It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 1 and 12 (resumed). By agreement, there will be no Private Members' Business today.
Order of Business.
I wish to ask the Taoiseach if the Government have decided to take any action to deal with the situation that has arisen following the recent District Court decision relating to double voting by individuals.
It does not arise on the Order of Business.
I am asking the Taoiseach whether the Government intend to do anything in this House to deal with legislation in this area.
It does not arise on the Order of Business.
I do not wish to be rude but I suggest it does arise on the Order of Business. The Order of Business deals with legislation that comes through this House. I am inquiring whether the Government have any plans to introduce legislation to deal with the situation.
I have no notice of that.
No such legislation has been promised and, therefore, it does not arise.
I am asking the Taoiseach if he proposes to introduce legislation.
It does not arise on the Order of Business.
On what other occasion may the Opposition inquire about legislation?
I agree fully with the Deputy. I find it as frustrating as he does but I am also bound by the rules of the Chair.
It is in the hands of the Chair to ask the Taoiseach to reply. I am asking him if he intends to introduce legislation to deal with the situation that has arisen. This is a matter of urgency because there will be a by-election soon.
I am sorry but I cannot allow it on the Order of Business.
This is a matter of public urgent importance. A by-election is pending but we have a situation that unless some action is taken by one means or another the by-election cannot be carried out with an assurance that the result will accurately reflect the wishes of the people because of the apparent absence of a legal provision. We must be entitled in this House to ask the Taoiseach what steps will be taken. We are at the stage that the writ will be moved shortly in regard to the by-election. I must insist that this matter be allowed and that the Taoiseach be asked to indicate what the Government intend to do in this matter.
There is a question on the Order Paper for tomorrow relating to this matter and no Deputy is allowed to pre-empt a question on the Order Paper.
That question will not be answered tomorrow, next week or the week after.
Every Member who puts down a question might argue the same point and want their own question taken as a Private Notice Question. It cannot be done like that. All of us are bound by the rules of the House.
We are in a unique position. We are facing the possibility of a by-election which is intended to be held in the near future in a situation where the law relating to elections is now in doubt. It is in doubt to the extent that will endanger that by-election being carried through properly. If this House is not to be totally impotent it must at least inquire about what will be done and what are the Government's intentions.
There is a question down on the Order Paper——
But it is so far down that it might not be reached until after the by-election.
I am sorry, but every Deputy thinks his question is the most important. Because Deputy FitzGerald is Leader of the Opposition I have given him a lot of latitude and allowed him to argue the point but he cannot make a speech on the matter. I am told this is not allowed on the Order of Business.
I do not want to make a speech. You will agree that by agreement the House can take any action it wishes. I am asking if the Taoiseach will agree in the public interest that an answer should be given on this so that the House will be given some guidance.
What you are asking is not in order on the Order of Business.
If the Taoiseach and both sides of the House agree that this matter be discussed, it can be discussed under the rules of the House. I am asking through the Chair if the Taoiseach would agree to give a reply to this question in view of the urgency and peculiarity of the situation.
The Deputy is being disorderly because that does not arise on the Order of Business. There is a question down for tomorrow's Order Paper and you are pre-empting that question.
I am asking a question which is of urgent public importance. I am asking if the Taoiseach, with the agreement of both sides of the House, will answer the question and give guidance as to the course of action the Government intend to pursue; otherwise the House will be in an impossible position in regard to the moving of the writ. That must be self-evident.
May I for the benefit of the Deputy and the House, explain the Standing Order dealing with the Order of Business? Standing Order 25 provides that the Taoiseach announces the Order in which Government business is to be taken each day. There is no motion before the House and there can be no debate. Strictly speaking there cannot even be comment or questions. The Chair, however, over the years has permitted a practice that questions may be asked about the business of the day, about the taking of other business on the Order Paper, about business the Government have promised to bring forward, about arrangements for sittings and as to when Bills or other documents needed in the House will be circulated. Other matters are irrelevant and it is disorderly to attempt to arrange them.
We are asking about "other business" on the Order Paper. We have gone through the proper procedures. We put down a Private Notice Question which was ruled out of order on the basis of the question being on the Order Paper——
(Interruptions.)
——but because of the number of the question on the Order Paper it might not be reached before the by-election is held. We are entitled to order our affairs in this House in a rational way——
Yes, but that cannot be done now. If you want to change Standing Orders you are at liberty to ask the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to do so.
We have a situation now where we have to know what the legal position will be with a view to knowing whether we can move the writ and to get an honest by-election result and not one governed by personation. I am entitled to——
Deputy FitzGerald is not entitled to discuss the matter now. As Leader of the Opposition you must realise that there are certain rules of the House which even you must obey.
Can you tell me any other method by which this matter could be raised now rather than in some weeks hence so that we will be in time, before the by-election writ is moved, other than by Private Notice Question, which has been ruled out of order, or on the Order of Business, which you have ruled out?
You could have put down a question for ordinary answer immediately after the court decision became known. The fact that it is——
(Interruptions.)
It is No. 332 on the Order Paper.
You could have asked for a written reply.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy could have raised the matter on the Adjournment if he got a unsatisfactory answer.
There was no answer—
If a reply is not satisfactory the Deputy can seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
There is not an unsatisfactory answer because you have not allowed the Taoiseach to give an answer.
No, because it does not arise now.
If that is your view there is no good directing my attention——
I am sorry Deputy, but you and your party will have to try to change the rules of the House. You know the rules better than many others and you know it is disorderly to raise this matter on the Order of Business.
If the democratic system is to work it must work sensibly and there must be procedures to deal with emergency situations.
