It is proposed to take Business in the following order: Nos. 6, 12—Votes 29 and 41—with Nos. 4 and 5 taken in conjunction with Vote 29.
Order of Business.
On the Order of Business, Sir, you have indicated in a letter to Deputy Dillon that the motion standing in the names of Deputy Dillon, Deputy Cosgrave and myself was, in your view, out of order. I should be glad if you would be good enough to quote me the Standing Order under which you so ruled.
Standing Order No. 47.
Standing Order No. 47 relates to reopening a discussion. The motion we have put down is in pursuance of Section 65 of the Finance Bill which was recently passed and which specifically contains the provision that the Minister is entitled to terminate or vary in any manner or respect whatsoever, and as from a specified day, the turnover tax. We are putting down our motion not for any repetition but in pursuance of the specific section of the Bill.
I am ruling under Standing Order No. 47 which says:—
No member shall reopen a discussion on a question already decided during the same Session.
The "same Session" by precedent— which has been accepted by the Committe on Procedure and Privileges—is the preceding six months. The question therefore is whether Deputy Dillon's motion on the turnover tax is a question already decided during the preceding six months. Deputy Dillon's motion, which is dated 23rd instant, asks that the turnover tax be suspended pending the result of a by-election.
Or a general election.
Or a general election. The House, on 17th July, 1963, passed the Finance Bill, 1963, containing the tax and on previous days, on amendments moved, specifically approved of the tax. The period which has elapsed since that time is only some days over three months. Deputy Dillon's motion, therefore, reopens discussion on a question already decided.
In the copy of Standing Orders furnished to me from the Clerk's Table, there is no mention whatever of the preceding six months.
Six months has always been accepted.
There is no Order in the Standing Orders mentioning the six months which you have just purported to read out.
No; in saying six months I did not quote from the Standing Orders and it certainly was not my intention to mislead the House. However, six months has been recently accepted as being, for the purpose of this Standing Order, a "Session" by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, and they have recommended the period to be substituted for the word in the version of the Standing Orders.
Do I understand you to rule, Sir, that Section 65 was passed for no purpose and that it is not open to us to call on the Minister to introduce an Order under Section 65?
I have nothing to do with the provisions of Section 65 of the Act.
You say, Sir, that on a given date Dáil Éireann enacted a certain tax. Dáil Éireann enacted the Finance Act. In the Finance Act enacted by Dáil Éireann, in the reference you give, there is the express provision contained in Section 65, which is part of the decision taken by Oireachtas Éireann in passing the tax, which confers on the Minister a power to terminate or vary in any manner or respect whatever, and as from a specified day, the turnover tax. Surely, unless our procedure is to be made a farce, that is the decision we took?
What we are now asking the Government to do is to exercise the power we conferred on them by the Finance Act passed by Oireachtas Éireann, that is, to terminate or vary in any manner or respect whatsoever, and as from a specified day, the turnover tax. That is expressly stated in the Act. We are asking the Minister to exercise that power. Where is the repetition in that?
My duty is to operate Standing Orders in respect of motions submitted to me and to prevent repetition of debate. I have nothing to do with what the Minister is empowered to do in respect of the provisions of the Act.
Surely what you have stated was a decision taken in the House on a certain day? The decision was to pass the Finance Bill, not any one part of it. Part of that Finance Bill was a specific power to do the very thing we are now asking the Government to do. By virtue of the Finance Act, which was passed by Oireachtas Éireann, we are asking the Government to exercise a power expressly provided in the Act. What is the purpose of putting that power into the Act if the Government are not to be allowed to use it? It is an invitation to use an express power created by the Act to which you have referred.
I would ask you to reconsider this matter in the light of the plea now made that this is not a repetition of any kind, but a request to exercise a specific power—not a general power but a power to terminate or vary in any manner or respect whatsoever, and as from a specific day, the turnover tax. I am asking you at least to reconsider your ruling in the light of the reference to that section. Otherwise, it would be saying that, although we enacted the Bill in that sense, the enactment is now null and void. Will you reconsider that point, Sir?
I have considered the matter fully from every angle.
You cannot have considered that.
The truth is that it was not drafted with the intention that it would have to conform with your ruling.
Will the Ceann Comhairle give us some explanation of why, although this motion was delivered to his office yesterday afternoon at 4 o'clock, we heard nothing about this ruling until we arrived in the House at 10.25 this morning although we were all here up to 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock last night?
I do not know what is the implication of the Deputy's statement, but I had to consider the matter carefully in the short time I had at my disposal. Also, I had to consult with my advisers. I gave the decision as early as I could, and having given it and the reasons for it, I cannot discuss the matter any further.
I assume the Labour Party motion is in order? We requested the Taoiseach yesterday to give time next Wednesday for this discussion. Would the Taoiseach now say if time can be given?
(Interruptions)
It is in the normal practice to give Government time for a serious motion by an Opposition Party involving a vote of confidence in the Government but even if the Ceann Comhairle had not ruled otherwise, I would not have been prepared to interrupt business for the irresponsible motion in the name of Fine Gael Deputies. I think the motion in the name of the Labour Party is in a different category and I am prepared to allocate all the time on Wednesday next to discuss it.
Does the Minister for Agriculture agree?
I want to know which will be the tail and which will be the dog.
Whoever will be the tail and the dog, we know who the bone will be.
Is this an admission of defeat already on the part of the Minister?
It is when you are walking through the House to vote you will see that.