Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 May 1995

Vol. 453 No. 4

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take Nos. 11, 12, 3, 1 and statements in relation to the Attorney General's office to take place at 12 noon.

It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that: 1. In relation to the statements, the following arrangements shall apply — (i) The opening statements of the Taoiseach, the main spokespersons for the Fianna Fáil Party and the Progressive Democrats Party shall not exceed ten minutes in each case; (ii) the statement of each other member called upon shall not exceed five minutes in each case; (iii) the Taoiseach shall be called upon not later than 12.45 p.m. to make a statement in reply not exceeding five minutes; (iv) following the Taoiseach's concluding statement, the Taoiseach shall take questions for a period not exceeding ten minutes, and (v) the order shall resume thereafter.

2. Private Members' Business shall be No. 20 and the proceedings thereon shall be brought to a conclusion at 8.30 p.m. tonight.

There are two matters to put before the House. May I ask, first, if the proposal for dealing with statements is satisfactory and agreed?

No, it is not agreed because we regard this matter as extremely urgent. We would rather that the debate on this issue started immediately. My Fianna Fáil colleagues, having considered the matter this morning and in an effort to be helpful, would agree, if the Taoiseach needs further time to prepare full answers, to amend the Order of Business by deleting part of (iv) which would then read "Following the Taoiseach's concluding statement, the Taoiseach shall take questions" and delete (v) in total. The idea is to debate this matter in a question and answer session because statements are almost meaningless. What is important is the question and answer session. The matter being dealt with is what resulted in the Taoiseach getting into Government. The issue is that he appointed the Attorney General——

I must dissuade the Deputy from making a statement at this time.

I am not going to make a statement. I want to make a few points. That is reasonable enough. On coming to office the Taoiseach appointed a constitutional law officer of the State. The constitutional law officer of the State made certain facts available to the Taoiseach.

Let us not anticipate the statements now. We shall deal with this matter later.

We will not, if I agree to this or vote on this Order of Business.

Has the Deputy an amendment to move?

If the vote is put to the House, it will all go through. Yesterday the Taoiseach did not impart information in response to a question put down by Deputy O'Donnell.

We are taking it now.

The Taoiseach withheld information from the House.

I am awaiting an amendment to the proposal for dealing with statements. Nothing else arises.

We want an open ended question and answer session. We want an opportunity on this side of the House to ask questions about the matters on which the Taoiseach misled the House yesterday. The questions tabled yesterday were intertwined and the Taoiseach did not answer.

The Deputy has made a very serious and false allegation in suggesting that I misled the House. I did not do so and I will clearly indicate that. In an effort to accommodate the Deputy I will be quite happy to answer any questions about this matter for as long as anyone wishes to ask them. I warmly welcome the opportunity and will not hesitate to answer questions for a longer period than ten minutes if agreement can be reached on that. From the point of view of the order of the House, if the Opposition are unhappy with ten minutes — and I quite understand they might be and I have no problem with changing it — the Government and Opposition Whips might meet to fix a time that is satisfactory to all.

There is no need for a meeting of the Whips. I propose that Nos. 1, 2 and 3 stand, that No. 4 should read "Following the Taoiseach's concluding statement the Taoiseach shall take questions.", and that No. 5 be deleted.

I do not want to get into a tangle on this. From the point of view of the ordering of the House there has to be some time limit. I would be quite happy with 30 minutes. I have no wish to avoid answering any questions other than those in respect of which I must abide by the requirement of fair procedure as I outlined in the House yesterday.

The Taoiseach is jumping ship.

I respectfully submit that the Whips meet with a view to discussing No. 5 as regards the duration of the question and answer time.

It is unreal to go into other business before this. The time of 12 noon which is suggested here should be amended to 11 a.m. The remainder of the motion should then read as amended by Deputy Ahern. The question and answer session will not be open ended but will conclude at 2.30 p.m. That will give ample time to people to make statements and ask questions, and it is hoped that on this occasion we will get answers which we failed to get yesterday.

We agree to Deputy O'Malley's proposal. However, there is a sos from 1.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. so the entire debate will take only an hour and a half. However, I am sure we can make arrangements to conclude the debate at 2.30 p.m. rather than 1.30 p.m.

