If I may interrupt the Deputy for a moment. The up-to-date position is that the Ceann Comhairle is in discussion with the Chief Whip of Fianna Fáil.
Business of Dáil.
On a point of order, the Ceann Comhairle ruled some time ago that under Standing Order 48 "No Member shall re-open a discussion on a question already discussed during the preceding six months, except by the indulgence of the Dáil for a personal explanation;..." On the basis of that Standing Order, the Ceann Comhairle ruled out a motion we had put down for discussion next week. I suggest that if that ruling is to be upheld, as I presume it is, then this present discussion on the Criminal Justice Bill is out of order because within the past six months we have discussed the whole question of the establishment of a body of inquiry into complaints regarding the behaviour of the Garda Síochána. The matter was discussed fully and at great length in this House in the past six months and I submit that any further discussion on that matter is entirely out of order.
I am not in a position to review a decision that has been made by the Ceann Comhairle. According to the information I have, the Ceann Comhairle indicated that if the Chief Whip of the Deputy's party was available he would meet him at 4.30 p.m. and he is now in discussion with him. That is the position at the moment. I have not the power to review a decision made by the Ceann Comhairle.
I am not asking you to review a decision made by the Ceann Comhairle: I am asking you to implement it. The Ceann Comhairle has ruled under Standing Order 48 and the interpretation of his ruling must be that Standing Order 48 is of general application. Most of us were of the opinion up to now that Standing Order 48 dealt only with questions at Question Time but now the Ceann Comhairle has extended Standing Order 48 to be of general application. I submit that if it is of general application the Ceann Comhairle has, in effect, ruled that this discussion on the establishment of a body to investigate complaints against the Garda Síochána is out of order.
It is in accordance with Standing Order 134 and that is in order.
On a point of order, it is not. The Ceann Comhairle ruled today that Standing Order 48 is of general application. It applies to Private Members' motions. Therefore, it applies to all discussions and a Member cannot reopen a discussion on this question because it has already been discussed during the preceding six months.
While I have no power to change the ruling the Ceann Comhairle made at 3.30 p.m. on Standing Order 48, I will read Standing Order 134 which states:
An amendment made by the Seanad to a Bill initiated in the Dáil may be accepted by the Dáil with or without amendment or be rejected.
That is what we are doing at the moment on item No. 5.
I ask you to consider the situation that has now arisen as a result of a ruling by the Ceann Comhairle this afternoon. The Ceann Comhairle has broadened the scope of Standing Order 48 to cover matters other than questions at Question Time. Therefore, it is my submission that Standing Order 48 now governs the matter we are purporting to discuss this afternoon. There is no escaping the logic of that position. If Standing Order 48 is to be applied in a general way, no Member can discuss this matter because it has been discussed in the past six months.
I have indicated that the Ceann Comhairle made a decision on the debate and I reiterate that I have no power to alter that decision. I am adhering to my decision that under Standing Order 134 I am empowered to allow the debate on item No. 5 to continue. Consequently, I am calling on Deputy Gregory to continue the debate.
In regard to continuing the debate, we have tried to reach an agreement whereby the Opposition can use Private Members' time to table whatever motion they wish so long as it comes within the normal understanding of Standing Orders. It is clear that our motion is in order. We are asking to debate a matter that arises out of the economic plan. This is one of a number of motions that we intend having debated. Next week, for instance, we will move a motion relating to cuts in the health services and we intend tabling other motions in relation to agriculture. To say that these will be out of order because of their having been discussed already in the debate on the national plan is to say in effect that any motion which the Opposition may table during the life time of the plan, the next three years, and which relates to anything in that plan can also be regarded as being out of order. We have tried to reach a compromise arrangement with the Ceann Comhairle but that seems to be impossible. We cannot accept the decision that is being made. I might add that this decision was given indirectly to the Chief Whip today and was not notified by the officials of the House though the motion has been on the Order Paper for at least a week.
The position is that the Ceann Comhairle made a decision at 3.30 and I do not have the power either to review or to change that decision. I have power to rule the Standing Order 134, that is, that an amendment made by the Seanad to a Bill initiated by the Dáil may be accepted by the Dáil, with or without amendment, or may be rejected, is relevant to the debate. Item No. 5 relates specifically to the Criminal Justice Bill with a Seanad amendment.
Between yourself and the Ceann Comhairle you are backing yourselves into an impossible position.
I am not backing myself into any such position.
Standing Order 134 does not refer to discussion. It reads:
An amendment made by the Seanad to a Bill initiated in the Dáil may be accepted by the Dáil with or without amendment or be rejected. No amendment shall be moved to an amendment made by the Seanad that is not strictly relevant thereto, nor can any other amendment be moved to the Bill unless it be consequential upon the acceptance, amendment or rejection of a Seanad amendment.
