It is proposed to take Nos. 3 and 24.
Order of Business.
No. 3. The Parliamentary Secretary.
(Cavan): Before the Parliamentary Secretary moves this I wish to raise a point of order in relation to No. 3. I wish to submit to you, Sir, that No. 3 is not on the Order Paper in accordance with Standing Order No. 27 which provides among other things that all motions put on the Order Paper for any day shall be in writing, signed by a member. According to my information, Sir, the motion which the Parliamentary Secretary now proposes to move has not been signed by a Member, merely printed in the name of Rúnaí Parlaiminte an Taoisigh. I want to submit that that does not comply with Standing Orders as the Parliamentary Secretary is not a corporation sole.
That has been the accepted practice.
(Cavan): With great respect, whether it is accepted practice or whether it is not, it is clearly a breach of Standing Order No. 27. I would submit that it might be different if it was in the name of the Taoiseach or in the name of a Minister because he would be regarded as a corporation sole, but I would refer you to the very clear wording of Standing Order No. 27 which says:
All motions to be put on the Order Paper for any day, shall be in writing, signed by a member,
It has always been accepted by the House that such a motion is signed.
There is no signature.
Rúnaí Parlaiminte an Taoisigh.
(Cavan): That is only typescript.
While something may be, as you said, more or less accepted practice we cannot, and surely the Chair cannot, ignore Standing Orders when Standing Orders are specifically brought to your attention, and clearly under Standing Orders this motion is not in order.
(Cavan): I have been told that the document that has been handed in is just precisely a stencilled copy of what has been sent round the House.
You do not rely on hearsay evidence, surely?
Produce the original.
It has been stated that it is not even in writing but in that form. Will the Ceann Comhairle inform us whether this is the case? Is it in writing, signed or not? We can hardly go on until we know, can we?
So far as the Chair is aware the motion is in order and has been signed properly.
(Interruptions.)
Was there an actual signature affixed to the motion or was there not? Could I have an answer to that please?
I made a specific inquiry in the general office as to the nature of the motion submitted and my information is that the motion submitted was in exactly the same form as the document circulated to Members, that is a stencilled copy with no handwriting whatever on it.
And no signature.
The office accepted it because this has always been the accepted practice.
Surely, irrespective of accepted practice, as the Chair puts it, if something is spelt out clearly, unambiguously by Standing Orders and any Member raises that point and a motion is not before the House in accordance with Standing Orders the motion cannot be allowed by the Chair?
You must now rule it out of order.
(Interruptions.)
May I bring to the attention of the Chair the very strict and inflexible manner in which the Chair ruled in relation to a motion standing in the name of Deputy Liam Cosgrave recently to such an extent, although the motion on one understanding did not infringe the six month limitation, the Chair ruled that it did, the result being that a debate was not possible.
We cannot discuss that matter now.
The Chair said at that time, and I want to agree with the sentiment, that it was of supreme importance that the standing rules of this House be observed in all our transactions.
I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary handed in this notice of motion to the office and I deem it to be in order.
There was no notice of motion handed in in writing or signed as required by the Standing Order. It was neither in writing nor was it signed.
(Cavan): He can hand it in now.
If he hands it in now the Chair can allow it.
I have seen and heard everything in the House now. We have seven or eight Ceann Comhairles now instead of one.
(Cavan): We have one set of Standing Orders.
I would urge that it be handed in now and allowed by the Chair.
It has been clearly brought to the Chair's attention that Standing Orders have not been complied with in regard to this motion. On that basis could we have a clear ruling from the Chair whether he is prepared to allow the motion to continue in defiance of Standing Orders.
The Deputy said that.
I am allowing the motion and I do not agree that it is in defiance of Standing Orders.
(Cavan): Could I make this point? I repeat that on any interpretation of Standing Order No. 27 this notice of motion is not in order. It is not for me to suggest to the Chair how it could be put in order but it is a very important motion. It is a motion that seeks to take away from this House the liberties and privileges of the House. It is a motion that should be moved only if it is strictly in order. It is a fact that under the same Standing Order the Chair has power to abridge the time but it would be a decent thing to abridge the time and to let the Parliamentary Secertary come down to your desk, Sir, and sign his name to this document. At least that would have the dignity of being in accordance with the Standing Orders of this House, even though we would not agree with it. The privileges of the House would be removed at least in accordance with Standing Orders.
Is the Deputy suggesting that the motion has been put down in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary without his permission?
Deputies
No.
It is not signed in accordance with Standing Orders.
The Chair is the judge of Standing Orders.
(Cavan): The Chair has asked a question and the Minister might let me answer. The Chair has asked me if I am saying the motion has been put down without the consent of the Parliamentary Secretary. I am saying, Sir, that it has not been signed by the Parliamentary Secretary as required by Standing Order No. 27.
I accept the motion as being in order.
On a point of order, how can the Chair justify the overruling of Standing Orders, to which the Chair also is subject?
The accepted practice was followed.
I will read the appropriate Standing Order.
I know it.
Standing Order No. 27 states:
All motions to be put on the Order Paper for any day, shall be in writing, signed by a member, and shall reach the Clerk not later than 11 a.m. on the fourth preceding day.
That is the appropriate part of Standing Order No. 27 and I respectfully suggest that the Chair, like all Members of the House, is subject to Standing Orders. If the Chair is going to defy Standing Orders, he should vacate the Chair.
We cannot have a debate on this. I have accepted the motion as being in order.
It is clearly against Standing Orders.
No, it is not.
(Cavan): I am inclined to think it was handed in by an usher, not by the Parliamentary Secretary.
Is the Chair suggesting that it was signed by a Member?
As I have stated already, the accepted practice has been followed.
We are not discussing accepted practice. We are talking about the Standing Orders of this House.
Can the Chair state if accepted practice overrules Standing Orders?
To my mind, it seems to be a question of common sense.
It depends who is the judge of common sense.
It has been the accepted practice that Bills could be discussed fully in this House and not be cut off half-way through.
(Cavan): On the question of common sense. I suggest that if the Parliamentary Secretary were to pass a cheque to his bank manager in a similar form the manager, in exercise of his common sense, would throw it back at him.