It is proposed to take Nos. 16, 1 and 17. It is also proposed that the Dáil shall meet at 10.30 a.m. tomorrow and shall adjourn not later than 4 p.m.
Order of Business.
Is the proposal in respect of tomorrow's sitting agreed?
Can the Taoiseach confirm that the sitting tomorrow is to discuss the Extradition (Amendment) Bill and can he also indicate what further arrangements are being made for the discussion of that Bill?
That is a legitimate question.
We will be sitting tomorrow to take the Second Stage of the Extradition (Amendment) Bill.
And the further arrangements?
The Bill will be taken again next week and I will ask the Chief Whip to inform the Deputy of all the arrangements.
Does the Taoiseach or the Minister for Education intend to make a statement to the House today about the changes which the Government have decided on in relation to the pupil-teacher ratio?
That is not relevant now.
It is extremely relevant.
It is not relevant on the Order of Business. There are other ways and means open to Deputies to raise these questions. I cannot allow questions to be raised which are not relevant to the Order of Business.
A Cheann Comhairle——
I am on my feet.
The Chair has not heard my question.
I have heard the question.
Surely it is relevant on the Order of Business to ask the Taoiseach not what he is going to say but if he intends to say it in the House today?
If the Deputy wants to raise that question there are other ways and means open to him to do so.
Is the Taoiseach going to continue making statements sub rosa to political correspondents and the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party?
This is totally disorderly.
Government by wink and nod.
It is farcical.
If Deputies advert to what has gone before they will be clearly out of order.
Yesterday the Labour Party wished to raise a matter in relation to education and a communication was received from the Ceann Comhairle's office to the effect that we were not allowed to do this. Meanwhile the situation seems to have changed completely from the discussion——
I have communicated with Deputy Spring in relation to that matter.
Does the Chair not think that as Members of this House we are entitled to some respect?
It is not relevant now. I have communicated my views to Deputy Spring in respect of that matter and my ruling stands. If the Deputy wishes seriously to challenge my ruling there is a procedure laid down. He may not do so now.
I am not sure about the numbers just yet but that may have to happen in due course. I should like the Taoiseach or Minister for Education to clarify something which this House——
The Deputy is completely out of order. Deputy O'Malley.
It should be answered in this House. Statements are being made outside this House contrary to statements inside the House.
The matter is distinctly out of order. If Members persist in abusing the procedure I will adjourn the House. Deputy Spring must find another time to deal with that matter. It is quite disorderly to pursue it now.
Government by announcement.
The Deputy is out of order. I am calling Deputy O'Malley.
The most protective Ceann Comhairle of a Government in the history of the State.
Say that again, Deputy Desmond. Repeat that statement.
(Interruptions.)
Do I understand the Deputy to have cast a slur upon the Chair? If that is so, the Deputy will either withdraw his remark or withdraw from the House.
I withdraw any slur whatsoever. I made my comment.
(Interruptions.)
In the best of Labour Party traditions I withdraw any slur.
It is far better that the matter be cleared up now than that a slur be attached to the Chair in respect of his impartiality in this House.
I said that you were the most protective Ceann Comhairle of any Government in the history of the State and if that is deemed by you to be a slur I unreservedly withdraw, in the best of our Labour Party traditions.
The Deputy should be careful of a gratuitous insult to the Chair. I will not tolerate it.
Arising directly from the Order of Business and the proposal about the sitting tomorrow, will the Minister for Justice make a statement for the information of the House and for the purpose of this debate on the Order of Business to clarify the position that arose in Cavan last night and to answer the question as to whether the RUC had sent a warrant to the Republic for the arrest of Paul Anthony Kane?
I have given the Deputy some liberty in raising the matter and putting it on the record of the House, but it is not relevant now.
It arises directly out of the business ordered for this morning.
I disagree with you, Deputy. We shall have ample time to discuss extradition tomorrow.
It would be helpful in discussing it if we knew whether the RUC version or the Garda Síochána version of the story was right.