Will you accept, then, that there is nothing in that Standing Order that governs discussion of amendments? It only indicates what amendments may or may not be put down. Standing Order 48 is the one that governs discussion and that rule, in accordance with the Ceann Comhairle's latest interpretation of it, provides that no Member shall reopen a discussion on a question already discussed during the preceding six months. Nobody can deny that this question relating to an independent body for the investigation of complaints concerning the Garda was discussed fully, not within the past six months but within the past few weeks. Therefore, I submit that we are totally out of order in pursuing any discussion of the amendment from the Seanad if the Ceann Comhairle's ruling is to stand, but if you wish to set aside his ruling, we would be delighted.
I have indicated already that I have no power to review or to alter the decision made by the Ceann Comhairle.
The Chair should not hedge the question being put to him in respect of Standing Order 134.
An amendment from the Seanad to the Criminal Justice Bill has been before the House since yesterday. Discussion on that amendment has been continuing since yesterday. I am adamant that under Standing Order 134——
The Chair should answer the case that has been put to him.
If the Deputy will allow me, I will answer it.
I am advising the Chair to answer that case.
I may be advising the Deputy to do something else in a moment.
Go ahead.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
On a point of order, the Leader of the Opposition has put his case clearly and that case is based on Standing Orders. To those of us who have any degree of experience here the application of Standing Orders represents a protection of the House. The Leader of the Opposition has relied on that to point out that the Chair's ruling would make a nonsense of our entire procedures. You have said, perhaps understandably, that it is not within your power to review the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle. In those circumstances would it not be appropriate that you would at least suspend the debate until such time as we ascertain what will be the impact of the Chair's decision on all debates such as this? Until such time as we know what the Ceann Comhairle's ruling is it might be safer for you to suspend the debate.
Earlier in the day the Ceann Comhairle informed this side of the House that he would make a decision on a certain matter at 4.30. He has made a decision but I think it is for him to come here and advise the House of that decision. We know what it is but it is not for us to advise the House.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
Send for the Ceann Comhairle.
That is a reasonable request if we are to have democracy here.
I presume Deputy Brady had discussions with the Ceann Comhairle on this issue but until such time as he returns to the House I am adhering strictly to Standing Order 134.
There are only about ten minutes left before we adjourn and out of respect for the House I suggest that you send for the Ceann Comhairle.
We must do that if we are to preserve some degree of decorum and behaviour.
I intend doing that.
I appreciate what you are trying to do but I submit that the Ceann Comhairle should come here and explain the reasons for his extraordinary decision to deprive the Opposition of their right in this democratic Chamber to table motions for Private Members' time. All Opposition parties since the foundation of the State have enjoyed that right. If the Ceann Comhairle wishes to modify the ruling given earlier, his place is here explaining to the House his reason for any such change.
I have no idea of what transpired between the Ceann Comhairle and anyone else but I am in the Chair and I am adhering to the original decision. Consequently, we are continuing discussion of the Seanad amendment in accordance with Standing Order No. 134.
You seem to interpret this in a personal sense in that you say that you have no idea of what was discussed. Surely as Cathaoirleach for the moment you are aware that the Chair is the permanent institution and not the person who occupies the Chair.
The Ceann Comhairle made a decision and I have neither the authority nor the power to alter that.
We want a decision from the Chair. If the Chair is not in a position to enlighten the House then the Chair, under a different representation, should be here. It is impossible to carry on.
That item is not before the House.
It is before the House.
On the solemn undertaking of the Chair he said he would be here at 4.30 p.m. to explain this matter to the House. That is what democracy is about. The Chair is the important institution and you stand in the Chair's shoes as part of that institution. With respect, if you cannot explain the Chair's attitude then the Chair should be sent for.
I was not present but my information is that the Ceann Comhairle agreed to meet the Chief Whip of the Opposition party at 4.30 p.m. to discuss the matter.
He said he would be here.
That is my information. There was a discussion at 4.30 p.m.
He is reneging on his responsibility to this House.
It is now 4.45 p.m. The Ceann Comhairle gave an undertaking that he would give a decision to the House at 4.30 p.m.
I heard some of what transpired on the intercom. I shall clarify one matter. When this was discussed at 3.30 p.m. the question of a meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges arose. I said then — the record will bear this out — to Deputy Brady to come and see me at 4.30 p.m. That was in connection with the meeting of that committee.
That is not correct.
