It is proposed to take No. 12. It is also proposed, subject to the agreement of the House, that: (1) the sitting shall not be suspended today at 1.30 p.m.; (2) business shall be interrupted at 7 p.m. tomorrow; (3) the Dáil shall meet on Friday next at 10.30 a.m. and shall adjourn at the conclusion of business to be taken on that day; (4) the following arrangements shall apply in the case of No. 12: (a) the speech of the Taoiseach shall not exceed one hour, (b) the speech of the main spokesperson for each of the groups, as defined in Standing Order 89, in Opposition shall not exceed 45 minutes, (c) the Minister for Finance shall be called on at 3.30 p.m. on Friday, 18 October 1991 to reply to the debate, and the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion at 4 p.m. and (d) the speech of each other Member called on shall not exceed 25 minutes; (5) there will be no Private Members' Business this week.
Order of Business.
I now ask if the first item, that the sitting not be suspended today at 1.30 p.m., is agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal that business be interrupted at 7 p.m. tomorrow agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal that the Dáil shall meet on Friday next at 10.30 a.m. and shall adjourn at the conclusion of business to be taken that day agreed?
In relation to the arrangements for this debate, I want to protest in the strongest manner possible. You, Sir, and every other politician in this House, will be aware that today, at the introduction of this debate, the Government are in disarray over a programme for Government. I put it to you, Sir, that it is not wishful thinking——
The Deputies do not know yet what was agreed.
May I ask if one Fianna Fáil backbencher, or a Progressive Democrat backbencher for that matter, will stand up and tell us he or she knows the Programme for Government.
Where are the picadors now?
The matter to which the Deputy is now referring should be left to the debate proper.
They did not know last night and they did not know this morning.
Is Deputy Spring objecting to the implementation of item No. 3?
Yes, I am objecting to item No. 3 because it is a farce for the House to start this debate before the publication of the Programme for Government.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Bell, Michael.
- Byrne, Eric.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- McCartan, Pat.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
I now come to item No. 4, arrangements in respect of item No. 12. May I ask if the arrangements proposed for dealing with No. 12 are agreed?
In normal circumstances, Sir, I would object to the proposal in these arrangements that the Leader of the Opposition, and other Opposition party Leaders, are to be given less time than the Taoiseach in this debate but I am not objecting to it because, unlike Deputy Spring, I believe we should take this debate of no confidence in the Government today and not tomorrow. The matter should not be postponed. Any party in this House that does not know enough about this Government's record to decide today whether they should stay in office is not really serious about politics.
I take it the item is not objected to?
Furthermore, the fact that at this stage the Government have not yet agreed on their programme is yet another reason to argue that they should be removed forthwith.
I take it there is no objection then to item No. 4 on the Order of Business?
In relation to item No. 4, a Cheann Comhairle, during the course of the week Deputy McCartan, our party Whip, wrote to you requesting an early meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to decide on the question of the possibility of a sub judice ruling in relation to the no confidence debate to be held over the next three days. In replying you indicated, Sir, that you did not consider that matter to be of such urgency that a special meeting of that committee was required.
I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy. Will he permit me to deal with the Order of Business? I shall be glad to deal with the matter to which he refers if he adverts to it again.
A Cheann Comhairle, I am dealing with item No. 4 on the Order of Business which talks about the arrangements with regard to taking the no confidence motion. I am raising a question in relation to that.
I would prefer that the Deputy would raise that matter separately.
It is pertinent to item No. 4 on the Order of Business, a Cheann Comhairle, in regard to the arrangements for debate. What I am asking——
The question now before the House is whether these arrangements are acceptable.
I am putting it to you, a Cheann Comhairle, that the reply you may give to my question in regard to the sub judice ruling will determine whether I agree to item No. 4 on the Order of Business.
I will deal with the sub judice aspect of the matter later.
I am seeking clarification of the position now, a Cheann Comhairle, so that I can decide whether to agree to the arrangements for this debate. Surely that is a reasonable request?
I am sorry, the Chair must insist on having a decision in relation to the Order of Business first.
You have not dealt with my point, a Cheann Comhairle.
I will reply to your point later, Deputy.
A Cheann Comhairle, that is not satisfactory, I am asking——
Deputy De Rossa, I cannot permit you to make a speech now.
I am not making a speech, I am raising a point with regard to the question of the sub judice ruling.
I will deal with that point later. I am now putting the question——
A Cheann Comhairle, I must protest that you are denying me the right to raise a legitimate question——
——that the arrangements proposed for dealing with item No. 12 be agreed.
A Cheann Comhairle, I have no option but——
A Cheann Comhairle, on a point of order, let us not begin this session in this manner, please. Deputy De Rossa has made a perfectly legitimate request.
I have informed the Deputy that I will reply to his question later.
But that is not satisfactory, a Cheann Comhairle. Deputy De Rossa is being perfectly reasonable.
The Chair is concerned now about having the Order of Business approved.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Nòel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Bell, Michael.
