Vol. 330 No. 7
I move:
That Dáil Éireann will, if necessary, sit later than 9 p.m. today to enable the proceedings on Item No. 19 to be concluded and interruption of business, provided for in Standing Order No. 22, will take place after the conclusion of the proceedings on item No. 19.
Is the motion agreed?
First of all, may I ask has the motion been agreed by the Whips?
No, this is a motion the Government are putting down. It is for the purpose of putting in order Private Members' Time. Unless this motion was put down it could not be concluded tonight and would have to be concluded next week.
Does the Minister mean, by what he has moved in the House, that Private Members' Time will continue beyond 8.30 p.m. this evening?
That is correct, that will be the effect of the order, that Private Members' Time will continue on this item this evening and be concluded.
I am not saying at this stage I am objecting to that but it is the first we have heard of it. I would expect the Opposition to be informed before any such motion is moved in the House. Certainly consultation with the Whips would be necessary before we would say yea or may to such a motion, as to whether we can or should oppose or are agreeing to it. It is with no disrespect to the mover of the motion I say this, that we were not aware of the intention of the Government to move such a motion. As the House knows, on the Order of Business this morning our leader raised a number of procedural issues that are and were of some concern to the——
Perhaps the House will excuse me for making a point of order, I understand I must move this motion before 6.30 p.m. I am not sure whether a debate on the motion can take place.
The Chair would have some difficulty there because it is already operating within an order made by the House yesterday in respect of the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 1981. There is an order that that debate shall terminate at 6.45 p.m. and that the question must then be put.
I can give the Chair an undertaking that I will be prepared to conclude my remarks within that time notwithstanding the fact that I will then have less time than was originally envisaged.
Yes, but that would not get away from the fact that if the motion has been put — and my recollection of Standing Orders is that such a motion can be put without notice — an opportunity for discussion would have to be given.
I might make the point that, again, I would have expected some prior notice of such a motion being moved. It seems a strange move by the Government that such a motion should be moved within a few minutes of what appears to be the deadline, to judge from what the Minister for the Environment has said. Here we have another example of the order of the House being changed and even you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, do not appear to be aware of the change proposed. Already last evening we had an issue on the Order of Business with regard to the changing about of amendments, an amendment being allegedly withdrawn and another amendment being put down at the last minute. We had questions raised earlier this morning——
I am constrained by having one and a half minutes to formally move the motion, which I am now doing. I am in your hands, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, as to whether or not a debate can take place.
The Chair had taken it that the Minister had formally moved the motion. Accordingly the motion is now open for discussion and I was allowing Deputy Gene Fitzgerald to make his contribution.
With no disrespect to the mover of the motion, I just was not aware of it; and, as somebody who has been sitting in the House for the last one and three quarter hours or so, I would not be likely to be aware of it. But it is a most unusual procedure that at such short notice a motion changing what obviously was the Order of Business this morning should now be introduced. As far as I can see, the purpose of the discussion on this motion is to decide whether a change will be made. I have asked if there has been agreement between the Whips and I have not been told there has been any such agreement.
When the Private Members' motion came before the House last night the Ceann Comhairle ruled that the 15 minutes that had been lost from the debate on the Private Member's motion would be given back and in my recollection he said the Opposition were justified in questioning the rather unusual procedure leading up to the discussion on procedure because the procedure adopted was rather unusual. What led to all of this was a change of an amendment yesterday. It is fairly evident why the amendment was changed.
I do not want to go into the details but I fail to understand why, a few minutes before 6.30 p.m. today, this motion should have been moved. Apparently agreement has not been reached between the Whips and I cannot see my way to agree to this motion. It is most unfair treatment of the Opposition. It began yesterday at Question Time because of a most disrespectful approach by the Taoiseach. It continued later in Question Time. It occurred again at the beginning of Private Members' Business last night when 15 minutes of the time of the House was wasted. Later the Ceann Comhairle said the Opposition were justified in questioning the procedure. What led up to that were the shenanigans and the comings and goings yesterday. They led to an amendment being put to the Government amendment and another amendment being withdrawn which had appeared on yesterday's Order Paper.
I have confirmed my recollection that a motion of this nature can be moved under Standing Order 21. Accordingly, I am taking such a motion as being in order for discussion.
I beg your indulgence. I have just heard that a motion has been moved to extend the sitting time this evening. Is that the position? Is it a motion to suspend Standing Orders?
It is in accordance with Standing Orders. I will read it for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition:
That Dáil Éireann will, if necessary, sit not later than 9 p.m. today to enable the proceedings on item No. 19 to be concluded and interruption of business, provided for in Standing Order No. 22, will take place after the conclusion of the proceedings on item No. 19.
I gather you have ruled that this proposal is in order. Should this motion have been moved before a certain time or should it be passed before a certain time?
It must be moved before 6.30 p.m. and it was.
It was so moved.
The Minister for the Environment sought my permission at 6.25 p.m. to move the motion.
I have asked you by what procedure Deputy Barry asked for your permission. I was sitting in the House. Deputy Barry came into the House. The Minister for Finance was concluding the debate on the Finance Bill in accordance with the Order of Business when Deputy Barry stood to move this motion at a few minutes before 6.30 p.m. Under what guise did the Minister, Deputy Barry, seek your permission?
(Cavan-Monaghan): There are many precedents.
It was indicated to the Chair that the Minister for the Environment would seek to interrupt business for the purpose of moving this motion, which had to be moved before 6.30 p.m.
(Cavan-Monaghan): There are many precedents for this. There is no mystery. There is nothing new about it.
