Vol. 197 No. 1
I move:
That the Standing Orders of the Dáil relative to Public Business be amended as set out in the Schedule to the Report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges (T.187) dated 19th July, 1962.
The Report of the Committee which has already been circulated to members explains in detail the reasons for the proposed amendments. I do not think there is anything I could usefully add at this stage.
Could we take No. 4 and No. 5 together?
In that case, I want to say that I am opposed to No. 5.
It is a package deal and the Deputy cannot break any part of the package.
I know what the Taoiseach is trying to do. Let us take them one by one. I agree with No. 4.
Are we agreeing to take them separately?
I take it that they are two separate motions and that we are entitled to speak on both. With regard to the motion to amend Standing Orders, I am amazed at the audacity of the Government in producing a motion of this nature, for the simple reason that already in Standing Orders there is provision for Private Members' time of three hours per week. That Standing Order has been there for years but the Government have blatantly ignored it. In my experience of the past eight years in this House, there was never any attempt made by the Government to provide the three hours per week Private Members' time which according to Standing Orders should be and must be made available to private Deputies or back benchers.
In this motion before the House, there is an attempt made to change Standing Orders in order moryah to provide three hours per week for Private Members. Is there any Deputy foolish enough to believe that a Government which has flouted Standing Orders for the last eight years and failed to give the three hours per week which the Standing Orders provide for Private Members is changing its tune and is introducing this motion so as to ensure that three hours per week is given for Private Members' motions?
The Parliamentary Secretary, I have not the slightest doubt, will tell us there are other attractive aspects in this motion, namely, that it is one that protects the ordinary Deputy in so far as the Adjournment Debate is concerned. I do not for a moment dispute that in recent times an occasion did arise—and I think that occasion was when Deputy Oliver J. Flanagan raised some matter on the Adjournment here —when the Government Party, Fianna Fáil, in order to prevent his speaking on the Adjournment, all trooped out of this House so that there would be no quorum available. That is the first time that it has happened over the years, in any records I have searched of Dáil proceedings, that for lack of a quorum a Deputy was not allowed to proceed on the Adjournment.
If it is essential to remedy that situation I have no objection to this House putting in black and white that a Private Member, no matter what side of the House he is on, is entitled either on the Adjournment or in the course of a discussion of a Private Member's motion to proceed, irrespective of whether there is a quorum in the House. We know how difficult it would have been in the past 12 months to obtain a quorum even for Government business. If Deputies showed such a lack of interest, had so much contempt for the House that they failed to supply a quorum during Government business, there is little likelihood of their supplying a quorum in the course of a discussion on a Private Member's motion or on the Adjournment.
This motion is not necessary and it does nothing whatever to help Private Members. The time is already allowed in Standing Orders and as far as I can see there is nothing to prevent the Government giving the time which should be made available. This motion is the thin end of the wedge. It is the sugar on the pill which is coming in the next motion and I propose to deal with that in the course of the discussion on the next motion.
The Deputy's mind has not been on his business lately. This motion comes from the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, not the Government.
Who dominates that?
I think I should say now what I intended to reserve, in order to clarify any misunderstanding in the mind of the public. As far as the Committee on Procedure and Privileges is concerned, the Taoiseach is on record here three months ago as stating in reply to me that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges made these recommendations and that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges represented all groups of this House. When I pointed out somewhat vehemently to the Taoiseach that was not so, he did a little bit of backpedalling in the very same manner as he is backpedalling on the Common Market, so that we do not know where he stands. There is no use in the Taoiseach making a blunt statement in this House to the effect that all groups were represented on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges because that is absolutely incorrect.
I said the Committee were elected by the Dáil.
The Taoiseach has another story now. He is on record here as stating to me with the greatest assurance, the greatest bluff, that all Parties and groups were represented on it.
All Parties.
The constitution of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges does not arise on this motion.
In so far as the Taoiseach has made reference to the fact that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges——
The Deputy may not discuss its composition.
They unanimously recommended this change, not the Government.
I intended to deal with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges on the next motion but what I intended to say may be said at this stage.
I am sorry but it is not relevant to this motion.
I have made a case already, in so far as you were concerned outside this House, that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges is illegally constituted.
That does not concern me.
I am in the difficult position of not knowing how to handle it. The Taoiseach says this motion which has been introduced is introduced by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I say that Committee was illegally constituted because there was a deliberate action taken by certain members of this House to exclude our group from representation on it.
That is widening the scope of the discussion of this motion inordinately.
I shall abide by your decision on it.
The nominations to that Committee were put before the House and there was no protest whatever from the Deputy.
I shall leave what I have to say until the next motion comes up for discussion. However, I want to go on record as saying that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges did not represent all groups of this House and it was incorrect for the Taoiseach at any time to suggest otherwise.
