I have considered a request from Senator Mary Robinson to raise, on the motion for the Adjournment this evening, the following matter — the acceptance by the Department of Labour of a female usher on transfer from the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas.

I rule that this matter is not admissible for discussion on the Adjournment on the ground that it contains personal imputation.

I received a letter from you in which you mentioned that in your view——

This matter has been ruled upon by the Chair.

The motion as it stands talks about——

I have given my ruling and I do not want it questioned.

The ruling does not relate to the wording or the intention of the motion.

I cannot allow the Senator to proceed. The Chair has given a ruling on this matter. Will the Senator please accept the ruling of the Chair?

I am concerned about the acceptance of a transfer——

I cannot allow the Senator to proceed further. I ask the Senator to resume her seat and obey the ruling of the Chair.

I think you will accept this is unusual. I have never seen that formula about a personal imputation used before.

The Chair has already given a ruling on this matter and I ask the Senator to accept the ruling of the Chair.

I think I am entitled to know what is meant by "it contains personal imputation".

The Senator is not entitled to question the ruling of the Chair in any form.

I am not questioning the ruling of the Chair. I am just asking the Chair to explain where the question of personal imputation arises since it does not arise on the motion.

I have asked the Senator on at least three occasions to resume her seat and accept the ruling of the Chair.

I accept the ruling of the Chair. I am just asking the Chair to explain where the question of personal imputation arises since it does not arise. The motion concerns a transfer to a Department which does not have a job for a female usher——

I have asked Senator Robinson on three occasions to accept the ruling of the Chair.

The Dáil is not sitting at the moment so this cannot be a matter for a parliamentary question. Surely this House may consider the matter.

The Chair has given a ruling. Are you not prepared to accept the ruling of the Chair?

I am prepared to accept a ruling of the Chair if I understand it. I do not understand how a motion which refers to acceptance by a Department——

It is not a matter for the Chair to account for or to explain its rulings.

It would generally assist matters if you would explain what is meant by personal imputation when there is no personal imputation.

The Seanator has been very disorderly. I would appreciate and so would the House——

I do not accept that I have been disorderly. I regard this as a very important matter. At the moment the first female usher appointed to this House has been removed——

The Chair will not allow the Senator to make such statements. Will the Senator please resume her seat?

This appears to be discrimination. There is no job for the person in question in the Department——

If you persist in disobeying the ruling of the Chair I will name you.

All I am asking is that you explain in one sentence what is meant by personal imputation.

I will name the Senator, if that is what she wishes.

I do not wish to be named but I accept that you can rule on the matter. Since the motion does not raise any personal imputation, where is the personal imputation? If you will explain that to me, I will sit down.

The Chair is not going to give any explanation for the ruling given. You either accept the ruling of the Chair or you do not.

The ruling is not clear. I do not understand it. This is not an arbitrary forum. We are civilised public representatives.

I will not allow the Senator to interrupt the business of the House. I ask her either to sit down or leave the House.

Very well. I do not understand this ruling and I think the issue is an important one. I think I am entitled to some kind of explanation.

It is the duty of the Chair to ensure that the business of the House is carried out in an orderly fashion. The Senator has been called upon three or four times to accept the ruling of the Chair.

I do accept your ruling. I just want to understand it.

I asked you to sit down on three occasions and you did not do it. I would respectfully ask you now to leave the House.

I do not want to be disorderly. I accept your entitlement to rule, but I do not understand why you have difficulty in relation to the motion.

If she persists in standing up I will name the Senator.

I hope my position is understood, a Chathaoirleach. All I want is one sentence of explanation of what is meant by the personal imputation here.

I have already said that this question that you are raising is not being allowed, and that is that.

This is arbitrary.

It is to save the Minister for Labour coming in.

Of course it is to save the Minister for Labour coming in here. I think that is perfectly clear.

I name Senator Robinson.