It is proposed to take No. 5 (resumed).
Order of Business.
I indicated yesterday that I would seek your permission, Sir, to ask the Taoiseach if he would make a statement in this House in the coming week regarding our membership of the EMS and the statement by the British Chancellor of the Exchequer that Britain is giving serious consideration to joining the EMS, and to ask what, in the Government's opinion, would be the situation for this country and what would be the consequential effects on our economy?
I regret that I have to disallow the question and uphold yesterday's ruling.
I regret you have given that ruling after 24 hours consideration. I have no intention of pursuing the matter at this point, as it might lead to a disruption of the House. However, I will seek ways of pursuing it as I consider your ruling to be detrimental to parliamentary democracy.
I asked yesterday, in order to clarify this position, if you would inform the House today of the number of occasions in the past ten years when such requests had been allowed. Could you now give that information?
No, I cannot give that information.
Why not?
Because there is not any purpose in it. If you look at my record, even in the relatively short time I have been in the Chair, you will see that a number of questions slipped through for one reason or another which should not have been allowed.
I cannot understand why you should say you found no purpose in examining the precedents of this House by which you, Sir, are bound.
I am bound by them and I am acting in accordance with them.
You are acting against them and you will not even examine them.
I am not.
You will not even give us the courtesy of examining them because you know they are against you.
They are against me.
Prove it.
You had your chance.
It is in order for Deputy Cluskey to raise this matter in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges or through the Whips. I understood discussions would take place to see how procedures might be changed.
I am not trying to change procedures but to——
I do not accept that and if the Deputy persists in that argument I will have to go into some detail in relation to the matter.
I wish you would. I asked you to give the figures for the last ten years.
Would the Ceann Comhairle implement that threat and go into detail?
The fact that discussions are taking place does not exonerate you, Sir, from impartiality and fairness towards every Member of this House.
Since I became Ceann Comhairle my main objective has been to be fair to every Member of this House. I did not promise yesterday to reconsider my ruling but, in deference to the Deputy's request, I did think about it. I have been studying Standing Orders and Procedures since I became Ceann Comhairle to ensure that I administered the rules as laid down by the House while at the same time being as flexible as I can and, above all, being fair and just to every Deputy.
Deputy Cluskey, Deputy FitzGerald and others on occasion claimed that there is a long-standing precedent on the Order of Business for questions on matters which have no relevance to the business of the day to be permitted and that I am curtailing the rights of Members by curbing the asking of such questions. Let me point out the position.
Standing Order No. 25 provides that the Taoiseach announces the Order of Business in which Government business is taken each day. There is no motion before the House and there is no room for debate. Over the years the Chair has permitted questions to be asked about the business for the day, about the taking of other business on the Order Paper, and about the taking of business that has been promised, and which therefore can be anticipated, and about arrangements for sittings. There is no doubt the Chair has on occasion failed to curb an irrelevant question or questions. As I said to Deputy FitzGerald, I have been guilty of such lapses. For example, there have been occasions when such questions have not only been asked but have been answered, but I do not accept that these oversights on the part of the Chair can be elevated to a practice or a precedent.
I have already made my position clear on many occasions, that the only questions permitted on the Order of Business must relate to the business of the House, such as clarifying the position about the day's business, questions asking what other business will be taken, when Bills or other documents needed in the House will be circulated, and sitting arrangements. I have said all this before. Questions on the Order of Business which are not relevant constitute a general instant Question Time. I have previously stated here that the Chair cannot agree to this. In taking this particular course, which I regard as logical, I am simply upholding the rulings of my predecessor and I will quote from Volume 318, Column 1515——
The Chair cannot and will not accept matters being raised on the Order of Business which are not relevant. If this gets out of hand, we could have any Deputy getting up raising any matter he thinks of, that is not permissible.
I must uphold this ruling and continue to implement the Standing Orders and practice.
