It is proposed to take Nos. 11, 12, 13 and 14. It is also proposed, subject to the agreement of the House, that (1) the Second Stages of Nos. 13 and 14 shall be taken together for the purpose of debate and (2) that the Dáil shall meet tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. and shall adjourn not later than 4 p.m.
Order of Business.
Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 13 and 14 agreed? Agreed. Is the suggestion that we meet tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. and adjourn at 4 p.m. satisfactory? Agreed.
Would the Taoiseach like to take this opportunity to comment on the failure of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to answer questions last night before the press as to whether he belived what the Taoiseach had said yesterday or last Tuesday week and whether this has any——
This is a House of Parliament.
That is not appropriate to the Order of Business and the Deputy knows that full well.
It is not appropriate for a Minister of the Government either.
Will the Taoiseach or the Minister for Communications say when they propose to bring forward amendments to the recent broadcasting legislation in the light of the decision announced yesterday by the IRTC?
Is it promised?
Legislation has not been strictly promised in accordance with the usual terms but the Minister is contemplating changes in the legislation.
Will the Minister and the Government in the course of introducing amendments to that disastrous legislation, indicate their policy now as to whether they wish to continue to see a third TV channel in this Republic?
That aspect should be raised at another time.
It would be more appropriate to a Dáil question.
There is one down for next Tuesday.
There are two matters which I want to raise, one with the Chair and one with the Taoiseach. The Minister, Deputy O'Malley, is reported to have said last night that he was concerned about the statement made by the Taoiseach in the Dáil here yesterday and that he was seeking a meeting with the Taoiseach to discuss, presumably, the future of the current Government. Has such a meeting yet taken place, or when is it expected that such a meeting will take place?
The Deputy knows full well that the matter to which he refers is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
(Interruptions.)
There are other ways and means of ventilating this view.
The question, a Cheann Comhairle, has a bearing on——
It is not appropriate now, Deputy.
It is a matter——
I will not permit a rehash of yesterday's proceedings.
I am not asking for a rehash of yesterday's proceedings. I am asking——
The matter is out of order, Deputy.
——what is the future of this Government, or does the Taoiseach know?
Deputy De Rossa please desist. The matter is not in order now.
I would ask the Deputy if he has had any meetings recently with his political masters——
(Interruptions.)
——either in the North of Ireland or in Moscow.
(Interruptions.)
That is an admission by the Taoiseach that Deputy Des O'Malley is the political master of his party.
(Interruptions.)
When the Taoiseach made a reference to political masters was he referring to Deputy O'Malley?
There is no justification for this.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy De Rossa, please resume your seat.
Where did you get the idea to refer to political masters in this context?
Deputy De Rossa, resume your seat.
Who are the Taoiseach's political masters?
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Bruton.
I would imagine the Taoiseach's political masters are sitting over there but they have not made their minds up yet.
Deputy Bruton, please desist. The matter to which the Deputy referred is out of order. It has given rise to grave disorder. I must ask him to desist forthwith from any further reference to it.
I indicated that there were two matters which I wished to raise with you.
I trust the second one is in order.
I will be guided by the Chair as to whether or not it is in order. The second point I wanted to raise was the fact that yesterday my office was informed that the Taoiseach intended to make a personal statement to the House relating to the replies he gave in the House the week before. We subsequently got information that in fact the Taoiseach had changed his mind and that he intended to reply to Private Notice Questions. On the other hand, we were told also that it is a matter for the Ceann Comhairle to decide whether or not questions are replied to in this House or are accepted in this House. I want to know whether it was the Chair or the Taoiseach who decided that questions would be taken in this House.
A Deputy
It was the Taoiseach.
It is my function, my responsibility and my decision in respect of Private Notice Questions. I decided the matter, no one else.
(Interruptions.)
Can you tell me then, a Cheann Comhairle, why it is——
No, Sir, no, Deputy.
——that we were informed by the Whip's Office——
I will not be cross examined by you on the Order of Business.
(Interruptions.)
If Deputy De Rossa or his colleagues have a difference of opinion in respect of my rulings there is a procedure laid down in this House for dealing with the matter. Put down a substantive motion if you feel the Chair is not acting in accordance with honour, dignity, decorum and justice in this House.
