It is proposed to take item No. 4 resumed. In accordance with the terms of an order made on 8 June 1983 there will be a division on No. 5, Votes Nos. 37 and 38, at 8.30 p.m. Private Members' Business will be No. 8 resumed.
Order of Business.
I should like to ask the Taoiseach if the Financial Resolution listed this morning as part of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill is a separate item and will be taken separately?
I do not understand the question.
If the Chair might intervene——
The reason I am asking is that it was not on the Order Paper yesterday.
It is a message for the House. The House does not take any action on it.
Will the Taoiseach now clearly indicate to the House when it is the intention that the order fixing the date of the referendum be made in view of the fact that there is considerable disquiet among the general public about the uncertainty of the situation?
A certain percentage do not want it to be held.
We are talking about the Constitution.
May I direct the attention of the Taoiseach to Article 46, paragraph 2 which states:
Every proposal for an amendment of this Constitution shall be initiated in Dáil Éireann as a Bill, and shall upon having been passed or deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, be submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people in accordance with the law for the time being in force relating to the Referendum.
That provision in the Constitution is mandatory. I put it to the Taoiseach that the Government are in serious breach of their constitutional responsibility by delaying the making of this order. If the Taoiseach is not in a position to tell me this morning when the Minister for the Environment will make the order, will he give time for discussion of the motion we have on the Order Paper in the names of Deputies Ahern and Molloy to compel the Minister to make the order?
There were legal proceedings which were threatened and which took place in relation to this matter. That made it inappropriate to fix the date. If the date was fixed now the referendum would have to be held during July. It is doubtful whether that is the most appropriate time to hold a referendum. For that reason no decision has been taken by the Minister for the Environment on the matter. I note that the Deputy has a motion down and the proposal in it does not appear inherently unreasonable. It is a matter which we could discuss. It is a question of finding the most appropriate time to early out what is the constitutional obligation of the Government.
I am grateful to the Taoiseach for the offer to discuss the matter. I accept that offer and perhaps we could discuss it during the course of the day. What is the Government's intention in regard to a number of motions we have on the Order Paper which would have the effect of setting up a number of committees? As the Taoiseach knows, the Minister for Industry and Energy and I have had a number of helpful discussions about the establishment of committees. Arising from that we have a clear understanding that the Government will expedite the establishment of some of the committees we propose. I should like to draw his attention to the committee we propose on crime, lawlessness and vandalism. In view of the serious and alarming, situation we have in that regard, can the Taoiseach give some indication if the Government will agree to the taking of these motions and the establishment of these committees before the recess?
This is a matter which in the ordinary way is discussed between the Whips. The negotiations on the committees we proposed and which were put to the Opposition on 8 March, took over three months to sort out. We have no desire to hold up discussions on these proposals. There is the difficulty that if we have too many committees we will have a problem about servicing them. This is something which the leader of the Opposition has been conscious of and stressed on several occasions. Nevertheless, discussions should be held between the Whips on these proposals to see whether any of them might be worthwhile proceeding with.
May I take it the Taoiseach is not adverse to taking one or two of them before the recess? I would urge on him the argument that he is morally bound, arising from discussions which have taken place, to agree to the establishment of one, two or three of the committees we proposed.
Without prejudice and with no suggestion of being morally bound, I suggest that discussions should take place on these committees with a view to seeing whether agreement can be reached on one or more of them being established that would be appropriate and useful. We certainly would not wish to hold up those discussions in such a way as to prevent agreement being reached before the recess. I suggest that the Whips discuss the matter and if agreement can be reached it will be implemented before the Dáil goes into recess.
Is léir nach bhfuil go leor oibre ag an Taoiseach le cur os comhair on Tí seo. Mar sin táim ag lorg cead uait chun Uimh. 1—An Bille um Thiarnaí Talún agus Tionóntaí (Bunchíosanna) (Foirceannadh), 1983 — an Chéad Chéim, a mholadh.
This item must go into Private Members' Time. If it is agreed it will be put down for Second Stage during Private Members' Time and for First Stage if it is opposed. Is the Bill opposed?
Yes.
The Bill is is opposed. Therefore it will go into Private Members' Time for the First Stage.
Cathain a ghlacfar leis?
It will go into Private Members' Time and be reached in the ordinary way.