I hope the Deputy will co-operate fully in attempting to improve the business of the House, and in seeking to reform the Dáil so that every Member will benefit. I hope he will be in the forefront in ensuring this is done. As things are, I am afraid Deputy FitzGerald must obey the rules of the House.
My concern is that because of an unreformed Dáil, if somebody is elected by personation, which is liable to happen——
I am sorry Deputy, but you will have an opportunity to try to bring about a reform of the Dáil. This must be done through the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
You know perfectly well the Dáil cannot be reformed in time to move the writ for the by-election next week.
The Deputy had an opportunity to reform the Dáil before now, but that does not arise now. Any Deputy might wish to reform the Dáil to suit his own question.
(Interruptions.)
Because of a legal decision purporting to strike——
What we are seeing now is an instant Question Time on the Order of Business. This is wrong. If you succeed in what you are trying to do, every Deputy will be free to raise any matter on the Order of Business. You should be ensuring that the rules of the House are obeyed and I appeal to you to see that the rules are obeyed.
I am asking you to permit the Taoiseach, should he wish to do so, to answer the question——
You cannot do that now; it is disorderly to persist.
On a point of order, is it not the case that the House may, by agreement, consider any matter they wish to take?
The Deputy is showing contempt for the Chair. I am very surprised at you. In your responsible position you should not have contempt for the Chair. I will be the first to support any move you make to reform the Dáil, but as matters stand, the Deputy knows the rules of the House better than anyone and I appeal to him to ensure that we do not let the House——
On a point of order, is it not the case that the Dáil may, by agreement, take any matter it wishes?
No, it cannot.
By agreement?
Not now. It can be discussed with the Whips.
No, Sir. There are many precedents, even under your chairmanship, where matters have been dealt with by agreement ad hoc, at the time and without prior discussion with the Whips. All I am asking is that you allow the Taoiseach to say if he is willing to answer the question.
I am not going to allow that. The Deputy must obey the ruling of the Chair. I am making this decision now. The Taoiseach may not answer this question. I am going ahead with the next business. If you decide not to obey the Chair, or if your party decide not to obey the Chair, I will adjourn the Dáil.
(Interruptions.)
I am sorry Deputy, but I have no alternative.
You might as well adjourn the Dáil if we are not able to raise the matter——
I am suspending the Dáil for 30 minutes.
Sitting suspended at 4.10 p.m. and resumed at 4.40 p.m.
I wish to raise a point of order. First of all, A Cheann Comhairle, with respect to your ruling, you ruled that the matters which may be raised on the Order of Business include questions as to when Bills or other documents needed in the House would be circulated. The matter I was raising was whether, in fact, a Bill needed to be circulated in respect of this matter which arises urgently because of the imminence of the by-election. I should like to submit, in the first instance, that the question I put is in order in the terms of your own statement as to what is appropriate on the Order of Business.
When Bills are referred to, this means Bills already before the House but not circulated.
Would you direct my attention to the relevant Standing Order in which that is stated?
I do not have it with me. I am advised that that is so. It refers to Bills needed by the House and already on the Order Paper.
Where is that stated?
I should like to argue at length with Deputy FitzGerald about this, but unfortunately I did not make the rules. I am here to enforce them.
I understand that.
With the cooperation of the Deputy and the cooperation of every Member of the House.
The point of order I am making is that your——
The Deputy's interpretation and my interpretation do not agree.
A Cheann Comhairle, the point you made was that questions may be asked about the business of the day and about the taking of other business on the Order Paper. That covers everything on the Order Paper. Whatever follows after that must, therefore, in all logic, relate to matters not on the Order Paper.
It covers items on the Order Paper. This is not on the Order Paper.
Would you allow me to complete my submission?
I will be glad to listen to the Deputy's submission.
First, there is the business of the day; secondly, taking other business on the Order Paper; thirdly, business the Government promised to bring forward which is not on the Order Paper.
Yes.
So what is on the Order Paper is not an exclusive factor. Fourthly, arrangements for sittings and when Bills or other documents needed in the House will be circulated. By definition that is a Bill not on the Order Paper because what is on the Order Paper has been included already under the second heading. What I am talking about now is a Bill which may be needed in the House and what the Government's intentions are with regard to it, a Bill to amend the law to fill a gap which has been alleged to exist in the law. In raising it in relation to something which is not on the Order Paper, I am acting in accordance with your ruling which makes it quite clear that "Bills or other documents needed in the House" refers to Bills or other documents not on the Order Paper.
There is no such Bill in existence.
How do you know?
If Deputy FitzGerald's interpretation were right, anything could be raised. We could ask for Bills on anything. I am afraid Deputy FitzGerald is misinterpreting the Order of Business. I am afraid he is misinterpreting the regulations and rules about the Order of Business.
A Cheann Comhairle, you have already agreed with me in regard to the third item: business which the Government promise to bring forward. By definition that is something which is not on the Order Paper.
Business, not necessarily Bills.
The second point is other business on the Order Paper. The third is business the Government promise to bring forward and, fourth, arrangements for sittings and as to when Bills or other documents needed by the House will be circulated. By definition those Bills or documents are not on the Order Paper or they would have been covered by the phraseology about the taking of other business on the Order Paper.
That does not mean what the Deputy is interpreting it to mean.
It cannot mean anything else.
A Bill mentioned on the Order Paper which has not been circulated.
If it is mentioned on the Order Paper it comes under the business on the Order Paper.
