With your leave, I want to inform the House that it is not now proposed to go beyond No. 14 on today's Order of Business. In other words, items Nos. 4 and 15, which belong together, the Anti-Discrimination (Employment) Bill and the Resolution connected with it will not be taken today. It has been agreed that in the event of the remaining items finishing before 7 o'clock the House will proceed immediately to Private Members' Business.
Business of Dáil.
Would you tell me why you disallowed my Private Notice Question in regard to all the price increases that were announced this morning, in view of the fact that the Government have yet to sanction two of the major ones, the ESB increase of 10½ per cent and the CIE increase of 25 per cent? Those increases are liable to be sanctioned by the Government within the next day or two.
The Deputy has been informed why the question is not in order for Private Notice. The Deputy may table an ordinary question on the matter. My ruling may not be questioned in the House and the Deputy knows that.
These increases may well be sanctioned within the next 24 hours. I cannot have an ordinary question answered in that time.
The Deputy's question was given the fullest consideration.
The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary refused to debate this matter with me on the radio at lunchtime today. They are also refusing to debate it in the House.
(Interruptions.)
In view of the fact that union members may feel they have been "conned" into the national wage agreement would the Ceann Comhairle not take this question and have it discussed?
Deputies will have ample opportunity to discuss these matters.
Will the Chair not agree, in view of the fact that the national wage agreement was passed a couple of days ago and that those announcements were made to day, that there is great significance in this timing and that the national wage agreement is illusory and of no value whatever to any of the workers involved?
My ruling on this matter may not be questioned.
The December report of the Prices Commission is not published until March.
We are resuming on the Anti-Discrimination (Unfair Dismissals) Bill.
(Interruptions.)
Surely you must be aware that the country is appalled at the new spate of price increases coming after the budget that was supposed to do something to stabilise prices?
Deputies are seeking to circumvent the ruling of the Chair. The ruling of the Chair on this matter may not be discussed or challenged in the House.
On a point of order, can you give some information to the House on what does qualify?
I am not prepared to allow this matter to be discussed any further.
The House needs to be guided by the Chair. Can you tell us why this matter does not qualify as a matter of urgent public importance when the nation is shocked today? Would the Chair please indicate what does qualify?
The Deputy may not bring the Chair into the political arena here at all.
Do we have to wait for a week while everybody else can discuss this matter? Everybody else can express his views over the next four days and we are tied in silence for a week. The House is being made irrelevant.
Deputies have ample time. Next business.
Will you tell us what is of urgent public importance if this is not?
I will not allow my ruling to be challenged in this fashion.
Why is Deputy O'Malley's question not of urgent public importance?
I am calling the next business, the Anti-Discrimination (Unfair Dismissals) Bill, 1976. Will Deputy O'Kennedy please desist?
There are more important things than order. Our function here is the most important thing. The public are talking about this and we stay silent.
May I ask, in relation to the matter that has been referred to here, which has been refused for Private Notice Question, if it would not be appropriate and allowable under the Adjournment Debate?
This is a matter the Chair will consider.
That is what I thought.
Can you give us some indication of the earliest opportunity we will have to raise this matter?
That is a matter for the House.
Have the Government abdicated?
I do not regard this as suitable for a 20-minute debate. It is much too fundamental. Would the Chair consider allowing a three-hour debate under Standing Order 29 or 30 on the Adjournment of the House tonight?
I received no notice. I must get appropriate notice.
I am giving you notice.
I must get notice before the commencement of the sitting in respect of such a matter.
I am giving notice for tomorrow's sitting.
I will consider that.
There are two members of the Government present in the House. Could we ask if the Government would be prepared to make time available for discussion of this very serious matter?
Two members do not make decisions for this Government.
(Interruptions.)
From what we heard a few moments ago it appears that one member makes one decision and another member makes another decision. As far as the House is concerned, in view of your ruling, it is quite clear that the country desire a discussion on this matter. It is up to the Government to provide the time if the Chair cannot, within the rules of order, see his way to allowing it.
I am calling the next business. The Anti-Discrimination (Unfair Dismissals) Bill, 1976, Report Stage (Resumed).
The Government then will not allow time for this discussion.
(Interruptions.)