It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 1, 7 (Votes 62 to 5) and 6. It is proposed that public business be not interrupted to take Private Deputies' business. The discussion on No. 1 should, I think, conclude to-day. I presume that whatever arrangements are necessary will be made to enable that to be done.
Order of Business.
Will the Minister repeat that?
To-day will be granted for the discussion of No. 1.
I expect that arrangements will be made to have it concluded to-day.
No arrangement has been made.
Arrangements can be made by the Deputy moving the motion, to conclude.
Does the Government desire to restrict discussion on No. 1 and to give Government time only for it to-day? I would ask the Government to consider that we are discussing a matter in which every member of the House is concerned. If every member wishes to make a contribution to this debate, then the day would not be sufficient for it. I do not know yet, and I cannot foresee, the length of time that may be necessary for it. In view of the importance of the motion, I consider that it is undesirable that the Government should restrict time in discussing a matter that so concerns the whole House and the Chair as this motion does.
If you make your remarks sufficiently concise we can discuss the matter adequately to-day. What I say is that the Government is not prepared to give Government time for it other than to-day.
It is, therefore, the Government's intention to restrict discussion on the motion?
The Government is facilitating discussion of the motion by allocating Government time for it to-day.
The Government has no option but to do so.
It has every option.
To act as a totalitarian Government.
Do not talk of totalitarianism over on that side of the House.
That is the first shot fired.
I want to get the position made clear. Are we to understand that, in discussing a matter of such major importance as this is, it is the Government's decision that discussion on the motion is to be restricted, and that members of the House who may feel called upon to speak on it, and whose rights may be at stake, are to be denied possibly the right to speak in the House?
I cannot help the Deputy to get that clear. I have explained that the Government are facilitating the Dáil by giving Government time for the discussion of a Private Member's Motion to-day.
You are explaining that the Government are restricting the right of the House to discuss a matter of cardinal importance.
If the Party opposite do not want a decision on the motion to-day, then the discussion can be continued in Private Members' time.
No. 1.
This is not a matter for Private Members. This is a matter concerning every Deputy in the House from the Prime Minister himself down to each individual Deputy here. Each one is concerned in this.
No. 1.
On a point of order, at ten minutes to 3 o'clock to-day I got handed to me a copy of an amendment to the motion standing in my name. Am I to understand that the amendment has been accepted for discussion because, if so, I wish to argue that it is out of order on a certain number of points. The amendment says in the first paragraph:—
"That the Dáil is of opinion that it is desirable that the obligations and privileges of members should be more adequately defined, and that appropriate action to that end should be taken without delay."
I submit that is out of order, and that a decision has already, within the past few weeks, been taken on that matter. The second paragraph refers to the prior ruling of the Ceann Comhairle on the 29th instant. It says:
"That in view of the fact that, prior to the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle on 29th instant, there has been no rule or resolution of the House or ruling of the Ceann Comhairle which declared it to be a breach of privilege for a member to criticise, outside the House, the conduct of the Chair, the Dáil does not agree that the speech of the Minister for Local Government can, in the circumstances, be held to constitute such a breach."
I submit that that part of the amendment is out of order for vagueness. We have no terms of any ruling supposed to have been given by the Ceann Comhairle on the 29th instant. Finally, it says:—
"That the Dáil accepts the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle, above referred to, and decides that, henceforth, adverse criticism of the conduct of the Chair, made outside the House, shall be a breach of privilege."
I submit, if the Ceann Comhairle has made a ruling, that the ruling stands, and that it can only be discussed here by positive motion, either setting aside the ruling or criticising the ruling in some particular kind of way—that, generally, it appears to put some body in between the Ceann Comhairle and the ruling. I submit that the Ceann Comhairle's ruling is a matter entirely for himself. It cannot be changed or interfered with or affected in any particular kind of way.
Again, the amendment refers to a thing, and I do not know what it is. It refers to a breach of privilege. The people in Great Britain may know what a breach of privilege is, but here I do not. I do not think that anyone in the House does. At any rate there is no definition of it and there is no knowledge here of what it is. The motion down in my name deals in no way with a breach of privilege. It deals with a matter which is a matter of concern for this House — that having appointed a Ceann Comhairle, a position of vital importance to it in carrying on its deliberations and in the taking of its decisions — by asking that we should protect the Ceann Comhairle from insults outside this House. It is an appeal to the common decency and to the common sense of the House which has been in operation since the House was established. On all these grounds I submit that this amendment is an irrelevant motion, and that by its very terms it is out of order.
I considered this motion carefully and decided that it was in order. In the first place, the opening paragraph — the preamble, if you like — is relevant to what follows. As regards the ruling, some maintain that there was no law or precedent to decide that criticism of the Ceann Comhairle by a Deputy outside the House was a breach of privilege. In accepting the question from the leader of the Opposition yesterday, and the motion, I implicitly decided that there was a breach. That is where the question of ruling comes in and I consider that this amendment is quite in order.