Deputy De Rossa and Deputy Woods have been given permission to ask Private Notice Questions.
Private Notice Questions. - Death of Woman in Custody.
asked the Minister for Justice if he will outline the circumstances surrounding the death on 28 February of a woman held in custody in Ballymun Garda station, Dublin, and if, in view of this and other incidents, he is satisfied with the procedures for ensuring the safety of persons held in custody in Garda stations.
asked the Minister for Justice if he will outline the circumstances surrounding the death of a person while in custody in Ballymun Garda station on 28 February, and if he will take steps to ensure that the safety of persons in custody is protected.
Limerick East): I propose to take both questions together.
I am informed by the Garda authorities that the unfortunate death in question is being investigated and, pending completion of the investigation, an official statement cannot be made as to the circumstances in which the death occurred.
It is public knowledge, having been widely reported in the media, that there was a fire apparently involving bedding, but how the fire was started or the extent to which it contributed directly or indirectly to the death is not known as yet.
The investigation will also cover the question whether the procedures governing the custody of persons in Garda stations were followed. It may, of course, be taken for granted that there will be an inquest in which the circumstances will be the subject of sworn evidence given in public.
In my question I asked if the Minister was satisfied with the procedures that exist at present for ensuring the safety of persons, and will he answer whether he is? Would he also say if a system of alarm bells could be fitted in cells in Garda stations so that if a person is in difficulty he can contact the sergeant on duty?
(Limerick East): I am happy with the procedures governing the custody of persons at present but, as I said in my reply, the investigation will also cover the question whether the procedures governing the custody of persons in Garda stations were followed on this occasion. If the Deputy communicates to me views like those already expressed by him, I will look into them as well.
Will the Minister take immediate steps to look into this matter, apart from the investigation which will cover much wider aspects of the situation. The question of bedding was raised in the media and I ask the Minister to inquire if a polyurethane foam mattress was involved. It was mentioned that the gardaí made brave efforts to gain entry to the cell but the very acrid smoke prevented them from doing so. If a polyurethane foam mattress was involved, would the Minister take immediate action? He should have that information now because it would not be very difficult to find out these facts. Will he ensure that such mattresses are changed and the new mattresses are flame-proofed?
(Limerick East): I do not want to say anything which might prejudice the investigation but in reply to a recent question by Deputy Gregory-Independent I pointed out that the greatest source of danger arising from deliberate or accidental fires in a cell here and abroad has been fumes from burning mattresses.
My Department have been seeking specifications for safer mattresses and after long prolonged tests by the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards specifications were prepared and the contracts placed. The mattresses are now being delivered, and that applies to cells in Garda stations and prisons. I am sure every Deputy shares the deep concern I feel at this tragedy, but the system of replacing existing mattresses by safer mattresses is in train. It will emerge from the investigation if this was an old-type mattress or if it had been replaced.
On a point of order, in relation to a Private Notice Question in the names of Deputies Leyden, Brennan and myself, which you ruled out of order——
Deputy MacSharry——
I am coming to my reasons and if you bear with me you will understand the point I am going to make, for your own protection. Your secretary informed us that the question was ruled out of order because it was not of public concern, and a Government statement had been issued on the subject yesterday.
That is not a point of order.
It is, because——
Please Deputy, do not argue with the Chair.
I want to make my point clear——
The ruling of the Chair on a Private Notice Question cannot be raised in the House in this manner. If the Deputy wants to discuss it with the Chair, he may call to my office where he will be welcome and he can have a full discussion. It is out of order to do so now.
I understand, but the reason you gave me for ruling it out of order was that there was a Government statement made yesterday. At 3.22 p.m. today the Government statement issued, after our question had been ruled out of order.
The Deputy will resume his seat please.
With your permission, I wish to raise the matter on the Adjournment this evening.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy. I must deplore the fact the the Deputy took a roundabout way of raising a Private Notice Question in that manner and was disorderly——
I did not mention my question, I mentioned the reasons given by you. The Government misled you by saying a statement issued yesterday but it was not issued until 3.22 p.m. today.
Will the Deputy please resume his seat?
