Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 May 1993

Vol. 136 No. 3

Requests Under Standing Order 29.

I have notice from Senator Norris regarding a motion which he wishes to raise under Standing Order 29. I call on Senator Norris to give notice of the motion before I give my ruling.

I would like to give notice of the following motion under Standing Order 29:

The need for the Minister for Finance to take steps, as a matter of urgency, to protect the important archaeological site at Christchurch Place recently uncovered, which contains an impressive section of the pre-Norman town wall and the 13th century mural tower, which is threatened by commercial development and infill.

I recognise that it is not appropriate to make a speech, but I would like to place one point on the record. I regard this as a matter of urgency because it is a site of international importance which I understand will be back-filled tomorrow morning. This should not be allowed.

I have given a lot of consideration to the matter raised by Senator Norris and I cannot agree that it is a matter contemplated under Standing Order No. 29. I regret, therefore, I have to rule the motion out of order.

I have notice from Senator Farrelly regarding a motion he wishes to raise under Standing Order 29. I call on Senator Farrelly to give notice of the motion before I give my ruling.

I give notice of the following motion under Standing Order 29:

The proposal by the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications to increase telephone charges by 400 per cent will have a disastrous effect on the elderly, those living alone and helpline organisations and will cause hardship for the public.

I would like to make one comment before you give your ruling, a Chathaoirligh. The proposed introduction of such charges shows serious political naï veté on the part of the Government. It is obvious that if this goes ahead there will be fewer elderly people putting their sweet lips a little closer to the phone.

I think it is very unfair.

I have given consideration to this matter. It is not a motion comtemplated under Standing Order 29. Therefore, I regret I have to rule it out of order.

Top
Share