It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 3, 11, 12, 13 (resumed), 14 (resumed), 15 and 16. Private Members' Business from 7 p.m. to 8.30 p.m., No. 32 by agreement.
Order of Business.
On Private Members' Time we sought, by giving order for precedence, to debate item No. 19 which deals with the economy and with the Central Bank Report of last week and the Chair's ruling said that because of the anticipated debate on the Adjournment we could not take it tonight at 7 o'clock. Surely anything could be debarred from being debated in this House because it would be anticipating the Adjournment.
That ruling has been given by the Chair down the years. If a debate is coming up in the very near future which will cover the matter that it is proposed by the Deputy to raise, the Chair has always given that ruling. It is not my ruling. There are umpteen precedents for it. We cannot debate this.
I must get the reason for this ruling because traditionally anything can be debated on the Adjournment including the subject of tonight's Private Members' debate or foreign affairs. To rule that we cannot debate the economy because of the Adjournment debate——
The Chair will not enter into any debate with the Deputy. The Chair gave the ruling that has been given all down the years and the Chair must leave it there. We cannot debate it at this stage.
Can a Deputy not speak on any subject he wishes on an Adjournment Debate?
Correct, and on the matter that the Deputy proposes to raise tonight.
Anything can be debated and that means that anything that comes up between now and then could be ruled out of order for debate in this House.
In accordance with precedence yes. We are not debating it now, Deputy. The Deputy should obey the Chair.
At the moment the most important thing to be debated in this House is the mismanagement of the economy by this Government, and to try to limit debate by making a ruling——
The Deputy will not proceed on those lines. I am asking Deputy Barry not to proceed with this matter.
(Interruptions.)
I will leave it at that but it is not a fair ruling.
The Chair cannot accept a precedent which would enable anything to be ruled out at any time.
It is in keeping with the ruling of the House down the years.
Then the ruling must be broken.
As has been pointed out, any aspect of Government policy can be debated on the Adjournment.
That is correct.
What is the logic of singling out one area——
We are not going to have a debate on that at this stage.
——of Government policy which should be debarred from discussion?
Deputy Cluskey is well aware——
We are looking for clarification.
The Deputy will have to come to my office afterwards and we will clarify all these matters for him.
A lot of good it will do.
Deputy Quinn on some matter other than that.
In relation to item No. 32 surely it is out of order on the grounds that the Minister of State in charge of Wood Quay may raise that matter on the Adjournment?
Deputy, please. Item No. 3.
Could I ask the Chair for clarification?
The Dáil should adjourn on the Adjournment debate if there is nothing we can legally discuss.
(Interruptions.)
Item No. 3.
What is the difference between the Minister for Finance raising a question about the Central Bank Report on the Adjournment debate——
Item No. 3.
(Interruptions.)
We cannot debate this at this stage.
On a point of clarification, would I be permitted to raise the subject matter of Item No. 32 on the Adjournment Debate?
If the Deputy is asking to raise the subject matter of anything on the Adjournment tonight the Chair will communicate with him.
Not on the Adjournment tonight. Could I discuss Item No. 32——
The Deputy can discuss on the Adjournment debate anything that will be relevant to that debate.
The Adjournment Debate includes all aspects of Government policy including the economy.
The Chair is not here to——
The Chair is not there to protect the Government.
The Chair is not here to debate matters with Deputies.
The Chair is there to rule impartially and that is all we are asking.
Deputy Cluskey is making an allegation against the Chair and I would ask him to withdraw it.
I am making a statement as to the position of the Chair, that the Chair is not there to protect the Government. That is a statement of fact.
Deputy Cluskey will withdraw the allegation against the Chair.
Can I ask the Chair——
Deputy Cluskey will withdraw the allegation.
Is it not a statement of fact that the Chair is not there to protect the Government?
Deputy Cluskey is now making an allegation against the Chair and he will withdraw it.
Deputies
What allegation?
I made a statement that the Chair is not there to protect the Government.
That is an allegation against the Chair and the Deputy will withdraw it.
It is a statement of fact.
The Deputy will withdraw it.
(Interruptions.)
Is it not a statement of fact?
The Deputy will withdraw it, please.
(Interruptions.)
The Leader of the Opposition should not enter into this.
What the Chair is asking me to do now is to make a direct allegation against the Chair and I am not prepared to do that.
The Chair is asking Deputy Cluskey to withdraw the allegation against the Chair.
What allegation?
The allegation that the Chair is protecting the Government.
If the Chair insists I will——
Will the Deputy keep out of this please, he does not enter into it at all.
If the Chair insists—all right, the Chair is there to protect the Government. Is that what the Chair wants me to say.
The Chair will withdraw the allegation against the Chair.
I am glad that the Chair will do that.
The Deputy will withdraw it, please.
The Chair is turning this into a bear garden.
The Chair has had no end of trouble for the last two or three weeks.
What does the Chair want me to say?
I wish the Deputy to withdraw the allegation that the Chair is protecting the Government.
What I said was that the Chair is not there to protect the Government. Does the Chair object to that?
The Chair is here to protect everybody but that is not what the Deputy said.
That is what I am saying.
If the Deputy is changing his statement now, the Chair might accept that.
That is what Deputy Cluskey said.
But that is not the way it came across to the Chair. This is just not good enough. Deputy L'Estrange will find himself in another row in a hurry if he continues interrupting.
(Interruptions.)
It is not the Chair's function to threaten Members of this House.
It is the Chair's function to deal with any Member who is disorderly. The Chair should have the support of the House in that.
When the Chair is impartial, the Chair will always have the support of this House.
Is Deputy Cluskey making a further allegation against the Chair?
When the Chair is impartial the Chair will have the support of this House at all times.
That is an allegation against the Chair again.
Will the business of the House proceed? This is ridiculous.
The business of the House could very easily proceed if the Chair got the support it deserves from the House without people making allegations.
The Chair will get the full support it deserves from the party.