I should like to draw the Taoiseach's attention to the fact that if Motion No. 30 on the Order Paper is not brought before the House in this session, the Waterford-Tramore Railway, to which it refers, will be closed and the line taken up by C.I.E. before the House, re-assembles. In view of that, I think the Taoiseach should be prepared to give some Government time to have that motion in the name of my colleague, Deputy Kyne, and myself discussed.
Business of Dáil.
I have already made clear my view that the admissibility of motions of that kind on the Order Paper is questionable, and I understand the matter is being discussed by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
The Dáil is entitled to discuss anything it likes by way of motion, so long as it is not derogatory of person.
If the Dáil has passed a Bill divesting itself of powers, it should not stultify itself by appearing to revoke that decision by implication.
It has not done anything of the sort.
Do I take it the Taoiseach will not give any time?
The question of the admissibility of that motion is being considered by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
It was never brought to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
It was, certainly.
It must have been at the odd meeting I missed.
If Deputies are desirous of bringing matters before the Dáil and if delay would result in irrevocable developments, I do urge upon the Taoiseach that the Government have an obligation to make it possible for these matters to be discussed here. I understand the point the Taoiseach seeks to make in regard to the various transport legislation but I do submit, sir, that this House is entitled to discuss anything by way of motion which Deputies believe affects the public weal, subject to certain limitations in respect of attacks on individuals or matters of any kind which are excluded. I would strongly urge on the Taoiseach that in view of the feeling of Deputies in regard to these matters and with special reference to the possibility of irrevocable developments, Deputies ought to be allowed to present their constituents' views to the House before these decisions have become irrevocable by the actual removal of the railway.
If there are Deputies who think that the Transport Act, 1958, should be amended so as to make the decisions of C.I.E. in these matters subject to review by the Dáil, a motion to that effect would certainly be in order. But we must not try to amend the legislation by implication.
The line will be taken up. If there are any delaying tactics by the Taoiseach and the Government, it is only to cover up C.I.E. and let them get away with it.
In view of the fact that, in addition to the motion on the Waterford-Tramore Railway, there are also motions on the West Clare Railway and the West Cork Railway, would the Taoiseach not consider giving time to take the three motions together? We only want to protest to somebody about wrong being done and to point out certain things which we were not given an opportunity of discussing with C.I.E. or anybody else. We were permitted only to discuss alternatives.
I should like to be given an opportunity of saying something about the West Clare Railway. If I do not get it in this session, the railway will be taken up on the 1st February.
There is nothing before the House at the moment.
Surely a Deputy is entitled to put to this House the views of the people? I have been asked to do this. I cannot see why the three motions could not be taken together.
I would urge on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, and later on the Chair, that while it is in order for Deputies to move to amend the legislation or to submit a resolution to that end, we should not be discussing motions here to resume powers which we have deliberately given to the Board of C.I.E.
May I make this proposal? If the matter is referred properly to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges arid the Committee on Procedure and Privileges determine that this motion is no breach of privilege, may we assume that the Government will then make time available for the discussion of the motion?
I want to make it quite clear that if this House want to revoke these decisions of C.I.E., Deputies have to propose legislation to take back from C.I.E. the powers the House deliberately gave them.
I submit that is not entirely true. I think anybody has the right to raise the general question of transport policy in Dáil Éireann. Surely we have a right to come before the Dáil and say our constituents are suffering from certain lack and that it is the duty of the Government to remedy it? Surely this is a reasonable proposal? If the Committee on Procedure and Privileges agree that these motions are not a breach of privilege, will the Government provide time to discuss them together? That seems a reasonable suggestion. This is a very urgent matter.
I am not prepared to answer that question now.
May we take it the Taoiseach and the Government will consider this matter and perhaps deal with it at the earliest time available?
I can think of nothing more stultifying than to have this House discussing motions that can have no effect.
I would press on the Taoiseach not to consider it futile but to consider it important that we should get a modicum of time to discuss these motions. If Parliament is to function properly, I suggest the Taoiseach has an obligation to meet us half-way.
This is a matter which I brought before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges some years ago. It is a matter on which I have expressed views on many occasions. If a motion which I think would be the correct type of motion to submit to the Dáil—namely, one which recognises that the Dáil had already taken a decision in this matter when passing legislation and which called for a modification of that decision— is submitted, I would consider it.
Surely that is not democratic?
The motion was accepted by the Ceann Comhairle and by the Clerk and surely the Taoiseach has not the right to say what is to be discussed in this House? He has not the right to say that it cannot be discussed.
I did not say that. What I said was that we are not prepared to give Government time for discussion of it.
I do urge on the Taoiseach that the very test of democracy is not the size of the Government's majority but the consideration which the Government shows for the wishes of the Opposition. The Taoiseach may hold strong views. We hold equally strong views and surely we are entitled to express these views? The Chair has accepted this motion. If it is a breach of privilege, we are as anxious as the Taoiseach not to pursue a breach of privilege but if the Committee on Procedure and Privileges rules that it is not a breach, the damage may have been done before it comes up for discussion.
I do not want the Dáil to stultify itself by proceeding to discuss a matter of the responsibility for which it has divested itself.
If that is the way, the Taoiseach can leave that to us.
I am also concerned in this matter and I refuse to leave it to the Deputy. The Dáil would be stultifying itself by proceeding to assume powers of which it has divested itself.
The Chair must proceed with the business as ordered.
The Taoiseach is disregarding the wishes of the whole House.
Is it not a fact. Sir, that 12 months ago when you were in the Chair at a meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, this whole question was discussed and you ruled. Sir, and there was a unanimous decision of the Committee, that such motions as these were in order to be discussed by the Dáil?
I am now proceeding with the next business and I am calling No. 1, the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1960.
Surely the people's representatives have a right to put the people's case before this House?
This is a fine laughing matter for Fianna Fáil.
I cannot allow this discussion to proceed further. The House must proceed with the business as ordered.
(Interruptions.)
I have called No. I on the Order Paper.