It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 (resumed), Private Members' Business, 7 p.m. until 8.30 p.m., No. 18.
Return to Writ: Dublin West. - Order of Business.
Last week I raised the question of the Criminal Justice Bill and I had a communication from the Taoiseach last night. Would he explain if there is to be a delay in introducing this legislation, if it will be introduced before the summer recess, and if not, will he explain the promises he made about law and order?
The appropriate legislation will be introduced as soon as possible. I can assure the House that the Government have embarked on a comprehensive national programme to combat lawlessness, violence and drug abuse in particular, as a matter of urgency.
This Bill was the subject of specific promises by the Taoiseach, the former Minister for Justice and the present Minister for Justice, and it was said during the recent general election that law and order had broken down. We were told, wrongfully, that legislation was already prepared last June. I want to know what happened the legislation I prepared to sort out the law and order problems which the present Minister, Deputy Doherty, said he would introduce within a matter of weeks.
The Workers' Party passed a resolution not to give any further authority to the Garda—
The Deputy knows perfectly well that this Government are engaged in a campaign, with the full co-operation of the Garda authorities, to combat the rising level of crime and lawlessness. I have no conception of what specific promises by my party he referred to, because I gave no such specific promises at any stage. I also know that when Deputy Mitchell was Minister for Justice he made no effort in this area. In fact, his personal activities in many cases were detrimental to law and order and to the activities of the Garda Síochána.
(Interruptions.)
First, that is an unworthy remark for which there is no basis and, secondly, there is wide concern at the Minister for Justice's remarks which are widely interpreted as meaning that the Government do not propose to proceed in the near future with the necessary legislation and this is being attributed to pressures on the Government from the Workers' Party. Would the Taoiseach not agree that there is urgency not only about the legislation but about restoring confidence in the will of the Government to take the necessary action?
This Government have already taken more positive concrete steps to combat law and order than the Coalition took in their entire period in office.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
When we came into office we found there were only nine recruits in the Templemore Garda Training Centre.
The Taoiseach had very few recruits in Dublin West.
We cannot have a debate on this.
There are now up to 400 or 500 recruits in training in Templemore.
Deputy Mitchell, when Minister, provided for them in the budget.
I want to make a point of order. The Taoiseach has sought to impugn my reputation. I ask him to withdraw any suggestion that anything which I did as Minister for Justice was anything less than good in the public interest. Secondly, I want to say——
A Deputy
The Member should go up to Ballyfermot.
The Taoiseach told an untruth here by inferring——
You cannot make a statement, Deputy.
Could I be let finish, please? He suggested that the fact that there are only nine recruits in Templemore was my fault, when he should and does know that the reason was his own Government's decision to delay recruitment.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
It was I who provided the 500 recruits.
Deputy Fitzpatrick, do you want to raise a matter on the Order of Business?
Firstly, is the Taoiseach going to withdraw his remarks?
I am not going to withdraw anything I said.
Deputies
Shame.
The Taoiseach is a disgrace to this House.
I will give plenty of instances, if necessary.
Deputy Desmond, after Deputy Fitzpatrick.
In relation to the programme announced by the Taoiseach, how can he possibly reconcile his Government's preoccupation with the problems of law and order with the constant appearance of members of his Cabinet on illegal pirate radio?
Hear, hear.
I do not know how anyone can appear on pirate radio.
That is rather slick.
Some of them very badly, actually.
Deputy Fitzpatrick, on the Order of Business, House.
(Cavan-Monaghan): On the Order of Business, when is it proposed to take Committee Stage of the Sea Fisheries Bill which was introduced as an urgent measure to provide further funds for Bord lascaigh Mhara? Its Second Stage has been completed and it was on the Order Paper for several days, it has now disappeared and, I understand, is not included in the schedule of business which the Government will take before the summer recess?
I will arrange to have that matter taken up immediately with the Whips. We were not aware that there was any particular urgency about taking this legislation. If there is, we are ready to take it at any time.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Can the Taoiseach explain how it disappeared, not alone off the Order Paper but off the schedule of business which it is proposed to take before the recess?
As the Deputy may be aware, the Whips are wrestling at the moment with the programme of legislation which we will have very great difficulty in getting through——
The Taoiseach will have to wrestle with some of his crew before long.
——before the summer recess. If the Deputy wishes to rush any legislation I suggest he take up the matter with the Whips.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Has the fact that there are now two members of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara who are also Members of the Oireachtas—in contravention of an established practice of long standing in this House—anything to do with the failure to take Committee Stage of this Bill?
No.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Is the Taoiseach prepared to do anything with a view to regularising that highly irregular position of two board members out of six of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara being Members of the Oireachtas—and Fianna Fáil members at that?
The present board of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara is perfectly legally and validly constituted. If we are going to talk about appointments in the Government service, I would welcome such a discussion.
The Taoiseach will win the day.
That is one remark which boomeranged on the Taoiseach.
Deputy Fitzpatrick.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Taoiseach is engaged today in a series of innuendoes. There is no man in this House whom shaded innuendoes become less than him.
Deputy Quinn, please, on the Order of Business.
Could I propose to the House than in addition to items Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 we also take, without debate item No. 5 which is the motion to establish a committee on development co-operation? This is a matter on which there is general agreement. If the Minister would indicate, through the Taoiseach, that that is acceptable it would expedite the establishment of the committee. There will be an opportunity in the Seanad for any debate which need arise. The House has debated this matter already and we are behind in establishing such a committee. I suggest that, if the House agree, it be taken without debate today.
I suggest that it be taken first thing tomorrow morning, if the Whips agree. I have no objection.