- Byrne, Eric.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Gilmore, Éamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- McCartan, Pat.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
The last item on the Order Paper is No. 5, that there will be no Private Members' Business. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I tried to raise with you, before that vote, the question of your attitude to the matter of sub judice in relation to this debate of no confidence. As I explained I had, through our party Whip, Deputy McCartan, sought a meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges before this debate today so that this issue could be discussed and thrashed out. Over a number of years this House has been gagged in relation to expressing its views on various issues and in all cases the unwritten rule sub judice has been used by the Chair to restrict debate. We have the ludicrous situation where, for instance——
I cannot allow the Deputy to elaborate unduly long.
I think I am entitled to explain my position.
I understand your point of view. The Chair proposes to reply to the Deputy.
I would have preferred if you had replied to me before you forced the vote on the issue of the arrangements for this debate.
Deputy De Rossa, I must now ask you to desist. I did intend to advert to the sub judice rule before the commencement of this debate anyway. Allow me to answer.
You are very good, a Cheann Comhairle, at reading my mind.
It was not a matter of mind reading at all, I can assure you.
Can I suggest, a Cheann Comhairle, that you are less than gracious when you are dealing with questions that I raise with you here in this House.
Let me conclude my point that it would be totally inappropriate for you to apply a sub judice ruling in relation to this debate and that it is time for this House to throw off the shackles we are chained with as a result of your interpretation of this unwritten rule.
I now proppose to comment on the matter. You have been heard sufficiently. I will not hear you further, Deputy.
In respect to the matter of Deputy McCartan's letter to me it is something which should not have been adverted to in this House at all. I explained my position to the Deputy. He is a member of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and if he wishes to raise such a matter it is open to him to consult his colleagues and proceed to have the matter dealt with and I will support that matter fulsomely.
I reject that completely. I am entitled to raise any matter I choose to raise in this House. You are entitled to adjudicate on it but you are not entitled to deny a Deputy the right to raise any matter in this House.
At the outset of this debate I would like to refer to the application of the sub judice rule to matters that may arise in this important debate. In regard to the sub judice rule itself, by convention for almost 70 years the Dáil has imposed upon itself the voluntary restraint of the sub judice rule in the general desire to avoid the risk of prejudicing judicial proceedings. The risk of prejudice occurs when comment in the Dáil under absolute privilege might influence a jury or prejudice the position of parties or witnesses to proceedings. The sub judice rule has been applied by successive Cinn Comhairle in accordance with the longstanding convention. Of course, this House is master of its own procedures, and it may by order modify or suspend the application of the sub judice rule as in fact it has done in the past.
As Members may be aware, guidelines for the application of the rule are also currently under review by the Dáil's Committee on Procedures and Privileges.
For three years.
The revised guidelines are at an advanced stage of preparation, I understand, but as the proceedings of the committee are strictly confidentaial I cannot expand further on any proposed modification in the application of the sub judice rule.
The position of the Chair is as follows as to the application of the rule: the sub judice rule will apply to the tribunal of inquiry into the meat industry and, needless to mention, to the constitutional challenge in the High Court as to the scope of the inquiry. There are three concurrent investigations being undertaken under the new provisions of the Companies Act, 1990. In one of these investigations relating to the affairs of Siúicre Éireann Teoranta the inspectorate are appointed and report to the High Court under section 8 of the Act and that is the only one of concern to the application of the sub judice rule. There are judicial aspects of the investigation by the High Court inspectorate which potentially could encroach upon the conventional application of the sub judice rule. However, the sub judice rule could not be applied, in my view, at this point to the investigation by the High Court of appointed inspectorate into Siúicre Éireann Teoranta because, first, the inspectorate at this stage are undertaking their investigation and no matter in that regard as of now has been seized by the court or awaits adjudication by the court; and, secondly, in view of the primacy attached to a debate on a motion of no confidence — whereby the ordinary rules of procedure as to the taking of the motions are in practice not applied, such as the six month repeat rule — to apply the sub judice rule to this investigation would in my view represent an unfair imbalance between, on the one hand, the inherent right of the Oireachtas to debate matters of public importance and on the other the necessity to ensure that such debate would not prejudice judicial proceedings either in a statutory tribunal of inquiry or the courts themselves. The issues of principle that may be involved in the affairs of Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann can be debated as of now but reference to specifics such as the individuals concerned with the beneficial ownership of shares in Gladebrook Company Limited and related matters such as Talmino Limited should be avoided in view of a legal action——
We might as well go home.
Please hear me out. Reference to these matters should be avoided in view of a legal action being taken concurrently by one of the individuals concerned. It should be noted at this later stage that if it becomes apparent that the inspectors' reports under section 8 of the Act are likely to be the subject of High Court proceedings and that debate of such matters would, in my opinion, constitute a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings, then I will have no hesitation in applying the sub judice rule. I trust my remarks——
May I——
Sorry, I will not permit a debate on my ruling in this matter.