This is not the first time this matter was raised. Deputy FitzGerald is not the first person to raise it. It has been raised over the years. The matter was clarified on a number of occasions. If the Deputy comes up to my office I will show him the references. I am not trying to obstruct the leader of the Opposition. Far from it. I, too, am bound by the rules. I am not trying to thwart any efforts on the Deputy's part to raise matters in the House. He is at liberty to raise the matter with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I hope he will. I felt equally frustrated at times about the Order of Business and the rules of the House. We all do. But I think the obligation is on us to attempt to change it in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I would like to accede to your request but I am bound by the rules too. I know what you are trying to do, and I agree with you, but it cannot be done here. I think it can be done only at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I think also that the matter could be clarified a little more — it is vague — but we have looked up the references on it and it has been stated very clearly over the years that matters like this do not arise on the Order of Business.
We have had this argument before, I admit.
We have.
I would like to make the point — as I made it before — that until you go to the Chair, it is a matter of interpretation. Such matters were raised frequently on the Order of Business with a view to finding out when certain things were going to come forward which were not on the Order Paper and if such a ruling existed previously it had certainly fallen into disrepute long before you took over the Chair. I still want to contest your interpretation. Having done that — I have to refer to it because I have no alternative in the matter at this stage — I would like to make another point of order. I understood you to say, a Cheann Comhairle, that one of the factors that governed one of your rulings was that it would be unfair for a Private Notice Question to be taken because it would have meant that a question on the Order Paper then would have been pre-empted. I have been through the Order Paper. The question seems to be Question No. 332; is that not right?
There is a question down on tomorrow's Order Paper referring to this. I received it——
A Cheann Comhairle, whatever about the rules of order of this House there cannot be a rule of order which says you cannot do something because something is going to happen tomorrow.
It has already been received for tomorrow's Order Paper——
I could not be aware of that.
——and my other reason, if I may give it to you now, Deputy FitzGerald, is that a question for ordinary reply could easily have been tabled immediately the court decision became known——
No.
Yes, it could.
It was.
Wait now——
So that was the other reason on which I——
Let us take one thing at a time.
Yes.
May I just take the point I was making here: you are saying that because something is going to happen tomorrow I cannot raise something today. How could I be deemed to know that? On what possible grounds could a possible future event — which may not happen because the author of that question may withdraw it — involve my being ruled out of order today? What precedent is there for ruling a Private Notice Question out of order because there is going to be a question?
Sorry, Deputy, I took the decision on the basis that I had received a question for answering tomorrow. You see, you did not make the decision; you did not see the question. I am the Ceann Comhairle and that is why I took the decision, because I was aware. But it does not mean that I must inform each and every one of you that I am going to get questions tomorrow. The Deputy understands that. I took the decision on the basis of information which I had. Therefore it is not a case of your not being aware of it because you did not take the decision.
Yes. I put down the question. I did put down the question.
Well, you said: how could you decide about something that will be on tomorrow? It is your question.
Yes, but what I am asking you is: what is the precedent for ruling out of order a Private Notice Question because something is going to be on tomorrow's Order Paper? Could you quote the precedent?
I took the decision on the basis of the information I had. It could have been tabled for today. That is what I said to you at the beginning.
That is a further matter I will be coming to in a moment. I asked you a question, a Cheann Comhairle: could you quote the precedent which enables you to rule out of order a Private Notice Question because something is going to be on the Order Paper tomorrow? What is the precedent for that? When did it happen?
Firstly, it did not qualify for Private Notice, the reason being — I had it here — that——
Is there a precedent?
A question could have been tabled immediately on the court case decision becoming known.
I am coming to that, a Cheann Comhairle, if you would answer my question about the precedent. What is the precedent for ruling out of order a Private Notice Question because something is going to be on the Order Paper tomorrow? Could you quote the precedent for that.
I did not rule it out on that basis only; I ruled it out — I have it here — because it could have been tabled for today on ordinary notice.
Sorry, I am——
You are coming to that shortly?
Yes, I am. I am asking you to deal with the precedent——
Well, I crave the indulgence of the House while Deputy FitzGerald proceeds with his points.
I am asking you, a Cheann Comhairle, and I am entitled to ask——
Firstly, I want to tell you, Deputy, that I do not have to give you an explanation of my rulings.
But you do have to give a precedent, sir.
I am telling you now that I do not have to. I have tried to be very reasonable with you, Deputy. Indeed any other Deputy would have been suspended from the House by challenging this. I think you are being disorderly, Deputy, and the Chair's decision is final. You have got to understand this. We could debate this at length but we are not going to take up the time of this House when there is important business to be considered.
On a point of order, a Cheann Comhairle, it is not disorderly to raise points of order. And the point of order I am raising at the moment is that I am asking you for the precedent for your actions. That is a legitimate point of order, a question often put in this House and often answered. Could you answer: what is the precedent for stating that you cannot take a Private Notice Question because something is going to be on the Order Paper tomorrow? When did that happen? What is the precedent?
I have answered it already, Deputy.
You have not.
Deputies
You have not.
Yes, I have. Well I am telling you now that there was ample time to table this question.
That has nothing to do with the question.
That is what I said originally. But there is a question down tomorrow. I would feel the Deputy is pre-empting the question in attempting to raise it by Private Notice Question now.
I am not pre-empting something by attempting to do something I did not know was going to happen. That allegation is obviously unfounded.
It is not one for urgent reply in so far as you had an opportunity to raise it immediately the court decision became known.
Obviously there is no precedent——
Wait now, Deputy, I do not think you have a right to delay the House. I am the sole judge of order. We have got to decide now and I have decided now to go ahead with the next business. I am sorry, Deputy, but——
I have two other points of order to raise——
On a point of order, yes.
I take it, then, that there is no precedent for ruling that a Private Notice Question may not be tabled because something is going to be on the Order Paper tomorrow. As long as we have established that, that you are not in a position to give us the precedent for that. The next point I want to take up with you, as a point of order, is your——
The Deputy did have an opportunity to table the question for normal reply.
