I welcomed the indication that there was to be a motion on this issue. It is a frustration for everybody in this House. The notion that this is a new type of Dáil with new politics, that resolutions, motions and legislation from the Opposition benches would be welcomed and that everybody would be treated in like manner has not been the fact. I am a member of the Sub-Committee on Dáil Reform which has struggled to get around this impasse or blockage that we all know exists.

The memorandum of understanding is a welcome development, but it is a cumbersome process that was dragged from the Government on the basis of there having to be some mechanism to resolve the frustration rather than having a constant row in the House.

The heart of the matter is the view of the Government that the constitutional provision, which exists in most parliaments, that the main job of the Government to enact the budget for the year cannot be undermined by constant Bills or motions to dismantle the budget. However, that has been extended, as Deputy Micheál Martin said, to any indication of a potential cost that might arise barring the progress of legislation that Members consider sound. We must find a mechanism to resolve this issue.

To add to Deputy Howlin's comments, it is not just a cumbersome process. The Government, in the way it has abused this provision in the Constitution, is in a sense going against the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitution. A Cheann Comhairle, will you share with other Members the legal advice you received last Friday? It would help to inform us. I agree with others that we should be debating this. A debate would be helped if you were willing to share the legal advice the parliamentary legal office shared with you as to why it thinks it might possibly be unconstitutional.

In fairness to the Government, I do not believe it is at fault for all of this. As the Chief Whip said, the number of Bills it has counted does not meet the number of Bills that have been held up. There is a problem with how this is being interpreted. There is a tendency on the part of your office, a Cheann Comhairle, to act as gatekeeper. That is certainly my belief. There was an instance in recent weeks when I put forward an amendment to the Social Welfare Bill 2019. The Government was outlining four or five items that it intended to check and I sought to add one, but it was ruled out of order as being a cost on the State. That is ridiculous given that the Government was outlining all the costs it was going to deal with itself, but one extra item was going to be too prohibitive. There is a problem with this, so I was looking forward to debating it in the House because I believe we must act on it.

Possibly the only way to resolve this would be to let it go to the courts so they can give clarity on it. I can get legal opinion to say that we can do this and you, a Cheann Comhairle, can get legal opinion to say that we cannot. All of that is opinion. We need the courts to adjudicate on it, and perhaps the way to do that is to pass this motion.

I will call Deputy Bríd Smith, but before I do so, I wish to advise the House that the avenue available to the Deputy, which we have advised, is that she may recast the motion to bring it into order. This would involve redrafting it as a motion to refer the draft Standing Order to the Sub-Committee on Dáil Reform for its consideration. This option remains open to the Deputy. Having regard to the concerns expressed by all Members, I will convene a meeting of the Dáil reform committee this afternoon and I will ask the legal advisers to come to it with the Clerk of the Dáil and give us an explanation of why we are where we are today.