It is proposed to take Items Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11. Private Members' Business will be No. 16.
Order of Business.
Our Chief Whip has put a suggestion to his opposite number that a period of six hours be granted for a debate on the matter of the placing of surreptitious listening equipment in a house in Kilbarrack. I should like to know if the Taoiseach is prepared to accede to this request.
I had not, in fact, heard of it yet. I am inclined to think not, a Cheann Comhairle, because the opportunity for debate was provided yesterday and the Opposition preferred not to take it. All the questions that the Leader of the Opposition was able to think of were put and I think they were fully answered.
They were not answered.
They were not.
I think that reply is unworthy of the Taoiseach.
Deputy——
I am sorry, a Cheann Comhairle, but I want to put the facts straight, if I may.
Wait, now, Deputy Haughey.
The Taoiseach has made a tendentious remark.
Typical of him.
If Deputy Haughey will bear with the Chair for one second——
He never did in his life.
The very reason that the Chair tries to avoid, and avoid at all cost, matters being raised on the Order of Business which are not relevant is that it always leads to something like this. I have allowed a question and have allowed the answer to the question.
Is the Chair suggesting that a request from the major Opposition Party for time to debate a matter of national importance is irrelevant?
It is not in order on the Order of Business.
When would it be in order?
It is in order by way of a discussion between the Whips.
But the Whips have discussed it. The Taoiseach has said——
It is never in order on the Order of Business.
I am going to answer the Taoiseach. He said that we were offered an hour-and-a-half yesterday and that we refused it. We were offered an hour-and-a-half yesterday on condition that we withdrew our Private Notice Question. That sort of bullying tactic is not acceptable to this Opposition.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
(Dún Laoghaire): On a point of order, that is totally untrue. Following the efforts of Deputy Haughey yesterday——
(Interruptions).
Order, please.
(Dún Laoghaire): Following his efforts to raise this question yesterday——
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
Who is the Deputy protecting?
(Dún Laoghaire): On a point of order, following Deputy Haughey's efforts——
Would the Minister let the Chair explain, please? So far as the Chair knows about the matter, the Chair yesterday received a request for a debate under Standing Order No. 30 — I mentioned the number of the standing order subject to correction — on the bugging matter. At the same time, the Chair got notice of the intention of Deputy Haughey to seek to put a Private Notice Question. The Chair considered both matters and conveyed to the Fianna Fáil Chief Whip, Deputy Ahern, who came to his office, that both matters were under consideration. To try to be helpful, the Chair stated that it it were decided to allow the application for a debate under Standing Order No. 30, the Private Notice Question would not be allowed because the Chair would regard it as anticipating the debate.
Correct.
That is what happened yesterday.
(Dún Laoghaire): May I explain what actually happened?
(Interruptions.)
Look, Deputy——
(Dún Laoghaire): I am just trying to clear up the matter.
The Taoiseach is guilty with a capital G.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
(Dún Laoghaire): Would the House be prepared to listen?
Deputies, please, excuse me for one moment.
(Dún Laoghaire): I can explain in two short sentences what happened.
Will the Minister bear with the Chair for a moment, please?
Deputies
Hear, hear.
We accept what the Chair has said.
Will Deputy Haughey please keep quiet? Deputy Haughey stated that he was given an option of a one-and-half-hour debate if he withdrew the Private Notice Question.
(Dún Laoghaire): That is not true.
Will you wait, please?
(Interruptions.)
You are getting rattled.
(Dún Laoghaire): That is not true.
Order, please. It was not absolutely clear from what Deputy Haughey said who gave him the option.
The Chair can justify his action. I fully accept his version.
You can justify it sentence by sentence. It was not clear from what Deputy Haughey said who gave him the option. It could be taken that it was the Government. I shall allow the Minister a very short statement.
(Dún Laoghaire): What actually happened was that on the Order of Business yesterday Deputy Haughey endeavoured to ask the Tánaiste for special time for a debate. The Taoiseach was not present. I accepted the Chair's ruling that such a request could not be accepted on the Order of Business. After the Order of Business, I went to the Taoiseach and suggested to him that, in view of the Leader of the Opposition's request to have a debate, I would recommend to the Taoiseach that he allow that debate in lieu of a Private Notice Question because it would be more satisfactory for the Opposition to have such a debate——
A cover-up.
(Dún Laoghaire): In order to be helpful, I persuaded the Taoiseach to accept that, which he willingly did. I went back to the Chief Whip of the Opposition Party and put to him that to facilitate everybody, we could extend the sitting of the Dáil by an hour-and-a-half, if necessary, in order that people on the other side and on our side could prepare properly for such a debate, if this was acceptable. He came back and said that it was not. It was not a pre-condition that the Private Notice Question should be withdrawn. It was a debate in lieu of a Private Notice Question to help both sides. It was not a threat as was suggested. It is very unfair to the Government to try to give that impression.
Item No. 8.