Sir, a question was tabled to the Taoiseach on a related matter some time ago. Question No. 332 reads:
To ask the Minister for Justice if he will express his Government's concern at the reported increase in the incidents of personation during the recent general election; and if he will make a statement on the matter. —George Birmingham.
——that was the general election of February last. That question was transferred to the Minister for Justice.
By the Taoiseach.
By the Taoiseach, and I submit that if we had put down a question the same procedure would have been adopted and the question would have been No. 337 or something and could not have been reached or dealt with today——
But you will appreciate, Deputy — and I am not going to delay another minute — that any Deputy could stand up and if he finds his question way down the list he could put it by way of Private Notice Question. This would create havoc in the House. It would create a lot of problems for all Members — that any Deputy who found that his question was numbered 300, or 400 or 500 could try to raise it by Private Notice Question, and his argument could readily be that his question will never be reached. Unfortunately, if there are more interruptions, such as the Deputy's, we will never get through any business of the House——
A Cheann Comhairle——
I am now proceeding——
Excuse me, a Cheann Comhairle——
I am sorry, if you continue — I do not want to have you suspended, as Leader of the Opposition, I am adjourning the House for one hour.
(Interruptions.)
You are a coward.
Watergate, in other words, Charliegate.
Sitting suspended at 5 p.m. and resumed at 6 p.m.
Standing Order No. 139 (2) places on me the onus of deciding whether urgent necessity arises to justify Standing Orders being set aside. I have decided that urgent necessity does not arise in this case.
I have to accept your ruling on that. I propose to give notice now that I will move tomorrow, in accordance with 139 (1), that Standing Orders be suspended for the day's sitting, the day being tomorrow——
That requires four days' notice.
——and I would like to submit that the wording of this particular Order makes it clear that the four days' notice does not apply because the wording is:
Any Standing Order or Orders of the Dáil may be suspended or modified in effect for the day's sitting, and for a particular purpose, upon motion made after notice.
It would make no sense to say you must give four days' notice to suspend Standing Orders for the day's sitting, "the day's sitting" being clearly for the current day's sitting.
All motions require four days' notice.
I should like to submit tomorrow morning when I move the motion that it be taken tomorrow.
On a point of order, a Cheann Comhairle, during the exchange between Deputy FitzGerald and yourself you made a ruling which I think has very serious implications for parliamentary democracy and I should like to get clarification of it in case I misunderstood you.
You said, I think, that Standing Orders were ambiguous or not clear on certain matters and you said that these should be cleared up by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. You also said that if an item does not actually appear on the Order Paper the subject matter could not be raised during the Order of Business. As I understand it, there is long established precedent that matters which did not appear on the Order Paper have been raised repeatedly on the Order of Business, have been allowed by your predecessors and by yourself on previous occasions and have been answered by the Taoiseach or the appropriate Minister. Departure from that practice would, to say the least, be of very grave concern to all Members who have any regard for parliamentary democracy. Could I have clarification on whether or not that was your ruling and, if so, on what was it based?
I shall read this out again for the benefit of Members: Standing Order No. 25 provides that the Taoiseach announce the order in which Government business be taken each day. There is no motion before the House and there can be no debate. Strictly speaking, there cannot even be comment or question. The Chair, however, over the years has permitted a practice that questions may be asked about the business of the day, about the taking of other business on the Order Paper, about business that the Government had promised to bring forward, about arrangements for sittings and as to when Bills or other documents needed in the House will be circulated. Other matters are irrelevant and it is disorderly to attempt to raise them. Deputies therefore (1) may only ask questions, (2) are confined to questions covered by the practice referred to above and (3) may not refer to the merits of any matter or make statements or speeches. If a Deputy wishes to raise matters other than the taking of business he must use some other procedure. He cannot use the Order of Business as an instant question time. If Deputies consider there is inadequacy in existing procedures then the matter should be raised in the Committee on Procedures and Privileges and new and revised procedures proposed. That Chair cannot change procedures. That ruling has been given by my predecessors on a number of occasions.
There was reference to other business or documents or Bills. Surely "other business" could be something which the Members desired to be on the Order Paper and it would be appropriate that it should be raised on the Order of Business precisely because it was not there. Other Bills or legislation which a Member thought should be introduced or should be contemplated by the Government should also be proper to the Order of Business for mention and have been allowed at least for the past 16 or 17 years in my personal experience.
We have not allowed the Order of Business to be an instant Question Time. There is opportunity for parliamentary questions. It says here that when Bills or other documents needed in the House will be circulated — this refers to matters on the Order Paper.
No, Sir, for what I am referring to there is long established precedent and you yourself have allowed it. All your predecessors allowed it; matters that did not appear on the Order Paper have been raised and the Taoiseach of the day or the appropriate Minister dealt with them.
For the record I must say that the matters raised must be within those rules. Those rules are not made by me but I thought I should read them for the benefit of Members.
This is a matter which is of vital importance to parliamentary democracy and its proper operation. Apparently, you are giving Standing Orders a different interpretation from that of all your predecessors and different from the precedents you have already set yourself.
No, I am following the procedure of my predecessors. These rules are laid down by my predecessors.
As long as I am in this House it has been the practice on the Order of Business that matters which are not on the Order Paper are raised and referred to and questions asked about them and replies given.
The Deputies would be adept at getting matters raised which would not be permitted on the Order of Business.
This was done with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle of the day, including yourself.
I have read out a set of rules on this agreed for the benefit of Members.
The fact is that as long as I have been a Member of the House under four or five Cinn Comhairle it has been allowed to ask the Taoiseach or Ministers on the Order of Business about legislation or matters that are of importance that are not on the Order Paper. The Ceann Comhairle always allowed that practice and up to today the Taoiseach of the day always replied to those questions.
