With your permission, Sir, I shall raise the subject matter of a question on the Order Paper on Thursday, 31st March, on the Adjournment to-night.
Questions on Adjournment.
Very good.
What is the question about?
Workmen's compensation.
I have nothing to do with the administration of workmen's compensation legislation. That function is reserved to the Circuit Court. This House has no power to interpret any Workmen's Compensation Act which it may enact. If the Deputy, therefore, is not raising the question of administration, I suggest that the matter can only be raised on the question of advocating further legislation which is normally not permissible to raise on the Adjournment.
The Deputy will not be permitted to raise it.
There is no prohibition on raising on the Adjournment any question, including a question which involves the advocacy of legislation.
Legislation may not be advocated on the Adjournment. Legislation was never allowed to be advocated on the Adjournment.
I submit that under the Standing Order it is not necessary to have a question on the Order Paper to raise a matter on the Adjournment and that there is no prohibition on the advocacy of legislation.
That is not so. The established practice since 1922 is that legislation may not be advocated on the Adjournment.
I think that the Standing Order is quite clear on the point and that any question may be raised.
It is for the Chair to interpret what is lawful under the Standing Order.
Mr. Lynch rose.
I have not forbidden the Deputy to raise the question provided that he may not advocate legislation.
The Deputy will appreciate that I have no power in the matter of workmen's compensation.
Is it not a matter for the Chair to say what he will allow?
It is the Deputy's own colleagues who are questioning the ruling of the Chair.
I think no one disputes the argument of the Chair on the point that precedents have been established in this regard. I think, however, it is desirable that we should reconsider whether these precedents are desirable or not. I feel sure that the Dáil, when framing the Standing Order, did not intend to limit the matters that could be raised on the Adjournment in that way.
I differ with the Deputy as to what is permissible on the Adjournment, and I leave it at that.
Mr. de Valera
If an important matter came up for consideration which could only be raised in that way, I take it that that could be done, and that it was put in the Standing Order to allow matters which were of sufficient public importance to be raised, especially when there was no other procedure available for doing so?
There was a unanimous decision by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges some years ago that matters of great public importance should never be raised on the Adjournment, since no satisfactory solution could be come to, as the Minister had only got ten minutes to reply.
That is a different point. I want now, on behalf of the Deputies on this side of the House, to give intimation that we are not accepting, without further consideration, the ruling that the Standing Order prohibits the raising on the Adjournment of a question that involves a proposed change in legislation.
It was always ruled against us.
It may be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, and if the Committee decide otherwise, well and good. If the Committee think that such matters should be debated on the Adjournment, all right, I have no quarrel.
What is the use of referring it to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges when the Government will not accept its decision?
Order of business.