It is proposed to take Nos. 9 and 10, Private Members' Business No. 71.
Order of Business.
I want to ask——
Please be less disorderly, Deputy.
I want to ask why my——
Will the Deputy allow the Order of Business to proceed? It is proposed to take Nos. 9 and 10, Private Members' Business No. 71.
I want to know why my Private Notice Question about the report in The Sunday Times of 25 November, which stated that British security officials were in Dundalk on 7 and 8 November looking for an individual being sought by the British security forces, was not allowed.
It is necessary for me to stand up at this stage. Seven Private Notice Questions were submitted today. If all those questions were to be taken we would take over an hour to dispose of them. However, that is not the criteria by which I judge Private Notice Questions. I have adjudicated on each question submitted in accordance with Standing Orders and I am satisfied that none of the questions meets the criteria laid down by Standing Orders. My secretary communicated the reasons for the refusal to each Member concerned. It is quite unseemly that the Chair should be challenged here, in a disorderly way, day after day in regard to what I am saying in no aggressive way. This does not lend itself to the proper conduct of business. I repeat and not in a jocose way, that if any Deputy wants to discuss the reasons why his question was disallowed, he is very welcome to come to my office.
I submit that the security of this State is being——
I am not prepared to discuss my reasons here.
This article has identified Dundalk as a prime target——
The Deputy must resume his seat.
The Deputy should give an interview to the press if he wants.
This is a very serious matter and the Chair knows it.
The Chair is bound by Standing Orders and the Deputy should accept that.
On the general aspect of your statement, Sir, you agreed that the amount of time Private Notice Questions take is not relevant and I am surprised therefore that you found it necessary to mention it. May I put to you this aspect of the matter: for a long time in this House Governments from both sides were faced with the exasperating situation where matters very much before the public mind which were causing anxiety, worry or speculation, could not be raised here. Subsequently it was my understanding and the understanding of most Deputies, that some latitude was given so that matters which were clearly in the public mind, even though they might not come within the strict literary definition in Standing Orders, were being allowed. There is general dissatisfaction on all sides of the House and among the general public with the situation, because matters such as the Glenholme case, reports about State companies being in trouble with their bankers and matters of that sort, which were reported in the papers and discussed in detail on radio and television, cannot be raised here in any way. It seems that you are going back to a restrictive, limiting attitude in regard to these matters. I suggest that that is not in the best interests of the House. Under the approach which has been here for more than a year now, a number of the questions put down today would have been allowed.
No request or attempt has been made to alter Standing Orders to provide for the procedure Deputy Haughey suggests. If Deputies wish to relax the rules and introduce a system which would allow various matters to be raised on the Order of Business which are not allowed at present, then Standing Orders should be changed. Since I came to this Chair I have stuck rather rigidly to Standing Orders and enforced them — I am not saying this in a carping way — with one possible exception which I can remember. On that day Deputy Haughey was the very man who was on his feet to say that that was a precedent we would remember. I said I would stick to Standing Orders and I have never departed from that since.
May I suggest that you are not addressing yourself strictly to the point I am making? I understand that a number of questions today and on a number of other occasions were ruled out of order by you on the question of urgency. I do not think that is a widening of a definition; it is a matter of interpretation by yourself or your advisers. It is very much a matter of individual judgment and an awareness of the public mind as to whether a matter is urgent or not. It is on that ground more than anything else that I am making this submission. You are interpreting the urgency aspect in a much too narrow and limited fashion. For instance, without trying to reopen this Private Notice Question, may I say that the question of whether an Irish citizen, whether a wrongdoer or not might suddenly be spirited out of this jurisdiction is a matter of urgency? On questions of that nature it is very much a matter of individual judgment and interpretation what is and what is not urgent. In the interests of public feeling on these matters you should err, if necessary, on the side of a lenient interpretation of urgency.
I am satisfied that my interpretation of Standing Orders is in accordance with the interpretation put on them by my predecessors, and I am also satisfied that that is the correct interpretation. I repeat — and I do not think it is unreasonable — that it would be impossible for me to preserve order in this House and to give satisfaction to everybody if I were to have a lax interpretation of this urgency rule. I invite the Members, if they want to, to change the rules and I will implement them.
Dún Laoghaire): We try at all times to make this House relevant. If a matter is causing grave concern to Members of this House and the Whips got together as we did in the past, we might be able to find a solution to this problem.
