TDs claim in High Court that Ceann Comhairle's decision to disallow bill is unconstitutional
The decision of the Ceann Comhairle to disallow a bill proposed by four TDs was unconstitutional and should be overturned, the High Court has heard.
In a hastily-arranged emergency hearing today, John Rogers SC on behalf of the TDs – Brid Smith, Paul Murphy, Gino Kenny and Richard Boyd Barrett – said the Ceann Comhairle Sean O Fearghail acted contrary to the Constitution by disallowing the progression of their bill, due to be heard in the Dáil later this afternoon.
In his opening submissions before Judge Garrett Simons, Mr Rogers said the case is one whereby elected representatives have been denied the ability to change the rules of Dáil Eireann and that they had no other option but to seek the Court “to police” the matter.
Mr Rogers said the decision by the Ceann Comhairle to disallow the motion falls foul of Article 15.10 of the Constitution, which says each House of the Oireachtas will decide their own rules.
He said the TDs' motion has been disallowed on foot of a unilateral decision of the Ceann Comhairle which is contrary to the Dáil's own rules.
Judge Simons raised questions as to whether the Court has jurisdiction over matters in Dáil Eireann and Mr Rogers said that it does when no other alternatives arise.
He asked Mr Rogers what other options were open to the TDs and the only one that sprang to mind was the removal of the Ceann Comhairle from office.
Mr Rogers said the removal of the Ceann Comhairle would not guarantee the restoration of their motion or their Private Members Business slot, which is due to begin at 4.20pm today.
Excerpts of Tuesday's sitting of the Dáil Eireann were read aloud in Court where Ms Smith and Mr O Fearghail clashed over his decision to disallow the motion.
In response, Conleth Bradley SC on behalf of the Ceann Comhairle said the Court has no remit to intervene in the workings of the Dáil and that the Oireachtas is completely opposing the case before the Court.
Mr Bradley said that Article 15.10 of the Constitution clearly provides for the House to run its own affairs and makes the separation of powers very clear.
Under questioning from Judge Simons, who asked about what remedy exists in the Constitution in a case where a Government may be “abusing” the money-message to block Opposition bills, Mr Bradley said “there is no remedy”.
Judge Simons said he has a concern relating to the separation of powers and heard evidence from both sides.
Judge Simons said he would deliver his judgement at 4.15pm.