It will take its place in the queue.
Would the Taoiseach make a statement in relation to an article in The Sunday Press regarding a link between the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, NATO, the American defence forces and Deputy Kelly——
(Interruptions.)
Order. Would the Deputy resume his seat? Perhaps this would be the right time for me to make a short statement.
I want to raise a matter on the Order of Business.
I will come to those things later on. On 29 January 1981 one of my predecessors gave a most carefully considered comprehensive ruling in relation to matters which may be raised on the Order of Business, as reported in volume 326, columns 541 and 543 of the Official Report. On 26 January 1983 I reiterated the principal points in the ruling, as reported in volume 339, column 407. The ruling was made in the context of the Standing Orders as they are. If there is a desire by the House to widen the scope of topics which can be raised on the Order of Business, an amendment to Standing Orders would be necessary. I will, of course, faithfully operate any changes in Standing Orders which the Houses sees fit to make. I am making arrangements to have a copy of the ruling referred to circulated to each Member for information.
I might briefly say that under that ruling questions can be raised on the Order of Business and questions only. The matters which may be raised on the Order of Business are as follows:
1. The business for the day.
2. The taking of other business on the Order Paper.
3. The taking of business which has been promised and which therefore can be anticipated.
4. Arrangements for sittings.
5. When Bills or other documents needed in the House will be circulated.
Until Standing Orders are changed I earnestly appeal to the House to cooperate with the Chair in enforcing those Standing Orders as they stand, in accordance with the statement made by one of my predecessors and adopted by me.
One of the things you have not included is the request from this side of the House that a Minister of the Government should make a statement about a particular matter. Over recent months you have ruled that such requests are in order and you have turned to the Government benches and said that a statment would be in order. You do not seem to have included such a process in the list you have read.
Offhand the Chair does not recollect the occasions mentioned by the Deputy in recent times and before commenting the Chair would like an opportunity to check up on this. A request for a statement is not one of the matters included in my predecessor's interpretation of the rules as adopted by me. The shortcoming I see in a request to a Minister to make a statement is that if he says he will not do so he will be asked the reason; he will then have to reply and then there is debate and hassle. That is the sort of thing we want to avoid. I want to make it perfectly clear to the House, and I sincerely hope the House accepts my bona fide, that my only anxiety is to enforce Standing Orders and if Standing Orders are changed I will enforce them to the best of my ability.
I must suggest that you have a wider dimension than simply enforcing Standing Orders. You have other duties.
Of course I have.
You did say your only duty was to enforce Standing Orders.
I did not say it was my only duty.
You have a much wider responsibility, that is, to endeavour to see that this House functions as fully and effectively as possible and that as far as possible Deputies on all sides, but particularly those in Opposition because they have a special role and responsibility to discharge, are given an opportunity within the proper conduct of our affairs to have as much freedom and flexibility as possible. I did suggest on another occasion that you would take an initiative on this matter of what may or may not be raised on the Order of Business and may or may not be the subject of Private Notice Questions. I suggested that perhaps you could see it as your responsibility to initiate some reforms in this area and I make that suggestion to you again in your capacity as chairman of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
The only comment I would like to make is that things are initiated before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges by Members other than the Chair, usually by the Whips. I do not know how many meetings of that committee there have been since this Dáil first met but I think we have had more such meetings than during any Dáil in recent years. On not one occasions has the Chair's conduct been questioned by any Member of that committee. I think it right to say that since the Committee on Procedure and Privileges was mentioned.
That is respect on our part for the office of the Chair.
I wish you had the same respect in the House.
That remark is unfair. We would see any move to criticise the Chair or a motion of confidence or no confidence in the Chair as a serious fundamental matter which we would be very reluctant even to contemplate. The fact that we have do not made any moves in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in that area should redound to our credit rather than the reverse. We wish to conduct out business in an orderly manner. Sometimes, I am afraid your rulings make it difficult for us to do what we want to do in an orderly way. I would put it no more seriously than that, if you were to call for a special meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to see what reforms, if any, we should make concerning the Order of Business or Private Questions then we might make some progress.
Under the headings which you outlined, you were very helpful in regard to a matter I wish to raise. I am asking the Taoiseach to allow time, indeed give his own time today, to make a statement in relation to a very serious allegation which could affect our standing as a neutral nation. That is a fundamental——
This is not in order.