The Chair refused a Private Notice Question from me. Arising out of the liquidation of Irish Shipping and the speech by the Minister for Finance, I want to know if the report that semi-State bodies are being called in by the banks is true as it is causing great concern to the workers ——
I sent a message to Deputy Wilson's office and the Deputy should know that I cannot allow a discussion on my rulings. There were seven separate questions and we could be here ——
My questions in particular are not finding favour with the Chair. I got a letter from the Chair today regarding another question and the Ceann Comhairle refused it on the basis that it was discussed in an Adjournment debate recently.
The Deputy is not the only Member in that position.
That question was on the Order Paper in two parts. I wanted a written answer which was refused because other Members had part of that question covered in theirs. I said I would accept the part which was not covered by the other questions and that I would leave the rest on the Order Paper. However, the Chair refused that and there is no Standing Order to cover that situation.
I cannot have the ruling of the Chair questioned in a heated manner — or in any manner — in the House. That procedure has prevailed for the past 50 or 60 years and I ask the Deputy to accept it. It is amazing that over the last two years no attempt has been made to change Standing Orders.
In such cases as Deputy Wilson mentioned, and in view of the fact that the question which Deputy Wilson has in mind might not be reached for a month or two, does that not lead to a different interpretation of the question of urgency? If it were a matter that the question which Deputy Wilson has in mind about finances of State companies could be dealt with within a week that would be one thing but we are now faced with a situation where several State companies could have gone bankrupt before Deputy Wilson's question on the Order Paper is reached.
It would not be practicable ——
(Interruptions.)
Order, please. It would not be practicable to adopt that rule because it is impossible to say how many questions will be reached in a day or how many will be sent for written answer or withdrawn. Deputy Haughey knows that it is not so long since 40 questions were usually disposed of in a day. If we dispose of 20 in a day at present we are doing very well.
I wish to raise on the Adjournment the reported presence in hospital here of a Gambian political fugitive who is afraid to go back to his own country as he fears he may be shot.
I will communicate with Deputy Kelly.
Arising from what the Taoiseach said last night and the serious implications for our major industry, agriculture, and the economy, does the Taoiseach intend giving Government time to debate this very important matter?
The Deputy should get in touch with the Whips as this does not arise on the Order of Business.
On the question of Standing Orders, where a debate has taken place on an issue ——
I am not going to allow a debate, this is very disorderly.
On a point of order——
It is not a point of order.
Where a debate has taken place——
The Deputy is out of order, I refer him to the relevant Standing Order.
Would the Minister for Justice inform the House when he intends to report on the preliminary investigation into the case of the Kerry babies and the Shercock affair? Would the Minister also let us know if he intends to set up an independent inquiry?
Limerick East): I will be reporting shortly, certainly before the Christmas recess.
Could I ask the Taoiseach if he intends to allow his Minister for State, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, to make a statement to the House regarding his visit to Ethiopia?
(Interruptions.)
It does not arise on the Order of Business.
I wish to raise on the Adjournment the matter of the latest unemployment figures as they show that 17 per cent of the labour force is unemployed ——
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
I should like to raise on the Adjournment the serious, unfounded and possibly malicious rumours which were circulated last week in relation to the Trustee Savings Bank so that public fears will be allayed.
I will commucate with the Deputy.
The Minister for Justice said he expected to report to the House before Christmas with regard to the Kerry babies' case and the Shercock affair. Does he consider that it may be necessary to bring in legislation to assist him in setting up an appropriate inquiry and, if so, will he bring in such measures as soon as is necessary?
That will arise on another occasion.
In last year's budget, legislation was promised in regard to the equalisation of treatment of women in the area of social welfare. Could the Taoiseach say when this will be introduced as everybody is very confused in that regard at present?
The Deputy should have given notice of this question.
It would be helpful to have notice. I will inform the Deputy of the best estimate of the date of that legislation.
It is an EC directive which must be implemented before the end of the year.
In view of the subject matter of Private Members' Business tonight and that I had a question down which was ruled out of order, which I accept, is it not pre-empting that discussion to have it reported that Fóir Teoranta have requested a receiver for Verolme Cork Dockyard?
The Deputy can raise that matter tonight.
I want to establish that Fóir Teoranta have requested a receiver——
I wish to ask if there will be provision of finance for Roinn na Gaeltachta for repairs of roads in the Gaeltacht areas.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
I wish to raise on the Adjournment the question of the excessive levels of lead pollution in Dublin.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
I wish to raise on the Adjournment the reorganisation proposals for the ESB in County Galway under which areas in Galway are to be administered from Sligo, Limerick and Donegal.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
With the permission of the Chair I wish to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of the Private Notice Question I put down today.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.