It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13; by agreement it is proposed to take Nos 10, 11, 12 and 13 in conjunction with No. 9. Private Members' Business, No. 65 by agreement, will be taken between 7 p.m. and 8.30 p.m.
Order of Business.
I wish to ask if it is in order that an annulment order be replaced by a motion of the character of the motion here which does not seem to me to deal with the issue? Does not this process of putting down an amendment of this kind undermine the right of the Dáil with regard to proposing that an order be annulled and debating annulment of the order?
I am afraid the Chair has no function in ruling on that matter. It is the duty of the Taoiseach to arrange the Order of Business and, as the Deputy knows, the Ceann Comhairle does not interfere.
We put down two motions, Nos. 10 and 11, to annual certain orders and instead of these being debated we are being asked to debate an argumentative motion and to have our annulment orders taken with that. I just ask the Chair if this is proper procedure. Does it not undermine the right of the Dáil to propose to annul orders?
The Chair will allow separate decisions on Nos. 10 and 11.
And on Nos. 12 and 13?
Nos. 12 and 13 would be a repetition of Nos. 10 and 11. One decision should govern.
They are separate motions.
They are identical. Deputy FitzGerald cannot have any complaint with regard to allowing Nos. 10 and 11 for separate decisions?
I will not say I have no complaint but I note the decision on the point.
It is the best I can do.
I wish to ask the Tánaiste what steps the Government propose to take to deal with the situation arising from the decision of the Supreme Court that the dismissal of Commissioner Garvey is null and void which calls into question the legality of the command structure of the Garda Síochána during the last year or so and to state whether these steps will involve legislation?
I ruled this out in a Private Notice Question. The Deputy may not raise it in this fashion. It is completely disorderly to attempt to raise it in this way.
I submit that the decision of the Supreme Court settles the issue finally and without further appeal on the question of the dismissal being null and void. The High Court has to consider the question of damages and that is sub judice. At this point there is a situation where we have two people who are named Commissioner, one who is declared by the Supreme Court to be Commissioner because his dismissal was null and void and the other whom the Government claim to have appointed. This creates a very difficult situation and we are entitled in this House——
The Chair has ruled that this matter may not be raised now. It is disorderly to raise it in this fashion.
If, for example——
It is not a matter to be raised on the Order of Business.
How else can we ask whether this legislation is proposed?
There are other procedures but it may not be raised on the Order of Business. The Chair must be definite on this. Matters raised on the Order of Business should relate to the business ordered for the day, to the Order Paper and what it contains.
One is entitled always to raise the question of what legislation the Government propose to introduce. In a situation where there appears to be two Commissioners of the Garda Síochána with all the dangers that involves——
On a point of order, I would be quite willing to attempt to answer the Deputy's question if the Chair rules that I may do so but if the Chair rules I may not I submit that Deputy FitzGerald should not be permitted to continue to make the kind of statements he is making with no reply for this side of the House.
I should like to hear the Minister because I submit it is a matter of grave urgency and importance to the State.
The Chair would like the co-operation of the Leader of the Fine Gael Party on matters which he must know are not in order.
I know nothing of the kind. Anything may be discussed by agreement of the House. The Tánaiste has indicated his willingness and I am sure my colleagues on the Labour Party benches would be willing to hear the Tánaiste. In these circumstances, how can it be out of order if we are agreed on the matter?
I should like to support the Deputy on this matter. The Tánaiste has indicated his willingness to give a short reply. I think the House is entitled to hear that reply.
There can be no further debate on the matter.
The House agrees to its own procedure. The Chair is not entitled to prevent the House——
I am not aware that the House had an agreement that this matter was to be debated. The Chair has no information on the matter.
The Tánaiste said——
The Chair is well aware that an effort was made to raise this matter by a Private Notice Question. The Chair ruled that out. Now it is being raised without any notice. That is disorderly and must not be seen to succeed. The Deputy knows that.
If the House was willing to listen to the Tánaiste's short statement without further reply, we would be happy with that situation.
There will be no statement. The Chair's ruling is final.
Would the Tánaiste indicate if it is intended to introduce legislation in view of the recent Supreme Court decision in relation to the Commissioner——
That is the same question.
No, it is not. I am asking if the Government intend to introduce legislation in the near future. I never had a question down——
Would the Deputy please resume his seat? To those who would try to make it appear that the Chair is being unreasonable, I would say we must surely be reaching a stage when any matter one can think of can be raised on the Order of Business. We must get away from this practice and it will not be permitted.
