I move: "That the Second Stage be ordered for Wednesday, 12 May 1982."
Irish Shipping Limited Bill, 1982: Order for Second Stage.
Bill entitled an Act to provide for guarantees by the Minister for Finance in respect of moneys payable by Irish Shipping Limited in respect of guarantees given, or under contracts entered into, by Irish Shipping Limited with the approval of the Minister for Transport given with the consent of the Minister for Finance.
Question put and agreed to.
Item No. 2.(Interruptions.)
I understood when a Deputy rises to speak on a point of order and when the Chair clearly sees the Deputy rising to his feet on a point of order that the courtesy of the Chair is to listen to the point of order, not to ignore the Deputy by calling on the Minister to move in as you have just done.
I called Item No. 1 and then I called Item No. 2. If there was a chorus following that, I cannot be expected to anticipate such chorus. My attention was directed to the fact that you wished to raise a point of order and I am giving the Deputy the opportunity of raising his point of order. Will the Deputy please do so?
I am asking for your ruling on my first point of order. When a Deputy rises to his feet on a point of order and when the Chair clearly sees and hears the Deputy on a point of order, is it not consistent with the rules of the House that the Chair should extend the courtesy to that Deputy to express his point of order and not ignore him, as you have just done, when I rose to my feet and when Deputy Manning rose to his feet. You have disgracefully ignored Deputy Manning and me.
Deputy Harte can be quite sure that the Chair will not be at a loss in relation to showing courtesy to Members.
You have not done so.
Deputy Harte will accept that if I am looking to my left it is not possible for me to see what is going on on the other side of the House.
With respect, the Chair was not looking in that direction. I resent very much the Chair ignoring not only myself but any other Deputy who rises to his feet. I am here by the same right as you. The people sent me to represent them.
Would the Deputy make his point of order?
I was about to ask you before you ignored me what you meant by your expression that you were trying to establish order in the House when the point was put to you that your ruling of order was inconsistent with the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle? Was that a reflection on the Ceann Comhairle or what were you establishing?
If that is what the Deputy wishes it to mean I cannot deny him that interpretation. As far as I am concerned, the record is there to show what I said. I indicated to Deputy FitzGerald that while I was in the Chair it was my intention at all times to maintain order in the House.
When Deputy FitzGerald and Deputy P. Barry were putting the point of view that your ruling was inconsistent with that of the Ceann Comhairle and that you were the occupant of the Chair and not Deputy Tunney, you conveyed to the House that you were here to establish order. I am asking you, on a point of order, is that a reflection on the decision of the Ceann Comhairle or what in fact is your remark intended to mean?
The record is there for anybody to read.
It seems to me that if the questions were allowed they could be answered. There has been continuous reference to precedent. Are you talking about precedent or are you making the ruling based on Standing Orders or on regulations of the House?
I am making the ruling based on Standing Orders and in respect of rulings in relation to legislation which has been promised by the Government.
On a point of order, you are, therefore, accepting that your interpretation of Standing Orders must be in accordance with precedent. The point I have made is that I have submitted to the Ceann Comhairle and, therefore, to you — because you would not be in the Chair if you were not fully aware of the Ceann Comhairle's position and what has been submitted to him — that there are numerous precedents where matters have been raised on the Order of Business other than promised legislation. I am asking you to take into account those representations and, if you are ruling in accordance with precedent on one aspect, to rule in accordance with precedent on all aspects.
The Chair is ruling in accordance with rulings already made. I was quite careful earlier on, in regard to the point of order raised by Deputy Fitzpatrick, to indicate to him that in relation to promised legislation I was accepting the precedent that had been established in that regard and matters arising from it.
(Interruptions.)
You are not entitled to discriminate between precedent in one case and in another.
Would Deputy FitzGerald please resume his seat? Deputy Manning has been offering for some time.
I am a new Member, I am a peaceful person and I am puzzled. Last week had I raised this matter of public importance, on which I believe the Taoiseach probably could have something very constructive to say, I would have been allowed to do so. This week when I do so in a peaceful way I find I am ruled out of order. What is the position in the House, because new Members like myself are genuinely confused as to what we can raise when there are different diametrically opposed rulings being given every week, depending on who is in the Chair? I would like some guidance on this.
There should not be any difficulty as far as the Deputy is concerned in respect of my ruling. I have indicated that, as far as the announcement of the Order of Business is concerned there is a specific Standing Order No. 25 which indicates what should happen in the House. It is not a motion, it is an announcement by the Taoiseach of what is ordered for the day. A precedent, which is acceptable, has arisen, with former holders of this office that on matters relating to legislation promised by the Government, questions in relation to that have been accepted. I am happy to honour that precedent, but I will not take anything outside that.
I would like to make a point which might help you in your consideration of this matter.
The Chair needs no help. Would Deputy Dukes allow me keep order in the House?
There is another matter I wish to make before you proceed with the Order of Business, as is the custom in the House. With regard to the comment you have just made you are referring to legislation. If you interpret your ruling strictly in the context of legislation which is promised I submit that my question was in order because it is a matter of legislation.
The Deputy must not question my decision. It is not in order. I am asking the Deputy to resume his seat.
I wish, with your permission, as is customary at a time like this in the House, to ask if I may raise on the Adjournment, the proposed increased fees in St. Patrick's College, Maynooth. I hope you will give ample consideration to this.
There is no difficulty at all about that. The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
(Cavan-Monaghan): On a point of order and before the House passes from the Order of Business, I would like to raise a point of order to try to clarify the position. The Chair has referred to Standing Order No. 25 which governs the Order of Business and if we follow from what the Chair says that if we were to be ruled entirely by Standing Order 25 we could only raise matters arising out of business as outlined by the Taoiseach, but the Chair went on to say that there is a precedent which overrides the Standing Order and enables Members to raise questions regarding promised legislation. It follows, therefore, that a precedent overrules a Standing Order, but from my 16 years or more experience in this House I know that there is a long-standing principle that applied at the times in which the late Deputy Hogan, the late Deputy Brennan, the late Deputy Breslin and Deputy Faulkner, to mention some, occupied the Chair; and, in accordance with that principle, matters of public importance were allowed to be raised day after day. Consequently, I submit that, in accordance with that precedent, Deputy Dukes was entitled to raise the important matter of farm prices.
I am calling item No.2.
On a point of order, when Deputy Manning rose on a point of order so also did Deputy FitzGerald and I take exception to the manner in which you totally ignored Deputy FitzGerald.
The Deputy is turning the place into a farce.
I always understood that when the leader of a party rose on a point of order, courtesy was extended to him and he was called before any other Member of his party who might be offering. As Deputy Manning is new to the House, the Chair should have understood the position. What happened was the worst display of bad manners that I have seen.
Thank you, Deputy.
I ask for your guidance.
I have called item No. 2.
But I am asking for your guidance.
The Deputy is not in order in doing so in this fashion.
If the Chair is not entitled to give guidance, who is?
The Deputy may see me in my office at any time when I shall be glad to give him all the guidance he needs.
Am I not entitled to ask on what occasion I might raise the matter that I wish to raise? We have a situation in which meetings took place at the beginning of this week while other meetings will take place before the House meets next week and which may affect the issue. If I cannot raise the matter in the House this week and ask the Taoiseach to make a statement on it, when may I raise the issue in order to give the House the opportunity of discussing it?
I suggest that the Deputy visit either the office of the Ceann Comhairle or my office immediately afterwards when he shall be given all the assistance he requires.
On a point of order, I tabled a Private Notice Question to the Taoiseach today but it was not allowed by the Chair.
That is not a point of Order. I am calling the Minister for Defence.