I have no intention of sullying the atmosphere of the House by indulging in any crossfire with the Taoiseach. However, in view of the very serious remarks which he has made — totally unfounded, I should say — I intend to raise this matter on the Order of Business tomorrow. As a former Minister for Justice I will have plenty to say about the Taoiseach's interference with the gardaí.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
And also in connection with the Mr. Pat O'Connor case and the gardaí involved.
We could not have a debate like that on the Order of Business, Deputy.
It is scurrilous.
Surely Deputy Mitchell is entitled to have his name cleared. Let the Taoiseach withdraw or substantiate his remarks. Let him put up or shut up.
I have given my opinion. I repeat that Deputy Mitchell, as Minister for Justice, did not in any way combat the forces of violence——
Deputy
That is not what the Taoiseach said.
The Taoiseach clearly spoke about Deputy Mitchell's personal intervention.
I also indicated that his activities in many respects were detrimental to law and order.
Substantiate that.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Cooney, on a point of order, but first, Deputy FitzGerald.
If allegations made against the honour of a Member are not withdrawn, would the Chair indicate what recourse that Member has? I presume that he has a right to defend himself. Would the Chair indicate how he can do that properly within the rules of the House?
Before the Chair decides that, I would be grateful if the same would apply to Deputy FitzGerald who made an attack on me in this House on one previous occasion.
The Taoiseach should not try to muddy the waters. Is he going to withdraw his remarks?
If we are going to have rules here, they will be applied universally.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
Order, please. We cannot have a debate on this matter.
On a point of order——
On a point of order, Deputy.
On the particular occasion to which the Taoiseach referred, he had the right of reply. What we are asking is for Deputy Mitchell to have the same right and for the Taoiseach to justify his statement.
Dr. Fitzgerald
And to find out what procedure should be adopted in the matter.
And the rule of procedure which is to be adopted in this case.
A suitable opportunity has to arise for Deputy Mitchell to defend himself.
The Chair has been asked what provisions are available to Deputy Mitchell in order to clear up this matter. The House is in the Chair's hands in this matter.
There can be a personal explanation by the Deputy.
Mr. Mitchell
I have nothing to explain. The Taoiseach has a lot to explain.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
On a point of order, is it proper that the Taoiseach should boldly and unfairly castigate a member of the Opposition? What role has the Chair to play in this? Will it allow this to be done?
Withdraw the statement.
I am now making a ruling on this. The Taoiseach did refer to his personal activities, to which phrase I took exception. If he had referred to his activities as Minister that would be allowable, but it would be very wrong to mention personal activities.
(Cavan-Monaghan): On a point of order, he did not say that.
I did not say that.
Deputy Fitzpatrick, on a point of order.
I am on my feet.
(Cavan-Monaghan): On a point of order, this should be clarified. Deputy Mitchell was the Minister for Justice in the last administration. What I understood the Taoiseach to say was that Deputy Mitchell, while holding such a position, had acted in a way which was not in the best interests of this country.
Deputy
That is correct.
(Cavan-Monaghan): That is a shocking thing to say about any Minister, but particularly about the person who held the portfolio of Minister for Justice. The Taoiseach should either withdraw or substantiate that allegation. That is what was said. Of that there is no doubt.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
If the Chair takes exception to what I said, and considers that there is some personal imputation against Deputy Mitchell, I withdraw that. What I meant to say and what I still say is that Deputy Mitchell's performance as Minister for Justice was sorely lacking in many ways, in my view. That is still my view.
That is not what the Taoiseach said.
Please, Deputies. I think the matter has been clarified now.
The Chair asked me to withdraw the phrase "personal activities", I withdraw that phrase.
I want to return to the central point of my original question.
I am sorry, Deputy. It is not permitted on the Order of Business to have a debate on this matter. If you want to raise a matter on the Order of Business, you are entitled to do so.
The Taoiseach has had great time to talk about my performance as Minister for Justice. I want to have time to talk about the performance of his Ministers.
You cannot do that. I am sorry. Much as I would like to help——
I want to ask——
The Deputy has got a reply and I must now proceed to the next business. Deputy Cooney is waiting patiently to raise a matter on the Order of Business. I must ask Deputy Mitchell——
On a point of order——
I would like the Deputy to resume his seat.
I want to raise a point of order.
On a point of order, Sir, as I understand it Deputy Mitchell is asking about measures planned by the Government. On your own ruling, Sir, Deputy Mitchell is entitled to proceed with this question which was interrupted by the Taoiseach's statement.
Matters which are promised. Yes, Deputy Mitchell on that by all means.
The Taoiseach has tried to draw a smokescreen over the Government's inactivity in this matter. I want to ask him again if he is denying that he and the Minister for Justice made a commitment during the general election that legislation would be introduced within weeks to sort out the law and order problem. I want to know if they are denying that promise was made. If the promise was made, where is the legislation and what do they intend to do about law and order?
A Cheann Comhairle, I never made any such promise during any general election campaign that legislation would be introduced within a matter of weeks.
A Cheann Comhairle——
That is the answer. We cannot have a debate on it.
Would the Taoiseach not accept that an advertisement was published in which his photograph appeared saying that Fianna Fáil promised legislation would be introduced within weeks. I think Deputy Briscoe, if he is there, will confirm that he used that promise in Dublin South-Central.
The Deputy got his reply and that is as far as we can go. I am calling Deputy Cooney.
Are we to conclude that we cannot believe any advertisement issued by the Government?
Some of your own were good.
(Interruptions.)
I am afraid euphoria may be getting the better of all of us. Would Deputy Cooney raise the matter now?
At the risk of an anti-climax, could I ask the Taoiseach whether the Government have yet cleared the terms and provisions of the Finance Bill?
Yes.
They have been cleared by the Government?
Yes.
When will the Finance Bill be circulated?
Tomorrow.