Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Nov 1989

Vol. 393 No. 5

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take Nos. 5, 6 and 7.

It is also proposed that the proceedings on the Report and Final Stages of No. 5, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 1.30 p.m. by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only amendments set down by the Minister for the Environment.

It is further proposed that the proceedings on the Committee Stage of No. 6, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 7.00 p.m. by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only amendments set down by the Minister for the Marine.

Private Members' Business shall be No. 18.

Are the proposals for dealing with No. 5 agreed? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with No. 6 agreed? Agreed.

I regret to have to raise this matter but I think it should be raised in the House. Some time ago my colleague, Deputy Austin Currie, put down a number of questions to the Minister for Foreign Affairs asking about a number of incidents involving the UDR and endeavouring to find out if the Government were taking any action. In a letter dated yesterday you informed Deputy Currie that the questions were disallowed on the basis that "the questions anticipate the statements regarding Anglo-Irish relations to be made this week". I do not know what is the basis for that conclusion. We cannot anticipate what anyone might say in a series of statements. It should in fact be a debate, not a series of statements. Questions in relation to specific incidents deserve to stand on their own, to be treated on their own merits and not to be bound up in a debate which is forthcoming. On this basis it seems that from now on almost any questions about budgetary or financial policy could be disallowed on the grounds that they anticipate statements the Minister for Finance might make in the House next January. I would urge you to take a much more disconnected view of the relationship between questions and statements. I would ask you to reconsider this matter and allow these questions, which deal with specific issues and incidents, to be answered.

I am glad the Deputy raised the matter. What has been done in this instance is in strict accord with normal practice. Normally at European summits the Taoiseach has met the British Prime Minister en marge of the Council. Accordingly I allowed a question yesterday by Deputy Dick Spring asking the Taoiseach if he would make a statement on any discussions he had with the British Prime Minister in the course of the recent European Summit, if he took the opportunity to raise with her the case of the Birmingham Six and if he would make a statement on the matter. The Taoiseach in his reply to Deputy Spring's question stated inter alia that the Government will deal with the Birmingham Six case and other Anglo-Irish questions during the course of this week's statements on Anglo-Irish relations. In my view the questions ruled out of order by me all related to Anglo-Irish relations and accordingly I had no option but to disallow them. This was strictly in accord with normal procedures. There is this week a two-day debate on Anglo-Irish affairs in which a goodly number of the Members of this House may participate and ventilate their views.

I regret that I am not at all convinced by what you have said. I could make a similar argument. I could say, for example, that we all know that the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council have met on a number of occasions in the past couple of months and that these issues could or should have been dealt with during the course of those meetings. These are questions relating to specific issues. The debate to be held in the next couple of days should be about general matters of policy and not necessarily about specific incidents. I submit that in following this particular line you are creating at least the possibility that the Government will be able, wittingly or unwittingly, to stifle questions in this House simply by saying we are going to have a debate on that issue in the next couple of weeks. You will remember, Sir, that in the last Dáil we had this same kind of discussion about a series of questions on economic matters that were ruled out of order because we had a budget debate either forthcoming or going on. The interpretation you are giving to these provisions of Standing Orders is an interpretation which muzzles this House rather than helps the process of parliamentary debate. I must ask you to reconsider.

I repeat that it is in accordance with normal practice. Questions have on a number of occasions been disallowed as anticipating statements or debate on various subject matters. For example, recently in the case of statements on the NESC, on 24 and 25 October, I disallowed five parliamentary questions. This is quite common practice where questions anticipate debate on specific matters. However, I will take into account what Deputy Dukes has said to see if there is any further leeway I can provide.

Sir, you have allowed Question No. 53 on today's Order Paper which deals with the same matter.

As many legal aid centres are closed and as it is taking between three and six months to get an appointment in those that claim to be open, may I raise this matter on the Adjournment?

I will be in touch with the Deputy concerning the matter.

