It is proposed to take Nos. 13, 1, 14 and 2. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that: (1) the proceedings on the resumed Second Stage of No. 13 if not previously concluded shall be brought to a conclusion at 6 p.m.; (2) the proceedings on No. 1 if not previously concluded shall be brought to a conclusion at 7 p.m. and any amendments from the Seanad not disposed of shall be decided by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Justice and (3) Private Members' Business shall be No. 18 and the proceedings thereon shall be brought to a conclusion at 8.30 p.m.
Order of Business.
Are the proposals for dealing with No. 13 satisfactory and agreed? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with No. 1 satisfactory?
The proposals are not satisfactory. I am concerned about two sections of the Bill. The Bill provides that it will be a criminal offence to carry an insulting poster. I asked the Minister many times if she would substitute the word "threatening" for the word "insulting". It is quite possible that the Bill will be referred by the President to the Supreme Court. I ask the Minister if she will accept an amendment to the Bill at this stage to ensure that it is not referred to the Supreme Court? Certain sections of the Bill are badly needed to deal with the type of people who stole the hubcaps off my car this morning.
I hope we will not have to seek advice from the Attorney General.
It might be more appropriate for the Deputy to raise this matter when we come to deal with the Bill. I take it the proposal is agreed?
I am serious about the matter I raised whatever about being upset about the stealing of my hubcaps. The provision in the Bill which states that it will be a criminal offence to carry an insulting poster goes too far and may be unconstitutional. Is it possible at this stage to accept amendments to the legislation?
Put trust into politics.
Were the hubcaps marked?
Can we help the Deputy regarding an amendment to this Bill? Should we not wait until the Bill comes up for discussion later today?
I would be happy to do that if there is an understanding that it will be possible to table amendments.
We can deal adequately with it when we come to deal with this measure.
I could not agree to it if we cannot address that matter. I am not seeking to debate the matter now.
We cannot debate the matter now. The Bill is down for discussion later today.
I am seeking to table an amendment which would delete the word "insulting" and replace it with the word "threatening".
If the Deputy submits an amendment to my office we shall consider it carefully. I take it that the proposals for dealing with No. 1 are agreed to? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with Private Members' Business satisfactory and agreed? Agreed.
Will the Minister of State at the Department of Finance make a personal statement in regard to what she said in the House on 23 November when she clearly stated there was no truth in reports that there were queries from the EU about EU funding for the building of Tallaght hospital?
I hesitate to interrupt Members at this time but I expect that matters raised will be relevant to the Order of Business. The matter being raised by the Deputy is clearly not relevant to the Order of Business.
It is very relevant.
Deputy Bruton will have to raise the issue in a more appropriate way.
Will the Taoiseach indicate if there will be any revision to the national plan in view of the fact that it is disappearing before our eyes as it is scrutinised by EU officials?
Absolutely incompetent.
Matters appertaining to the national plan cannot be raised now.
I agree with Deputy Bruton.
Deputy, I have ruled that matter out of order.
Once more we are hearing more from Tommy Gorman than we hear in this House about the so-called national plan. It is a hoax of a plan. It is not only the Minister of State who spoke about EC funding for Tallaght Hospital. On 14 October — columns 1126 of the Official Report — the Taoiseach told us that the money was in the plan for Tallaght hospital. The money is not in the plan and the contract has been signed.
It is.
The matter of the plan can be raised in many other ways.
Is the figure £6 billion, £7 billion or £8 billion? The Taoiseach should tell the truth.
I now call Deputy De Rossa.
We are dealing with a gross distortion of the position.
The Taoiseach knows the money is not there.
The Taoiseach should be honest with the House and admit that he will have to introduce a revised national plan.
Discussion of the plan has been ruled out of order. Members will have to raise the matter at a more appropriate time.
Apart from the current questioning, a revised plan is inevitable considering that we are not getting the £8 billion as claimed——
I am sure the Deputy will find a way to raise that matter.
