Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 May 1961

Vol. 188 No. 11

Committee on Finance. - Business of Dáil.

I want to raise a matter of order. The House will be already aware that the business ordered by the Government for to-day did not include item No. 6. This matter came to my notice while Deputy O'Higgins was speaking and I did not want to interrupt him. This is the first opportunity I have of raising it. Notwithstanding the fact that item No. 6 was not ordered for to-day, it was taken. I accept, of course, that it was a mistake. I am not suggesting that it was done deliberately in any shape or form.

I am perfectly aware that under Standing Order 115 (2) a Money Resolution can be taken at any time, but I submit that the normal practice is that it is always taken after Second Reading and before Committee Stage. That is the normal practice. The important thing is, I think, that business should not be taken without being ordered, because if that is done, adequate consideration of business in the House completely fails. I think that, a mistake having been made, the proper thing to do is to order that the Money Resolution be discharged and put down in the appropriate way after Second Reading has been put through.

I have not got the typescript of what exactly took place at the time, but I understand that the Money Resolution was called and that the Parliamentary Secretary was asked, through the Chair, to move it. It then became apparent that a Money Resolution cannot be moved by anyone but a Minister. That is one of the Standing Orders of the House and, on that basis, a Money Resolution having been called, of course a Minister had to come in and move it. The calling of the Money Resolution was an error.

When we find a patent error, the only thing we can do is resolve it. I suggested to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach that the proper resolution of this error is to discharge the order made and put the Money Resolution down again—if you like for to-morrow morning—and do it in the proper way. If we take business that has not been ordered, the whole orderly procedure of the Dáil must fall to the ground.

I want to say that for my part I regard myself as absolutely blameless in this matter. A mistake has been made——

I am not suggesting anyone is to blame. A mistake has been made.

The Money Resolution was called and we had no alternative but to move it, particularly as Deputy McGilligan seemed to indicate that he wished to have it moved.

Deputy McGilligan indicated, I think, that it should be moved by an appropriate person—a Minister.

That may be what he meant but I think I was entitled to take it from what he said and from his conduct that he was insisting on its being moved by a Minister.

Certainly it had to be moved by a Minister, but Deputy McGilligan was not then aware that it had not been ordered. A mistake was made.

Deputy Sweetman is correct in saying that item No. 6 was not ordered. So far as the Chair is concerned, on many occasions the Order of Business has been altered. In view of the fact that no objection was raised by any Deputy when the Money Resolution was moved, the Chair accepted that it had been agreed that it be taken.

May I submit that the Order of Business has undoubtedly been amended from time to time, but in no case of which I am aware, was something which was not ordered taken without its being mentioned in the House that it had not been ordered and was being taken by arrangement.

I think Deputy Sweetman will agree that we were entitled to take it from Deputy McGilligan's attitude that he was, in fact, agreeing to the Money Resolution being taken.

If it had been ordered.

He did not indicate that he was objecting.

I do not want to offer any criticism of the Chair, but it is the standard practice of the Chair that if something is being taken that has not been ordered, the Chair asks leave of the House to take it. Deputy McGilligan thought, because leave of the House was not asked, that he had missed the number when taking down the Order of Business.

I moved the Money Resolution. I was not in the House when it was called. I understood that it was being taken by leave of the House and that it was in order. There was no objection by Deputy McGilligan to my moving it. I suggest that Deputy Sweetman having drawn attention to this mistake—if it was a mistake—the matter could well rest there.

On a point of order, if a mistake is made and Deputies are not aware of it, they will discuss the matter. Is it not a mistake to carry on discussion on this Bill, if it was not ordered?

It was ordered.

The Second Stage was ordered but the Money Resolution was not ordered. I deemed it my duty to raise the matter at the earliest possible opportunity. With your permission, Sir, I propose to defer making further representations on the subject of order until the Second Stage has been concluded. That is probably better, but I thought it proper to mention it at once when I got the opportunity.

I accept that.

Top
Share