In relation to a Private Notice Question which has been disallowed——
The Chair wants to run the business of the House in an orderly way in accordance with Standing Orders and well-established precedent. The Chair appeals to Deputies to co-operate. Deputies have the assurance of the Chair that he will be impartial in all matters. He does not claim any bouquets for that — that is his duty — but he appeals to Deputies to co-operate with him. If Deputies continue day after day to make the same points which they have been told are out of order, the Chair will not treat that as a fresh act of disorder but as a continuing act of disorder and he will deal with it very severely.
I can assure the Chair that I am anxious to be as orderly as possible and to afford the Chair every possible co-operation and respect. However, the Chair is straining our credulity a bit far when he talks about precedent in regard to matters of Private Notice Questions. All through last term, when we were on the Government side of the House, the Chair was a very skilful protaganist on the Opposition side of the House. The matter of Private Notice Questions was raised here again and again and the rulings of the Chair at that stage were questioned from this side of the House on many an occasion. With all due respect, we cannot leave the matter as the Chair has outlined. I want to be helpful about this. The Chair has a responsibility to come up very soon with some sort of agreed procedures covering this area. We, as Ministers of a Government, have had to endure a certain state of affairs for a long time. Now, on the other side of the House, we are being asked by the Chair to agree to a totally different state of affairs. We will really have to get together with the Chair from all sides of the House to work out some new system for dealing with these matters.
I welcome what the Leader of the Opposition has said and particularly welcome the statement and promises of co-operation made by him on the day of my election. I accepted those in good faith. I know that what the former Taoiseach has now said is also meant. At the same time, it is not a matter for the Chair to amend Standing Orders. The Chair presides over the Committee on Procedure and Privileges which can recommend to the House that Standing Orders be amended. The Chair certainly will co-operate in proposals for the amendment of Standing Orders if some member of the committee so proposes — whether a member of the Government, the Opposition, or an Independent Member if there is one on the committee. It will then be a matter for the House to amend the Standing Orders.
With all due respect, we must go a little beyond that. The Chair has an obligation here. We are dealing with a totally unsatisfactory situation. Two areas have been the subject of protracted dissension in the House, which is not satisfactory from the point of view of the Government or the Opposition. The two matters are, firstly, the whole question of a Private Notice Question being a matter of urgent public importance and secondly, the area of what may or may not be raised on the Order of Business. We have had much upset in the House over a long period in these two areas and I would ask the Chair seriously to consider taking an initiative about them. When I was in the Taoiseach's seat — and I am sure that he can confirm the experience — I was often put in the position where I wished to reply to matters raised in the House on the Order of Business and was prevented from doing this, rightly so in accordance with the rules of order. Perhaps the Chair would take serious note of what I am saying, address himself immediately to these two aspects of our business and perhaps take some initiative in regard to them.
I shall look into the matter. I will welcome an approach from the Government Chief Whip and the Chief Whip of the Fianna Fáil Party. However, I must say that, pending that, the very forceful point was made on the first day of the sitting of this 24th Dáil by the Leader of the Opposition — and I do not say that in any controversial way — that argument with the Chair would have to stop. That is what I am appealing for pending a change in procedure — that we do not have wrangles and argument with the Chair. The Chair must be respected, whoever the occupant be for the time being, if this House is to conduct its business in a dignified way.
Might I intervene to say that, having had the same experience, I appreciate the sense of frustration of the Opposition. We have shared the frustration of the times when we have not been able to reply. However, it is a matter for the parties to bring forward to the committee. It is unfair to expect the Chair to take the initiative. We, on our part, will be more than happy to co-operate in modifying the procedures so that the frustration we all feel at present at not being able to raise matters of current interest can be overcome.
I wish to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of the Private Notice Question in my name, that of Deputy MacSharry and of Deputy Brennan, particularly in the light of the reasons given by the Chair for the refusal to take this Private Notice Question, which were inaccurate.
The Deputy should withdraw that remark.
That is a very doubtful statement from Deputy Leyden.
It is factual, as I have made it already.
The Deputy should make it perfectly clear that he is not making any reflection on the Chair.
None whatsoever.
What I was saying to the Chair at the time was in his own interests. I was raising a point of order.
I wish to give notice that I intend to raise on the Adjournment the question of the closing of a factory in Edenderry.
I will communicate with the Deputy.