It is proposed to take No. 8. It is also proposed, subject to the agreement of the House that: (1) No. 8 shall be decided without debate, (2) notwithstanding Standing Order 41, Members may make statements today on the Gulf situation, (3) the Dáil, at its rising today, shall adjourn until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 20 March 1991.
Order of Business.
Is the proposal for dealing with No. 8 agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for the arrangements for making statements today agreed?
I note there is no maximum time limit laid down for spokespersons for the main parties, or indeed for any Deputy in the House. Can the Taoiseach give an assurance that people will try to keep within a reasonable timescale to allow Independent Deputies and backbenchers to make an adequate contribution to this debate?
That is very desirable, and I personally intend to be reasonably circumspect.
I take it, then, that the arrangements proposed for dealing with statements are agreed. Agreed. Is the proposal for item No. 3, that the Dáil, on rising today, shall adjourn until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 20 March, agreed? Agreed.
I am sure the House would unite with the Taoiseach in rejoicing at the release of the Birmingham Six and further that we had the wisdom in this House to abolish the death penalty, as has been done in Britain. If that were still in existence the grave wrong done to the Birmingham Six could not have been put right, just as the grave wrong to the 21 people who were murdered in Birmingham can never be put right. May I ask the Taoiseach if, arising from the report of Mr. Justice Martin, he will introduce legislation to provide in this State a review procedure similar to the one that exists in the United Kingdom?
The Chair is slow to rule the matter out of order, but in a situation like this perhaps some licence is appropriate.
If the Deputy puts down a Dáil question on the matter I will reply to it.
Let it be dealt with in the proper fashion. The Order of Business is not the proper way to deal with a matter of such importance.
I would draw the Taoiseach's attention to the record of the House of 21 November 1989, 30 May 1990 and 5 July 1990 when the Minister for Justice indicated that he intended bringing proposals before this House arising from the report of Mr. Justice Martin. Legislation has unambiguously and clearly been promised on this matter. May I ask the Taoiseach when it is intended to bring forward that legislation?
Could we have replies to questions as they arise?
This is promised legislation. It seems that on the day in question there should be no reluctance or no drawing back by the Taoiseach in living up to this promise. I am very sorry to see him being tardy in dealing with the matter today.
This is not an occasion for political point scoring. I suggest that if the Deputies put down a Dáil question on the matter it would give me an opportunity to answer it much more fully. I am quite satisfied to say that the legislation is in the course of preparation.
On a point of order——
This should not give rise to argument or debate now. I want to make that quite clear to the Deputy.
As I have done on many occasions, I want to record my protest at the fact that it appears the Taoiseach is not aware of what is or is not promised legislation. I am asking you a Cheann Comhairle, as I know we will be addressing this matter shortly at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, to ensure that some clarity is brought into the matter. Otherwise, the record of this House——
The matter to which the Deputy refers is at present before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and will be dealt with in due course, at its next meeting I presume. I am calling Deputy Quinn.
On a point of order——
On the Order of Business——
Deputies, please.
On a point of order, I merely want to mention that I put down a Dáil question on this matter last month and was told there were complications and that the matter had not been resolved. Therefore for the Taoiseach to come into the House and say on the Order of Business we can put down a Dáil question on the matter is clearly not the answer.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, perhaps I could suggest to the Taoiseach, in view of the day that is in it and in view of the matters that have been raised by Deputies on this side of the House, that with consultations between the Whips time would be set aside next week for statements — not just in relation to the Birmingham Six, which we would all like to put on the record of the House, but also the implications for legal and judicial review in this country. Arising from what happened yesterday in Britain it would be appropriate for a proper, structured series of statements to be made, including clarification in relation to the commitments given by the Minister for Justice in relation to Judge Martin's report. We would do ourselves, and this Parliament, a great service if we clarified the matter.
May we proceed to the Order of Business?
The Taoiseach was about to reply.
There are many ways and means open to Deputies for pursuing such matters in the House.
I fully support the request made by Deputy Quinn. No one on this side of the House wants to have a political row this morning but I am a little taken aback by the lack of preparedness by the Taoiseach.
Let us proceed to the Order of Business proper.
I do not know what Deputies expect this morning——
The Taoiseach should have been briefed on promised legislation.
In relation to that, I told the Deputies that if they put down a question it would give me an opportunity to answer it more fully.
The Taoiseach should have been briefed this morning.
Legislation is in course of preparation and will be brought forward in due course.
I am trying to be orderly in this matter.
This is disorderly.
The event in Britain yesterday is of some significance and, instead of trying to raise it in a disorderly manner on the Order of Business, I am requesting the Taoiseach to make some time available next week to make statements.
I do not think it would be possible to provide time next week. Deputies are now seeking debates on practically every issue that arises. A major legislative programme must be pursued and I should like to point out, just by way of a general comment, that it was not the Irish Judiciary which were involved in the case of the Birmingham Six——
Nor the Irish Government.
I should not like to suggest that, arising out of the Birmingham Six case, there is any particular urgent need for any reform of the Irish Judicial system.
Deputies Quinn, McCartan and Mitchell rose.
I have to dissuade Members from the notion that we may debate this matter now. Deputy Quinn has eloquently made his point. I will hear a brief comment for Deputy McCartan and Deputy Jim Mitchell.
What has happened in the United Kingdom is a very significant judicial event which could very well be replicated in this country. There is no machinery for review in this country and, if the Birmingham Six had been in jail in this country they could very well still be there because of the absence of such a review.
As I said last night in the debate with the Minister for Justice, I welcome the fact that the Birmingham Six have been released. I regret that the Taoiseach suggested it is not a matter of urgency as far as the Government are concerned. I should like to remind him of what the Minister for Justice said in the Official Report of 30 May 1990——
This is repetition.
I want to make one small point. The Minister stated that the committee's report was published on 30 March 1990 and was being examined as a matter of urgency.
The Deputy has already effectively made that point. I am now proceeding to the Order of Business.
On the Order of Business, yesterday the Taoiseach indicated that he would make a report to the House as soon as he had something substantial to say in relation to the Brooke initiative. In view of the announcement yesterday by Mr. Brooke and the response by the Government, does the Taoiseach propose to make an arrangement next week in relation to statements to the House on this matter?
No, that is not possible. Secretary Brooke prepared and submitted a statement to the parties involved and asked them to give their views by 26 March. In the meantime he specifically asked that the document remain confidential. The Deputy will appreciate that if the document is confidential until 26 March it would not be appropriate or helpful for us to debate it until after 26 March.
The Labour Party understand and respect the position of both Governments in this matter, but in order to facilitate the Opposition parties I invite the Taoiseach to have a briefing with the leaders of the Opposition parties, not to disclose the confidentiality of the document but to bring them up-to-date in relation to these matters so that this part of the island can be as constructive as possible in relation to the talks in Northern Ireland.
I do not know if that is called for at the moment but I will keep the situation under review. May I point out that we called the Dáil specially today at the request of the Opposition parties to debate the situation in the Gulf and that we have already wasted a quarter of an hour on what amounts to Question Time.
We have not wasted anything.
On a point of order, I am going on to business proper in a moment.
The arrogance of the Taoiseach is incredible. He finds democracy tiresome.
On a point of order in relation to the matter, I accept the Taoiseach's point in regard to the confidentiality of the document, but I would expect at some point soon to have an opportunity to debate the matter and that some contact would be made by the Taoiseach with the Opposition parties in relation to the matter. I do not accept that the issues we raised up to now on the Order of Business were a waste of time; they were important.