It is proposed to take Nos. 1, 4 and 5 and in No. 5 Votes 34, 35, 26 and 26 Supplementary.
Order of Business.
I wish to give notice of my intention to raise the subject matter of Question No. 36 on the Order Paper for Thursday, 5th July, on the Adjournment this evening.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
On the Order of Business, I want to raise the question which I put down to the Taoiseach for answer today in relation to the Government's agreement to adjourn the case against the British Government at present before the European Commission on Human Rights at Strasbourg. You disallowed the question, Sir, on the grounds that the matter is sub judice. I want to point out to you that, in fact, the matter is not even before a court. It is before the Commission.
The Deputy may not challenge the decision of the Chair.
I do not wish to challenge the decision of the Chair but this is a most important matter. The Government took a very important decision. I believe it was a totally wrong decision.
I cannot allow my decision to be canvassed in the House in this fashion.
How is it sub judice?
It is not even before a court.
I have informed the Deputy that the question cannot be allowed as the matter is sub judice.
Can you tell us how?
How is it sub judice?
Perhaps the Deputy will give way to me for a moment. The decision of the Chair on this question, as in the case of some ten similar questions in the past 18 months, stems from the ruling of the Chair on 3rd December, 1958, as reported at columns 1562 to 1564 of the Official Report in which the Chair decided to regard the Court of Human Rights as being on all-fours with the domestic courts on matters within its competence. That is the basis of the Chair's decision.
A Deputy
That shook you.
If the Deputy wants any further information on the matter he may consult me in my office.
Let me point out, with respect, that I understand the ruling of the Chair was on questions which went to the subject matter of cases before the court. As I understand it, Deputy O'Malley's question was simply asking the Taoiseach the reason why the Government agreed with the English request for an adjournment. This in no way touches on the merits of the case.
I have nothing to add to the explanation I have given to the House on this matter.
The proceeding that was to take place this week in Strasbourg was a purely administrative proceeding on the next line of inquiry to be carried out by the Commission.
It still related to the handling of the case.
The previous one on which the ruling was given in 1958 related to a case brought by an Irish citizen——
I cannot allow the Deputy to question my decision.
—— resident in this country, against the Irish Government. This matter is between the Irish Government and the British Government and the Irish Government have made an appalling error and have let down the people of Northern Ireland——
The Chair has given its decision on the matter.
—— and the matter cannot be raised in this House now.
Item No. 1.
The Taoiseach is hiding behind the Chair.
That is an unfair imputation. Deputy Lemass ought to withdraw that imputation.
It makes a farce of Parliament if a very important matter such as this cannot be discussed in the national Parliament.
The Chair has acted in accordance with the best traditions and precedents of this House.
If the boot were on the other foot and the British did this, no one would seriously suggest that this matter would not be raised in the British House of Commons.
I have given the basis for my decision and I cannot allow the matter to be argued further.
On a point of order.
Item No. 1: Dairy Produce (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1973.
(Interruptions.)
Is the Chair aware of the alarm and disquiet in the country over the decision of the Government to pussyfoot with the British Government? Standing Order No. 32——
The Deputy may not argue with the Chair.
I am quoting Standing Order No. 32.
The Chair has called the next business.
Standing Order No. 32 states that the Ceann Comhairle shall examine every question——
The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.
—— in order to ensure that its purpose is to elicit information upon——
I must ask Deputy Crowley to resume his seat.
—— or to elucidate matters of fact or of policy, that it is as brief as possible, and that it contains no argument or personal imputation.
Deputy Crowley, the Chair is on his feet.
The Ceann Comhairle or the Clerk under his authority, may amend any question, after consultation with the Member responsible for the question to secure its compliance with Standing Orders.
I have informed Deputy Crowley that he may not argue with the Chair. Deputy Crowley will please resume his seat. I have called on Deputy Crowley to resume his seat on a number of occasions and he has consistently refused. If the Deputy continues——
Is a Deputy not entitled to raise a point of order?
I have informed the Deputy that he may not argue with the Chair.
I am not arguing with the Chair.
It is not a point of order.
Deputy O'Malley's question conformed exactly to that Standing Order.
I have given my decision.
You have no basis for that decision. It is covering up for the British Government. I think that is a misuse of the Chair.
You are doing what you are told to do.
That is an unfair allegation.
It is the price of the Chair. Admit it. It is the price of the Chair.
That is a scandalous insinuation.
Is that the way Fianna Fáil appointed their chairmen?
That should be withdrawn.
The Chair has called the next business.
I move that leave be granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act——
(Interruptions.)
On a point of order. I want to ask the Chair a simple question.
(Interruptions.)
The House is becoming disorderly.
I want to raise a point of order but a Deputy was on his feet before me to raise a point of order and I deferred to him.
A Deputy
It is not so long since you put him in his place.
This is a point of order which has to do with order and I was first on my feet on this matter but I was eventually crowded out. I appreciate that the Chair may not have seen me in this rather remote part of the House but that is neither here nor there. I am quite happy here. Could I ask for the benefit of all of us and particularly for the benefit of order in the House, when a Deputy gets a refusal in writing from the Ceann Comhairle in respect of any question which for good reasons the Ceann Comhairle, as he sees it, disallows, where and to whom is there further recourse? Am I right in thinking that it is not in this House that that may be raised and debated after Question Time as has been attempted here today? I have a bundle of these. It is not that I do not get refusals.
I assure Deputy Blaney that there has been no deviation whatsoever from the procedure adopted for dealing with questions which are disallowed.
I am afraid the Ceann Comhairle has taken me up wrongly. What I am really asking is whether what the Ceann Comhairle has attempted to provide as his ruling on disallowed questions may not be discussed. Is that the procedure for all of us or may we, for the purpose of getting in first for publicity purposes, raise it and kick up a row here? I had a question on this, just as other Deputies had who kicked up a row about it.
It is not in order to raise it in this fashion here today.
I want to ask a question; it is on this subject but I hope I am not out of order. If it came to the notice or the attention of the Opposition that an effort was being made by the British Government to have this case withdrawn altogether could we raise this matter by way of question in advance of a decision by the Government? If not, Sir, I think there is a completely ridiculous situation under that ruling. I am asking for guidance.
There is a danger of this.
One would require advance notice on a matter of that kind. Certainly, we will give it consideration.
Sir, who is the Ceann Comhairle here? I am not finished yet and the Clerk of the Dáil is not entitled to shut me up. I want to say that if there is a doubt about the answer to my question I cannot see how you can be so firm about ruling Deputy O'Malley's question out of order.
There is no doubt in my mind about the decision I have given and I have given the precedents and the tradition of the House in the matter.
Based on a false premise, in my opinion.
No, no.