THE Supreme Court yesterday refused to intervene in a dispute between a former Dail deputy and the Ceann Comhairle, who disallowed the form of a Dail question put by the TD eight years ago.
The court dismissed an appeal by Mr Pat O'Malley, a former Progressive Democrat TD for Dublin West, of Leys Lodge, Lucan, Co Dublin, against a High Court decision refusing him leave to seek a judicial review of the Ceann Comhairle's decision.
Mr Justice O'Flaherty, giving the judgment of the Supreme Court, said Mr O'Malley had been a Dail member from March 1987 to May 1989. He became interested in the beef processing industry and, in particular, the dominant position he considered was held by the Goodman group.
Mr O'Malley felt he was not getting full explanations and so he tabled a question to the Minister for Enterprise and Employment in May, 1989.
The Ceann Comhairle disallowed part of the question because it would involve repetition in view of replies to previous questions.
The question was amended and Mr O'Malley claimed it was changed without reference to him and breached Dail standing orders.
The question for the court was whether the Ceann Comhairle's decision could be challenged in the judicial review proceedings.
The High Court judge decided the application must fail on the basis that the judicial arm of government had no authority to interfere with internal Dail affairs.
Yesterday, Mr Justice O'Flaherty said how questions should be framed for answer by ministers was so much a matter concerning the internal working of the Dail that "it would seem inappropriate for the court to intervene except in some very extreme circumstance which it is impossible to envisage at the
It involved to such a degree the operation of the internal machinery of debate in the House as to remain within the competence of the Dail to deal with exclusively.
Counsel for Mr O'Malley had conceded that no purpose could now be served by granting any order to review the Ceann Comhairle's decision made so long ago. Mr O'Malley simply wanted to vindicate his entitlement to have asked the question in its original form.
Mr Justice O'Flaherty said no authority had been opened to the court, nor would it seem to be right in principle, for the court to make a declaration that would not have any effect. To do so would have the appearance of carrying out a form of roving commission which the courts had always said they would not do.