It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 10 (resumed) and 5. Business will be interrupted at 3.30 p.m. to take Item No.5 and the order will be resumed thereafter.
Order of Business.
I am glad item No. 5 is being taken but I am somewhat puzzled about the procedure. The leader of the Labour Party and I had a meeting with the Taoiseach about establishing committees of this House. The Taoiseach expressed reservations about this committee and its methods of operation and said he would want to come back to me on the subject. I have not heard from him since. I have no reservations about the matter but I am anxious to know if the Taoiseach has withdrawn his reservations, which included reservations about the employment of consultants by the committee. I have had no communication from the Taoiseach on the matter and it seems rather odd that it should appear on the Order Paper now.
Yesterday morning the Taoiseach was asked a question about this committee and he said the matter would be on the Order Paper today.
The trouble was that the Taoiseach was going to America and I had no opportunity to pursue the matter further with him privately. I would like an assurance that it is not the Taoiseach's intention to limit the work of this committee before it is established. He expressed doubts about it to me and was to come back to me about it. Perhaps we can have an assurance now about the matter?
I think the Deputy may take it that the Taoiseach has no reservations about the matter.
So long as there is power to appoint consultants.
In view of the impending breakdown in communications arising from the announced strike in RTE tomorrow by 600 members of the Federated Workers' Union of Ireland——
That does not arise on the Order of Business. The Deputy may seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment or by Private Notice Question. That is the only way the Deputy may raise the issue.
I wish to know if the Minister intends to make a statement on the matter.
The Deputy may not pursue the matter now.
The Deputy should be allowed to finish her sentence.
If I may say so, I anticipated her request. If she gives the appropriate notice by way of Private Notice Question——
The Chair does not know what I am going to say.
It does not arise on the Order of Business.
I admire the Chair's powers of telepathy.
We might then have Deputy FitzGerald raising on the Order of Business some matter concerning his constituency. I have told the Deputy that what she is seeking to raise cannot be done in this way. I am calling item No.10.
I had not finished my sentence.
I have called the next item. I cannot allow the Deputy to continue on these lines.
On a point of order, the procedures of the House can only operate in an orderly manner if when a Deputy raises some matter he or she is allowed to finish the sentence before the matter is ruled out of order.
The Deputy asked what action the Minister was going to take——
No, she did not. I did not hear that.
Then I must have misunderstood.
Yesterday on the Order of Business the escalating problem in Lebanon was discussed. In view of the fact that so many Irish people have relations in Lebanon, my point was that there was going to be an impending breakdown in communications which would cause greater anxiety to relatives and I wanted to know if the Minister had any intention of making a statement on this matter.
My apologies. I did not hear it that way. I thought the Deputy was talking about something totally different. Perhaps the Tánaiste might care to reply?
That is a different question from the one the Chair ruled out. As I heard it, the question asked before was if the Minister intended to make a statement on the impending breakdown in communications as from tomorrow morning.
I did not get as far as putting a sub-clause.
However, in so far as the question now raised is concerned, the answer is no.
On the Order of Business, I wish to ask the Tánaiste if it is the intention of the Minister for Justice to make a statement on the non-operability of the Courts Act. Has he any intention of introducing amending legislation within the next few weeks?
A serious situation arises here. If this House legislates for something to be done but does not provide the means of doing it and deprives people of a legal remedy they have by substituting one they cannot get because of failure to make the appropriate provision, a very serious situation arises between ourselves and the Judiciary with which this House must deal. The Minister's answer is unacceptable. We must have a discussion in this House as to how legal remedies are to be preserved.
There is provision for Private Notice Questions on a matter like this, but we cannot have an instant Question Time. I stopped Deputy Hussey when she was making her point. I must anticipate questions; otherwise if I were to wait until Deputies asked questions we could have an instant Question Time. That was the reason I stopped Deputy Hussey.
The Chair is suggesting that we put down a Private Notice Question, but I am sure that would be ruled out of order——
I said Deputies could seek to put down a Private Notice Question or an ordinary question on the matter.
We are asking if the Minister for Justice will make a statement on the situation in the courts in view of the failure of the Courts Act to be operative.
That is appropriate to an ordinary question.
I am asking what the Minister intends to do about it.
The Deputy may ask the Minister to make a statement on the situation in an ordinary parliamentary question.
I am sure the Chair is aware of the number of questions on the Order Paper and the time that will be taken to reach them, if they can be reached in this session. We have here a matter of great urgency, where this House has withdrawn a remedy and failed to provide a substitute. That is something we are not entitled to do. There must be a procedure by which that can be discussed in this House other than by way of an ordinary question which may not be reached even in this session. I would submit that the original question put down should be taken and I hope you will on reflection agree to that.
The Deputy can be assured I will certainly seek to allow it but I may not always succeed because it must be one of urgency and I cannot make a decision in advance of the question being asked.
You are master of the business of this House. It is your own decision.
Deputy FitzGerald, would you repeat that please?
I said you are master of the business of this House and it is your own decision. If you seek to do something you can achieve it.
I must work under Standing Orders.
The Standing Orders provide that matters can be raised which are urgent. The urgency is evident. We have broken down the legal system so it is not working.
Will the Deputy give me time to consider the matter?
(Cavan-Monaghan): Would the Chair consider whether in fact he has authority to create new procedures by establishing precedents by rulings of his own? I think he has, as his predecessors all did.
Are you trying to imply that I am not fulfilling my job? I am calling the next item.