This matter has been raised on a number of questions with predecessors of mine who followed the procedure of reading out this statement about raising matters on the Order of Business. I am following precedent in doing so.
I can produce dozens of cases in the last two years when it was the practice to raise matters on the Order of Business——
Sorry. If we did not follow this rule, we would have a free for all and you would have no order in the House.
We never had a free for all in the years I am in the House.
Just before the recess, with your permission I asked the Taoiseach, and he answered, a question relating to the timetable or the proposed timetable for the introduction of legislation to set up the inner city authority. It was not on the Order Paper then and it is not on the Order Paper now but the question was accepted by you and answered by the Taoiseach as were scores of similar requests relating to other legislation.
I am not saying that I allowed it. Perhaps you asked the Minister——
No, I asked you and the record will show that and you allowed it, as you have done on numerous occasions except on this one.
I am now stating what is the rule about this Standing Order.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I want to make a very brief submission by way of a point of order. The leader of Fine Gael has handed in a notice of motion for tomorrow that Standing Orders be suspended in order to allow the matter to be dealt with. You have ruled that a four-day notice of motion is necessary for that. I believe the Standing Orders confer on the Chair a discretion. I submit to you that you should exercise that discretion in this particular case in favour of Deputy FitzGerald. Having regard to the personalities involved in this controversy it is of the greatest importance that not alone, to use an old legal cliche, must fair play prevail but it must be seen to prevail. This is something in which the people of the country are taking a very great interest and about which they are very concerned. I appeal to the Chair, having regard to the particular circumstances and the unique issues involved here, to exercise your discretion in favour of allowing the motion to suspend Standing Orders to be moved tomorrow.
The Chair has discretion there and there must be very good grounds for it. I will consider the request by the Deputy.
On a point of order, your ruling amazes me. The practice which has been established and upheld is an essential part of parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary democracy in this country is being undermined outside the House.
I agree with the Deputy but we are not helping it.
It would be extremely serious if it were undermined inside parliament.
It is not my ruling, it is the ruling of my predecessors.
It is an interpretation which you could not sustain or justify.
I have given a great deal of thought to it. I did not treat this matter lightly.
This is a very serious matter. Do you accept that the practice, procedure and precedents established by your predecessors have a binding effect on you to a greater degree than the Standing Orders which you read out or indeed any ruling that might be made at a particular time? If there are precedents and if the established practice enabled that type of question to be raised on the Order of Business do you not accept that it is a major change now for you to reject such questions on the Order of Business in the future?
The only way is to have fair play on the Order of Business and we must stick to the rules. I did not make the rules. I may not like the rules but I am bound by precedents.
That is the point. You do not follow the precedents.
You accept the precedents. I have been here for only five years and I suggest that the precedents clearly show day in and day out that those questions have been raised on the Order of Business. In my five years experience these are the precedents which have been followed.
All the Members have to realise that I did not make the rules. I read out the set of rules that apply to raising matters on the Order of Business. I am bound by those rules also and I must exercise judgment on the basis of that.
I am disputing your departure from the interpretation that was made consistently by all your predecessors and indeed by yourself.
I do not think I have departed from the interpretation. That is the Deputy's opinion.
It is a matter of established fact that you have departed from precedent.
The Chair has given a decision on this and the Chair's ruling cannot be challenged.
On a point of order, I want to submit, as Deputy Fitzpatrick has submitted, that common sense always prevailed in a situation like this. While it is not inaccurate for you to quote Standing Orders it should be appreciated by you that convention in the House always recognised that if a Deputy raised a matter on the Order of Business in the judgment of the Chair that business was important. The Chair exercised a discretion and allowed it. I submit if you had done that today we would have been on the Business of the House at 4 o'clock and there would not have been a disruption of business as has happened. I also want to emphasise the point made by Deputy Cluskey that the conventions which govern the House over and above the Standing Orders of the House are being eroded. I am afraid that your interpretation might be slightly biased.
The Deputy is entitled to that opinion but he should be assured that I am not biased in this. I have considered this matter very seriously.
For that reason not alone must you be fair but you must appear to be fair. From where I am sitting at the moment I cannot honestly say that.
I have said before that the Deputy is entitled to his opinion. I have given a lot of thought to this and I have to tell the Deputy now that my decision is that we have to proceed to the next business. It is almost 6.30.
Can I have an assurance from you that you will, as Deputy Fitzpatrick requested, sympathetically consider tomorrow morning, in view of the convention which stands in the House, the motion put forward by Deputy FitzGerald?
I said I will give the matter consideration but there would have to be very good grounds for any Member, not just Deputy FitzGerald, Deputy Fitzpatrick or Deputy Cluskey, to raise something like this. It is not a matter of that. It is a matter of trying to apply the rules of the House for the benefit of all Members.
(Interruptions).
On a point of order, you are putting the House in a difficult situation.
I am not putting the House in a difficult situation.
I have not finished my point of order. You are being unduly sensitive. I do not know why.
I am not being sensitive.
The House has been put in an impossible situation. You ruled out the Private Notice Question which is one way of raising urgent business. You have now created, whatever you say, a precedent by going back on the very rules you quoted because you have interpreted them in a way you have not previously interpeted them, nor in a way that any of your predecessors have interpreted them.
