Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 30 Oct 1962

Vol. 197 No. 1

Additional Standing Order: Motion

I move:—

That the following be adopted as an additional Standing Order of Dáil Éireann relative to Public Business—

82A (1) For the purpose of this Standing Order a group shall mean—

(a) Any Party which had not less than seven members elected to the Dáil at the previous General Election, or

(b) all members of the Dáil who are not members of any such Party.

(2) Each group shall have the right in rotation to nominate a private member of the group to move a motion standing in his name. The order in which the right may be exercised by the various groups shall be determined on the basis of the numbers of members in the groups, a larger group having precedence over a smaller one. In the case of an equality of numbers precedence shall be determined by lot.

(3) At least ten days prior to the date on which the motion is moved the member nominated shall indicate to the Ceann Comhairle the motion which he proposes to move and the Ceann Comhairle will give this motion appropriate precedence in the Private Members' Business on the Order Paper.

This Standing Order has been recommended to the Dáil by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The present practice by which motions are debated in the order in which notice is given of them gives rise to dissatisfaction. A Member may by getting a number of his motions on to the Order Paper in consecutive order monopolise Private Members' time for a considerable period. The Standing Order which the Committee have recommended distributes the time in a manner which has regard to the various divisions of Members in the House. There is no doubt that this, while not a perfect arrangement, is far more equitable than the present one. On that basis, I recommend it to the House.

I want to support this motion which comes before the House at the request of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. As there has been already considerable misunderstanding, some of which has been quoted in the public Press, it is perhaps as well that it would be unequivocally stated what the motion means.

We know what it means.

I do not know about that, but another Deputy made the statement about what the motion meant and it did not mean that at all. The suggestion was made, and taken up by one section of the Press, that the motion intended that no individual Deputy could ever put down a private motion again. Of course, that is nonsense. The new Standing Order provides, as heretofore, complete and absolute safeguards for any individual Deputy to put a motion on the Order Paper in accordance with his rights as a Deputy to do so.

That is absolute nonsense.

It is true, but it does provide that no one Deputy, or no two Deputies, can unfairly hog the time of the House against their colleagues. The motion provides that the time of the House allotted for Private Members' Business will be divided amongst the various Deputies who have been elected, in a manner not strictly arithmetical, because quite frankly it is against the larger Parties. In fact, under this scheme, the Labour Party will get slightly more than is their fair arithmetical proportion, as their representative agreed in the Committee on Procedure, because in fact the Fine Gael Party and the Government Party are giving up more than their arithmetical share of the time available. What it means is that certain individuals——

Deputy Sweetman is finding it very hard to stop from laughing.

——certain individuals who want——

Who shall be nameless.

No, Khrushchev could be one. Certain individuals can, immediately after a general election, put down all the motions that they want to put down without consulting their colleagues and the more responsible Parties can, in fact, under the existing arrangements, be prevented for a long period from getting any share at all of Private Members' time.

The effect of this arrangement is quite clear. It divides the time of the House according, roughly, to the number of Deputies representing each interest, each Party in the House. I cannot see how anyone who seriously wants to do anything other than make publicity for himself could object—and I do not deny individuals the right to make publicity for themselves because it is on publicity that individuals rely, not on a policy—but I do not see why their publicity should interfere with the orderly and proper discussion of motions in this House set up by the Deputies who have been elected by a large body rather than one particular interest. That is all that is in the motion.

The Deputy's Party did not wake up to the fact that there was room on the Order Paper until about two months ago.

What is wrong with the existing arrangement? It has been in existence for 40 years.

I do know that certain people quite deliberately, as part of their own publicity stunts, wanted to prevent the ordinary procedure that has operated in this House from carrying on in the future. I want to see that everyone gets a fair share and that anyone who wants to have a motion discussed can do so in his own fair, orderly time, but I do not see why anyone in this House should take up more of his share or take up the share that belongs to others. There are motions on this Order Paper that have been put down by our Party for a very considerable time. On the Order Paper as it is at present, they could not be discussed until financial business comes again and in the ordinary course of arrangements, Private Members' time will go.

