asked the Minister for Industry and Energy if, in view of its importance as a major opportunity for North-South economic co-operation, he will outline the present state of negotiations for the construction of a bulk coal carrier by the Belfast shipyard of Harland & Wolff for the conveyance of coal to the ESB generating station at Moneypoint, County Clare; and if he will make a statement on the Government's attitude to this project.

Since my assumption of office I have given this matter detailed attention. A number of possible options linked to the coal carrying contracts for the ESB which might have resulted in the placing of a ship-building order at Harland & Wolff were very fully explored. Contacts were made with the various interested parties, including the new managing director of Harland & Wolff. I regret that the conclusion reached was that the potential financial penalty in placing a coal carrying contract, on the basis of a ship order being placed in Belfast, was too high, especially considering the time that would be necessary to secure firm tenders. Had it been possible to obtain terms for an order that would reduce this penalty to an acceptable level, the outturn might have been different. I intend in relation to further coal carrying contracts, to follow up the matter and the contacts made.

A Cheann Comhairle, this is a very important matter. I crave your indulgence. We are very near the end of Question Time. Perhaps you could extend it by a minute or two to give me an opportunity to ask a couple of supplementary questions. I know I am not in your best books at the moment, a Cheann Comhairle——

The Chair was reminded very forcibly the other day that he had not any discretion as to Question Time.

I shall be very brief. May I ask the Minister of State if he would agree that the transferring of this question from the Taoiseach to whom it was originally put to himself indicates a lack of interest by the Taoiseach in this matter which is of fundamental importance to North-South economic relations? Secondly, will the Minister of State indicate if the ESB, in contravention of all the desirable aspects of this matter, went ahead unilaterally and placed a contract with a Japanese shipping firm to the value of US$23 million without any benefit resulting to this country out of the placing of that contract?

The first part of the question relates to the transferring of the question. The Taoiseach has, of course, a great interest in this matter. I should like to refer the Leader of the Opposition to a letter he, as Taoiseach, sent to Deputy Cluskey, dated 23 April 1980 which dealt with the transferring of a question from the Taoiseach's office to another relevant Minister.

In view of the short time at our disposal for dealing with this matter, I do not think it is in order for the Minister to go back to April 1980 to deal with the question I have on today's Order Paper.

I am trying to be helpful.

The Chair wishes to remind the Deputy and the Minister that we will be moving from Question Time almost immediately.

I asked two supplementary questions and I should like an answer.

I am trying to answer the first part of the question. In a letter the then Taoiseach laid out quite clear reasons for transferring questions. There are two paragraphs to which I would like to refer. The first is as follows:

Where such questions relate primarily not to statements made by me but to matters which are the responsibility of other Ministers they will, in accordance with well-established procedures, continue to be transferred to those Ministers.

The Minister is completely out of order.

The other paragraph states:

The practice of addressing questions to the Taoiseach of the day on matters which, while he may have spoken about them, are statutorily the responsibility of a particular Minister would, if acceded to, lead to Question Time becoming totally imbalanced and could have serious consequences for ministerial accountability.

That is the basis on which the question was transferred to my Department and I think Deputy Haughey should accept it was proper to have it transferred. In relation to the second part of his question, I am not at all satisfied with the manner in which the then Taoiseach's Department handled the whole matter. The ESB opened their tender procedure for the shipping of coal in April 1982. No action was taken by his own adviser until July 1982 when the matter was well advanced. Despite a number of deferments——

This is irrelevant rubbish.

In view of the attitude of the Minister of State, I must ask the permission of the Chair to pursue supplementary questions on this matter tomorrow.

The Chair will have to look into that matter. I do not know the position. As far as I know, I have no authority to do that. If the Deputy has any other request to make I will consider it.

I suggest I am being unfairly treated by the Minister of State and in view of the kind of answer he has given I ask the Chair to consider permitting me to adjourn this question until tomorrow.

I have answered the question.