Why did the Deputy not raise it before December? What was he doing?
This is in order in relation to the——
I have ruled it our of order. I am calling on Deputy De Rossa.
I want to raise on the Order of Business a matter I have been raising for some time. It is the question of the all-party committee on marital breakdown. I have been raising this for several months and statements were made at the weekend that the Taoiseach would establish that committee. It is not on the Order Paper today. Could the Taoiseach say when the committee will be established?
It will be in order next week.
We have been promised this for weeks.
There is a question of fair play here. It seems to me you have allowed Deputy De Rossa to raise the matter of this committee practically daily. Does the rule about a matter not being taken again for a certain time not apply to Deputy De Rossa? He has raised this matter practically every day.
I allowed Deputy De Rossa to ask a question. That question was answered and that is the end of it.
In view of the grave uncertainty and concern being felt by both workers and employers throughout the country and new developments on pay in the past few days, will the Taoiseach indicate clearly and concisely what now is the Government's pay policy or strategy in regard to the private and public sectors?
That matter does not fit into any of the categories I have just read. Either we have an impromptu question time on the Order of Business each day or we do not.
I suggest it comes under category three. As you know from your vast experience on this side of the House, you looked for the protection and assistance of the Chair on many occasions on this very issue.
It does not matter what I did before I came into the Chair.
Some of the rancour in the House has been developing because perhaps there have been too many interruptions from the Chair when we have been legitimately trying to raise matters.
I think Deputy Fitzgerald is a member of the Committee on Procedures and Privileges. The Chair has stated the position in regard to the Order of Business and until that position has been changed by order of the House, through Standing Orders, the Chair proposes to operate that procedure and he appeals to Members to accept that ruling.
I have put a question. I am asking you to allow me to ask the Taoiseach to give a proper explanation——
And I have ruled it out of order. I suggest that you take it up with the Whips.
Why have the Government abandoned an employment policy altogether?
I asked yesterday to be allowed to raise on the Adjournment the matter of the building of Cavan Hospital. I was refused permission and I think I am being discriminated against.
Deputies
Chair, Chair.
The mob, again.
This is part of the Pavlovian response that has been developing recently. You refused me permission to raise the matter because you said it had been dealt with already. My contention is that it had not been dealt with. The Chair will recall that I had to raise the matter here. While I had the question down in regard to the Cavan Hospital a letter from the Minister of Health appeared in the Anglo Celt. You, Sir, happen to be a Deputy for the constituency. Your reply to my request did not mention anything that was taken on the Adjournment of the House last week. Consequently, I contend that what I was trying to raise on the Adjournment last night concerned a totally different matter from the matter raised last week.
I want to make the position clear. Deputy Wilson asked permission to raise this matter yesterday and in the ordinary way it was processed in my office. I received advice on it which I considered carefully and which I accepted fully, and I consider I am bound by that. I refused the question in the light of that advice. The reason for the refusal was conveyed to the Deputy in a very full and courteous manner by my Private Secretary. As the Deputy knows, it is not in order to seek to question that ruling in the House. If Deputy Wilson wants to come to my office he is welcome and I will discuss the matter with him.
I will do that because I intend to pursue it to the very end.
Will the meeting take place in Cavan?
I will allow the Ceann Comhairle to choose the weapon.
I want to raise the matter of the importation of Dutch and Italian potatoes without inspection and at the expense of the Irish farmers.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
I asked the Taoiseach four or five weeks ago on the Order of Business if he would allow time for a debate on the heroin problem. He said at that time that the matter was being considered by the Government. I had consulted the Whips before the special committee of Ministers was announced.
This is not in order. You can approach the Whips but I cannot make flesh of one and fish of another. I am calling on Deputy Denis Gallagher.
You accepted this on the Order of Business four weeks ago. The Taoiseach replied at that time that he would consider it.
I have explained what arises on the Order of Business and what I will hear on the Order of Business.
Ba mhaith liom ceist a chur ar an Tánaiste. Bhfuil cóip den Bhille Rialtais Áitiúil (Pleanáil agus Forbairt), 1983, le fáil i nGaeilge?