I am sorry for taking up the time of the House but I will elaborate briefly. The Standing Orders of the House lay down rules as to the content of questions and also stipulate the notice that is necessary, for example, three days' notice in the ordinary case but at shorter notice for questions of urgent public importance of which the Ceann Comhairle is the judge. The Ceann Comhairle, therefore, sees and rules on every question before it is asked and the relevant Minister and the Department have notice of each question. I hold that the question which was addressed to the Taoiseach yesterday and the question which was again addressed to the Taoiseach today, if in order, would come within the ambit of either one or other of these types of parliamentary questions. The claim being made over a period is that questions on any subject can be asked on the Order of Business without prior submission to the Ceann Comhairle and without the relevant Minister or Department involved seeing it. This, in effect, means the transfer of the Powers and functions of the Ceann Comhairle to each Deputy in the House because, if this were the situation, each Deputy would, in effect, then be deciding that his question was in order. He would be deciding that it was the responsibility of the Minister selected by him to answer it. He would be deciding that it was not a repeat question. He would be deciding it was not sub judice and so on. It must be obvious to every Member that, if such a practice were to be permitted in the handling of parliamentary questions, the present orders system would be destroyed and we would have chaos. The issue is fundamental to the proper functioning of the parliamentary system. I sincerely hope Deputy Cluskey will accept my good faith and will appreciate the reasons why I cannot allow his question at this time.
I want to repeat what I said before. If the House, in its wisdom, decides on changes, I will faithfully carry out and put into effect whatever these changes may be. When I suggested yesterday that the matter could be discussed by the Whips, it was in the context that I believed that discussions would be taking place on the whole matter of procedure generally. It is open to Deputy Cluskey or, to any other Deputy, to raise this matter at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges or through the Whips. Deputies will accept that if we have a situation where a Deputy can ask a question which he decides is important, without any reference to the Ceann Comhairle, to the Department or the Minister concerned, the Deputy would be assuming the responsibility and the rights and duties of the Ceann Comhairle.
You have stated what the criteria, in your opinion, was for questions to be asked in the House. I agree with most of what you said. If a question is sub judice, it must be ruled out. If a question is irrelevant, it should be ruled out. This party has, at all times, upheld the rulings of the Chair. You also stated that what was permissible and what came within Standing Orders was the Business in the House on that day or business that would be ordered. I asked yesterday that the Taoiseach, not yesterday or even today, but some time in the coming week, would make a statement in the House on a matter which could vitally affect the whole economy. I see no justification whatsoever for the ruling out of that question. Furthermore, you should be aware that Members want to see the business of the House conducted in a proper manner. That will be the position as long as there is fairness and impartiality from the Chair, as far as, this party is concerned. In order to conduct the business of the House, like any other democratic institution, you must have the full co-operation of all the Members in the House. Do not put that co-operation in jeopardy by a ruling which is merely against all precedents.
I certainly want to have the co-operation of every Member in the House but I do not see any reason why that question, if it was in order, could not be put down to the Taoiseach asking for the very thing the Deputy has raised on the Order of Business. I cannot allow a debate on this matter.
I do not want in any way to reflect on the Chair's impartiality. The Chair has shown himself to be impartial since he took office. He has simply, in this instance, misdirected himself in good faith. Your own statement Sir, listed first of all what Standing Orders said. You then went on to say that there are four or five things which you have allowed and you propose to continue to allow, which are not specified in Standing Orders but which, nonetheless because of precedent, you intend to continue to allow. You then pick on one item that is, not general questions of any kind but specifically questions to the Taoiseach or Ministers as to whether they will make a statement on some subject or introduce legislation on some subject, which has always been allowed. You picked that item and you decide you will not follow precedent in that case. It is that attempt to distinguish between the first four or five items which you are going to continue to allow and this one, which has no greater authority for that precedent, which you are not going to allow. It is to that we take exception. I suggest you further consider the matter in the light of that and that you should allow questions but stringently confine them, as it is proper to do, to questions relating to the future business of the House. That is all we are asking, that on the Order of Business one is entitled to ask the Taoiseach if he will make a statement, to ask a Minister if he intends to introduce legislation and that you would rule out any other irrelevant matter, as you are entitled to do.
I have accepted the various matters which I have mentioned because I believe they are relevant to the Order of Business. Deputy FitzGerald on the budget, please.