Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 21 Feb 2001

Vol. 531 No. 1

Business of Dáil.

An Ceann Comhairle

Arising from the exchanges on the Order of Business yesterday concerning the reasons given by my office for the disallowance of Private Notice Questions and Standing Order 31 matters, I am glad to have this opportunity to clarify matters. My office inadvertently referred to the Taoiseach's announcement as a statement when conveying the reasons for the disallowance, and the resulting confusion is regretted. However, in doing so I must stress that my ruling on the Standing Order 31 matters and Private Notice Questions was not affected by whether the Taoiseach chose to make a statement or an announcement. My ruling that the issue was more appropriate to a substantive motion was correct and both my predecessor and I have ruled on many occasions that allegations against an officeholder can only be dealt with by substantive motion and not by exchanges across the floor of the House. I should point out that a motion under Standing Order 31 is a motion to adjourn the House. It is not a substantive motion.

Another matter raised concerned the clearing of the Press Gallery yesterday. I received a report on this matter. It has been the long established practice that the Public Gallery and the Press Gallery are cleared where the Dáil is suspended in circumstances of disorder, when a Member who has been named refuses to leave the House. In other circumstances, where the Dáil is suspended for a short duration, for example, where a Minister is delayed in arriving for Question Time, the galleries would not normally be cleared. Yesterday, due to a misunderstanding, the practice was initiated as it was thought Deputy Rabbitte had been named and was refusing to leave, which was not the case. This is regretted and I am putting in place procedures to ensure that such a misunderstanding will not recur.

Mr. Rabbitte

I want to accept your apology.

An Ceann Comhairle

I will allow a brief comment but we cannot have a debate on the issue.

Mr. Noonan

I thank you for your ruling this morning. On this side of the House we try to be orderly and to operate within Standing Orders. We are glad for your clarification this morning. There was a serious misunderstanding. We tried to raise the Deputy Ned O'Keeffe affair and the conflict between what he had said and what the Taoiseach had said, first, by way of Standing Order 31 motions. Then we filed Private Notice Questions. Even though your advice was that it would be appropriate to raise the issue by substantive motion, we did not have a mechanism for doing that. I will be returning to it this morning. The Taoiseach must come into the House to explain the situation and must answer questions, and nothing else will be satisfactory. However, I will try to do that in accordance with your ruling. I accept what you have said this morning and there is no challenge from our side of the House to what you have said.

On the clearing of the Public Gallery and the Press Gallery yesterday, you should return to that again. This is the national Parliament. Sometimes it looks like a five-day week part-time parliament but the public are entitled to be in the gallery to look at us here and listen to debates, and the press are entitled to be up there to report on what is happening here. It is a serious issue when the Dáil is suspended for five minutes that there are persons who think they have the authority to clear out the public and the press. That is a serious issue and I do not believe that what you have said this morning, even though it is welcome, is sufficient to meet our concerns. I would like you to come to us again, perhaps tomorrow morning on the Order of Business, on that issue.

Mr. Quinn

I too welcome your statement of clarification. I fully accept the decisions that you took, the manner in which they were taken and your explanation as to how a mistaken impression was given to this House, regrettable as it was at the time.

Sir, may I make two points? First, we need to find a way – I would have thought that proposing to suspend Standing Orders of the House for the entire day was a pretty substantial motion but I accept your ruling – but some clarification may be required, although not here on the floor of the House.

Likewise, regarding the constitutional right of the fourth estate to observe us doing our business in public as required under the Constitution, while practice and precedent may have grown up in the past, that does not mean it is carved in stone or that we are the prisoners of it for the future or, indeed, for the present. For that reason, as I have asked previously, it is timely now that you, in your capacity as the Chairperson of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, would convene such a meeting to discuss these matters and other matters in order that we can avoid having extracted, prolonged and protracted debates here which, on occasions, bring us into conflict with you. I want to assure you that we have no conflict with the Chair. The people opposite are the ones we are worried about, not you, Sir.

Mr. Dempsey

He is right to be worried.