If the Deputy wishes to put one further supplementary I will allow it. However, I do not think it will get us anyplace.

I asked two questions: the second was of very clear content. I asked if the ESB unilaterally proceeded to place a contract for the shipping of coal to the Moneypoint station with a Japanese shipping firm at a cost of US$23 million without any benefit ensuing to this country and thus set at nought all the negotiations with the Harland & Wolff Company?

The cost of placing an order with the Harland & Wolff Company would have been prohibitive. The ESB, acting within their own statutory responsibility, placed the order for the coal-carrying contract with the best tender. In doing so they protected themselves in relation to any further retendering process which would have had to be entered into and which would have caused not only a long delay but which would have opened up the possibility of a cost penalty of many millions of pounds if any other procedure had been taken by the ESB.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply of the Minister of State, I propose to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of this question.

The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.

With the permission of the Chair I should like to have written replies to the following questions: Nos. 114, 126, 141, 183, 212, 242, 282, 313, 343, 369, 396, 421 and 432.

The General Office will be notified.

I should like to ask the Minister for Justice if he will make a statement about the action he plans to take——

The Deputy got a reply from the Chair on that matter and he may not raise it now.

This is a matter of wide-spready public concern now. I believe that the manner in which this matter of the manslaughter in Fairview and the robberies involved——

The Deputy may not raise that matter now. He is being disorderly.

This matter needs to be considered by the House in relation to future development of the law. People outside are worried——

The Deputy is being disorderly. I ask him to resume his seat.

It is very serious when we cannot discuss the matter here.

A question was allowed yesterday in relation to incidents in Assam.

It appears that an incident in Assam may be raised here but not an incident in Fairview. We have to address ourselves to that problem.

I am asking the Deputy to resume his seat.

Perhaps the Chair would meet Deputy Woods and let us know how we can raise this matter in an orderly way. It is a matter of major importance.

With the greatest respect, I think Deputy Ahern should advise Deputy Woods. I am calling the next business.

It is not as simple as that. It is a matter of the laws of this House being questioned outside. I only asked that the Minister for Justice would at least bring a report to the House and have the matter assessed so that we could being forward better law in future and make sure this kind of thing cannot happen again.

The Deputy asked the Taoiseach this morning about a new Criminal Justice Bill. If and when that comes before the House it will afford an excellent opportunity for Deputy Woods to put his questions.

On a point of order, you are faced with a difficulty now. We have had much discussion here about reform of the House——

The Deputy is being disorderly and he knows it. I ask him to resume his seat. The Deputy is being persistently obstructive of the Chair. I am telling him to resume his seat.

I should like clarification on a point of order. I appreciate that in the context of a Criminal Justice Bill one may discuss these points which are very important matters, but the problem is that so far as the public are concerned they would like a statement from the Minister.

That is not a point of order.

It is the way in which we order our business in the House.

I put down a Private Notice Question that was not allowed. Does the Chair appreciate that there is a crisis situation existing in my constituency in relation to that matter?

The Deputy got a ruling on that matter. He is being disorderly.

Does the Chair appreciate that there is a crisis situation in my constitutency in relation to the matter——

The Opposition are being obstructive.

Does the Chair appreciate the position in relation to that area? There is a crisis situation——

I conveyed my ruling to the Deputy.

You cannot be surprised if we on this side of the House are slightly puzzled by the fact that you permitted a Private Notice Question yesterday on events in India in the province of Assam and you refused two questions today.

Deputy Haughey is now challenging the Chair.

Yes, on this issue.

The Leader of the Opposition is bound by the rules of the House as is every other Deputy.

I would like you to explain the discrepancy——

I do not have to explain anything in this way to Deputy Haughey. If he wishes to come to my office——

Now we know where we stand.

Deputy Shatter to resume.

I should like to have written replies to Questions Nos. 284 and 285. I am sorry to disappoint you, a Cheann Comhairle.

The remaining Questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.