On a point of order, it is quite normal for a Deputy to ask the Taoiseach, or the Tánaiste if he is in the Taoiseach's seat, about matters concerning proposed legislation. I am asking the Tánaiste a regular question.
It is quite in order to ask about proposed legislation but there is no proposed legislation that the Chair is aware of.
How could the Chair be aware when he has not allowed the Minister to tell us if it is proposed to introduce legislation?
That is a different matter. Deputy Collins said he was asking about proposed legislation.
(Interruptions.)
The Chair is not permitting the question. It is as simple as that.
The purpose of the Order of Business is to enable us, among other things, to inquire about the Government's intention——
There is a definite reason why this matter should not be raised by Private Notice Question. That was conveyed to the Deputy. It is not going to be circumvented now by a strategem of pretending that it comes within a question that may be asked on the Order of Business—it cannot.
I do not wish to challenge your ruling, although I feel it is incorrect in the circumstances because the null and void character of the dismissal is now established once and for all——
The Deputy is managing to create a debate in spite of the Chair and the Chair is well aware of this strategy. That is what is happening.
I do not want to debate the matter. I simply want an answer to the question that the Tánaiste is willing to give.
Item No. 7.
This is a ridiculous way to run a parliament.
(Interruptions.)
Could the Chair inform me on this: where it is quite clear that the Government and the Opposition, as articulated by the Tánaiste, have both agreed and there is unanimity on the statement on this matter, in those circumstances——
I have not said that.
——can the Ceann Comhairle overrule the House in its decision to have a statement on this question?
That is not correct. If there is agreement between the Opposition and the Government to debate the matter, that is all right with the Chair. No such decision has been conveyed to the Chair in relation to this matter.
Suppose the Tánaiste were to offer through the Whips that he would make a statement tomorrow morning when the House assembles at 10.30 a.m., would we hear it in uproar——
The Chair would have no function but to agree but the Chair must make it absolutely clear that when a Private Notice Question is ruled out it may not be brought in here again by another strategy. That is happening rather frequently. If the Chair appears to be firm, the Chair is not seeking to protect anybody other than the rulings of the Chair and the decorum and prestige of the House.
I recollect the Dáil being turned into a hurling match on occasions in the past by the then Leader of the Opposition and by Members over there like the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald.
(Interruptions.)
On a point of order, in deference to the Chair, I did not question your ruling on the private notice question but on the Order of Business, is the Leader of the Opposition not entitled to ask when legislation will be brought before the House to correct this anomaly? In view of the fact, as Deputy Dr. Browne has said, that there is general demand from this side of the House and there appears to be some agreement from the Government benches that in the general interest everyone in the country wants to know now what is the position, surely in those circumstances you will allow the Tánaiste——
The Deputy asked to be allowed speak on a point of order. That is not a point of order.
I am begging the Chair to allow the Tánaiste to make a statement.
Item No. 7.
Could we move to have the Order changed to allow the Tánaiste to make a statement?
No. Deputy Kelly made a point which is the only point validly before the Chair, that if the Opposition and the Government agree to have a statement at a later date, would the Chair agree? That is no business of the Chair; the Chair has no option but to accept it——
On the Order of Business, may I ask if the Tánaiste or the Taoiseach intend to make a statement in the House in the very near future on the position concerning the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána as a result of the Supreme Court decision? May I ask the Tánaiste that question?
May I point out to the House—Members may not be aware of this—that the approved judgments of the Supreme Court are not yet available.
We have two Commissioners and two Taoiseachs.
The Deputy knows all about it.
Was the Wood Quay judgment approved? You were fast enough to act on it.
(Interruptions.)
Does that mean that the action taken was illegal?
I did not suggest that.
(Interruptions.)
Order. We are proceeding with the Order of Business——
On a point of order, I am asking if, for the purpose of future good order in the House, the Chair would explain the distinction he is making between ruling out this matter on the grounds that it is sub judice and that we cannot have a Private Notice Question and the ruling that it can be discussed on the following day by agreement between the Whips here. If it is sub judice, how could that be in order? Could the Chair please explain the basis for his decision as otherwise we shall be in chaos in this House now and in the future.
It would depend on the Whips on this side of the House not doing something incorrect.
The Chair said that if the Opposition and the Government agree on a statement being made, it is no business of the Chair to rule it out.
If it is sub judice how could it be ruled in?
The House can discuss any matter by agreement, as the Deputy is well aware——
Why did the Chair not allow the Tánaiste to reply to the question?
