I wonder if I could seek some information from the Chair. Motion No. 59 in the name of Deputy Cosgrave had been arranged for discussion tonight. I understand that the Ceann Comhairle's Office have informed my party that this motion was not considered to be in order. I wonder would the Chair mind indicating on what grounds?
Private Members' Business: - Business of Dáil.
Yes. The position with regard to Motion No. 59 in the name of Deputy Liam Cosgrave is that on 29th October, 1970, a Government motion reaffirming the confidence of the Dáil in the Taoiseach and in his Ministers was moved and this motion was passed on 4th November. As far back as that date the Ceann Comhairle took the view that Deputy Cosgrave's motion regarding the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries was covered by the Government motion. Accordingly, under Standing Order No. 46, on a question already decided during the preceding six months, Deputy Cosgrave's motion could not be moved before 4th May next.
I appreciate the Chair's indication of the reason but I wonder would the Chair consider what is now involved in this ruling. The ruling seems to mean that a motion of confidence or no confidence is governed by Standing Order No. 46 although, as events may transpire, by reason of something that may in fact a week after winning a motion of no confidence, a Government may in fact be deserving of losing the confidence of the House. Our Constitution provides that the instant the Taoiseach loses the confidence of the House he must resign. I fail then to see how a question of confidence can be governed by Standing Order No. 46. The Government and the Taoiseach and all the Ministers must at all times retain the confidence of the House. That is what the Constitution provides.
The confidence mentioned by the Deputy was expressed on 4th November when the House reaffirmed its confidence in both the Taoiseach and the Ministers, and the Standing Order I have already quoted precludes a debate within six months of that date.
Am I making my point clear to the Chair? On 4th November the House decided on a Motion of confidence by the Taoiseach. If in the following week the Taoiseach and members of the Government were guilty of conduct deserving a motion of censure, does the ruling mean that it cannot be moved for six months?
The Chair would have to determine that in the light of what might happen in the meantime.
That means the Chair considers the merits of the motion?
No. The Chair is concerned only with the Standing Order, which is very clear.
I do not want this to pass without some comment. It seems to me that this involves the creation of a very serious precedent which may mean that Deputies in this House would be prohibited from moving a motion of confidence or a motion of no confidence for six months after such a motion had been moved. That, in my view, is contrary to the Constitution and certainly is not expressly within Standing Order No. 46.
In ruling on Deputy Cosgrave's motion the Chair took into account that the Deputy's motion referred to matters that happened 12 months ago.
I accept that the Chair has ruled in this connection; I am only pointing out the implications. It does not seem to me that the merits of the motion can in any way be relevant to the Chair's ruling. I am pointing out now that as this ruling stands a very serious precedent has been created which, in my view, puts that interpretation of Standing Order No. 46 outside the Constitution. The Constitution provides that the Taoiseach must at all times have the confidence of the House and any ruling which may appear to seal a crack or conceal a lack of confidence is something which is utterly wrong.
The merits or demerits of the motion on the Order Paper are not the concern of the Chair. The Chair has to examine the relevant Standing Order and that is what has been done on this occasion.
With respect, I am not agreeing with the Chair, but may I raise another matter with the Chair?
Deputy Cosgrave's motion asks Dáil Éireann to express the opinion that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Gibbons, by reason of a misstatement in the Dáil is, by his conduct unworthy of being a member of the Government or of the Dáil. On what basis does the Chair rule that that is covered by the motion passed on 4th November?
As I have already pointed out, the motion passed on 4th November dealt with the confidence of the Dáil in the Taoiseach and other members of the Government of which Deputy Gibbons is Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.
Does the Ceann Comhairle not see the difficulty of Deputies? There may be Deputies who wish to vote for Deputy Lynch as Taoiseach and for other members of the Government and express their confidence in them but might have strong reservations about voting for Deputy Gibbons. If the Chair rules that that motion covers a motion individual to Deputy Gibbons, the Chair must appreciate that there are entirely different issues involved. The Chair knows very well there are five Deputies in this House on the Fianna Fáil side who would not vote confidence in Deputy Gibbons.
They did.
In the event of this motion being put down for next Wednesday week, the day on which the six months period under Standing Order 46 expires, will you permit that motion to appear on the Order Paper?
Yes. I have no objection to the motion. It is already on the Order Paper.
It can be taken next week?
That is another question.
Do you have to consult anyone about that?
No; I do not have to consult anyone. Members know the position.
Deputies will have an opportunity tomorrow to vote confidence or no confidence in the Government——
But in an individual member of the Government.
——in a most crucial test for any Government, the Budget.
Is there any chance that we would get somebody to preach Christian charity in this House.
(Interruptions.)
Order. Let us get on with the business of the House.