I should like to pursue the point made by Deputy Dukes because it is a dangerous restriction on questions, one of the few freedoms Deputies have in the House. In your reply did you confirm with the Taoiseach that this matter would be dealt with in his statement tomorrow or Friday?

If Members feel strongly that there should be a relaxation of this rule it is open to the House to take appropriate action in the matter.

Thank you for your assurance to Deputy Dukes that you will again look at this matter. When you do will you bear two factors in mind? The first is that these questions relate to matters of very substantial concern to the Nationalist community in the North and to people on the island generally in so far as they relate to specific allegations against the UDR being accompanied by the RUC——

I will give the Deputy such an assurance.

Will you also bear in mind that these questions were put down some weeks ago well in advance of any notice to this House that the debate on Anglo-Irish affairs would occur?

I give the Deputy an assurance that once the debate to which we have referred is disposed of I shall certainly entertain his questions.

I did not get an answer to my question. You have allowed Question No. 53 on today's Order Paper which deals with matters affecting Northern Ireland. The grounds that you used to disallow Deputy Currie's question apply precisely in regard to that question. Could you now — or at a later point — explain this apparent inconsistency in your ruling?

I will communicate with the Deputy in connection with that query as I should like to have time to look at it.

Yesterday, with your permission, I raised with the Taoiseach and the Minister for Social Welfare the position of Coolock Community Law Centre and I welcomed the news that the centre would be looked after. Will the Taoiseach or the Minister communicate with the centre at the earliest possible date in relation to the Government's intentions as there is extreme concern among the staff and the community in Coolock about this matter?

The Deputy has made his point.

Will the Taoiseach ensure an early communication to them of the Government's intentions?

The Deputy must pursue that matter in the normal way.

Last week the Dáil discussed the raising of the levies in relation to bovine diseases. However, the Minister failed to inform the House that the board of ERAD had, two weeks previously, decided to substantially reduce the reactor payment on cattle. Why were we not informed of this substantial decrease in reactor payments?

It is not in order for you, Deputy, to make a speech of that kind.

It is no laughing matter.

There are procedures laid down whereby these matters can be ventilated.

(Interruptions.)

There is a responsibility on you as Ceann Comhairle to ensure that we get the full facts of the case.

I wish to raise on the Adjournment the future structure of the family mediation service.

I will communicate with the Deputy.

In view of the continued attacks on bus drivers and travellers on Dublin buses in particular and the concern expressed by the National Busworkers' Union and others, I should like to raise on the Adjournment the need to introduce, particularly on Dublin buses, pre-paid tickets, which is the practice in most other European countries.

I will be in touch with the Deputy.

I should like to raise on the Adjournment recent tragic incidents in which Dublin Corporation accommodation burned down resulting in a number of deaths. I particularly refer to a group of buildings in the Summerhill area which pose a fire trap in the sense that if there is a fire residents on the third floor have no exit with the result that deaths are inevitable.

I will be in touch with the Deputy concerning that matter.

Will the Minister for Social Welfare indicate whether he has made any progress in preparing legislation promised during his budget speech in March last when he indicated that it was his intention to introduce legislation or to make regulations for a lone parent allowance which would integrate the various schemes for supporting single parents with children?

No legislation was promised but this matter is under consideration.

Some days after this Dáil convened I put down an urgent question to the Taoiseach in relation to the periodic closure of the Swanlinbar frontier post. You notified me that you were transferring the question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I accepted that decision. However, the question does not appear on the questions to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I also raised a specific question in relation to Aghalane Bridge——

My office will be very happy to facilitate the Deputy in every way concerning such matters.

How can I ensure that these questions will be on the Order Paper?

If you will get in touch with my office we will facilitate you in every possible way.

I wish to raise on the Adjournment the closure of the consumer affairs offices in Cork and Galway and the refusal of the Dublin office to deal with problems arising outside Dublin city because of cutbacks in travel allowances and staff.

I will be in touch with the Deputy.

I wish to raise on the Adjournment the question of the new forensic evidence in the case of the Tallaght Two and, specifically, the young man who has been in Pentonville Prison since last July awaiting extradition to this country for a crime to which others have admitted responsibility.

