Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

In anticipation that Leaders' Questions may deal with the subject matter of the statements, I would like to make a brief statement on the application of Standing Order 56, which deals with matters sub judice, as it applies to issues being raised before the House. As far back as 8 April 1993, the Dáil adopted the rule which was formally adopted into Standing Orders on 15 October 1996 with a view to relaxing the rigid sub judice rule applied by convention up to that time. Since then, many matters have been debated in this House that otherwise would not have been debated before 1993.

The relevant part of the Standing Order states a matter shall not be raised in such an overt manner that it appears to be an attempt by the Dáil to encroach on the function of the courts or a judicial tribunal. I have given careful consideration to precedents and from this examination it is clear the application of the Standing Order depends to some degree on timing and the type of Dáil discussion. In view of the fact that there is a direct precedent in January 1999, where my predecessor allowed a discussion, I am now allowing the matter in the given circumstances of today without prejudice to any decision the Chair may be required to make in the future.

In allowing this matter to be discussed, I should point out that Standing Order 56 also states that when permission to raise a matter has been granted, there continues to be an onus on Members to avoid, if at all possible, comments which might, in effect, prejudice the outcome of proceedings in court. In addition, the normal rules of debate will apply in that serious allegations against a Member can only be made by substantive motion and not by innuendo, or otherwise, across the floor of the House.

If this issue is dealt with along the lines I have outlined, the delicate balance between the House, on the one hand, and its sovereign right to legislate and discuss matters of public importance, and the courts-tribunal, on the other hand, in ensuring that the judicial process, which now seems to include tribunals of inquiry, is not encroached upon, will be upheld to the highest standards that have always been adhered to in the past.

See this speech in context