It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 1, 7, 4 and 8. Might I mention that, in view of the fact that next Monday is a bank holiday, it is proposed, by agreement of the House, that the House will not meet next week until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday?
Order of Business.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to raise on the Adjournment the question of the failure of the Minister for the Environment to inform local authorities what the proposed increase in rates for 1979 will be.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
(Cavan-Monaghan): With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of Question No. 491 on Tuesday's Order Paper in relation to the ESB engineers' go-slow or work to rule. This is a matter of considerable urgency.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
Could I bring to the attention of the House and the Chair the fact that on Tuesday, 17 October, during Question Time in reply to a question regarding the proposal by the Fianna Fáil Government about the removal of food subsidies and the taxing of children's allowances an untrue and misleading reply was given by the Minister for Finance?
May I point out to the Deputy that on the occasion to which he refers I invited him to put down a question on the matter? So far, to my knowledge, he has failed to do so.
If the Minister for Finance gives an untrue and misleading reply to a question in this House it is not a matter that should be dealt with by way of question. It is a matter for the Chair and for the House. It is a matter of serious concern from the point of view of the whole democratic procedure.
There is an allegation being made by the Deputy which I would obviously wish to refute but I imagine you would rule me out of order if I entered into an argument at this stage on the merits of the allegation.
It is totally out of order to bring the matter up now and we cannot have a discussion on it.
I did extend an invitation to the Deputy to put down a question and, if he does so, the matter will be dealt with.
A matter such as this is normally dealt with, and it is accepted as normal procedure by the House, where a Minister inadvertently or deliberately misleads the House in the course of the proceedings of the House——
That is an allegation which the Deputy knows is unfounded. This is totally out of order.
One thing is certain and that is that we cannot discuss it now.
I am prepared, if the House so wishes, to quote the relevant reply.
I will not allow any further discussion. The Chair has had no notice of this and it is quite disorderly to raise it at this stage.
Could I ask for the Chair's guidance? If it is clearly established that a Member of the House, and especially a member of the Government, as it is clearly established in the Official Report, volume 308 of 17 October——
I cannot allow a discussion on this matter now. The Deputy is well aware of that.
Has the Chair no function with regard to a Minister giving a misleading reply to a question tabled by a Deputy?
The Chair has no function——
Why does the Deputy not ask the question I invited him to ask and give me an opportunity of replying to his unfounded allegation?
The Minister has the right to make a personal explanation, if he so wishes.
In reply to my question addressed to the Minister for Finance in regard to children's allowances and the taxing of them, plus the phasing out of food subsidies, the Minister told me that these matters were in the manifesto. He did not withdraw that and I think he should.
We cannot have a discussion on this now. I am calling Item No. 1.
The Chair will note that Deputies got the opportunity, and still have that opportunity, if they really wish to go into this matter, to do so within the rules of order but they are refusing to take that opportunity.
It is the Minister's duty to tell the truth, not our duty to force him to do so.
There is a matter I wish to raise, if I may. Arising out of the business yesterday I sought a ruling from the Chair and I want now to read the record of what was said. I asked, on a point of order: "Are we now having a debate on the motion for the Second Stage of the Bill? Am I correct in interpreting it that this is what the debate is?" You, Sir, replied affirmatively: "The motion is whether or not the Second Stage should be ordered." I then drew your attention to Standing Order 86 (2) which makes provision that such a debate shall not exceed a period of six hours in the aggregate and: "At the expiration of the said period, if the proceedings have not been concluded, the Ceann Comhairle shall put forthwith the question or questions necessary." It appeared to me subsequently that there was some confusion between us on the question of your ruling and I simply want now to draw your attention to the fact that you ruled affirmatively on my point of order as to what was the debate we were having and the application of Standing Order 86 (2) follows automatically from that ruling.
The motion, of course, was that the Bill be ordered.
What you ruled was whether or not the Second Stage should be ordered and this is precisely in line with what is in Standing Orders, which is a debate on the motion for the Second Stage of the Bill.
The Deputy is confusing two totally different things. One was the right to have the Second Stage taken and the other was the actual taking of it. The latter motion always is: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." This refers to every Bill on the Second Stage, as Deputies know very well, and opposing the taking of the Second Stage does not matter.
The wording is perfectly clear. The wording is "the debate on the motion for the Second Stage of a Bill" and that is precisely what we were having and what you ruled we were having.
If the Deputy were right in that, then any time a Second Stage would be ordered the debate could commence immediately on the Second Stage. That is the logical conclusion. That is not what happened.
That is precisely the intention of the Committee, the proceedings of which were read out yesterday, and this is intended to implement that intention and it is precisely because that was not, in fact, carried through due to a misunderstanding that I am raising the matter now.
I have refrained from discussing here the interpretation of a Standing Order which is something more appropriate to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and I hope that Committee will discuss the matter. If it were the intention of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges that a Private Members' Bill should get on to the Order Paper at Second Stage without any order being made, they should have made that clear in Standing Orders.
It was the intention as stated in that report.
The Committee should have obviated the necessity for bringing an order before the House, which is what we had yesterday. The Chair has no option. When an order is before the House it is a motion and a motion may or may not be opposed. If it is opposed, the Chair must permit a division. The Chair has no other way out. I hope that ends the matter until it is discussed in another place.
I understand the Chair's reference to Standing Order No. 85. I am concerned with Standing Order No. 86 (2) and your ruling was that this was a motion, whether or not the Second Stage should be ordered and that is, if the definition of English means anything, a motion for the Second Stage. Therefore Standing Order No. 86 (2) applies and there is no time limit on the debate. I submit that this is the position. If the English language means anything, I do not think you can decide otherwise, whatever about the interpretation of Standing Order No. 85, which I agree is disputed.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I could not be here yesterday but I was a member of the Committee which brought in this Standing Order. It was presided over by the present Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy. The spirit of that Standing Order was that Private Members, as of right, should be able to bring in a Bill and have it read a second time for six hours. That was the spirit of the Standing Order and there is no doubt about it.
On a further point of order, I should like to clarify what could be a misunderstanding. Reference was made to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, but my understanding of Standing Orders and of the rulings and precedents of the House is that the amendment of Standing Orders is a matter for this House. Whether or not a matter is discussed beforehand by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges is a matter of convenience in the judgment of the people concerned. It is quite clear from Standing Orders and from the rulings of the Chair that, giving notice of it, a motion can be put down in this House to amend Standing Orders and that is the correct procedure. I want to clarify that in case there is any misunderstanding.
I have no notice before me now.
Of course not. I appreciate that.