The Chair has made his ruling.
May I ask the Tánaiste whether on behalf of the Government he could indicate whether there will be a statement on this matter even if he cannot immediately say when, although we would hope that it will be soon?
This is a question which has already been asked.
It sounds like it.
(Interruptions.)
It has been said that it appears we have two Commissioners at the moment——
(Interruptions.)
The Government do not seem to be willing to clarify the position.
Could the Tánaiste say if it is the position that there will be a statement when the approved reports of the judgments are available?
(Interruptions.)
The Chair has made it clear from the outset that this matter is not up for discussion on the Order of Business. Would Deputies please resume their seats?
As I already said and the Chair did not hear——
I have asked the Deputy to resume his seat. Discussion on this matter is not permitted.
I am not discussing the matter. I am just one of the bystanders listening to the play going on here today who cannot be heard in the House because the Chair is not capable of keeping these people quiet when anybody else is talking——
The Chair is capable of keeping Deputy Blaney quiet. The Deputy will please resume his seat.
The Chair is so biased that there is no point in trying to ask any sensible question. A statement has been made that there are two Commissioners, which is a dangerous statement, and the Government should have the opportunity of telling the people——
Will the Deputy please resume his seat.
I will resume my seat while others jump up and down like jacks in the boxes——
The Chair is the judge of order.
The Chair is the judge but he does not make the judgments. He takes the easy way out as he always did.
The fact that the Government are not willing to clarify the position is very dangerous.
It is suggested——
The Chair has made it quite clear that no discussion is being allowed on this matter and at this stage there will be no change in that situation.
This is a most irresponsible performance but it was to be expected.
(Interruptions.)
(Cavan-Monaghan): The only disgraceful performance was the wrongful dismissal of the Commissioner.
We accept your ruling, Sir, that there is not to be a discussion, but is it not in order for us to ask when we are likely to be given some indication from the Government? All the House is seeking is an indication of when we may expect a decision or a statement on this matter.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Perhaps we should ask Mr. Paddy Lane for a decision.
Order. The Tánaiste has made a statement already and it is a matter for him as to whether he wishes to make another statement.
We are dealing with a very serious matter.
May we assume from the Tánaiste's reply that there will not be a statement from the Government until such time as the printed decision of the Supreme Court is made available.
Before I answer that question I should like clarification regarding the suggestion of the introduction of legislation and to hear what the Deputies have in mind. For instance, are they talking about a requirement of a two-thirds majority? Is that the point of the question?
My question arose from the Tánaiste's first reply.
The Deputy's question was the same as the other questions, but since we are discussing the matter I should like to have it clarified.
The question is clear. Is it the position that there will not be a statement from the Government on this matter until such time as the printed decision of the Supreme Court is made available?
As I have indicated, I should like clarification of the other matters raised in regard to suggested or proposed legislation and to hear what the Deputies have in mind. Are they thinking of a requirement of a two-thirds majority?
What kind of legislation has the Tánaiste in mind by that reference?
May we take it that it is not a two-thirds majority the Deputies have in mind?
The people opposite are in Government.
What does the Tánaiste mean by a two-thirds majority?
The question of legislation was raised by Deputy FitzGerald.
The Minister raised the question of the two-thirds majority. Perhaps he will tell us what he is talking about.
May I take it that the Deputy is not aware of what I am talking about?
As the Tánaiste has asked about the type of legislation that is required——
I have asked what the Deputies have in mind in regard to the legislation they are suggesting.
My question was to ask the Government what decision, if any, the Government have in mind in this situation. There are various types of legislation that may be required to validate acts undertaken in good faith but illegally, for example, and I wish to know whether the Government propose to take this action for the purposes of restoring order in a situation where illegality has been introduced by the disgraceful action of the Minister for Justice.
Jackboot tactics.
The unnecessary and provocative introduction by Deputy FitzGerald of that allegation against the Minister for Justice is not of any help in trying to assist in any orderly approach to this matter. However, I can say that if the Government propose to make a statement in the House on this matter—and one will be aware of the difficulties adverted to by the Chair having regard to sub judice matters—such a statement will certainly not be made before the approved—that is, approved by the judges concerned—judgments are available for study and consideration by the Government.
Are the Wood Quay judgments on the file?
I must point out at this stage that, as a good deal of time has been wasted, the time motion will have to be curtailed.
Hopefully not at our expense. We did not waste the time.
The Tánaiste failed to give a reasonable answer to our question.