It is proposed to take Nos. 17, 18, 9, 11 and 12. It is also proposed that Nos. 18, 9, 11 and 12 be taken together for the purpose of debate.
Order of Business.
Is it agreed that Nos. 18, 9, 11 and 12 be taken together? Agreed.
You are no doubt aware, Sir, that I corresponded with you last night in relation to my desire to have Standing Orders of the House suspended today to discuss a certain matter of public importance, that matter being that this House deplores the situation which has arisen whereby Members of the House are debarred by the application of the sub judice rule from discussing the urgent matter of the conflict over new taxes on angling which have given rise to increasing turmoil and damage to one of our most important industries, tourism. This House also notes that the precedent exists where a debate on a matter of great public interest was allowed not-withstanding the sub judice rule. Accordingly, this House resolves to debate and decide the motion on the Order Paper dealing with the subject together with any appropriate amendments. I served you notice last night and I have to say to you that it is not——
I do not think the Deputy should elaborate now.
Many people outside——
I now propose to reply to the Deputy. Having considered the matter fully, I do not consider it is one contemplated by Standing Order 30. I cannot, therefore, grant leave to move the motion. Normally I do not elaborate on the reasons for my rulings but in the circumstances of this case I feel I should do so.
The sub judice rule has been in operation in this House for more than 60 years and could not, therefore, be regarded as a matter which has arisen suddenly. Furthermore, the rule does not come within the current responsibility of the Government. It is a matter for the House itself. On 22 October 1986 my predecessor set out in some detail the sub judice rule and the background to it. I would refer Deputies to the Official Report, columns 13 and 14, Volume 369. I do not propose to repeat what he said. In that case my predecessor based his rule on a plenary summons issued on 28 August 1986, almost two months previously. In the rod licence case I base my rule on a plenary summons issued on 26 February last.
I cannot, as Ceann Comhairle, unilaterally change the sub judice rule. As I stated last Tuesday, this would be a matter for the House itself or for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in the first instance. The House, of course, can abolish the rule or modify it if it so wishes and I, as Ceann Comhairle, will faithfully implement any such change. In the meantime I intend to apply the existing rule in accordance with long standing practice.
On a previous occasion a debate took place relating to a matter which was sub judice. This was permitted by Order of the House and not by a decision of the Chair. The Deputy is, of course, enabled to table a motion in Private Members' time providing for the abolition or modification of the rule in question.
I am very grateful for your detailed statement on this matter and I know that is breaking with tradition. I appreciate that. However, it is absolutely riddled with inconsistencies in relation to the present problem and on that basis I will give you notice as Chairman of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges that I will ask for an immediate and emergency meeting of that body to consider this matter.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
I find it difficult to reconcile your ruling on this matter with what has happened in the case of McGimpsie v. the Attorney General where a plenary summons was issued about a year ago in relation to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, where the case is due for hearing in about a month and where the subject matter, of those proceedings has been debated quite extensively in this House over the past year.
I have nothing to add to my statement. Doubtless, if a motion comes before the House, Members will be afforded an opportunity of elaborating.
There is a grave inconsistency.
There is no inconsistency on the part of the Chair.
(Interruptions.)
(Limerick East): I raised this matter with you, Sir, earlier in the week and I am very grateful for your statement where you indicate that further information is available in Volume 369 of the Official Report at columns 13 and 14. For the benefit of those of us who would like to read the background to this, could you indicate under which Standing Order the sub judice rule arises, or is it a matter more of practice than order?
It is a long standing practice of this House going back over 60 years.
(Limerick East): In that regard, with respect, is it not true to say that the sub judice rule is not so much a rule but a practice of the House and that it is a misnomer to refer to it as a rule?
I am not going to get into argument with the Deputy on that aspect of the matter.
I give notice that I wish to raise on the Adjournment the visit to the Middle East of a delegation from the Oireachtas sponsored by the PLO.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
Do the Government intend to introduce amendments to the sound broadcasting Bill to provide for the licensing of commercial television and for an MMDS system?
This is not appropriate on the Order of Business. The Deputy might put down a question on the matter.
This is legislation that has been promised.
The legislation is before the House.
No. Before the House we have a Bill dealing with sound broadcasting — that means radio. We are told the Government intend to introduce amendments on Committee Stage with much wider provisions for licensing television and a system for distributing television signals. Will the Taoiseach confirm if this is the Government's intention or will there be independent legislation, as we had expected?
In regard to any legislation, if the Government intend to bring forward amendments they are brought forward, published and put before the Dáil.
I would refer Deputy Richard Bruton to Question No. 12 on today's Order Paper.
I wish to raise on the Adjournment a question I have sought to raise a number of times in recent weeks, namely, the continued activities of the Israeli security forces in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the killing of almost 200 civilians in that area.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
I seek permission to raise on the Adjournment the siting of the national sports centre, with particular reference to the suitability of the site at the old Baldoyle race course.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
(Limerick East): I wish to raise on the Adjournment the implications for public expenditure which arise from the recent Labour Court decision which stated that it was contrary to the Programme for National Recovery to transfer the delivery of services from the public to the private sector.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
I seek permission to raise on the Adjournment the question of the proposed dumping of toxic materials off the south-west coast of Ireland by Spanish interests and the Government's response to that proposal.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
I wish to raise on the Adjournment the detention of a constituent of mine, Kevin O'Connor, in a Spanish jail for the past three months without being charged or allowed bail.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
I wish to raise on the Adjournment the question of the present conditions that prevail in relation to the teaching of pupils through English or Irish at Scoil Shraith Salach.
I will communicate with the Deputy in respect of that matter.