Níl mé cinnte an bhfuil séle fáil i nGaeilge fós. Má tá, beidh mé in ann cóip a chur chuig an Teachta.
An mbeidh an Tánaiste in ann an Bille a chur ar fáil sul a mbíonn an díospóireacht seo thart agus cén uair an mbeidh séin ann é a chur ar fáil.
Déanfaidh mé iarracht é a chur ar fáil don Teachta ar maidin más rud é go bhfuil sé le fáil san Teach.
I had a Private Notice Question down yesterday about the circumstances in which Laurence Dunne escaped during his trial and the fact that he has not been brought back for sentencing since. It was ruled that this was a matter for the courts. I cannot see how the fact that he is at large at present—
At this stage it is clear that the Deputy is questioning the Chair's ruling which was given yesterday, and the Chair cannot allow that.
Will the Taoiseach ask his Minister for Justice to make a statement in the House on the circumstances surrounding the case?
That is not in order either.
I want to allay public disquiet.
At latest tomorrow morning the Deputy will get a list of the things which may be raised on the Order of Business.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I wish to raise on the adjournment the question of including the offence of drug pushing as a scheduled offence under the Offences' Against the State Act.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
Mr. Leonard
Will the Chair agree to time being provided to discuss the matter raised by Deputy Wilson? Let me explain. The Minister sent a letter to the Anglo-Celt. This is the first time that the Minister has sent a letter to a health board asking them how they propose to dispose of three hospitals in the area.
Deputy Leonard is not in order and he knows it.
Mr. Leonard
We are entitled to time to discuss that matter. It was disgraceful for the Minister for Health to send that letter.
Hear, hear.
Deputy Leonard should resume his seat.
Recently during the debate on the Companies Bill, 1983, the Minister for Trade, Commerce and Tourism indicated that he was taking urgent steps to introduce company law legislation to deal with limited liability. It was further stated by the Taoiseach here last week that the matter would be brought before the House before the recess. Perhaps the Minister would indicate when the Bill will he circulated and if it will be taken before the House rises.
I am somewhat surprised that Deputy Flynn is not aware of the situation, I stated clearly in the House that the legislation he refers to will not be taken until the autumn.
If I may pursue that point, during the recent absence of the Minister, I posed the same question to the Taoiseach and he said the matter will be dealt with before the House rises.
The Deputy has asked his question.
The Taoiseach said it would be circulated and dealt with before the House rises.
I made it quite clear that the legislation would not be taken until the autumn.
The Taoiseach said the Bill would be circulated before the recess.
On a matter of considerable importance——
(Interruptions.)
I want to raise a matter which is more serious than these jocose matters. Will the Taoiseach or the Minister for Finance allow time to indicate to the House what guidelines and standards apply to semi-State companies like the Industrial Credit Company to underwrite share issues——
That is not in order.
It is a very serious matter.
I do not doubt that.
Can the Minister indicate the guidelines which will influence——
We cannot have an instant Question Time. Deputy O'Kennedy is out of order and he knows it.
The Deputy had a chance to raise it and he missed the opportunity.
The Minister recognises its importance.
The old pals act applies. The Minister for Finance is looking after the pals.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I am anxious to raise on the adjournment a matter in which I am sure every Member of the House is interested, that is, the provision of a 1 per cent increase for all sporting organisations in the provisional estimates which changed into a 10 per cent reduction.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
My colleague, Deputy Lyons, sought your permission to raise it and you refused it because you said he was looking for money. He is not. He wants to discover——
Deputy Tunney cannot make a case at this stage. Nobody knows that better than Deputy Tunney.
I am anxious that you would——
Deputy Tunney knows when he is in order and when he is out of order.
I have a matter I wish to raise.
I am moving on to the Order of Business of the day.
(Interruptions.)
This is obstruction.
Could I ask the Taoiseach what the position is in relation to the fisheries legislation which we were promised some time ago.
It will be circulated tomorrow and taken next week.
That is very important information.
I wish to raise on the Adjournment the Government's failure to provide £15,000 to maintain and repair the roads on Arranmore Island. This was part of a five-year plan and apparently the Government have reneged on it.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy. Item No. 4.
With your permission I should like to point out——
I said I was moving on to the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1983.
I am sure that was very important advice from Deputy Begley but I did not hear it.