There is a motion standing in my name on the Order Paper concerning a by-election in my constituency. The matter that was originally raised by the Leader of the Opposition is vitally important and urgent because of that motion. I want to ask your advice. How can I move that motion if the Government are not prepared to stand up in the House and say what they will do as a result of a recent court judgment? I refer to what Deputy Fitzpatrick said and there is no use in you or I hiding this fact. This is why there are so many people in the press gallery. The crunch of the matter is the personalities involved. If you persist in your ruling it will go around the country that there is a massive cover-up of something scandalous. I do not think you would want that to go about. I ask you to reconsider the extraordinary interpretation you are putting on the piece of paper in front of you because to any ordinary person reading that paper your interpretation is not consistent.
I have to tell the Deputy that that is my ruling.
In the course of the earlier discussion reference was made to Question No. 332 which stands in my name. I would like to make clear to you, because you seem to have had some regard to this, that that question was tabled by me when the House first sat after the general election. It was tabled long before any court case took place and was put down without any particular reference to any particular case. I tabled that question to the Taoiseach in the anticipation that the House might find the Taoiseach's views on this subject of particular interest. When the question was transferred from the Taoiseach to the Minister for Justice I protested. So far as you appear to think that this question has some relevance I make the point to you that any other Deputy on this side of the House tabling a question in relation to electoral offences to the Taoiseach is likely to face exactly the same situation of a shunting exercise from the Taoiseach to the Minister for Justice or the Minister for the Environment because that is the precedent which has already been set during this Dáil session.
The Chair has no control over those questions, as to which Minister answers questions. That is a matter for the relevant Department and what the Government consider is the appropriate Department. The Deputy's leader will confirm this fact. I did not refer to the Deputy's question. I refered to a question on tomorrow's Order Paper.
Which has been transferred.
On a further point——
The point is that the question has been transferred.
That is the one to which I referred.
But you said you did not know about that.
I am not responsible for the question being transferred. I see that it is down to the Minister for the Environment.
But the point is that the question has been transferred.
I asked some time ago to be recognised on a point of order.
I will recognise the Deputy in time.
The point I should like to submit relates to the question of the taking of this motion tomorrow. The question that is down for tomorrow has been transferred to the Minister for the Environment and, consequently, it will not be reached for many weeks. I would ask you in considering whether this motion should be taken tomorrow, to take steps to allow the Taoiseach to reply to it. We would hope that after spending three hours on the matter already, the Taoiseach would volunteer to answer it as he has done frequently before. Notably, he is not volunteering in this case. When you are considering your decision for tomorrow I suggest that you make a special arrangement for this purpose having regard to the fact that the writ for the by-election is on the Order Paper and in the ordinary way will be moved next week. It is a matter of urgent importance that we know what steps will be taken to deal with this matter. If the question were to be answered by the Taoiseach there would be no need for any special arrangement but that is not the case and in the exceptional circumstances in which we now find ourselves I would ask you to give special consideration to the motion tomorrow morning.
From his experience as Taoiseach, Deputy FitzGerald should realise that questions are directed to the appropriate Ministers. I think the Deputy will agree also that in considering whether to use his discretion about allowing a shorter time, the Ceann Comhairle must weigh up the circumstances and determine whether there are sufficient grounds for such action. The Chair must not be seen to act capriciously on such matters.
On a point of order, it is regrettable that this matter has become linked with the pending by-election. What is at issue here is much more fundamental and serious than that. What is happening here this evening is hitting directly at parliamentary democracy and at the rights of elected representatives. It is regrettable that some Deputies have made the plea of special circumstances because of a pending by-election. Parliamentary democracy is being undermined by your ruling, Sir, and that cannot be justified.
The Deputy must not make such accusations. I do not make the rules. I have merely read them out for the Deputies. Deputies must understand that these are not my rules. The question of what can be or cannot be permitted is raised time and again on the Order of Business. In my capacity as Ceann Comhairle I must apply the rules of the House. I am not undermining democracy but democracy may be undermined if we do not apply the rules of the House.
But the rules must be applied with consistency and in accordance with what has been the practice down through the years.
That is correct.
(Interruptions.)
On a point of order, regarding what you have said about applying the rules of the House, this House has been adjourned today on two occasions, once for half an hour and then for what was supposed to be an hour but which turned out to be one hour and ten minutes though I understand that the reason for the delay was because private consultation was taking place between yourself and Deputy FitzGerald. Standing Order No. 53 provides that in the case of great disorder the Chair may adjourn the Dáil without a question being put or he may suspend any sitting for a time to be named by him. Can you seriously say that under any definition what happened here today can be regarded as great disorder and sufficient to adjourn the House for an hour-and-a-half?
If the business of the House is being obstructed and the Chair's rulings not accepted, there is justification for adjourning the House.
In your opinion, was there great disorder here this afternoon?
(Mayo West): There was and it was disgraceful.
The business of the House was being obstructed sufficiently to be regarded as great disorder. I am amazed that Deputy Cluskey should be of the opinion that there was not great disorder here today.
There was great injustice from the Chair but I do not think there was great disorder.
That is the Deputy's opinion.
I am entitled to take exception to being accused of causing obstruction and great disorder when what I was doing was rising on points of order through which I was proceeding in an orderly manner.
If a Deputy persists in raising matters that have been ruled out of order he is being disorderly.
(Cavan-Monaghan): On a point of order, in connection with the consideration that you will have to give to the question of how you will exercise your discretion in this matter tomorrow, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that this whole issue can be resolved by having it referred to the High Court by way of case stated. I am very definitely of the opinion that that should be done, that in the interest of this House and of the integrity of the courts, it should be so referred but if it is to be referred to the High Court it must be referred before Tuesday next. If you insist on a four-day notice of motion there will be no possibility of raising the matter in the House before Tuesday next whereas it should be raised and an opportunity given to have it ventilated here before that time elapses.
I have indicated to Deputies that the matter will be given consideration.
