In the knowledge that I understand Item No. 13, Motion No. 51, has been ruled by you as being out of order in its present format, the Order of Business for today is as follows: Item No. 2 which deals with the annual report of the Ombudsman; a sos from 6 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. and from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. we will complete all Stages of the Adoption Bill, 1990.
Order of Business.
I would like to put on the record my party's regret at the ruling on the Independent's motion this evening as a lot needs to be said about this vital area and we feel that the House has been denied the opportunity of having the record set straight. We look forward to further in that regard from the Independents themselves.
I would like to request, through you, Sir, the Leader of the House to give the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy O'Kennedy, the opportunity of putting on the record of this House his and indeed the Government's response to the allegations of impropriety in a section of our vital beef industry that were made in the "World in Action" programme on Monday night. We all know in this House the seriousness of those allegations. We all know the need to put the matter straight and I ask the Leader of the House that in the next day or two, or perhaps even this evening if there is a gap of a couple of hours in our schedule, that the Government's views be given. The allegations may be substantiated or otherwise, but at least let us have the facts; let us clear the air and move forward from there.
I should like to propose that motion No. 51 be added to the Order of Business. I am sure Members are curious as to why it is not being ordered for 6.30 p.m. as expected. As the House will probably know, it is my turn to propose a motion and the motion I put down is motion No. 51. In what is a very rare decision, you, a Chathaoirligh, have ruled it out of order. As far as I understand, one has to go back to 1965 to find a Cathaoirleach ruling a tabled motion out of order under Standing Orders——
Before you go down that road I want to point out that I have made my ruling on the matter and, while I have allowed you a few moments to give expression to a view you hold, I have to remind you at this stage that I have made my ruling on the matter. There are other methods by which you can pursue it. I would be glad to offer you an opportunity to discuss the matter with me in my office after the conclusion of the Order of Business, but I will not allow further discussion on it at this time.
This is, I suggest, such a rare decision that I think I am perfectly entitled to explain why——
I will again point out to you that you have no entitlement whatsoever. I have made my ruling on the matter. The motion is out of order because it is repetitious and for that reason I have disallowed it.
On a point of order, the Senator is entitled, I presume, to propose an amendment to the Order of Business?
The Senator is not entitled to propose an amendment to the Order of Business. Senator O'Toole has stated something that is not correct. I want to make a response to you that will put you in the picture as to the correct procedure. The motion has been ruled out of order and you cannot at this time propose that the Order of Business be amended to allow it to be admitted on the grounds that it has been ruled out of order.
Your interpretation is so obviously untenable that I think the House should be informed as to the reason.
I have explained the reason. It is repetitious. It is as simple as that. There was a precedent back in 1965.
Talking about roads and houses last week is not the same thing as talking about the Irish language and the Gaeltacht. It cannot possibly be repetitious.
(Interruptions.)
It is a transparent ploy.
If it is a thing that Senator Murphy wants to get into a confrontational situation with the Chair, he may proceed with that; but the Chair will have to make a further ruling if the Senator persists.
If the Chair is prepared to defend his ruling or prepared to listen to me——
I have made my ruling. I have gone as far as I am prepared to go at this time. The Senator cannot question the Chair's ruling.
The Chair is not infallible.
I am asking Senator Murphy to resume his seat as he may not proceed with this matter any further.
I have no intention of being disorderly. There are items on the Order Paper to which I want to contribute and I do not want to incur that kind of censure. All I am looking for is a small degree of latitude to explain why I think the Chair's ruling is untenable.
Senator Murphy must know at this stage — he is a very experienced Member of this House — that Standing Orders preclude him from questioning a ruling of the Chair. Obviously, the Senator must be reminded of that on this occasion.
But the Chair's ruling is notoriously partisan.
My ruling is correct and the Senator is now questioning it again. I am again asking the Senator to resume his seat and, failing that, I will have to take other steps.
I do so under great protest. I think your ruling is appallingly partisan. You, a Chathaoirligh, have abused the Chair.
Because of that remark being made in this House, it must be withdrawn; otherwise I will have to ask the Senator to leave the House.
It is transparently obvious to me that the Chair has abused his office.
I am asking the Senator to withdraw that remark.
Not altogether surprising, I may say.
I am calling on the Leader of the House to name Senator Murphy.