Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 1 Nov 1979

Vol. 316 No. 7

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 6, 7 (resumed), 8 and 9. Business will be interrupted at 3.30 p.m. to take No. 7 if it has not already been reached by that time and the order will be resumed thereafter.

On the Order of Business yesterday I sought to raise a question on the Adjournment and I was informed by the Ceann Comhairle's Private Secretary that I would not be allowed because of what was described as ministerial attitude. I can only interpret that——

I do not want to appear to cut off Deputies but persisting in this questioning of the Chair's ruling is something the Chair cannot permit. There are other ways of doing this. If the Deputy wishes to consult my office he is welcome to do so at any time.

There are too many backroom discussions and deals going on. I want this done democratically in the House.

So far as the Chair is concerned, there are no discusions.

I understand that ministerial attitude means that the Taoiseach refuses to fulfil his responsibilities in this House by answering. But why should I be denied my right to air my views and question relevant matters in this House? If the Taoiseach does not wish to answer, that is his own business. But I should not be denied my right to make my case, and it would appear from the reply I got and the reasons given for that reply that I am being denied my right and denied the facilities to fulfil my responsibilities as a public representative because the Taoiseach is not prepared to face up to his responsibilities to this House and to this country.

The Deputy knows perfectly well that it is disorderly to have discussion on these matters at this time in the House. It is not in order and the Chair is responsible for keeping order. The importance the Deputy attaches to a particular subject or matter does not permit the Chair to allow Deputies to be out of order. The Chair is not responsible for what is ordered in the House, but he has a very definite guide as to what he will allow in relation to matters about which the Deputy is now speaking. This is a matter on which the Taoiseach gave a long reply which, so far as the Chair is concerned, was a rather definite and conclusive reply. The Chair must be guided by the Standing Order, which says matters on the same subject may not be raised within a certain period.

I do not want to be out of order. I do not wish to be in conflict with the Chair. However, I must insist on my right as a public representative to be able to make a reasonable case in an orderly way. If the Taoiseach persistently refuses to live up to his responsibilities that does not justify the Chair's refusal to allow me to live up to my responsibilities as a public representative. This is not a question of the matter being important to my mind. There is a very fundamental constitutional issue.

The Deputy has persistently raised this matter on the Order of Business. If the Chair were to allow a continuous discussion of this type, the whole day would be taken up by Deputies raising different matters.

I am only doing what I was elected to do. I am doing it within the Constitution and within the democratic procedures.

The Chair would hope that it would carry out its duties in an impartial and correct fashion.

I would appreciate that very much. May I again request that I be allowed at the earliest opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment and, if the Taoiseach refuses to reply, that is the Taoiseach's decision?

It is not my refusal. I had no contact with you, Sir, or with your office. The Ceann Comhairle made the decision and I accepted it.

Can the Chair give us any precedent in the history of Dáil Éireann whereby the words "ministerial attitude" were a determining factor in a refusal to allow a matter to be raised on the Adjournment?

I am not open to be questioned in this way. My rulings should not be questioned, and all the precedents show that that is never permitted. I will say that anybody who reads the reply given to a number of questions on the subject which Deputy Cluskey is now attempting to raise will see that the Taoiseach's reply was sufficiently conclusive to leave no doubt in the mind of the Chair that this matter can be raised again.

With respect, the only precedent that has been broken here is the one whereby the Chair refuses to cite precedents for its ruling.

What precedent is there? It is not for the Chair to determine whether a Deputy wants to raise a matter on the Adjournment.

There is ample precedent. The Deputy is entitled to seek other means of raising matters. It is not for the Chair to——

I have endeavoured to do so by way of Special Notice, by ordinary question and by raising it on the Adjournment. The Chair has frustrated my rights in this House repeatedly, and now I am told there are other ways to pursue the matter. For my guidance, will the Chair tell me how I can pursue it further?

It is not the Chair's duty to guide Deputies as to how they may raise matters. It is the Chair's duty to ensure that they are in order. If Deputies try to raise the same matter in the same way, that does not in any way bring it within Standing Orders.

It is not my function nor my intention to come into conflict with the Chair. It is my function and my duty to expose the Taoiseach if he is not conforming with the Constitution.

Barr
Roinn