It is proposed to take business in the following order: No. 11 (resumed) and No. 13 (resumed). It is proposed that item No. 13 will be disposed of today without debate after the proceedings on the Adjournment debate have been concluded.
Order of Business.
Might I ask the Taoiseach if he will indicate to the House when it is proposed that the House will resume after the summer recess?
Yes, I will indicate that today.
As this is the last opportunity we shall have to ask the Taoiseach questions on these matters I should be greateful if he would let the House know when it is proposed to publish the Report of the Commission on Taxation which the Government now have. I might ask him also when it is proposed to publish the Government Economic and Social Plan to which reference has been made repeatedly by Ministers and, thirdly, what action, if any, he proposes to take during the recess in regard to consultation with other parties in the House in regard to the contents of the Economic and Social Plan after it has been published.
Firstly, the first Report of the Commission on Taxation will, I hope, be published within a matter of days. Secondly, I am not yet in a position to give the exact date for publication of the National Economic Plan. As I have already said, work on it is well advanced and certainly it will be brought forward during the recess. I do not imagine there will be any difficulty about any discussions or consultations which may be necessary with the other parties. I suggest that the Whips keep in touch about whatever arrangements may be necessary.
Does the Taoiseach propose any structures within which such consultation should take place or does he propose to leave it to the Opposition to express their views in the ordinary way?
I have not come to any particular conclusions along those lines yet. But perhaps the Deputy would let me think about that and I will communicate with him. Certainly I would value the highest possible level of consultation and discussion on that.
A Cheann Comhairle, I should be grateful if you would give me a couple of minutes to raise a point of order. Yesterday evening — presumably in pursuance of Standing Order No. 23 (3) — Deputy N. Andrews raised here the matter of an alleged interference by the former Minister for Justice with Garda procedures. Although this procedure is well understood here — of raising matters on the Adjournment — and there seems to be a system which is in ordinary circumstances quite appropriate, whereby the Member raising it, or colleagues of his together, get 20 minutes and the Minister in charge of the area under review gets 10 minutes to reply, I would like to know, Sir, whether it is in order, having regard to the essential rules of fairness and justice which bind everyone in this House and State, that a matter involving not something under the charge of the current Minister but alleged to have arisen under a previous regime is raised in this way, bearing in mind the fact that it utterly deprives the person under attack of any opportunity to reply, and deprives his colleagues of any opportunity of speaking for him either.
I regard the question of interference with the police as very serious. I would be very happy to see an ad hoc committee of this House go into the matter and call evidence from the police about the extent to which they have suffered under other Governments than ours, but I certainly would not exempt ours from a scrutiny, from interference. I would like this thing brought out on the table, looked at and disposed of for good. But I regard it, Sir, as a disgrace and a shame that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle here yesterday evening permitted, and that those two great upholders of law and order, Deputy N. Andrews and the Minister for Justice, collaborated in, an attack on the former Minister for Justice who may or may not be guilty but——
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Kelly, you have made an unwarranted attack on the Leas-Cheann Comhairle — it was I who gave — and I would ask you to withdraw that.
If I am not correct in mentioning him I do apologise to him, and I am only relying on what appeared to be a fairly full newspaper report, but it did indicate that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle with extreme — perhaps I had better not describe it — very sharply rebuked any attempt from our benches to put in a word in defence of Deputy J. Mitchell.
(Interruptions.)
A Cheann Comhairle, this is not a point of order being put forward by the Deputy.
Of course it is a point of order. Sir, would you please say whether it is in order that a matter of this kind should be raised in the context of an adjournment discussion lasting half-an-hour?
I ruled it was in order because of the fact that the Minister for Justice had indicated that he had set up an inquiry into it and he was answerable to the Dáil for it.
(Interruptions.)
—— I am not saying he is charged with but answerable for something a political opponent is charged with. It is a disgrace and a farce. It is a very dangerous precedent.
Is there any precedent for this?
I have already had advice on it.
It is a very dangerous precedent indeed. I want to know in public is there any precedent for it?
I am not prepared to say that now, Deputy, but if the Deputy is prepared to come up to see me I will——
I should like to point out that the Fine Gael Party in particular never cease to hurl accusations across the House at the integrity of this party, individual Members of it and Ministers. It ill becomes them to adopt this hypocritical self-righteous pretended indignation when we on this side raise a perfectly valid matter.
That ill becomes Deputy Haughey——
Deputy Kelly is now being disorderly. The Deputy must have regard for order.
I should like to make a point which I tried to make last night. Our real objection was that that the procedures did not permit a person against whom accusations were being made to have the right of reply. We felt that was contrary to natural justice, and I still hold that the procedure which permitted that to happen was contrary to natural justice.
I should like to point out that the person in question. Deputy Jim Mitchell, availed of a debate in the House to come in and ex-parte and unilaterally launch a bogus specious attack on me about the telephone system in this House. If there are going to be rules of fair play let us get back to applying them across the House.
Deputy Kelly rose.
I am ruling this out of order now. Deputy Kelly had better resume his seat or I will have to take very stern action for disorderly behaviour.
Any Member can reply to a debate in this House but that did not happen on this occassion. Any Members could have spoken on the debate the Taoiseach has referred to but Deputy Jim Mitchell was not given such an opportunity and could not have contributed.
Before I put my question I should like to remark that one must appreciate why Deputy Kelly must feel hurt at the relevations that have come to light. I should like to know if the recommendations of the Commission on Taxation will be the subject of a debate when the Dáil resumes.
Yes, certainly.
(Dún Laoghaire): It will be a sad occasion if we should part in such an atmosphere. The point we were anxious to make last night——
Is this in order?
(Dún Laoghaire): It will only take two seconds to explain this matter. It was not a question of trying to hide anything or sweep anything under the carpet.
The Deputy's side of the House tried to stop Deputy Niall Andrews from speaking.
(Dún Laoghaire): The only point I question is whether the rules of the House permit a debate to take place regarding a Member who (a) does not know that it is taking place and (b) does not have any opportunity of replying or any Member replying on his or her behalf. Surely that is not natural justice. I do not condone any Member who attacks another Member, be it the Taoiseach, a Member on this side or on the Government's side, but surely it is only natural justice that a Member must have the right to know that this attack is taking place.
I must interrupt the Deputy to tell him that there is no provision on the Order of Business for speeches. We must obey the rules and move on to No. 11.
I should like to ask the Taoiseach when the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the EEC will be established. It is now more than 12 months, and two Administrations later, since there has been a meeting of that Joint Committee. Surely it is possible to find a more expeditious way of establishing Committees on the change of Government?
The membership of the Joint Committee will be announced today.
Will a Motion be introduced today to establish it?
A Motion has been introduced and no further Motions are necessary.
I should like to support Deputy Walsh and say that the procedures of the House for the establishment of such Joint Committees appear to be unduly cumbersome. A Motion establishing such Committees must be moved in the Seanad on two occasions and in the Dáil on two occasions. It seems ridiculous that we do not have a more expeditious manner of establishing such Committees, especially when there is agreement on all sides. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges should look at the manner in which such Committees are established to see if it can be done in a speedier way.
I will bring that matter to the attention of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.