It is proposed to take items Nos. 4 and 5 on the Order Paper. Private Deputies' Business will be taken at 12 o'clock. It is further proposed to take motion No. 3 in List No. 8 Motion No 2 which relates to ground rents, it is desired to postpone, because the Minister for Justice who will be dealing with the question, has been engaged in the Seanad all the week and is anxious to have discussion of the motion postponed.
Order of Business.
Item No. 5, the Forestry Bill, was circulated only yesterday, but we are asked to take it to-day.
It is possible it will not be reached but, if there is objection to taking it to-day, I suggest that we should let it proceed as far as the statement of the Minister for Lands is concerned and then adjourn the debate.
I have no objection to that course but I think it would be unreasonable to ask the House to discuss a Bill which Deputies got only yesterday.
In regard to the allocation of time for Private Deputies' Business, I should like to inquire when it is proposed to provide time for the discussion of motion No. 12 on the Private Deputies' Business Order Paper which stands in my name and which relates to the privileges of the House.
It will be taken in its proper order.
It is No. 6 on the new sheet.
I have not got that.
It will be reached in due course but it is not proposed to provide any special time for it.
In view of the fact that this motion relates to the privileges of the House, I want to inquire whether it is the intention of the Government to provide Government time for its discussion?
No.
May I take it that when we arrive at No. 6 on the new list it will be taken in the ordinary course?
Yes.
The fact that the matter is sub judice still arises.
The point I want to submit is that the subject matter of this motion has no relation whatever to the matters joined in issue before the courts in the case referred to and inasmuch as it appears that this matter has been on appeal for several months, and looks like being on appeal for several more months, am I to understand that this House will not be afforded an opportunity of considering so important a matter of privilege until the parties to this suit choose to bring the appeal to a conclusion?
That is a matter for consideration. It strikes me that the matter is still sub Judice and a matter which is sub judice should not be discussed.
If the matter is sub judice and remains sub judice for an indefinite time, does that constitute a bar to this House discussing a question affecting its own privileges?
It cannot remain indefinitely sub judice.
How many months will you allow it to remain undiscussed?
That is a hypothetical question which is very hard to answer.
I submit that where a matter of privilege is involved a time must come when you must decide that you have permitted the courts sufficient time to dispose of this business and that this House has a right to defend its own privileges, independent of what the courts may do.
The Deputy can raise that question when we reach motion No. 6.
In view of the fact that it has been decided not to take motion No. 2 and to pass on to motion No. 3 in my name and in the name of Deputy Halliden, I think, as a matter of courtesy, we should have been given notice that it was the intention to do so.
The Deputy got notice this morning. I regret that he did not get longer notice. I think he should have got longer notice.