It is not in order to raise the matter now.
The Minister can say yes or no. If the Minister declines to support the Garda Síochána we can only assume that the RUC version is correct.
Why does the Deputy not repeat his performance on British television?
The Minister has the opportunity to reply. His silence condemns him.
I should like to ask the Minister for Transport to confirm, through the Taoiseach, that time will be allocated for the taking of amendments on Committee Stage of the Transport Bill which is listed for debate today. Is it intended to conclude all Stages today? I an anxious that some time be given for debating amendments on Committee Stage.
Certainly. The usual procedure will be followed in regard to Committee Stage amendments.
I should like to ask the Taoiseach whether in view of the fact that there is a majority in both Houses of the Oireachtas against the Extradition Act, 1987 he will urgently find time today to discuss the position rather than having that Act coming into operation by default on 1 December.
The matter to which the Deputy has referred will be coming before the House tomorrow. Members will have ample time and scope to debate it.
That is not a reply to the question I asked. I asked about the Extradition Act, 1987 which comes into force on 1 December unless it is set aside by the agreement of both Houses of the Oireachtas. I am asking the Taoiseach whether, in view of the fact that there is a majority of both Houses of the Oireachtas against it, there will be an immediate opportunity to discuss it and set it aside.
The Deputy should seek some alternative means of raising that matter.
May I have a reply on this very important matter?
They only speak outside the House.
I do not have any control over that matter.
We have the record of less than a year ago of the Taoiseach being so adamant against that legislation. What is happening now? Who has sold out to whom on this occasion?
The Deputy will have ample time to ventilate his views on this matter tomorrow and in the coming week.
There will be no time for anything tomorrow and the Chair is well aware of that. It is clear that there will be no time. This is a betrayal if ever there was one and it is worse than any ever before.
I should like to put two short questions to the Taoiseach. In view of the fact that some weeks ago he promised a ports Bill before the end of October, will the Taoiseach tell the House whether differences of opinion between his two security Ministers on the matter have been resolved and, if so, in whose favour? Will the Taoiseach say when we might expect that most important piece of legislation before the House?
The Bill is still under active consideration by the Government.
So we hear.
I should like to advise the Deputy very strongly not to be misled by newspaper reports of the matter.
Can we expect the legislation in this session?
There is still a distinct possibility that the Deputy will see it this session.
In view of the fact that the North Sea Ministers in the last few days agreed to stop incineration at sea I should like to ask the Taoiseach if the input document given by the Irish Government, which none of us had any notice of despite my questions last week, contains the sentiments of the Irish Government and Irish policy on incineration at sea? Will we continue this despite the decision of those Ministers to discontinue this practice?
The Deputy is outside the scope of the Order of Business. She should arrange to raise that matter in another way. I have given the Deputy a lot of latitude.
I should like permission to raise on the Adjournment the proposed method of operation of the quota review committee announced by the Department of Education in terms of its implications for the pupil-teacher ratio at primary level.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
In view of the categoric assurances given by the Minister for Agriculture and Food with regard to the expansion and development of the Thurles sugar factory under a Fianna Fáil Government, I should like to ask the Taoiseach to clarify the Government's position as a result of yesterday's board meeting of the Irish Sugar Company.
I appreciate that that is an important matter but it is hardly relevant now.
I should like the permission of the Chair to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
I should like to ask the Minister for Communications when it is proposed to take the Second Stage of the two broadcasting Bills.
It is hoped to take them as soon as possible and a timing can be arranged between the Whips.
I should like to know if it is the Government's intention to have that legislation completed in the House before the end of this session.
That would be a rather ambitious target but if it can be reached, yes.
In view of the fact that no reply was forthcoming from the Taoiseach on the very important matter I raised I should like to ask him, through the Chair, whether or not he has changed his mind since early last March when he solemnly declared to me that he was going to let this Act wither away?
(Interruptions.)
Is that not the Taoiseach's understanding of what was said?
There is silence from the Government side.