At the outset of Public Business yesterday it was decided that a motion in the name of Deputy Mulcahy—it is reprinted in error in to-day's Order Paper—would be disposed of before going on to the other items in Vote No. 11. Some confusion arose on that matter. There are two methods by which Deputies may discuss an Estimate and secure a division being taken without refusing supply. One is to refer the Estimate back and the other is to reduce the Vote by a certain amount. In the case of a motion to refer back, for the purpose of challenging policy that motion and the Vote are discussed together but two questions are put. A motion such as that on the Order Paper is disposed of when reached, and no further discussion can take place on that particular sub-head once a decision has been taken on the motion. Owing to the concentration of attention on one particular item in sub-head B, yesterday, certain confusion seemingly arose in the minds of Deputies, and that confusion or obfuscation extended to the Ceann Comhairle. It was ruled that a decision having been reached on the motion to reduce, the sub-head could not be further discussed. The ruling of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle on that matter was perfectly correct. Later on I, under a wrong impression, owing to the amount of discussion that had taken place on a particular item, that the motion to refer back dealt with that specific item only, stated that other items in sub-head B might be discussed to-day. Having said so, I am still prepared to be lenient on the matter, though my promise was based on a slight error on my part.
Business of the Dáil.
I should like to clarify the situation. As I understand it, sub-head B corresponds approximately to a section of a Bill. In the ordinary course of procedure, if I move to delete one sentence from a section in a Bill, and that motion is rejected by the House or accepted by the House, I am then at liberty to discuss the section as amended or the section in its original form. My respectful submission, therefore, is that if I move to reduce a sub-head of an Estimate by a sum substantially less than the total sub-head, I am entitled then to discuss the total sub-head, in the event of my motion to reduce it being rejected. Am I correct in that?
I shall answer the Deputy when he has concluded his point.
That is my submission, Sir.
There is an essential difference between an Estimate and, say, the Committee Stage of a Bill. In the Committee Stage of a Bill the Committee deals with the Bill section by section. A question must be put on each section. That is not the procedure with the items in an Estimate. No questions are put on the items and if a motion to reduce is tabled, then the sub-head as a whole must be discussed with the motion and discussion ends with a decision on that motion.
May I direct your attention to the fact that sub-head B in this case is divided into 121 minor heads?
Yes.
If I submit a motion to reduce that Estimate by the sum of, say, £2,800, and address myself exclusively to paragraph 115 of that sub-head, and my motion so to reduce the sub-head is rejected, does the Chair rule that no other Deputy can discuss the 120 other sub-divisions of the sub-head?
On a point of order. On the motion to reduce sub-head B by £100, was it not in order for any member of the House to discuss any portion of sub-head B?
The trouble in this particular case is that attention was focussed on and discussion confined almost exclusively to one particular item. The Chair, however, had no indication from the motion that any particular item was to be singled out for discussion. Deputies were entitled to discuss, and had their opportunity for discussing, any item in sub-head B, and they should have done so, for the natural consequence of the passing of that motion would be that the reduction by £100 or £1,000, as the case might be, would have to be distributed over the sub-head and, therefore, the whole sub-head should have been discussed. If a motion were tabled to reduce one particular item in sub-head B by a certain amount, then only that item would have been disposed of by the decision on that question. I am prepared to be lenient, but I must definitely rule that the matter discussed yesterday cannot be discussed to-day.
On that point, a certain amount of confusion arose yesterday of another type out of the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary stated that there was no money in this sub-head for the work which is being carried out at the General Post Office to-day. I would ask in these circumstances, reasonable discussion really having been prevented by the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to that effect last night, whether the matter is still open for discussion for the purpose of getting an explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary or some member of the Government as to how much money is being spent on the erection of this pedestal.
Is not the Deputy proceeding to discuss the matter in the guise of a question to the Chair?
Is that matter open for discussion to-day, in view of the fact that discussion yesterday was closed down and confused by the Parliamentary Secretary's explicit statement that there was no money in the Vote for that work?
If there is no money allocated to it from sub-head B, and if money is being spent for this purpose from some other sub-head, then the fact that sub-head B has technically been disposed of is not a reason why the money that is being spent, and that presumably is got from some other place, should not be discussed. I am speaking of the general principle now, not of the latitude that the Chair has so kindly given so far as this particular Vote is concerned. When the motion was discussed to reduce this particular sub-head as a whole, and that motion failed, is it not in order on a general discussion of Vote No. 11 as a whole to consider sub-head B as still forming part of it?
The ruling of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle yesterday, so far as I could follow it, was based on the specific statement of the Parliamentary Secretary that there was no money in this Estimate for the matter to which Deputy Mulcahy was referring. That is one point. In view of the statement made by the Ceann Comhairle this morning, that Deputies got an opportunity of discussing matters under sub-heads A and B other than the matter which was raised by Deputy Mulcahy, I want to submit that that is not so. In view of the particular line taken on the discussion, it was impossible for any Deputy who was interested in any other point coming under sub-heads A or B to get the matter ventilated yesterday.
On a point of order. I submit that it will be in the recollection of the House that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle did, in fact permit discussion on anything that could be called construction or anything else in relation to this particular matter. What he ruled out——
The ruling of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is not a matter for debate.
I am dealing with the submission of Deputy Morrissey. I submit the ruling of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was that there was nothing in the Estimate of any sort or kind to cover the actual matter which was being discussed by Deputy Mulcahy and others, namely, processions, banners ——
That matter is closed. The kernel of the matter probably was put by Deputy Morrissey. Deputy Morrissey is aware of the fact that in discussing an Estimate it is not permissible to range from, say, item A to item Y, back to item B and then on to item Z and so on. The procedure is to follow the items seriatim. Before item B is discussed item A is supposed to have been disposed of. Item A has been disposed of and may not be reverted to. As the items cannot be taken haphazard and jumped backwards and forwards, sub-head A, having been disposed of, may not be discussed. Technically, sub-head B should not be discussed, but, as I have said, I am prepared to be lenient on it. I am prepared to allow discussion on that particular Vote, but Deputies may not enter into any criticism or challenge of the ruling of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle on that matter.
I quite agree with what the Ceann Comhairle has said with regard to discussion of items of the Vote, but may I point out that last night, when the Leas-Cheann Comhairle ruled out of order all further discussion on sub-head B there was a jump immediately to sub-head G without giving Deputies any opportunity whatever of discussing the intervening sub-heads?
The Chair is affording that opportunity now.
I am sorry.
The Chair is prepared to be lenient with Deputies desiring to deal with sub-head B. The Committee should, I submit, be satisfied with that understanding.
That, I take it, will embrace sub-head B and the following sub-heads?
Yes. The Chair does not suggest a prolonged discussion on sub-head B. The item that was debated so heatedly yesterday may not be redebated.
If some Deputy discussed item No. 54 under sub-head B, will a Deputy speaking subsequently be prevented from discussing item No. 20 under sub-head B?
Sub-head B will now be taken with the exclusion of the item that I have referred to. I hope the matter is now clear.
Quite.