It is proposed to take business in the following order: No. 12 (resumed). Private Members' Business from 7 p.m. to 8.30 p.m., No. 40, by agreement.
Death of a Member. - Order of Business.
Arising out of the Order of Business and relevant to the business ordered I should like to say something. The motion ordered for Private Members' Business is No. 40, an important motion but not the motion we feel should get priority. I should like to hear from the Ceann Comhairle some satisfactory explanation for the amazement which his office has caused in our party in relation to our request to raise No. 39 on today's Order Paper which is a matter that gravely concerns all the people. We proposed to take this motion because several efforts to raise it in another context in the House were unsuccessful by way of Private Notice Question or on the Adjournment. I will let Deputy Collins, our spokesman on this matter, refer to that later.
There can be no debate on this matter.
This is something more than just questioning the decision of the Ceann Comhairle on a motion we sought to raise on Private Members' Business. It is a matter which concerns our party and is seriously leading us to think that we must take some other action if this device is continually contrived against us to prevent us raising a matter which obviously is of embarrassment to the Government. As an Opposition we have a duty in this House and the country expects us to discharge that duty in relation to matters of grave importance and anxiety to our people. It is well known that our people feel that the Defence Forces, military and civil, are being used in security ostentation rather than in real security.
The Deputy ought not to embark on a speech on this occasion.
The people are gravely concerned with the situation and we have been frustrated every time we tried to raise the matter in this House.
Order.
I want to say something more than just questioning the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle on this. This is matter which strikes at the root of Parliament. We can read in all the newspapers a list of the crimes being committed and the media are at liberty to discuss everything but Members of this House are precluded from discussing this due to a device which is being used. Imagine, sub judice. How could it be sub judice?
The Leader of our party is not in the country at present but we discussed this at a meeting of our Front Bench today. I am afraid we will be compelled to seek, by means of a motion, censure on the Chair, if this continues. There is no other course open to us. It is plain to everybody that we are being stymied and deliberately frustrated from raising a matter which seriously concerns all our citizens. I am informed that Deputy Collins tried to raise this and I believe he was informed by the Ceann Comhairle's office that he had other means available to him to raise this matter, obviously by way of a Private Members' Motion. We subsequently sought to do that and there is no precedent whatever for refusing a motion that is of general application not relating to a specific case. If it is sub judice, the same argument could be applied to any attempt ever to raise the important question of security in this House.
The Deputy will have to be very brief. We cannot debate this matter.
I tried to raise the question of the breakdown of law and order in this country under the heading of a special notice question. I was not allowed to do this by the Chair. I then tried to raise it on the Adjournment and I was not allowed to do that by the Chair. At that time I was advised by the Ceann Comhairle's Office to raise it on a Private Members' Motion. With the agreement of my party, I tabled motion No. 39 as it appears on the Order Paper asking for a discussion on the failure of the Government to deal effectively with the breakdown in law and order. This has been refused because it would infringe on the rule relating to matters sub judice.
Today after the 1.30 news a member of the Garda Síochána discussed the matter on Telefís Éireann. Every day in the newspapers we have banner headlines on the breakdown in law and order that we want to talk about in this Parliament. If the Ceann Comhairle persists in using sub judice to prevent us from talking about the failure of the Government in maintaining law and order in this country, we can only go outside this Parliament and talk about it in other forums. They will be in the unversities and other places and not at the GPO.
Deputy Brennan and Deputy Collins will know from their experience, and the Members of the House will appreciate from their experience, that the Chair in this instance has merely ruled in accordance with precedent. The Fianna Fáil Whip's Office was notified last Thursday of my decision that this motion could not be debated today as it would infringe on the rule relating to matters that are sub judice. The motion, as it stands, could not in my view be debated without reference to recent armed robberies arising out of which a number of persons have been charged and are on remand. The motion relates to a spate of armed robberies. In the case of a number of these robberies persons have been charged. In one case in which a large sum of money was involved six persons have been charged. Having regard to these cases and to a number of persons charged, I am completely satisfied that the motion cannot be moved in view of the sub judice rule. I have not ruled the motion out of order; it may remain on the Order Paper. For the moment I am ruling in strict accord with the ruling of my predecessors that this is a matter which is strictly sub judice.
In relation to precedent, any time the sub judice excuse was used in the past it related to a specific case. This was a motion of general application. Surely the Chair can be entrusted to see that people do not deal with the particular. If it were a debate on the Estimate for the Department of Justice, the same would apply.
Deputy Brennan would agree that that would be placing the Chair in a most invidious position.
The Government should be anxious to get an opportunity to allay the anxiety of the people. This sub judice excuse has been used so often in recent times —and it is certainly laughable to apply it here—that we will have to resort to the only device available to use by way of a censure motion on the Chair.
The Deputy may do as he chooses in that regard. The implication that the Chair is biased in this matter is one which I resent and repudiate. This ruling was introduced in the interests of the independence of the courts and in ensuring a fair trial for accused persons. If the Deputies feel strongly that they have a case for changing this rule, they ought to raise this matter at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
Does the Ceann Comhairle say that where a pattern of offences occur, the only time that the House can discuss this practice is when the pattern has concluded; in other words, when it is no longer a matter of public concern? On the basis of the Ceann Comhairle's ruling, the only time that this House can discuss a spate of armed robberies is when there is no longer in existence a spate of armed robberies. The effect of this ruling is ludicrous.
The Deputy and his colleagues should raise this matter at Procedure and Privileges but in the meantime my ruling stands in accordance with precedent.
What authority does the Ceann Comhairle have to extend this sub judice rule, which has a very precise definition in the law, to cover a whole pattern of events which are not specifically referred to? On what basis can the Ceann Comhairle say that a pattern of public disorder is sub judice?
I have explained my position to the House. I have nothing further to add.
Can you give me an authority?
My office will facilitate the Deputies in that regard.
Can we have it here in the House where the nation can hear it?
It is not incumbent on the Chair to explain the rules to the House.
Would the Ceann Comhairle read the rule to which he refers?
I have referred to rulings of my predecessors.
Would it be permissible at this stage for the House to discuss the Estimate for the Department of Justice? Would it be in accordance with the rules?
In the absence of the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste decides the business of the day.
If the Estimate for the Department of Justice was ordered, would this House be permitted to debate it?
That is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter for the Taoiseach.
I am asking if it would be in order.
The Chair is dealing with the specific matter before it now. It does not deal with hypothetical matters.
The Chair is invoking the sub judice rule in order to rule out this motion on certain grounds. It seems to me that the grounds the Chair is adducing for that purpose would apply equally to the discussion on the Estimate for the Department of Justice at present. Would the sub judice rule prevent us discussing the Estimate for the Department of Justice were it introduced at this stage?
The Chair would have an obligation even in respect of the debate on the Estimate for the Department of Justice, to do his utmost to ensure that no references made in this House relate to matters sub judice.
Would not the same apply to the discussion on this motion? The way to deal with the matter would be to permit the motion to be discussed and ensure that no sub judice matter is introduced in the discussion.
The motion refers to specific matters.
Deputies
It does not. It is general.
It would involve specific matters.
The general thrust of the motion is towards a breakdown in law and order, which is a very general situation. You cannot prevent this motion being discussed unless you prevent the Estimate for the Department of Justice being discussed.
I will be happy to have the matter raised at Procedure and Privileges.
We are getting tired of this sub judice devise being used and abused to preclude us from discussing matters time and time again. The explanation is inadequate.