That is my understanding of it. I saw Deputy Brady and we talked about a number of things but, strange to say, we did not talk about the meeting of the committee. I have heard that Deputy Haughey made a point of order that my ruling on Standing Order No. 48, to the effect that something which had been discussed within six months cannot be discussed again, binds all kinds of things including the debate now taking place on the Criminal Justice Bill from the Seanad. That is not so. The debate on the Criminal Justice Bill which is now going on is part of the procedure of legislating. A Bill is initiated in the Dáil. If it is cleared in the Dáil it goes to the Seanad and if there are amendments made in the Seanad it comes back here so that those amendments made in the Seanad can be considered here. The Dáil may accept those amendments or reject them or may accept the amendments with amendment. That is what is happening here. If what Deputy Haughey said was correct, a Bill from the Seanad could not be considered here until after six months had lapsed. That is the position.
It is a new departure.
The question of a precedent was raised. I did not think it was necessary to look for a precedent when the Standing Order was so clear. There have been precedents and more can be found but it would take some time to research them. The Ombudsman (No. 2) Bill, 1979 was a Government Bill.
That is different.
It was introduced here and a Private Members Ombudsman Bill had been considered here within six months. The Government Bill could not be considered until a special order of the House had been made.
You are doing the Chair a disservice.
I have also checked on the position regarding the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. That committee has no power to review the ruling of the Chair. The only way the ruling of the Chair can be reviewed, rejected or censured is by a substantative motion being put down here which comes up in the House. We are bound by another Standing Order that says that this must end at 5.00 p.m.
On a point of order, your argument about the amendment is specious. Your ruling under Standing Order No. 48 is crystal clear. You have, by your ruling, extended Standing Order No. 48 to deal with many matters other than questions. As I have already said to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle most of us in this House were under the impression that Standing Order No. 48 and the repetition of issues within six months only applied to Questions at Question Time. You are now ruling that Standing Order No. 48 applies to Private Members' motions. If, and Standing Order No. 48 does not say anything about these matters, Standing Order No. 48 applies in general, as one can only deduce from your ruling, then it must apply to the issue we have been debating this afternoon. Standing Order No. 134 does not offer any way out for you on that score because it does not speak of discussion at all. Standing Order No. 134 only talks about amendments being made. Therefore, I submit to you that your ruling in regard to Private Members' motions would make a nonsense of our procedures in this House if it is to be interpreted in the rigid way in which you are now proposing.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I repeat that we regard this as a matter of fundamental importance. We will have no alternative, distasteful to us all though it may be, but to proceed in some other direction unless we get the time-honoured, traditional, hallowed right of the Opposition that Private Members' time belongs to the Opposition and cannot be interfered with the way you are attempting to deprive us of our right now.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
If you think about it for a moment — I beg of you to think about it earnestly — your ruling would reduce the whole thing to a state of absurdity. We, on this side of the House, could not raise by question or by Private Members' motion any matter dealt with in this document for the next six months. That would be an absolutely absurd and impossible position to which to reduce this House. There is a Private Members' motion on the Order Paper in the name of Deputy O'Kennedy — I think it is No. 47 — which condemns the economic and financial policy of this Government. Are you going to rule that out of order too?
Confusion has arisen about "question". Standing Order No. 48 has nothing to do with Questions. The word "question" is mentioned but "question" is a word which is used in this House and overworked. When I stand up I say: "The question is...", "I am putting the question"——
This is semantics gone mad.
I say that the question has been defeated or carried.
We are engaging in semantics.
It is the fundamental right of the Opposition——
Stop fussing around, the three of you.
Will you have to refer to a precedent?
(Interruptions.)
The Chair has a standing duty to protect the solemn right of the Opposition.
Standing Order No. 42 states that a motion or amendment shall not be debated until the appropriate question has been moved from the Chair. Deputy Haughey has trouble with Standing Order No. 134. He says that that gives power to the Dáil to accept a Seanad amendment, to reject a Seanad amendment or to carry a Seanad amendment subject to amendment but that they cannot discuss it. The right to discuss it, of course, is implied. How could we deal with the matter without discussing it? If the Opposition wish to look into the matter and if they can come up with something within Standing Orders I will look at it again but, as it stands at present, it is out of order. It is now 5 o'clock——
(Interruptions.)
On a point of order, why was my request to raise a question on the Adjournment refused? Was it because of further information that was sought by the Department or the Minister concerned? It was another ruse——
I ask Deputy Fitzgerald to withdraw that remark.
I am sorry but it is true. I was asked for further information and, because I supplied further information, my request was refused.
The Deputy is quite familiar with procedure in these cases and he knows why his question was refused.