Business will be taken today as follows: By agreement Standing Orders will be suspended until 2.30 p.m. to allow statements by Members on the current economic situation, particularly in so far as it affects the level of unemployment. No member will speak more than once and the proceedings will not be interrupted between 1.30 and 2.30 p.m. After Questions it is proposed to take Nos. 7 (resumed) and 8 (resumed). By agreement the proceedings on those items, including the naming of the date for the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill, 1983, if not previously concluded, will be brought to a conclusion at 6.45 p.m. The Minister for Finance will be called on to conclude the debate on No. 7 not later than 6.15 p.m. Private Members Business will be No. 17 (resumed). The House will not meet until 11.30 a.m. tomorrow to facilitate those Members wishing to attend religious ceremonies.
Order of Business.
Are the arrangements for today and tomorrow agreed?
On the arrangements for business, the proposal is to suspend Standing Orders and I should like the Taoiseach to explain the purpose of suspending Standing Orders in order to allow the debate to take place.
It would not be possible to have the statements it is proposed to allow without suspending Standing Orders. If we do not suspend Standing Orders there will have to be a motion or a Bill before the House on which to hang a debate.
It is very unsatisfactory that the House should be conducting its business while Standing Orders are suspended in this way, particularly as it is occurring weekly. Would it not be more appropriate either to amend Standing Orders to permit such statements to be made or to have a motion tabled for discussion?
It may not be for the Chair to comment on this matter but it occurs to the Chair that up to recently there was criticism of the House on the basis that matters were not discussed when they were hot. As the Chair understands it, this device has been agreed upon between the Whips of the two major parties to give this opportunity to Members to express their views.
We appreciate having the opportunity to deal with the present unemployment situation today but, nevertheless, we would prefer if we could be facilitated by putting down a motion for debate. In the absence of that I am grateful for this facility. However, I agree with Deputy De Rossa that dealing with these matters by way of motion would be preferable.
I take it that the arrangements for today and tomorrow are agreed.
In view of the real public concern that exists concerning the apparent collusion between insurance companies here and the Minister for Finance in regard to the whole area of the national incomes policy, will the Taoiseach indicate to the House if he intends to make a statement on the matter?
The Chair must remind Deputy Lenihan that this is not in order.
Deputy Lenihan was missing yesterday when the Minister for Finance made a statement on the matter.
This matter was dealt with yesterday and Deputy Lenihan is not in order.
More cock and bull stories.
Is the Chair ruling that our attempt to raise this matter is not in order? Deputy Lenihan is simply asking the Taoiseach if he, or the Minister for Finance, will be prepared to make a statement. Surely that is a reasonable request.
I am ruling that to seek to raise the matter now on the Order of Business, to have a debate or discussion on it, is certainly not in order.
That is not in our minds at all.
I have no objection to treating it as a question and allowing the Taoiseach, if he wishes, to give an answer to it; but there it will stop. The matter was discussed yesterday.
That is satisfactory from our point of view.
Aspects have arisen since yesterday.
A statement was made yesterday by the Minister for Finance on the matter and I do not propose to make any further statement at this stage.
I should like to ask the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs if he proposes to carry out an immediate investigation into the circumstances in which there was overhearing of a telephone conversation.
I have already ruled on this.
It has major repercussions for the telephone service. Can we take it that the Minister will not carry out his responsibilities?
The Deputy will please resume his seat. I am not having a discussion on this.
Deputy Lehihan should be asked to withdraw the statement that there was collusion.
I said "apparent" collusion and was careful to do so.
The Deputy is one defender of the backbenchers.
It was my intention to ask for the permission of the Chair to raise on the Adjournment for the third time a matter to which I already referred — the wrongful withdrawal of school transport facilities from two students. I am perfectly in order——
I did not say the Deputy was not.
I notice a certain unrest on the part of the Chair any time I rise. I want to set the Chair's mind at ease about it.