I will be in touch with the Deputy.

I do not like to be tedious on the Order of Business but it is my only chance to ask whether we may realistically hope for the establishment of a foreign affairs committee. I should like the Taoiseach to confirm that a senior executive of a multinational company, a former secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, has retired from his position in that Department or is on leave of absence——

Please, Deputy Higgins, this matter should not be raised on the Order of Business.

This is the point I am making.

The Deputy will have to find another way of raising that matter.

If the Deputy said something you agreed with he would allow——

I am entitled to an answer——

As the question is not in order you are not entitled to an answer.

If we had a foreign affairs committee Mr. Donlon could make his statements to them.

Please, let us avoid naming people.

I should like to answer the question. So far as I am aware, the only member of the board of the company still in the public arena is Deputy Garret FitzGerald, a Member of this House.

I concur with the comments and sentiments of Deputy Spring as far as the future of the civil legal aid board is concerned. In view of the crisis obtaining following the very serious comments of their chairman and also on account of the way this House addresses questions to the Minister for Justice, it is very important that this matter be raised at the earliest opportunity either by way of an Adjournment Debate or a general debate in the House, particularly when one notes that in the entirety of this session half an hour of the time of this House has been devoted to questions to the Minister for Justice. You will appreciate, Sir, there is no other vehicle available to us to enable such a discussion.

The Deputy has made his point though I am not sure he is in order.

Therefore it is important that this matter be raised at the earliest opportunity.

Yesterday I asked the Taoiseach if he could jog his memory as to whether the Government have yet approved the heads of the long promised legislation to establish a national roads authority promised both in this House and in the Fianna Fáil Manifesto. Would the Taoiseach say whether this important legislation has been approved in principle by the Cabinet as yet?

I gave the Deputy the up-to-date position yesterday.

I hope we are not going to get into an argument about the matter again today.

The Taoiseach did not answer the question I have just put. We should have an answer on this important matter, Sir.

I told the Deputy that the legislation is going through the normal process and that it is with Departments at present for consideration.

May I seek leave to raise on the Adjournment the urgent need for an adequate speech therapy service in St. Joseph's special national school, Balrotnery.

I will be in touch with the Deputy concerning the matter.

A Cheann Comhairle, with your permission, I should like to raise on the Adjournment the serious position obtaining in the office of the Director of Consumer Affairs in that insufficient staff are available to monitor potentially dangerous toys for Christmas.

I will communicate with the Deputy.

Would the Taoiseach give a commitment that, during his Presidency of the EC, he would have some meetings held in Cork in connection with that Presidency? Again I should like to seek your permission, Sir, to raise on the Adjournment the very serious question now holding up the processing of grant payments for the control of pollution on farms because of a strike in the farm development service and also the delay occasioned on account of inadequate staffing in Teagasc of the processing of installation aid grant payments in Cork.

I will be in touch with the Deputy concerning the matter.

A Cheann Comhairle, again I seek your permission to raise on the Adjournment the matter to which I referred yesterday, that of the policy of the Housing Finance Agency of assessing in the determination of mortgage repayments in the case of deserted wives an income alleged to be derived from estranged husbands.

I will communicate with the Deputy concerning the matter.

May I attempt to raise on the Adjournment, Sir, for the eighth occasion the provision of adequate educational facilities at Listowel vocational school, County Kerry.

I will communicate with the Deputy.

Is the Minister for Education yet in a position to state who are the new owners of Carysfort College? If not, may I seek your permission, Sir, to raise the matter on the Adjournment?

I will communicate with the Deputy. The question would not be in order now.

According to my reckoning as there are 14 days sitting only, including today, between now and the end of this year would the Taoiseach indicate whether the regulations to give legal effect to the environmental directive of the EC will be in place by then?

That is the intention.

A Cheann Comhairle, I seek your permission to raise on the Adjournment the refusal of the Minister for Education to grant secretarial assistance to St. Anne's convent school in Tipperary.