No debate on anything.
It is only proper that we should be allowed——
These are my rulings and they are not open to discussion in the House. They must be accepted for the time being at least. If you seriously wish to contend with them, put down a separate motion at the appropriate time.
I ask the Cheann Comhairle if he will immediately convene a meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to discuss the ruling he has just made in view of the fact that he is not prepared——
I am not taking any initiative in the matter, Deputy.
A Cheann Comhairle, you are the chairperson——
Deputy De Rossa, I will not allow you to harass me in the Chair any further.
Deputy Gay Mitchell.
I want to ask you a question.
Resume your seat, Deputy De Rossa.
Like any other Deputy in this House I am entitled to ask questions.
Democracy is sub judice in this House.
I have given this House a fulsome statement. Deputy De Rossa, resume your seat.
I am putting a specific request to you as chairman——
Resume your seat or leave the House.
——of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to convene a meeting to discuss the ruling you have made.
Deputy De Rossa, I have given you a fulsome statement and I can do no more. I stand over that statement and I will not deviate from it one jot or tittle.
I do not propose to let this matter rest, a Cheann Comhairle.
I have called Deputy Gay Mitchell.
On a point of order——
I want to call Deputy Mitchell, Deputy Spring. I mean no discourtesy.
I give way to Deputy Mitchell.
Notwithstanding the important debate on which we are about to embark, I take it that it is in order to ask a question on the Order of Business in relation to promised legislation?
Certainly.
This legislation is very relevant to the recent revealations and allegations which have been made. It concerns a constitutional officer, the Comptroller and Auditor General, appointed under Article 33 of the Constitution. On several occasions I have raised in this House the need to update the legislation governing his powers which date from 1866. Before the House went into recess I was given a promise in this House by the Taoiseach that the Bill would be published during the recess and taken in the new session. I have been told informally by the Minister for Finance that the Bill is on its way.
I recollect the Taoiseach's statement in the matter.
May I ask the Taoiseach if the Bill will now be circulated?
The matter is at a very advanced stage and I can assure the Deputy that it will be brought forward as quickly as possible.
Deputy Spring.
May I make one further statement? I have been given the same reply in this House for the past two years. I raise this matter to ask not only the Taoiseach but the leaders of the other parties in the House to take the Committee of Public Accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General seriously and let us have these powers.
I have given the Deputy the utmost facility to have this matter clarified. Deputy Spring.
A Cheann Comhairle, I appreciate the fact that you have, to use your own words, given us a fulsome account of the implementation of the sub judice rule.
So far as I observe it, Deputy.
I am grateful for that. I would request, Sir, that you would, first, circulate the report you have just given us. Secondly, in view of the fact that matters of vital concern to this House are being discussed in the High Court at present and the fact that the authority of this House is under challenge, I would say to you that before continuing with this debate, having regard to what you have just said — and the fact that you said it does not necessarily mean we have to agree with it — we should do one of two things. First, this House should adjourn to let the Committee on Procedure and Privileges meet to consider the sub judice rule and whether the sub judice rule be suspended for the course of this debate. Things have happened during the summer——
We have had a three months break.
For example, armed Garda Síochána investigated meat plants during the summer and we are not allowed to mention that in this debate.
I am sorry, Deputy Spring. I have allowed you some latitude.
The situation is ridiculous.
I understand Deputy McCartan wishes to raise a point of order.
I propose a meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges immediately——
We have had a recess of three months and they want another day.
Although I fundamentally disagree with your views on the operation of the sub judice rule, I am not in a position to challenge them. Nonetheless in the course of your ruling you indicated that this House is master of its own order and rules. May I through you, as I did at the last Whips' meeting, suggest — and the Taoiseach might agree — that the Whips meet with a view to introducing a motion in keeping with the precedent of this House in the past before the debate begins proper to waive the sub judice rule and allow a proper debate on these matters? I appreciate that your hands are tied by convention but this House can agree——
I suggest to the Deputy that he might consult with the Whips in the matter. I now call on the Taoiseach to move his motion.
On a point of order——
I have allowed Deputy De Rossa a lot of latitude.
You allow me very little latitude and I think the record of this House will show that.
You have been calling for this debate but you will not allow——
No matter how much latitude I give the Deputy he still complains.
They asked for this debate six weeks ago but now they want it tomorrow.
In response to my earlier question may I ask the Ceann Comhairle, as chairperson of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, if he will call an urgent meeting of that committee?
I have already replied to the Deputy on that score. I will not convene a special meeting. It is up to the members of that committee to do so and I will co-operate fully with them. An Taoiseach.
You have already refused a request by us to do so.
The Workers' Party have had a month in which to level false allegations and innuendoes at me and this Government. It is now our turn to reply.
You are seeking to muzzle a proper debate.
This is the first opportunity we have had to reply and we are going to avail of it.
I have called the Taoiseach twice and he will now be heard by the House.
I want to ask a question about promised legislation.
No, Sir, I cannot hear you now.