That is an utterly outrageous statement. It is unprecedented behaviour. I suggest to the Chair that last night the Ceann Comhairle indicated clearly and specifically that our motion, before the House in Private Members' Time, would be carried forward to next Tuesday. Am I right in that recollection?
That is correct.
Am I to take it now that the Ceann Comhairle's statement of last night is about to be overruled, upset, set at naught?
As the Chair sees it, a motion in accordance with Standing Orders has been moved and the net result of that would appear to me to have the effect on the Ceann Comhairle's ruling indicated by Deputy Haughey.
The Ceann Comhairle specifically ruled — I have a recollection of him saying this was his ruling — that the motion would be carried forward to next Tuesday. I suggest that we do not continue proceedings any further until we have the Ceann Comhairle here.
(Cavan-Monaghan): On a point of order, the Ceann Comhairle said last night that extra time would be given in Private Members' Time for the Fianna Fáil motion — an extra 15 minutes.
The Ceann Comhairle is due in the House at 6.45 p.m. when he can deal with the matter. Meanwhile, the Chair takes it that the motion has been put and I am allowing discussion on it.
The business to which the motion refers is not Government business because it is being debated in Private Members' Time. It is an Opposition motion and I am putting to the Chair that it is not for the Government to decide when the motion should or should not be taken.
The motion is not as specific as the Deputy has indicated. It is a motion that the Dáil shall sit later. A motion to that effect may be made without notice not later than 6.30 p.m.
We have not got a copy of the motion. Before proceeding further could we at least be furnished with a copy of this motion?
There is no great mystery about this. We agree this refers to Private Members' Time and because of a debate on procedure which took place in Private Members' Time last night the Opposition felt they were deprived of 15 minutes and they sought from the Ceann Comhairle an assurance that they would not be deprived of that time. The Ceann Comhairle gave them that assurance — I am speaking subject to memory because I have not got the Official Report. This morning the Leader of the Opposition, speaking on the Order of Business, said that if the matter came before the Ceann Comhairle later, by agreement the time would be compressed. He asked if it would be in order to do that. The answer was "yes". They asked would it be in order for them to do that and the answer was "yes". I understand that in the last hour they came to us and said they would not do that but would carry it forward until next week.
It was not to the Deputy but to the Ceann Comhairle.
If that happens week after week Private Members' Business will fall into the following week. It is to regularise the position, allow the Opposition a full three hours and conclude the debate tonight that we introduced this motion. It is for the benefit of the Opposition.
I am speaking from recollection but in my experience in the House — I asked the Chair to give an indication of the position — there has never been an occasion when a motion of this kind was moved without agreement between the parties.
(Cavan-Monaghan): That is nonsense.
It is my recollection——
If there was agreement there would be no necessity for the motion.
Of course there would.
Deputies should give way to the Chair. The Chair might say that as yet a copy of the motion has not been presented to it.
You are a crowd of gangsters.
It is after 6.30 p.m.
On a point of order——
The Deputy should give way. I am endeavouring to carry out the responsibilities of this Office. In respect of the motion, I am accepting the authority which is given under Standing Order 21 but the Government should also accept that it does not tend to make the life of the Chair any easier by appearing to neglect it in that fashion.
I apologise to the Chair. I had only one copy and I gave it to the Minister for Finance who I understood would give it to the Clerk. I understand Deputy Haughey has it now.
On a point of order of substance, if the Chair did not receive a copy of this then notice was not given before 6.30 p.m. and the motion cannot be proceeded with.
Exactly.
Notice was given orally before 6.30 p.m.
I want a specific ruling on this, preferably from the Ceann Comhairle. The Chair has now stated that he did not receive written notice of this motion before 6.30 p.m. Therefore, I submit it is out of order.
Does the Standing Order say "written" notice?
There is no stipulation as to whether the notice should be written or oral. The Chair was indicating to the Minister that it would have made the responsibility of the Chair that bit easier in the present circumstances if a copy of the motion had been formally provided.
We are beginning to enter into the realms of the ridiculous. How as Leas-Cheann Comhairle can you rule that a motion is in order if you have not a copy of the motion in front of you?
The Standing Order does not require that I have a copy of it. Notice was given at the appropriate time.
Notice of motion was not given.
Is it in order to question the Chair's ruling?
The House was informed before 6.30 p.m. and that is in accordance with the requirement of Standing Orders.
The Standing Order clearly envisages that the Chair should receive notice of motion in writing. You could not possibly rule on whether a motion was acceptable or not without having the written motion in front of you. It is simple, plain, practical common sense.
That which might be regarded as common sense by Deputies may not be in accordance with what is in Standing Orders. I have quoted what the Standing Order indicates. It does not require that notice be given, nor does it specify any additional requirement.
We will drag this out until 9 o'clock anyway so the Government will not gain anything by it.
I understand the intention is to provide extra time for Private Members' Business. That is not the effect of the motion even if it is carried. I refer you to Standing Order 82 which deals with Private Members' Business and provides as follows:
The Order Paper shall be confined to Questions, Private business and Government business on Thursdays. On Tuesdays and Wednesdays, Government business or Private business, as the case may be, shall be interrupted between 6 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. to take private members' business: Provided that a member of the Government may move, without notice, at the commencement of public business on any Tuesday or Wednesday that, on that day or during the period specified in the motion, specified Government business, or Private business, as the case may be, shall not be interrupted if under consideration at the time fixed for taking private members' business. Such motion shall be decided without amendment.
The effect of that Standing Order is that Private Members' Business must be taken on Tuesdays and Wednesdays between 7 p.m. and 8.30 p.m. unless at the commencement of public business the Government moves in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Order.
The Chair is now, in deference to the order that was made yesterday in respect of the Finance Bill, putting the question because it was ordered that the question be put at 6.45 p.m.