Deputy Tunney does not affect the Chair at all.
In accordance with Standing Orders, I am committed to indicate to you that it is my intention to raise a certain matter on the Adjournment. I ask for your forebearance while I refer to the specific matter.
I am not——
If the Chair interrupts me before I have indicated what the matter is, he will not be able to adjudicate on whether it would be appropriate for the Adjournment. The matter refers to the withdrawal by CIE and the Department of Education of transport facilities from two retarded infants in my constituency.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
The Chair might appreciate the gravity of it if I say——
The Deputy is now developing this matter. We are about to commence a debate on which the time is limited.
I think, in so far as I have asked twice to have this matter raised and you refused, that you do not appreciate the gravity of the matter.
There were a number of other matters.
Two Fine Gael colleagues got matters on the Adjournment and I failed to get one.
The Deputy will withdraw that remark.
That is a statement of fact.
I cannot withdraw a statement of fact.
It is not. It is an allegation and I must ask the Deputy to withdraw it. A Deputy from his constituency, Deputy Flaherty, who had requested permission to raise a matter on numerous occasions, was given permission to raise it on the Adjournment last evening. Deputy Tunney participated in that Adjournment debate. I ask him to withdraw his allegation.
Might I explain? Last week when I asked for the same permission you give permission to Deputy Yates——
Deputy Tunney is being disorderly. When Deputy Yates was called last week his was the only item that was in order for the Adjournment. Deputy Tunney should withdraw his remark.
I did not know it was the only matter suitable.
The Deputy should make inquiries before he attacks the Chair.
Get your facts straight before attacking the Chair.
If my stating that the last two matters on the Adjournment were matters raised by my two Fine Gael colleagues offends the Chair, I will withdraw it.
It is not a question of offending the Chair. The Chair interprets it as an attack on the Chair and I ask Deputy Tunney to withdraw it.
I did not intend it that way.
Deputy Tunney will give an unqualified withdrawal.
An unqualified withdrawal of what?
Of the allegation that the Chair has not been fair in calling matters on the Adjournment.
On a point of order, the Deputy never said that.
I am asking Deputy Tunney to withdraw his allegation.
Since I came to the House I have always been one who respects Standing Orders. I made a simple statement to you, Sir, as the records will show, that the last two matters raised on the Adjournment were raised by colleagues of mine in the Fine Gael Party.
That is an obvious reflection on the Chair and I am asking the Deputy to withdraw it.
The Chair is too sensitive.
What Deputy Tunney is saying could perhaps be interpreted as meaning that events have resulted in Fine Gael having an undue preponderance of Adjournment time, by accident or by other means, but there is no necessary reflection on the Chair.
I want any reflection on the Chair withdrawn.
I wish to suggest that the matter is open to an interpretation which is not a reflection on the Chair.
In so far as there is a reflection on the Chair, I want it withdrawn.
If the Chair regards it as a reflection on the Chair, I withdraw it; but I do not regard it as a reflection.
Is the Deputy withdrawing it in so far as a reflection on the Chair has been made?
If the Chair is sensitive to what I have said and regards it as a reflection, then I have no hesitation in withdrawing it.
I am taking it that the Deputy is withdrawing it in so far as he made a reflection on the Chair.
I made no reflection on the Chair.
I am not letting this go. I am not worried about myself but I am asking Deputy Tunney, in so far as he made a reflection on the Chair, to withdraw it.
The Chair is more than hypersensitive to what I said.
The Chair is not.
Does the Chair not agree that the last two matters on the Adjournment were matters raised by Fine Gael Deputies?
In the context in which Deputy Tunney said that, I am ruling that it constitutes an attack on the Chair and I ask him to withdraw it.
If the Chair thinks so, then I withdraw it.
I am satisfied with that.
I wish to raise on the Adjournment the unintelligible reply I received to the subject matter of Written Question No. 695 on yesterday's Order Paper.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.