It is proposed to take item No. 5 (resumed).
Order of Business.
Yesterday I sought to raise on the adjournment the question of Ireland's neutrality and the possible discussion of a military alliance with another country. I was informed by the Private Secretary to the Ceann Comhairle that he had ruled out the matter on grounds of national security. I have examined Standing Orders and the Book of Precedents and I cannot find in either of these documents any justification for your ruling.
The Deputy is aware that it is not in order to raise this matter on the Order of Business. However, as there appears to be some confusion in relation to my message, I wish to set the record straight. In disallowing the Deputy's request I acted in accordance with normal and long-standing procedure and practice in this House. When a Minister states in his reply to a question that he will not give further information the Chair cannot allow a Deputy to bring forward the matter on the adjournment as there will be no further elucidation. This has been the practice through the years.
Your message was conveyed not only to me individually but also to the Chief Whip of the Labour Party, Deputy Barry Desmond. The message in both cases was the same, namely, that the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle was that I could not raise the matter on the adjournment as it was a matter of national security.
I am afraid there was some misunderstanding in that respect. I am telling the Deputy now why his question was ruled out of order.
Would the misunderstanding be the obvious public concern at the fact that there would appear to be some negotiations going on which would abandon Irish neutrality and which would commit us to a military alliance?
I cannot allow this to continue. It is totally out of order. I have explained to the Deputy why his request was disallowed.
There was no justification for disallowing it. Can you cite anything in the Book of Precedents or Standing Orders to justify your ruling?
We cannot have a discussion on this matter. First of all, these decisions are always given outside the House and would not be in the rulings of the Chair unless challenged in the House. I repeat that this ruling has been followed through the years.
Are you seriously telling me, in a situation where there is considerable evidence that this country's neutrality is to be abandoned by the present Taoiseach, possibly in a military alliance with Great Britain, that we may not discuss the matter in this House?
That is totally out of order. I have already explained to the Deputy why his question was not in order, although, strictly speaking, I should not have allowed any discussion at all.
On a point of order, you have ruled that where a Minister refuses to answer a question it is out of order to seek to have the matter debated on the adjournment. I should like to know the precedent you cite for this because it is my recollection that virtually all adjournment debates are precisely to seek additional information where a Minister has refused information. As the very purpose of an adjournment debate is to do this, how can you conceivably rule that an adjournment debate cannot be held for that purpose? That ruling stands all the procedures of this House on their head.
The Deputy is very well aware of the fact that, if a Minister states he cannot or will not disclose further information, the matter cannot be allowed. This has been the procedure and practice in this House through the years. In one of the cases where this ruling appears to me to have been challenged the ruling of the Chair was that a matter is raised for further elucidation and to get further information from the Minister and, if the Minister states that he cannot or will not disclose further information, the matter cannot be allowed. The ruling by the Chair which the Deputy has mentioned is that questions to which Ministers have refused to reply are not suitable matters to be raised. This is a previous ruling of the Chair.
On a point of order, I want to say that Deputy Cluskey is availing of this matter to make all kinds of unsubstantiated statements and——
Deputies
That is not a point of order,
Is it in order for Deputy Cluskey to avail of this occasion to make a number of unsubstantiated statements which are totally without foundation and which I have no opportunity to rebut?
The Taoiseach refused to rebut them yesterday when asked to do so.
The Deputy should resume his seat. I have given my reasons publicly, which is not normally done and which will not be a precedent so far as I am concerned, as to why I refused to allow Deputy Cluskey's request in respect of the adjournment debate last night. I am dealing with this matter in the manner which has been accepted in this House through the years and I have no doubt that Ministers and Deputies are well aware of this fact.
That is not a factual statement. The reason for an adjournment debate is that a Minister will not elaborate on the matter.
That is not a fact.
Do you realise the magnitude of the subject matter?
Deputy——
But we will all have to soldier.
The Deputy will not be allowed to persist in this. I am calling Deputy O'Brien.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I have no desire to get heated but I understand——
Is this a point of order?
(Cavan-Monaghan): It arises from the Chair's ruling.
(Interruptions.)
Jack talked about over-flying and he was kicked out and now Maggie has made proposals and the Taoiseach will not disclose them.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I understand that if a Minister or Taoiseach refuses to answer a question or to give further information that is the end of it and the matter cannot be raised on the adjournment. That does not make sense, as the point of Question Time is to get information from a Minister and the point of raising a matter on the adjournment is to get information which the Minister refused to give or to clarify the position arising from the Minister giving insufficient information. If all a Minister has to do is to refuse to give any further information that means the end of Question Time and the end of the adjournment procedure.
I am simply following the procedure and practice which has been accepted in this House down through the years. One would assume that in circumstances where the Minister states that he will not give any information that he is not giving it for very good reasons in the public interest or for some other such reason.
He was prepared to.
If the Minister refused to give information for party political reasons are we to accept that also?
I am ruling in accordance with the normal and long-standing practice here and I am refusing to allow any further discussion on this matter.
The Taoiseach is taking the Queen's shilling and he is trying to hide it.
We will not accept that.
Will Deputy O'Brien continue the debate?
(Interruptions).
It must have something to do with the special relationship they have.
It means that they have something to hide.