A Cheann Comhairle, I want to clear up my relationship with you. I fully accept your position on the matter. I was not in any way casting any doubt on your ruling. I am absolutely clear on your ruling yesterday. It was a perfectly fair and just ruling. We fully accepted it. I said by way of reply to the Taoiseach that arrangements were conducted between the Whips. Your position was absolutely in accordance with Standing Orders. I am asking the Taoiseach, in view of the very unsatisfactory nature of his replies yesterday and in view of subsequent information which has come to light on television and elsewhere, if he will now give us a six-hour debate.
Why did they not appear on television on Today Tonight?
Will the Taoiseach give us a six-hour debate and if not why not?
As of now no, because every question which the Deputy could think of — and he was given all the time he wanted to the point of repeating one question three times — was asked and answered in full by me. When Deputy Haughey had exhausted the possibility of every question his questions ended.
What is the Taoiseach covering up? I know life would be much easier if there were no Opposition in this Parliament but we happen to be here.
It would not be half as much fun.
Would Deputy Haughey like to contemplate what the place would be like if we had no Standing Orders?
I am quite within Standing Orders, a Cheann Comhairle. I want to ask you about Standing Order No. 30. If we were to move on Standing Order No. 30 what time would be allowed? The Standing Orders I have are out of date.
An hour-and-a-half. If the Chair acceded to Deputy Haughey's request for a debate under Standing Order No. 30 business would be interrupted at 7 o'clock and an hour and half would be granted.
Would you be kind enough to elucidate for me paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 30 which indicates that if a matter fails to obtain the requisite support it cannot be raised for six months. Does that mean that if 12 persons do not rise in support of it, it cannot be raised?
The Chair must get notice before the sitting starts.
That is why I gave you notice yesterday. Could I raise another matter? We have submitted a motion to your office in the following terms:
That it is expedient that a tribunal be established under the provisions of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts 1921 and 1979 for (i) inquiring into the following definite matter of urgent public importance: the circumstances in which listening devices were placed in a private house in Del Val Avenue, Kilbarrack; (ii) making such recommendations as the tribunal having regard to its findings thinks proper.
I want to ask the Taoiseach if he will give time for a debate on that motion today.
Immediately before I came into the Chair my office received a copy of that motion from the Fianna Fáil Whip's office. The procedure is that it moves into Private Members' Time.
I know that is the case in the normal way, but this matter is far from normal. I think everyone in the House will acknowledge that it is exciting massive public attention at the moment. There is a great public need for information.
I will not allow a speech on it.
I want to ask the Taoiseach clearly and formally if he will allow time for a discussion on this motion in the public interest.
I understand the Ceann Comhairle said it can be discussed in Private Members' Time.
We want Government time for it. What is the Taoiseach covering up? What is he afraid of? This is a matter of urgent public importance.
I have allowed the question to be asked and answered. I have called item No. 8.
I should like to ask the Taoiseach what action he proposes to take to secure the release of the students in Mountjoy arising from the withdrawal of medical cards.
I explained to the Deputy yesterday that I have ruled on that. For the Deputy's benefit, that is not in order not only because this is the Order of Business but also because people are in prison under a court order for contempt of court. It is a matter for the courts.
I accept your ruling that they are in jail for contempt of court but it arises from the withdrawal of medical cards. If you will not allow me to raise it on the Order of Business, I will seek your permission to raise it on the Adjournment.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
Could I ask the Tánaiste if he will be making a statement in the House on his recent discussions in London with the British Minister for the Environment?
No, I will not allow that question on the Order of Business.
When will we be ratifying the Paris convention in relation to the discharge of nuclear waste?
That is not in order on the Order of Business.
On the Order of Business I should like to ask the Taoiseach if he will intervene in the present unhappy position in which students are in jail.
I have ruled that out of order on a number of occasions.
I wish to protest about the handling of the affair here yesterday on the "Today in the Dáil" programme on RTE 1. It was trivialisation.
Deputy Leyden will resume his seat.
A comment by the Minister of State, Deputy Donnellan, was reported. This was grossly unfair and it should not have been reported.
Item No. 8.
On a point of order, the dignity of the House is involved in the matter of the report of the very serious proceedings in this House yesterday. An attempt was made to trivialise the proceedings by the commentator on Radio Éireann this morning. A Cheann Comhairle, I am asking you as the keeper of order in this House and the person responsible for our behaviour and for the dignity of the House if you are aware of the manner in which RTE reported our debate yesterday. Would you agree with me that an attempt was made to trivialise that matter by the recording of a disorderly remark?
It is getting close to the bone.
If Deputy Haughey has any complaint to make about that, he should bring it before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
Could I point out to the House that we have a Broadcasting Complaints Commission?
(Interruptions.)
If I do not get order to proceed with item No. 8 I propose to adjourn the House. Item No. 8.
If disorderly comments are reported on RTE 1 you will not get order in the House.
I am adjourning the House because Deputy Leyden has threatened that I will not get order.
Sitting suspended at 10.50 a.m. and resumed at 11.05 a.m.