Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Mar 1931

Vol. 37 No. 8

Private Deputies' Business. - A Question of Procedure.

The following motion stood next on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Esmonde:—
"That in the opinion of the Dáil the Executive Council should take immediate steps to assist the development of civil and commercial aviation and to provide adequate facilities for the training and certification of civilian pilots."

Motion No. 21 not moved.

On a point of order——

Relating to what?

Deputy Esmonde's motion.

There is no point of order arising out of that. It is not being moved.

It is because it is not being moved that I am raising the point of order.

That is not a point of order.

As a matter of procedure, we are anxious to know whether that motion is going to be taken off the Order Paper or put at the end of the other motions already on the Order Paper?

At the end of the other motions.

Otherwise we might move it ourselves.

It could not be dealt with in that way.

Are we to understand that it will remain indefinitely on the Order Paper?

The Deputy knows that that is not a point of order.

On a point of information, might we be told?

The Ceann Comhairle can only give information on procedure. Deputy de Valera asks what will happen to this motion. The same procedure will be followed as in the case of Deputy Murphy's motion, which is last on the Paper. On the particular occasion when that motion was reached, it was not moved, and it was put at the end of the Paper.

Suppose there is a motion, in which Deputies other than those whose names are to it are interested, on the Order Paper. The fact that it is on the Order Paper clearly prevents other Deputies from tabling a similar motion. If we are interested in that motion is it not possible for a member of our Party to move it?

In other cases that is done. Why should not that be permitted here?

This motion is on the Order Paper in the name of Deputy Esmonde. It is open to other Deputies who agree with the motion to put their names to it also. The person who puts in the motion has no power to prevent other Deputies putting their names to it, thus acquiring the right, if he does not move it, to move it themselves. In this instance only one name is to the motion. Except at the request of the Deputy who put the motion down, another Deputy could not move the motion. That has been ruled before.

I am not at all satisfied with that. I do not know if there has been a case, but if there has I should like to be referred to it to show that that has been the practice of the House. It seems to me that when a motion is down here it cannot be withdrawn without permission—that the principle of not allowing a motion to be withdrawn without permission ought to be adhered to. If a member wishes to move a motion, in the absence of the Deputy whose name is to it, it should be open to him to do that. Clearly what is going to happen here is that a motion, in which a number of Deputies are interested, is going to be passed over; it is going to the end of the Paper, and the same thing may happen again and again, and those interested will have no opportunity unless they put down a motion of the same character themselves.

Am I not right in saying that when a motion is moved, or any action is taken by one member in the name of another, it is invariably at the request of the latter member?

Is there not on the records of the House an instance of a Deputy who moved a motion in the absence of another Deputy, and where that motion was in fact accepted by the Government?

That question fails for vagueness. I do not know what the Deputy is referring to.

Mr. Hogan

A motion was put down by Deputy McGoldrick with reference to the qualifications of Irish in regard to the Gárda Síochána. That motion was moved by another Deputy and accepted, I think, by the Minister for Finance on the occasion.

At his request, was it?

At the request of Deputy McGoldrick?

Mr. Hogan

No.

Not at his request?

Mr. Hogan

No.

The Deputy knows that of his own knowledge?

Mr. Hogan

Yes.

When you spoke, A Chinn Chomhairle, of a Deputy moving by request of the Deputy in whose name the motion is, do you imply that the request must be in writing to yourself from the Deputy in whose name the motion stands, or would you accept the statement of the Deputy that a request was made to him?

Two distinct questions arise. First, there is the question put by Deputy de Valera: when a motion is on the Order Paper, can it be moved by another Deputy in the absence of the Deputy in whose name the motion stands? Standing Order 40 reads:—

"If a Deputy does not move the motion which stands in his name such motion shall lapse unless moved by some other Deputy authorised by him."

That is the point, I think, that Deputy Law made. The question as to what constitutes authority would have to be decided, in each particular case, by the Chair. There is no question, at present, of any authority having been given.

It may arise.

It does not arise now.

I do not suggest that I have any direct authority, but I had a conversation with Deputy Esmonde about this motion and undertook to support the motion. There was no indication at that time that he was not going to be present, but there was certainly an understanding, so far as I was concerned, that it would be supported by me.

The Deputy will have to drive a harder bargain next time.

Does the President mean the type of bargain that he has driven?

That is not the point of order. At any rate there must be authority from the Deputy who put the motion down and that, of course, must be conveyed to the Chair by some method. Deputy de Valera asked another question which was: Did not the withdrawal of a motion require leave? A motion cannot be withdrawn until it is actually moved and seconded, and the question proposed from the Chair. Then it is necessary to get the leave of the House to withdraw it. The motion here—No. 21 on the Order Paper—is not, in fact, before the House at all. It is merely a notice on the Order Paper, and the Standing Order is clear. The only precedent I have in mind or to my hand at the moment is that in the absence of the Deputy tabling the motion another Deputy can, by arrangement, move the motion for him.

I am under no misapprehension about the difference between being on the Order Paper and being moved as a motion. What I suggest is that the same principle ought to apply. There is a certain reason obviously for that rule because Deputies who are interested in the motion and supporting it may not be prepared to allow the matter to lapse. Here is a matter in which a number of us are interested. The fact that it is here in one Deputy's name means that we could not put down a motion of the same kind. This matter has come before the House and I submit that the Standing Order while it refers specifically to a case where authorisation is given, does not preclude the House from dealing with cases that are not mentioned there. It is not a prohibition. The Standing Order does not run on this line —"no motion shall be taken or shall be moved except by the authority." It simply indicates that if these conditions are fulfilled the motion will come forward but it does not say that it cannot come forward in other circumstances as well. I think that it is a very serious matter to have a motion of this sort down and, then, to find that it is allowed to lapse because the member in whose name it stands does not move it. It is put down to the end of the Order Paper. Then when the time comes again for it to be moved the same Deputy may absent himself. I think it is a very bad procedure to permit that.

Mr. Hogan

In the matter of the reference I made, I realise that the Ceann Comhairle cannot be expected to remember all these matters. But I have a very definite recollection that I myself moved the motion in the absence of the Deputy in whose name it was down, and I did not say that I moved it by arrangement with that Deputy.

It is a complete misapprehension to say that this motion is before the House. It is not. This motion cannot come before the House until somebody moves it. Under the terms of the Standing Order nobody can move it without authorisation from the Deputy in whose name it stands. While, if desired, it goes to the end of the Order paper now, any Deputy who is afraid the occurrence will be repeated has open to him certain steps which will make a repetition impossible. That is all I can say.

Meanwhile valuable time will be lost.

I am not able to remedy that.

There is always urgency about public business.

Top
Share