On a point of order, there are two important matters involved here. One is the question of the ordinary conduct of running general elections. The second matter of importance is that irrespective of what decision you may come to this evening, we on this side of the House want it to go on record that we are not accepting that there is to be any change in the long-established precedents of raising matters of fundamental importance on the Order of Business. I have been a Member of this House since 1969 and regardless of who has occupied the Chair at any time the practice has been that Deputies from any side of the House were allowed to raise matters of importance. If you continue with rulings of this kind there will be many long and contentious arguments in the House such as we have had this afternoon. This will permeate through the entire running of the business of the House and will make the whole operation very difficult.
Thank you, Deputy.
Are you aware, Sir, that as we face a by-election this question is of national importance? The Association of Criminal Lawyers, who are an independent body, referring to this case stated that the reasons put forward by the district justice were untenable. The association expressed concern about the decisions of the district justice in the recent case of the DPP v. Patrick O'Connor——
On a point of order the Deputy cannot quote such matter.
Is the Chair aware that the association went on to say that this would render a section of the Act designed to prevent electral abuses inoperable and worthless? They are the words of an independent body. Is the Chair aware that facing a general election there may be abuses and we may not get a fair and just result?
We should now proceed to the next business.
On a point of order, the Chair has repeatedly stated that he does not write the rules and nobody disputes that. However, with great respect there is a perception on this side of the House that the Chair has radically altered his interpretation of the rules on the issue of what can be raised on the Order of Business. I should like to ask the Chair to reconsider his attitude if this side of the House can produce examples over the last number of months where the Chair accepted such matters willingly and directed the Taoiseach and Ministers to answer issues which were not then on the Order Paper and, in some cases, have not since been put on the Order Paper. If the Chair sees such a list which would obviously indicate that the precedent he is trying to establish today is not the practice, will he reconsider his attitude on this matter?
I am not trying to establish anything. I have read out the rules and they are the rules which have been quoted by my predecessors.
On a point of order, I should like to ask the Chair if he would consider, as a basis for reconsidering his viewpoint in relation to this, examples of instances where matters have been discussed on the Order of Business which did not have any relevance whatever either to the business of the day or matters on the Order Paper? Such a list is easily obtained and can be found in the daily record of the business of the House.
The Deputy is aware that many Members raise questions without the permission of the Ceann Comhairle. I have read out the rules and I am bound by them. They have been quoted by my predecessors.
The record of the House will certainly distinguish between an interjection which, presumably, in the normal course of events would be discouraged by the Chair and would not be answered by the other side, and an occasion where there is a lengthy exchange between both sides of the House on issues relating to legislation, pending or not. Such questions, by implication and explicitly, were allowed by the Chair. There is a distinction and there are many examples on the record of the House if the Chair cares to look.
We must go on to the next business and I seek the co-operation of Members to ensure that we proceed.
The evidence is available and I have asked the Chair if he will consider it?
Including matters raised by the Chair when he was on this side of the House.
If the Deputy checks the record he will find that I was never once disorderly in the House.
Of course not, and we are being orderly. That is our point.
It is considered disorderly to question the ruling of the Chair.
As the Chair has now agreed to consider this matter which he finds unacceptable today, I should like to ask him, in view of certain factors, to give it serious thought. In view of the variation given in two recent District Court judgments, one where a man was sentenced to prison and the other where a statement was made to the effect that we now do not have any method whereby electoral offences can be detected or certainly cannot be proven, I should like to ask the Chair to give it serious consideration. Uncertainty now exists in relation to these matters and I ask the Chair to give it serious thought. If it is not discussed openly in the House it is a sad day for Irish democracy.
The matters we have discussed this afternoon are obviously of great concern to all Members. I should like to suggest to the Chair that having considered what has been said he should give a ruling on these matters tomorrow, because it is important that we should proceed with our business today. I am not detracting from the importance of the items mentioned this afternoon but it will not reflect credit on any of us if we are unable to deal with any other business today. Serious matters have been raised and I ask the Chair to deliberate on them and give a ruling tomorrow.
For the information of the House I should like to state that this matter can be raised by way of Parliamentary Question, by way of motion in Private Members' Time or by way of a Private Members' Bill.
What about the discretion of the Chair as has been the practice in the past?
I have endeavoured on all occasions to be helpful to all Members and, indeed, to bend the rules in favour of Members because I had frustrating experiences as a Member in Opposition. For that reason I have always been sympathetic to Members. I gave Deputy FitzGerald's motion deep consideration and he is aware that I considered every aspect of it before I rejected it. I did not reach my decision lightly but I am bound by the rules of the House. The House would lose respect if I disregarded those rules. The House must understand that on all occasions where there was doubt I gave the benefit of the doubt to Members. I adopted that attitude in relation to private notice questions and matters on the Adjournment. Where there was a doubt at all I always came down in favour of Members. Deputies wonder if I am not considering their interests but I should like to tell them that I am. I have given this matter a lot of consideration.
It is a very sordid episode.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Another way of dealing with this matter would be for the Government to grant a reasonable amount of time for a debate on it tomorrow. In the national interest this matter merits such a debate. There is ample machinery within Standing Orders to grant a three-hour debate, or longer, on this matter tomorrow. In the interests of the House and the nation that time should be given.
I understand that the position now is that the Chair is being asked to consider the matter and has indicated that he will. In order to assist the Chair in his consideration I should like to remind him that five or six weeks ago when Deputy FitzGerald asked the Taoiseach in the course of a question to make a statement in connection with his visit to the President of the United States, the Chair, after some controversy, advised Deputy FitzGerald that he should not have put down a Parliamentary Question but should have raised the matter on the Order of Business. How does the Chair reconcile that ruling with his ruling today?