Cancel the sos.

We can cancel the sos and have the questions during that time. That would not bother me in the least. The House can ask as many questions as often as it likes and I will give full and truthful answers other than in respect of matters where I believe there is a problem in regard to fair procedure. I have nothing to worry about concerning any questions that any Member of this House wishes to put to me.

Perhaps we should cancel Question Time and Private Members' Business.

I am not trying to anticipate the debate. However, this House is entitled to an honest answer from the Taoiseach. I ask Deputies to allow him two minutes to tell us why he attempted to switch a question to the Department of Justice.

(Interruptions.)

On a point of order——

Deputy McDowell is clearly seeking to upstage our proceedings.

I am not, a Cheann Comhairle. On a point of order, the officials under the control of the Chair wrote to Deputy O'Donnell on Monday to the effect that the questions which the Taoiseach is so anxious to answer now would be transferred to the Minister for Justice on 9 June. I am asking the Chair to protect Deputies in this House. I am asking him to stand up for the rights of individual Deputies and to stand up against a Taoiseach who is hiding behind the Chair's officials in a dishonest attempt to avoid answering questions in the House.

I will not allow you, Deputy McDowell, to reflect upon the Chair in order to make a political point in this House. How dare you?

I am asking you to stand up for my rights.

I want to bring this matter to finality.

In regard to the question Deputy McDowell has put, I will deal with it now. First, there were other problems with which I had to deal over the weekend. I believe officials of my Department inquired, with my knowledge, about the appropriateness of transferring this question to the Department of Justice, since previous questions on that matter had been answered by that Department. However, when I came to address the issue I came to the conclusion that it would not be appropriate to transfer the matter to the Department of Justice, that as I am the Minister, under whose aegis the Attorney General operates, I should answer the question, and that is why I answered it.

(Interruptions.)

May I take it, therefore, that the proposal for dealing with statements is agreed?

I have indicated to the House that I am willing to answer questions for as long as necessary and everybody will now accept that, although they may have come into the House assuming otherwise. From the point of view of ensuring that the order of the House is effective and that business can be transacted, I suggest that the Whips meet to fix on a time for this. That is the most reasonable way of proceeding rather than dealing with it on the floor of the House. I will meet any reasonable request.

We will agree to that if the question and answer session is to be open ended, which means that it will go on until 1.30 p.m. or 2.30 p.m. — the Whips will discuss that. The Taoiseach referred three times already this morning to matters that he cannot answer. I ask the Taoiseach, before we agree to the proposed arrangement, to assure us that he will not say he cannot answer questions on matters relating to the Attorney General, because one of the main issues the Taoiseach must answer in this debate is why the Attorney General sent letters back to the committee of inquiry and refused to indicate that he was compromised on this issue. If the Taoiseach refuses to answer these questions we cannot debate the matter.

Let us not anticipate the questions. Let us wait for the questions. I will not permit them to be raised now.

I am asked to agree to terms for this debate although the Taoiseach, on three occasions, has said there are certain questions he will not answer. The Attorney General refused to declare to the committee of inquiry, a committee of this House, that he was compromised on this issue. If the Taoiseach says he cannot answer questions relating to that, we cannot debate it. I know why he cannot answer. It is because he is acting for Mr. Russell.

These are all matters that can be dealt with by way of statements and the questioning thereafter.

Will the Taoiseach clarify the matter in his statement?

I will be happy to do so. I have no problem answering these questions; there is no need for anyone to get worked up about it.

Why did the Taoiseach not answer them yesterday?

I know exactly which questions I can answer and, in the interests of fair procedure, the questions it is not proper for me to answer. I will answer any questions affecting the integrity or suitability for office of the Attorney General, Mr. Dermot Gleeson, because I have total confidence in his integrity and ability for office.

It is not a question of his suitability for office but of the Taoiseach's.

The questions that I cannot and will not answer——

(Interruptions.)

He is a very good Attorney General and I am proud to have appointed him.

(Interruptions.)

It is a question of the Taoiseach's judgment, not his.

I know the problem of Deputies opposite is with me and not with anybody else; I will be happy to deal with that matter too. I have been here long enough to know how to deal with matters in a straightforward way. Others have fallen because they failed to do so.

