It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 1, 2, 11, 12, 3, 13 and 14 resumed. Private Members' Business will be taken from 7 to 8.30 p.m. By agreement, it is proposed that the House shall not meet until 2.30 p.m. tomorrow to enable Members to attend the Arbour Hill ceremony
Order of Business.
On the Order of Business I should like to ask the Taoiseach if he intends to make a statement to the House as to what the Government's proposals are for the action to be followed given the continuing deadlock in relation to fixing EEC farm prices.
I am sorry but that does not arise on the Order of Business.
It is a very urgent matter, something that is causing extreme difficulty right through the country and a matter of continuing loss to farmers here. It is a matter which inevitably must be decided at some stage and I think it would be useful if the House could be told what the Government's intentions are.
Would Deputy Dukes kindly give way to the Chair? The Deputy realises that the matter he raises, albeit very important, is not appropriate to the Order of Business and I would ask the Deputy to accept that.
This matter has come up on a number of times for discussion. It came up last week and was pressed and the Ceann Comhairle did in fact allow on that occasion following argument a question to be put as to whether a statement would be made on the matter ——
I am sorry but I am interpreting Standing Orders as I see them and the matter that has been raised is not appropriate to the Order of Business. The Order of Business, as the Deputy as a former Taoiseach will appreciate, is an announcement by the Taoiseach of the order of business for the day. There is no motion before the House and accordingly anything that is not referred to in the business is not appropriate for discussion.
This is analagous to what happened last week. The proposition asking that a statement be made was accepted by the Ceann Comhairle and was allowed.
I am interpreting Standing Orders as I deem appropriate, as is my entitlement and duty. I am not allowing matters of this kind to be discussed on the Order of Business.
As Deputy FitzGerald has just referred to the fact that the Ceann Comhairle last week allowed such a matter to be raised and allowed a question to be put to the Taoiseach asking if he intended to make a statement, I am arguing that the same thing should be done in this case.
If such were allowed, I do not know. As far as I am concerned I am indicating what is appropriate now and what I intend allowing. I do not intend allowing anything other than what is appropriate to the Order of Business.
I must point out that there can be no greater cause of disorder in the House than a procedure in which the Ceann Comhairle and Leas-Cheann Comhairle proceed on different bases and give opposite rulings when they sit in the Chair. There is no way we can manage the House in that respect. I suggest that the Ceann Comhairle and yourself should reach accord in the matter and that where the Ceann Comhairle has allowed matters to be raised in this way you should follow the precedent that he has set, indeed re-establishing what was the normal practice until recently.
I am asking Deputy FitzGerald to accept that I am the interpreter of what is in Standing Orders while I sit here and as far as I am concerned I am convinced — I think so is the Deputy — that anything other than that to which I have referred is not appropriate for discussion at this time.
(Interruptions.)
(Cavan-Monaghan): Do I understand the Chair to rule that on the Order of Business only matters arising out of the Order of Business as announced on behalf of the Government may be raised? If that is what the Chair is ruling, it certainly differs drastically from rulings that have been given by the present Ceann Comhairle, the previous Ceann Comhairle and his predecessor, who have ruled that such matters as legislation that has been promised inside and outside the House, other matters of that sort, to mention but a few, are in order and may be raised. The Chair would now seem to be confining questions on the Order of Business to questions arising out of the items of business for the day as announced by the Taoiseach. If that is so it conflicts so drastically with the rulings that have been given here for years that it would create chaos.
I did not exclude matters of legislation which have been promised. The Deputy is only confusing the issue by alleging that I did so. I did not make any such exclusion.
(Cavan-Monaghan): By implication you did.
On the Order of Business I should like to ask the Taoiseach if he proposes to make representations to the Argentinian ambassador here about the imprisonment of three bona fide British journalists in the Argentine, especially in view of the fact that one of these——
I do not know how the Deputy regards that as relevant on the Order of Business, bearing in mind the discussion which we have had.
I was asking that on the precedent I saw enacted here last week. I agree that——
There is no such precedent from the Chair so far as I am concerned, and I am sorry I cannot allow that question.
The Chair allowed a question last week.
Is the Chair aware that I have submitted to the Ceann Comhairle a list of 23 such rulings between July and December of last year in which he allowed questions to be put not on the Order of Business, in two cases ruling out of order questions or objections raised, in fact, mostly by Deputy Fitzpatrick pointing out that it was in conflict with his earlier rulings.
The Chair is not so aware. Could we now proceed with the business?
May I ask if your ruling means that an item of urgency for the whole country and for this House which has not been chosen by the Government to figure on the Order of Business of this House may not be discussed here at a time when a discussion here might have some bearing on the outcome?
I made no such ruling. I am indicating to the House what governs the Order of Business. Deputy Dukes, as an experienced Member of the House, knows that there are other opportunities available to him for the raising of such matter. Item No. 1.
On a point of order, you stated a minute ago that you were not aware of the precedents that had been submitted to the Chair by Deputy FitzGerald. They were not submitted to Deputy John O'Connell; they were submitted to the Ceann Comhairle and that embodies you. It is your duty, I suggest, to be aware of those precedents as occupying that Chair, not as a Deputy of the House. As the occupant of the Chair it is your duty to be aware that those precedents have been created and it is merely in accordance with those precedents that Deputies Dukes and Manning spoke already.
Deputy Barry will accept that it is my duty to interpret and implement Standing Orders as I see them and that is what I will do.
It is not your duty to do so as Deputy Tunney. It is the duty of the Chair to interpret Standing Orders and to be consistent in this matter.
In accordance with order in the House.
On the contrary, the Chair is endeavouring to maintain order in the House.
With due respect, the Chair is creating disorder.
I agree it would not be in order for me to put questions to you, but would you allow me to make my point of order in the form of a question? Would you not agree when you are the judge of order you are to exercise that judgment in a manner not arbitrary and in a manner which makes sense to Deputies, many of whom have sat here as long as you have, particularly when you, as a Member of the last Dáil, heard Deputy Haughey, when sitting over here, travel to the moon and back every other day on the Order of Business and get away with it?
Item No. 1.