Negotiations on the plan have been taking place for three months, as is normal in the case of all plans, and Deputy Bruton knows that. Deputy Harney should know it too, and I am sure that Deputy De Rossa, from the time he spent in Europe, knows it. The money for Tallaght Hospital is provided for in the national plan and Deputies need not worry. Tallaght Hospital will be built.
There is a big hole in the bag.
Deputies opposite believe too much of what they read.
On 23 November I asked very detailed and specific questions about Tallaght Hospital and the record shows that the Minister of State, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, told clear untruths in the answers she gave.
Please, Deputy Yates.
She said: "There is absolutely no basis for those newspaper reports".
Deputy Yates——
She went on to state: "We have not run into any obstacles in the course of those negotiations and I do not anticipate we will"— clear untruths.
Deputy Yates has stated that a Minister told an untruth. I must ask that that allegation be unreservedly withdrawn. It is not in order.
This is a matter of fact.
It is not in order to attribute blatant untruths to any Member of this House. It must be withdrawn.
It is well known——
Deputy Bruton, I am dealing with disorder.
——that the Tallaght Hospital issue was being queried at the time. The Minister of State knew that, yet she said it was not.
Deputy Yates, I must insist on the withdrawal of the allegation of an untruth.
This is more of the Labour Party advertisements.
Can you assist me, a Cheann Comhairle? My understanding is that the word "lie" is unacceptable and "untruth" acceptable.
No, it is not.
It is either one or the other.
Deputy Yates, either you will unreservedly withdraw the remark that a Minister of this House told a blatant untruth or you will leave the House.
I will withdraw the remark but there is no doubt that the Minister of State seriously misled the House.
On a point of order——
I will not be challenged.
On a point of order, if there is documentary evidence to show that a statement made by a Member in the House is factually wrong, what basis is there for another Member to challenge that statement without running into trouble with you?
It is quite clear that reference to a lie or untruth of a deliberate nature is unacceptable in this House; all my predecessors have said so. In respect to a charge against a Member of this House of untruth or some other irregularity the only way Deputies may proceed is by way of substantive motion against the person involved.
There is documentary evidence to show——
I will not allow the Deputy to argue with me in respect of my rulings.
I believe——
I will not allow the Deputy to challenge my rulings in this fashion.
I am not challenging your rulings; I am seeking your guidance.
I have advised the Deputy as to how to proceed.
I seek your guidance——
If the Deputy feels that a Member of this House is guilty of a serious misdemeanour he should put down a motion.
I believe that documentary evidence can be shown that the Tallaght Hospital was queried in a letter to the Department of Finance at the time the Minister spoke——
The question of Tallaght Hospital can be dealt with in another way.
There has to be a question mark over the Minister's statement.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister should make a personal statement.
I have ruled on the matter.
In the interests of not leaving this matter hanging in the air, the Minister has an obligation and a right to make a personal statement explaining what she said on 23 November. There appears to be a total contradiction. The Minister of State may have an explanation——
I have ruled the matter out of order.
——and, if so, she should give it to the House.
Deputy Bruton——
The whole plan is out of order.
The Deputy is showing disregard and defiance to the Chair. I must now ask him to resume his seat.
The Chair should protect us too.
Will the Taoiseach say, irrespective of the outcome of the European funds issue, that Tallaght Hospital will proceed in accordance with the contract?
This is not Question Time. I have advised the House as to how to proceed in relation to Tallaght Hospital.
I think the Taoiseach wishes to reply, if you will permit him to do so.
The matter can be raised in this House in the appropriate way, the Chair will see to that.
In other jurisdictions when a Minister misleads Parliament, that Minister resigns but in this jurisdiction when a Minister misleads Parliament there is no way of questioning him or her. I would ask you, a Cheann Comhairle, to invite the Minister of State to make a statement in the House clarifying exactly why she misled the House in this way.
I am surprised at the Deputy again raising the matter. I have advised the Deputy's Leader, Deputy John Bruton, that in the event of a serious charge being made against any Member or Minister, it can be dealt with only by way of substantive motion.