(Interruptions.)

Why did the Taoiseach not do so yesterday?

With the indulgence of the House, I will not, however, be able to answer questions which directly or indirectly affect judgments which might have to be made about the activity — or lack of it — of any individual in respect of whom I might have to consider certain action.

The Taoiseach will not give us certain facts.

That is the constraint which anybody who understands the law, industrial relations and the requirements of fair procedure should understand. Any Deputy who puts me in a position where I am being asked to answer questions that they know in their hearts I cannot answer on that basis is not serving the interests of natural justice. I appeal to Deputies who naturally have a political agenda to pursue — that is perfectly all right — to pursue it with respect for the rights of individuals whose cases have to be looked at by me in an objective and unprejudiced way.

Deputy B. Ahern rose.

I will not allow this matter to continue and I ask the Deputy to please assist me to bring it to finality.

May I raise a point of order?

When I am on my feet administering the affairs of this House I will not accept a point of order from anyone. May I take it that the proposal for dealing with statements is satisfactory, subject to consultation between the Whips as to the time to be allocated for questions?

Provided the Taoiseach can answer my question in a satisfactory way.

I cannot accept any proviso.

I am not here to give anyone a blank cheque, particularly to someone who misled the House yesterday.

The Deputy is asking for guarantees in advance.

I am not asking for guarantees. The House was misled yesterday and now I am being asked to accept something which will lead to it again being misled. I will not do that.

I must ask for your protection, a Cheann Comhairle. I have been accused by Deputy Ahern of misleading the House yesterday. That is not true. I ask the Deputy to withdraw it.

I am now putting the question:

"That the proposals for dealing with statements——

I am suggesting that the statements be made at 11 a.m.

——be agreed to, subject to consultation among the Whips with regard to the allocation of time in dealing with questions to the Taoiseach".

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 50.

  • Ahearn, Theresa.
  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Bhamjee, Moosajee.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Bhreathnach, Niamh.
  • Bree, Declan.
  • Broughan, Tommy.
  • Browne, John. (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Bruton, John.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connor, John.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Coveney, Hugh.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Dukes, Alan M.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Finucane, Michael.
  • Fitzgerald, Brian.
  • Fitzgerald, Eithne.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Gallagher, Pat.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Harte, Paddy.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Mulvihill, John.
  • Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Penrose, William.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, John.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Sheehan, P.J.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Upton, Pat.
  • Walsh, Eamon.
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Brennan, Matt.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDowell, Michael.
  • Moffatt, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • (Limerick West).
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Foxe, Tom.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Hilliard, Colm M.
  • Hughes, Séamus.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Keogh, Helen.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • O'Donnell, Liz.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Malley, Desmond J.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Sargent, Trevor.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Treacy, Noel. Wallace, Dan.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald; Níl, Deputies Dempsey and Callely.
Question declared carried

The other question I must put to the House is in respect of Private Members Business to conclude at 8.30 p.m. this evening. Is that satisfactory and agreed? Agreed.

On today's debate, will the Taoiseach say when he informed the Tánaiste and the Minister for Social Welfare that there was a privileged relationship between the Attorney General and Mr. Russell?

There is no problem there.

Can it be confirmed that the Whips will meet immediately with a view to making the necessary arrangements and that questions to the Taoiseach will continue until 2.30 p.m.?

That is a matter for the Whips.

Will the House adjourn now to allow the Whips to meet?

We have decided to leave it to the Whips to make arrangements on the time available for questions to the Taoiseach.

Does the Taoiseach propose to introduce legislation in view of the recent development to appoint one law officer to advise the Government and another to advise the people, as the present position whereby both jobs are held by one person is unsatisfactory?

There is lack of clarity on how we will proceed with today's debate. The Whips will meet to discuss the length of question time, but will the House adjourn to allow the Whips to meet? It is unacceptable to continue with the Package Holidays and Travel Trade Bill.

In view of the priority which this matter must be given in the House, it is unacceptable to debate the Bill on package holidays.

I think the House will appreciate that, since the inception of the State the Whips have met and done their business without the House adjourning. That is a preposterous suggestion.

It adjourned in November.

Top
Share