I do not see why it is proper that because we have 47 members and because, when we want to put down a motion, we naturally enough discuss it amongst ourselves, first of all, others who have not got to discuss it with anyone should get the prior right continually, and again and again, to prevent us as the Opposition Party from bringing in a motion on a serious subject for discussion in this House.

On behalf of the Labour Party, I want to express our agreement with this motion. We do that with no intention of endeavouring to stifle either groups of individuals or individual members of this House, irrespective of what side they belong to. We agree with this motion because we reserve the right to be permitted to have our fair share of time allocated to us. It is not quite correct to say that three hours a week were allocated by the Standing Orders. Three hours a week were allocated for Private Members' time, provided the House sat on Fridays. The Dáil decided not to sit on Fridays as it was not convenient for members and this is to restore the position by changing it from Friday to a day the Dáil sits. I forecast that anyone who wants time for a motion will have more than ample time. As I say, we have no wish and no intention to stifle anybody and we do not believe that anybody will be stifled or prevented from talking in this House.

This motion is a deliberate, calculated attempt to deprive private Deputies of their constitutional right. I wonder has it occurred to the members of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges what are the functions, privileges and responsibilities of Deputies? I wonder are they aware that Parties as such are not recognised by the Constitution? I wonder are they aware of the fact that by trying to impose Party rule on this Dáil they are in contempt of the Constitution? Deputies are elected to represent their constituents. If, thereafter, they combine in groups, calling themselves Parties for convenience or policy or any of these things, that does not take from their primary duty, which is to advocate as best they can the best possible deal they can get for those whom they represent. Here we have this Committee—I agree with Deputy McQuillan; to say "utterly" would perhaps be wrong, but this relatively unrepresentative body, certainly not representative of the whole House—bringing in this motion to limit the rights of private Deputies, and finally I have no doubt knowing the mentality of some of the members of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, to extinguish the rights of private Deputies, if they can possibly do so. However, some of us will fight against that as best we can.

This motion was based on deliberate malice and nothing else. For the past 40 years, every Deputy has had the right to put down on the Order Paper any motion which came within the terms of the duties and responsibilities of members. There have been many troubled times in this House. There have been times when group antagonisms and Party divisions and enmities were far more intense than they are now. At no time was an effort made to limit the rights of Deputies in this regard. I recall in my own relatively short membership of this Chamber over the last ten years or so, we have had up to two dozen or perhaps 15 Independent Deputies. At no time was it suggested that these Deputies' rights and privileges should be curtailed as is proposed here.

I am quite willing to accept that this motion did not in fact emanate from the Government side. The Government have no problem in regard to time for the discussion of motions. I am certain this motion emanated from some individuals who were not sufficiently quick to take advantage of what is open to everybody here: to put down as many motions as they wish, just as we did and were entitled to do. What we have here is the end result of the secret discussions of chagrined political malcontents and nothing more.

That is a great effort!

It is true and the Taoiseach knows it is true. We have Deputy Sweetman talking about his Party having had consultations with the people and others putting down motions without having had consultations with anybody. There are individuals in this House with far greater contacts with the common, ordinary people than Deputy Sweetman ever had or ever will have. Some of these take advantage of this device of bringing the problems of their people before the Dáil.

Take one example of how this will spancel and corral the ordinary Deputy if it goes through, as apparently it will because you are all agreed on it. We often have occasion to put down Dáil Questions on matters of vital interest to us such as, for instance, the manner in which CIE are robbing my constituents in Ballyfermot. We inevitably get the answer—I have had five of them within the past week—that the Minister has no responsibility. What recourse have I in regard to this important issue for the people who sent me here other than that of bringing in a Private Members' Motion?