I will explain that to the Deputy because I am fully aware of what happened. I was referring to a request by the Leader of the Opposition to make a statement in reply to the Taoiseach. I stated that if he wanted the Taoiseach to make a statement as such without answering a parliamentary question the means at his disposal was not by way of a parliamentary question. Normally after a Taoiseach has been somewhere and is anxious to make a statement, he gives notice of his intention to do so and the Leader of the Opposition seeks permission to reply.
I am quite prepared to make a statement.
Am I to take it that if the leader of my party, or Fine Gael, requests the Taoiseach to make a statement tomorrow in connection with this matter, the Chair will allow the Taoiseach to reply to that request?
I am sorry, Deputy, you seem to be misinformed.
Is that the situation? I just want to know. I am looking for guidance.
I am saying that it has been the custom for the Taoiseach to give notice that he wishes to make a statement.
That is not the question.
This is Standing Order No. 38.
No, I am referring to your statement a moment ago, that a request should not be by way of parliamentary question, but by way of being raised on the Order of Business. That was the ruling which the Chair gave in connection with the US visit. The Chair has now said that it would not apply to a parliamentary question, but if the Leader of the Opposition — of the Labour Party, Fine Gael, Sinn Féin the Workers' Party and others — request the Taoiseach to make a statement, that is perfectly admissible. Am I interpreting the Chair correctly?
I am saying that if a Deputy wants to make a statement in reply——
What I am concerned about is, am I interpreting the Chair's statement correctly?
I will now repeat it for you.
Good.
It must be decided with the Whips. If the Taoiseach makes a statement in answer to question, the Deputy asking the question is not entitled to make a statement in reply. Under Standing Order No. 38, if agreement is reached or where the Taoiseach gives notice that he wants to make a statement, the Leader, or a person nominated by a party in opposition, can make a statement in reply.
That is not what the Chair said.
Deputy Cluskey referred to what I said some weeks ago. I did say this: if he wants to make a statement in reply, it cannot be by parliamentary question.
What the Chair did say was that a leader of a party can request the Taoiseach to make a statement.
No, the leader of a party in opposition. That is right. When the Taoiseach gives notice that he wishes to make a statement——
Without the Taoiseach giving any indication whatsoever——
Under Standing Order No. 38, which is the only way according to the Standing Orders which we have.
The Taoiseach was not going to make a statement on his US visit. He had got his mileage and did not want to come in and justify any of it. The ruling was that if the leader of a party in opposition, as the Chair said, requested the Taoiseach to make a statement on any matter, that is permissible. Is that not what the Chair said?
The Chair recommended that.
He can make that by way of parliamentary question.
No. I did make it by way of parliamentary question. However, as Deputy Cluskey has said, the Chair, having told me privately that I would be able to make a statement in reply, was not able to stand over that and said what I ought to have done was not to put down a question about his making a statement, but to ask him to make a statement. If I had——
Not in the House, to the Whips. The Deputy knows the rules better than I do.
That is precisely what you said.
I will clarify the point again for Deputies Cluskey and FitzGerald. Deputy FitzGerald put down a parliamentary question to the Taoiseach asking the Taoiseach to make a statement. He understood that he could make a statement in reply. That, however, cannot be done on the parliamentary question. Are we all agreed on that?
No.
No. The Chair assured me on this.
I cannot make the rules, Deputy.
I cannot agree with that. Deputy FitzGerald put down a question. The Chair, on its own initiative, as I understand, told the Taoiseach that he could make a statement by way of reply and also indicated that Deputy FitzGerald could make a statement. It was only when I asked that this flexibility, as the Chair described it at the time, would be extended to the Labour Party to make a statement that the Chair took back that ruling.
Under Standing Order No. 38, the rule is that the Taoiseach gives notice that he proposes to make a statement.
But he did not do that, he failed to do that.
He can be requested by any Member to make a statement.
No, it can only be done through the Whips. Deputy Cluskey knows this. This is the only way it can be done, to request the Taoiseach to make a statement.
This is on the Order of Business.
I have done it too many times not to know the opposite.
As long as I have been in the House, that is the procedure adopted.
If we were so flexible as to allow that, we would allow everything on the Order of Business.
On a point of order, although I do not see much point in continuing, does the Chair really fully understand the implications for parliamentary democracy of the ruling he is making?
I am sorry, Deputy?
Does the Chair fully realise the implications for parliamentary democracy of the ruling it is trying to persist in? Does the Chair not understand? If it persists in this ruling, that is a recipe for parliamentary chaos.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
If I do not persist in making this ruling, it is a recipe for parliamentary chaos. Deputy Cluskey must reluctantly admit this fact. I will quote what a predecessor of mine said to Deputy Cluskey as reported in volume 326, column 543 of the Official Report on 29 January 1981:
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.
They are the rules. I am quoting what my predecessor said. Deputy Jim Mitchell.
This is completely irrelevant. It is dodging the issue.
On a point of order, Deputy Cluskey is absolutely right. This goes to the very core of parliamentary democracy. He is wrong when he says that we are wrong to bring in the question of the by-election, because the two things are under attack. The court case concerned, the source or cause of that court case and the ruling of that court case, is an attack on democracy. The Chair's ruling is an attack on the democracy of this House. We have a twofold reason for concern. I know the Chair too long to believe that it would want to attack democracy.
I hope that all the other Members appreciate that also.
I appeal to the Chair to reconsider, not its ruling but the interpretation it is putting on the last section of it. That is what is giving rise to difficulties. That is what is threatening parliamentary democracy, as Deputy Cluskey says.
I read out the rules which I think should be applied to the House.
All the evidence is against that ruling and the Chair's precedents.
They are the rules of my predecessor. Could we now proceed to the next business, Item No. 1?