It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 1, 25 and 26 and, in No. 26, Votes 38 and 27. Private Members' Business will be taken from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Order of Business.
On the Order of Business, there is a motion in my name on the Order Paper for Private Members' Time dealing with unemployment. I am informed that you have ruled that this motion cannot be taken in view of the fact, as indicated to me in any case, that we had a debate on the economy last month. I should like to make a few respectful submissions to you. First, the motion that was down in the Taoiseach's name in January was one asking the Dáil to approve of the Government's handling of the economy. I submit that that was a vague sort of motion. It was a motion in very general terms. The motion that is down in my name, and one I should like to have discussed tonight, is a motion dealing specifically with unemployment, a motion in which I call for certain action to be taken by the Government. As far as ——
We cannot have a discussion on this. I will explain the ruling to the Deputy, if he so wishes, but we cannot have a discussion about it or an argument on it now.
I do not want to have a long argument at all. I just want to make a short submission. Standing Order No. 46 is, I think, the one under which you, Sir, have ruled and that Standing Order says:
No member shall re-open a discussion on a question already decided the preceding six months...
I respect Standing Orders certainly, but I have two submissions to make. The first is that the motion down in my name is quite specific. It relates to growing unemployment and it is, I think, due to the House for either the Taoiseach or the Minister for Finance to say whether, in fact, the £20 million promised to be spent in October last has, in fact, been spent, what the effect is on unemployment and what has happened to the £50 million the Minister for Finance ——
We cannot discuss the motion now. The Deputy will appreciate that it is out of order and cannot be discussed.
Briefly, we were promised an injection of £70 million.
The Deputy may not discuss the motion now because it is not in order.
I am not discussing the motion. I am perfectly serious and sincere about this.
The Chair appreciates that the Deputy is sincere, but the Deputy does not understand the position. The motion is not in order and cannot be discussed.
Does that mean that, if the unemployment situation gets worse in the next few weeks, which none of us hopes it will, we will be debarred in this House from discussing the problem of unemployment?
It does not mean anything of the kind. The matter would again be considered. It does not rule it out of order in two weeks, three weeks, or four weeks time.
Would the Chair comment on my submission?
The Deputy is not giving me any opportunity of commenting on anything. The Deputy is correct in stating that under Standing Order No. 46 no member shall reopen a question that has been debated in this House during the preceding six months. On the 19th and 20th of January last the House debated and carried the motion:
That Dáil Éireann approves the Government's handling of the economic situation.
Now the debate on that motion dealt mainly with unemployment and redundancy. It was the same subject as the Deputy wishes to raise now and, in view of that discussion, the Chair has no alternative except to rule the Deputy's motion out of order.
If the handling of the economy means we have so many hundreds of thousands working in another country I do not see the similarity in the motion moved by the Taoiseach in January in this House and the one I want to move here tonight. The Taoiseach and every member of his Government are aware of the unemployment situation. It is particularly bad in his own city and there was a deputation——
The Deputy is not in order in discussing a motion that has been ruled out of order.
I believe we should get at least three hours to discuss this this week.
The Deputy is not in order.
Could the Ceann Comhairle indicate how he can reconcile the fact that he is ruling this motion out of order on the grounds that it cannot be discussed inside another six months and his statement that the subject can be raised in two, three or four weeks?
If the position changes materially, e.g. worsens.
It has worsened.
I understood your ruling to be that, because unemployment was mentioned in the debate in January, unemployment cannot be discussed again for another six months. What has a worsening of the situation got to do with Standing Orders?
Unemployment was the basis of the whole discussion and I had no alternative except to rule the Deputy's motion out of order.
If you had no alternative then you must also rule out of order a similar motion in two, three or four weeks time. I confess the logic of this defeats me.
I am grateful for the Chair's explanation on the basis of his judgment——
Explanation!
It was an explanation. I would like the Chair to amplify it a little because the terms of the motion in the Taoiseach's name were:
That Dáil Éireann approves the Government's handling of the economic situation.
The Chair will recall that that debate ranged over a wide number of things. It was a very general motion. It dealt with unemployment——
Almost entirely.
——and many other things. Does this ruling mean that all of the wide ranging contents of that very general motion are now excluded from debate for the next six months?
This is a separate matter. We were dealing with one aspect—unemployment and redundancy.
It is a matter for the country and for this House. The Government promised last October they would inject another £20 million into the economy.
The Government have nothing whatever to do with this decision. It is a decision of the Chair based on Standing Orders.
You said if the position worsened we could have another debate.
I said we could consider the matter afresh.
If it gets the same consideration as this motion, then we will have no debate.
The decision of the Chair cannot be debated. It is not a question of a point of order.
On a point of order, I am not trying to debate your point of order, but if that applies to all of the contents of the debate in January——
I have already answered the Deputy. That is a totally different matter. At the moment I am concerned only with the questions of unemployment and redundancy which are ruled out of order——
If you persist in giving ridiculous answers like that we will start to question your judgment because the whole basis of your ruling was precisely that it was under Standing Order No. 46.
The Chair is basing his ruling on Standing Orders.
On the basis of your judgment regarding the unemployment question——
I am calling No. 1.
On a point of order——
I am calling No. 1.
——the House is aware of the collusion between the Government and the Chair.
That is not true. This has nothing to do with the Government. That has already been explained.
It is collusion to avoid any embarrassing questions being raised in this House by the Opposition.
That is a lie.
Would Deputy Cluskey sit down and behave himself.
If you would behave yourself, Sir, it would be easier for us.
Surely the Chair is aware of the Standing Order that allows me to raise a point of order.
The Chair has said his ruling cannot be questioned and I will not allow Deputy Cluskey to make a speech.
Surely the Chair is aware of my entitlement to raise a question on a point of order.
There can be no point of order.
Only collusion— collusion between the Chair and the Government.
There is no collusion.
Could we not afford three hours to talk about unemployment?
You had two days in January.
We did not get two days. That was a vague motion tabled by the Government.