It is proposed to take Business in the following order: Nos. 1 and 11 and, in No. 11, Votes 20—8 inclusive, Nos. 3 and 13. If not already reached, it is proposed to interrupt business at 7 p.m. to take Nos. 3 and 13.
Order of Business.
I object to taking No. 3 today in view of the fact that the Minister's amendments to the Livestock Marts Bill are not fully circulated yet and, as we have seen here in the course of Question Time, some of the Members got them only just now. I think it is completely unreasonable to expect us to relate these amendments to amendments already down and then relate them back to the Bill and be expected to speak intelligently on them this evening.
I wish to raise a point of order, Sir. I refer you to Standing Order No. 92 of our Standing Orders which reads:
When a Bill is to be considered in Committee, proposed amendments shall be notified in due time, and shall be arranged in proper order; Provided, nevertheless, that in the discretion of the Chair, amendments may be moved without notice.
I now submit to you, Sir, as protector of the rights of individual Deputies that delivery to me at 3.24 p.m. today of amendments which it is proposed to discuss under Item No. 4 on the Order Paper is not delivery in due time, or notification in due time, for the purposes of Standing Order No. 92.
The Deputy, of course, knows that he was provided with typescript——
I was not. I was provided with typescript of some of them but I do not know what is in this envelope yet which reached me at 3.24 p.m. I want your ruling as Ceann Comhairle on this: do you consider that service on me of the green paper containing these amendments—I do not know what they are at this moment—at 3.24 p.m. on this day is due notice within the meaning of the Standing Order I have quoted to you? If it is not, I claim your protection to ensure that this business will not be proceeded with.
If I may——
I do not wish to bother the Taoiseach or imply any disrespect but I have submitted a point of order to the Chair.
Am I not entitled to do the same?
After the Chair has ruled on mine.
If the Chair so decides.
I shall hear the Taoiseach.
The historical position is that on Friday last the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries had a meeting with two groups representing the owners of livestock marts. He had another meeting on Monday with the National Agricultural Council. It was anticipated that, as a result of these two meetings, there might be amendments which he would like to introduce to the Livestock Marts Bill. It was hoped that these amendments would have been communicated to the Opposition on that evening and arrangements were made accordingly. The amendments, of course, could not properly be drafted, but the content of the amendments, it was hoped, would be communicated. Unfortunately, that did not prove possible. The Order of Business included the Marts Bill for yesterday but, when I discovered that the sense of the amendments had not been communicated to the Opposition, I instructed that the Marts Bill in Committee should not proceed yesterday.
In the meantime, the typescript copies of the amendments were circulated. It was hoped that the green print, which would put these amendments in their proper order, would have been circulated this morning. That did not prove possible either. They have now been circulated. I should like to record that the green print contains no more and no less than what was circulated in the typescript already in the hands of Deputies. That is the sequence of events. I am in your hands, Sir, as to the validity of the point made by Deputy Sweetman——
My name is not Sweetman, Sir.
My apologies to the Deputy. I submit that due notice has been given to the House.
May I say, in relation to the typescript, that I collected my post before I left home yesterday morning and there was no typescript in that post. I collected my post in the hall here at 12.45 p.m. and there was no typescript. I collected the typescript today in the hall.
Did the Taoiseach use the word "historical" or "hysterical"?
It is the general understanding of the Standing Order that is in question and not whether a particular Deputy received a particular document at a certain time, and also whether the substance of the Standing Order has been carried out. From the information I have, I am satisfied that the substance of the Standing Order and that the substance of "in due time" have been satisfied and I am ruling accordingly.
If the Chair can hold that, it can hold anything.
Could the Ceann Comhairle define "in due time" for the House?
At 3.24 p.m. today.
I am satisfied that the typescript was circulated in sufficient time.
(Interruptions.)
Ten minutes ago?
That is probably the green paper.
No, the white.
We are talking about the white one.
This is the first notice I got of the amendments.
(Interruptions.)
I am asking for your protection under the Standing Order and I am as much entitled to it as any other Deputy. I got those amendments at 3.24 p.m. today and I am submitting to you that that is not "in due time".
I am ruling that the substance of the Standing Order has been complied with and that these amendments have legally been circulated in accordance with Standing Orders.
Would you rule that the Standing Order should be struck out of our Standing Orders, because it means nothing?