I will communicate with the Deputy.

Would the Taoiseach say whether it is intended to make time available for the Minister for Agriculture and Food to make a statement in this House on the recent decisions taken at the Council of Ministers meeting.

That is not in order now, Deputy.

A Cheann Comhairle, I asked a question recently in relation to this issue.

The Deputy should put down a question formally.

I did put down a question and you, Sir, refused to allow it on the Order Paper. May I ask the Taoiseach why this established practice has ceased because it has not happened in the last two and a half years——

Deputy Farrelly will have to obey the Chair.

What are they hiding?

There is too much good news coming these days: the Deputy would not be able for all of it.

Why has this practice now ceased?

Deputy Farrelly will please resume his seat.

With your permission, Sir, I should like to raise on the Adjournment, on behalf of Deputy McGinley and myself, the imminent closure of Porter's factory in Castlefin and, in doing so, bring to the attention of the Ministers for Finance and Industry and Commerce the 150 jobs in jeopardy there, that in a town which has been devastated because of cross-Border trade——

I will be in touch with the Deputy concerning that matter.

——this does not say much for cross-Boorder co-operation.

Is the Taoiseach aware that the delays occasioned in the processing of the planning compensation Bill are rendering local authorities liable to possible further unjustifiable compensation claims of millions of pounds? Can he indicate when the amendments the Minister said he will circulate to the Bill will be circulated? Will he indicate when Committee State will be taken?

The matter can be dealt with by the Whips but it will be taken this session.

Does "this session" mean that Committee Stage will be taken before Christmas? If so, can the Taoiseach indicate when Committee Stage will commence? It is not a matter for the Whips, Sir, it is a matter for the Government who constantly tell us they order business in this House. All the Opposition Parties want this Bill before the House again. Can the Taoiseach indicate what stage we are at in regard to this legislation? It has not been before the House since last autumn. Does the Taoiseach not know——

Please, Deputy Shatter, I am seeking to facilitate the Deputy but he is now engaging in a speech.

Sir, this is promised legislation.

That may be so but there is no reason we should have a long interrogation about it here this morning.

Sir, I think we are entitled to a response. The Taoiseach is entitled to tell the House when this Bill will be brought before the House again. That is all I am asking.

It is a matter for the Whips to discuss.

Sir, the Whips on this side of the House cannot bring the Bill before the House; only the Government can do so.

Deputy Sheehan has been offering.

A Cheann Comhairle, the Taoiseach obviously is prepared to allow millions of pounds of compensation claims to continue to accumulate.

Deputy Shatter is persisting in this matter to such an extent that he is now clearly disorderly.

Sir, that is unacceptable because it is the taxpayer who will pay the bills resulting from the negligence of this Government in failing to bring this Bill before the House. Would the Taoiseach say when we will have it?

The Deputy is now behaving in a disorderly manner. The Deputy is persisting in disrupting the business of the House. I am calling Deputy Sheehan.

A Cheann Comhairle, may I seek your permission to raise on the Adjournment the serious position obtaining in agriculture on account of the collapse of cattle prices and other serious matters appertaining to agriculture?

I will be in touch with the Deputy concerning the matter.

I should like to join the queue of those seeking time on the Adjournment in relation to the unacceptable failure of the Department of the Environment to commence the refurbishment of Ballymun, as was categorically promised me in this House by the Minister I think on the last debate before the General Election?

I will communicate with the Deputy in that connection.

I would hope he would honour his election promises.

The Deputy may not elaborate on the matter now. I trust Deputy Farrelly has a legitimate question to put this time.

You informed me, a Cheann Comhairle, that I could ask a question in connection with the matter I raised. I did ask a question and it was refused. I would ask you, Sir, where is the consistency in trying to extract an answer from the Government in relation to a statement to be made in this House by the Minister for Agriculture and Food following decisions taken at the recent meeting of the Council of Ministers?

Please, Deputy. I propose to proceed to the business ordered, the first item being No. 5.

Top
Share