the House but that it did not arise on the Order of Business. There are other ways in which it can be dealt with.
I do not wish to be disruptive, but in view of the fact that the House accepted the motion last week, that the liquidator is currently moving to dispose of the facility in Bray and that a Minister, who was not present in the House, went on radio at the weekend and contradicted what had been the clear understanding of the House, would the House not agree that there is a sense of urgency and that this is the most appropriate time and place to raise this matter?
I suggest to the Deputy that he avail of the other means available for raising this issue.
Time does not permit that kind of nicety. The liquidator has sacked the chief executive of the company and the jobs of the other people involved are in great peril. We understand that the property is up for sale. In view of the fact that this is an asset which is owned by the State and that the Minister is responsible, would the Minister not indicate, on foot of the resolution passed by the House, if any of the instructions given to the liquidator have been changed?
The Deputy can seek to raise it on the Adjournment or seek to raise it by way of Private Notice Question.
If I give special notice that I intend to raise it tomorrow afternoon, would the House accept it then?
No. The Deputy must give notice tomorrow. If you wish to raise it today you give notice today and if you wish to raise it tomorrow you give notice tomorrow.
On Wednesday of last week I asked the Taoiseach when we could expect the Criminal Justice Bill to be introduced. The Taoiseach said the matter of business was being discussed between the Whips. I subsequently ascertained from my Whip that no discussion has taken place in relation to the Criminal Justice Bill. When can we expect this Bill to be introduced?
Ask Sinn Féin The Workers' Party that after their Ard-Fheis.
It is in the course of final preparation.
Can we expect it before the Dáil adjourns this summer?
Having regard to the sharp practice on our Criminal Justice Bill, I am not likely to inform the Deputy.
I wish to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of the vacant Bord lascaigh Mhara building in Dún Laoghaire.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
I wish to ask the Minister for Justice to clarify the remark he made.
(Interruptions.)
Seeing that the question has been raised, I will make the point here and now to the Deputy that his Bill and the Bill that my predecessor in office had before him for many months, which he deferred, had very unusual similarities.
(Interruptions.)
May I ask, on a point of order——
A point of order certainly, but we cannot have a debate on it.
I did not intend to raise this matter again. The Minister made a remark by which he is engaging again in character assassination, as the Taoiseach attempted to do last week.
What is the point of order?
A statement has been made by the Minister for Justice which I ask him to withdraw. I ask the Minister to agree that the Bill he published, the First Reading of which he intends to move today, was only printed last Thursday after the Fine Gael measure received a First Reading.
That is not a point of order. A point of order relates to order in the House and to Standing Orders.
It is a point of order.
It is a point of information.
If the Minister seeks to engage in character assassination or seeks to demean a Member of the House and suggests that he is engaging in conduct unworthy of the House ——
The Deputy assassinated himself.
The Minister is engaging in conduct unworthy of his office.
Ask your colleague where you got your Bill.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I want to ask whether it is in order for one Member of this House to accuse another of sharp practice, because if it is the Minister for Justice made reference, without name, to somebody being guilty of sharp practice. When he was asked to explain that he then said that the Bill introduced by Deputy Shatter bore a marked similarity to a Bill that had been in the Department of Justice when his predecessor was there, therefore implying that Deputy Shatter was guilty of sharp practice. The Minister should withdraw that statement.
I find it interesting that a party, one of whose principal armouries is character assassination should be so sensitive on this issue.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Fitzpatrick will have to obey the chair. I was trying to answer him. The phrase "sharp practice" has never been ruled out of order in this House.
Well, the people ruled some of it out of order in Dublin West.
Arising out of the Order of Business it is my intention, with your permission, Sir, to raise on the Adjournment the whole question in regard to empty office blocks for which the Government are paying exorbitant rents throughout the city of Dublin and costing taxpayers millions of pounds every year.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
Might I ask the Minister for the Environment when the motion will be before the House to set up the Select Committee promised under the Local Government (Building Land) Bill, 1982?
I answered that on Thursday morning. I have communicated with the Whips of Fine Gael and of The Workers Party asking for suggested terms of reference, as I had promised during the debate in the House. I have the suggested terms of reference from the Labour Party. When I receive a response from the other parties I shall then consider the matter further.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Arising out of what the Minister has said, may I ask if a request for comments in a letter signed by the Minister dated the 17th of this month, which arrived sometime over the weekend ——
That is right.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Therefore would the Minister agree that he has not any cause for complaint if he has not yet received a reply?
I did indicate in the House on the last occasion that I signed it on that date and that it had gone to the Whips. The matter has been before the House for some time. I am sure Fine Gael have given some consideration to it knowing how efficient they purport to be.