(Interruptions.)
We will be seeking a meeting today to deal with this matter and a range of other matters including the refusal——
I am proceeding to the Order of Business.
——to explain your ruling out of order questions relating to various issues which this House is entitled——
Deputy De Rossa, I cannot, quite frankly, with the din that is going on here, hear you. I have not heard your last sentences, besides——
I will repeat it, a Cheann Comhairle.
You are not in order.
(Interruptions.)
It is not in order for the Deputy to barrack the Chair in this fashion. I will not tolerate it.
On a point of order, can I take it from you that it is not in order for a parliamentary question to be ruled out of order on the basis that a Member of the House proposes to make a personal statement?
What is the implication of that question?
Could I put it to you that yesterday you were proposing to rule questions out of order on the basis that a personal statement was to be made and that in fact your final decision, which I believe to be the correct one, was that it was not in order to rule questions out on the basis that a personal statement was to be made and that it was on that basis that the Taoiseach decided not to go ahead with the statement because he was going to have to answer questions anyway. Therefore his original plan to avoid answering supplementaries was aborted by your very proper decision.
I made my own decision in the matter.
With your permission, I would like to raise this matter here with the Taoiseach. Last Wednesday, on the Order of Business, in reply to a question about the Windmill Station at Cape Clear the Taoiseach conveyed the impression to the House that I got no vote on that island.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
I promised the Taoiseach I would bring in the official tally which clearly states that Fine Gael got 43 per cent of the votes, Fianna Fáil 55 per cent and the Progressive Democrats one vote. I would like to ask the Taoiseach to put the record right.
(Interruptions.)
I know that you are inclined to forget and make mis-statements because you have been accused of doing so here but this is the proof of the pudding; there it is for you, Taoiseach.
Deputy Sheehan, do not overplay your hand now. Deputy Rabbitte.
I would be pleased to give a copy to the Taoiseach. Let us get the record of this House right once and for all and not mislead the House all the time.
May I ask the Taoiseach a question with regard to the Programme for Government Mark 2? I think we have established in the House that we may ask the Taoiseach questions on that. With regard to the recent publication of the preliminary figures from the labour force survey and having regard to the fact that they totally contradict the position taken by the Taoiseach and successive Ministers——
I thought the Deputy had something pertinent to raise on the Order of Business.
I beg your pardon, a Cheann Comhairle, it is perfectly relevant, I am asking the Taoiseach a question with regard to the Programme for Government Mark 2.
Let us be specific about it then.
I am being specific, with respect, a Cheann Comhairle.
Come to the point.
If you will permit me finish the sentence I would suggest——
Come to the point, Deputy, please.
The point relates to the employment provisions, such as they are, in the Programme for Government Mark 2.
That does not arise now.
The Taoiseach made it clear here in the House the day after the programme was agreed that it was promised legislation for the purpose of putting questions on the Order of Business.
That is correct.
That should not give rise to an argument now, Deputy. Have you a pertinent question regarding the legislation?
If you will permit me to put it——
You have been on your feet for some time, Deputy.
A Deputy
Not as long as you have been.
(Interruptions.)
That is disgraceful.
(Interruptions.)
I want to ask the Taoiseach, if the Minister for growing unemployment could stay quiet for a moment, when specific measures will be brought before this House in respect of the conclusions of the preliminary figures of the labour force survey which showed that last April 5,000 less people were at work——
Fewer.
——fewer people were at work than in the previous April which is contrary to the position taken by Ministers of this Government who suggest that our unemployment problem was due to returning emigrants and to increased numbers coming on to the labour force.
I am proceeding to the Order of Business now.
In fact, fewer people are at work. I am asking the Taoiseach what specific measures will be brought before the House to tackle unemployment. That happens to be what this is about, the unemployment crisis, which was forgotten by the Taoiseach in his meeting with chairman Cahill.
Will the Taoiseach inform the House the present state of the legislation to enable the full processing of the shares ownership loans which has been repeatedly promised in the House.
On the Housing Bill.
It is hoped to introduce it this session.
When this session? It is very urgent.