I am not a member of a Party or a group; I am an Independent Labour representative. There are five other Independents. It is suggested these should meet, form a group and determine between themselves who is to get the opportunity when their turn comes. If an emergency situation should arise and I find I must take some steps in the form of putting down an urgent motion to gain relief for some of my constituents in Ballyfermot or County Dublin, if the Dáil is not in session, how am I to contact Deputy Leneghan in the Belmullet peninsula, Deputy Sheridan in Longford-Westmeath or my friend, the elusive Deputy Sherwin, who is so active all the time on behalf of the citizens of this city? Where will he be located, or any of the others who are Independent Deputies? How can they be located and made to operate this proposal which, apart from being unjust, is totally unworkable?

Supposing this mysterious Committee on Procedure and Privileges were in earnest and really wanted to get some kind of system under which everybody would have a fair chance. Surely if they wanted to change what has existed for the past 40 years, they would have suggested something along the lines of what happens in the British House of Commons, whereby members' requests for Private Time are put into a hat and the lucky ones come out?

This is a much better system.

It is for these groups and for yourselves. Deputy Sweetman made a point about his Party. Is it not true—I have seen it many times myself—that the Government almost invariably are amenable to suggestions from the Opposition when a request comes for time to discuss a particular motion? We had an example recently in connection with pensioners. It is no problem for the larger Parties. In fact, the same could be said as far as the Labour Party are concerned. I am sure that if the Labour Party wanted time for the discussion of a motion, they would not meet with undue unreasonableness from the Taoiseach. This business of Private Time was undoubtedly designed to afford to the Private Deputy the opportunity of raising in this House matters he considered of urgency and importance to the public.

This is a limitation of existing rights, to be followed, without doubt, by an attempt at the final elimination of the rights of individual Deputies. I am glad Deputy Dillon is here. I have heard him many times inveighing against any suggested incursions upon the rights of private Deputies. Yet he is a party to this. I wonder if he were in the position he was in some dozen years ago, when he was an Independent, would he have accepted this proposal so lightly? I doubt it very much. Since it now makes things more comfortable for the larger Parties, we hear no more from Deputy Dillon, who was indeed one of the great tribunes of the rights of individual Deputies.

If this goes through, I can see that soon the Committee on Procedure and Privileges will be taking into account the undue amount of space taken up on the Order Paper by the Questions of Private Deputies and a limit will have to be put on that. Then there will be complaints emanating from the smoke-filled rooms about the amount of time being taken up by Deputies in the course of ordinary debates, and something will have to be done about that. The fact is that everybody here is no more than a private Deputy and any arrangement which you make between yourselves for the convenience of, or the conduct of your own collective affairs, to which I apply the term "Party politics", has no recognition in the Constitution.

The main function and purpose of the Deputy is to look after his constituency. An attempt is being made here to prevent us doing that, an attempt to drive the Independents to form a Party or group. The Independents went before the electorate as individuals with their own policies or lack of policies—call it what you like —but they were elected and have rights equal to those of any other person in the House. The attempt is being made to drive them into a group so that they can be cowed by the larger groups. It is a scandalous and disgraceful thing that this Parliament should be endeavouring to limit the rights of individual Deputies.

I repeat that this is a piece of political ganging-up on the part of the organised groups against individuals. It is remarkable for the fact that the two major parties and the Labour Party have found unanimity for the first time against a small group because that small group is the burr under the saddle of the Party wheelhorse.

This is a matter of some consequence and one in respect of which I feel a special responsibility as the Leader of the principal Opposition. If the gravamen of Deputy Dunne's speech were valid, I should feel quite unfit for the position I occupy. I make no apology to the House or the country for my profound conviction that the safest citadel of individual liberty is a parliamentary democracy and I am concerned to go to the extremest length to ensure that Parliament should effectively function in our society in the profound conviction that if it does not, the alternative is authoritarian rule, either from the Left or the Right, both of which are equally obnoxious to me. I want to state quite categorically that I do not believe Parliament can effectively function, unless each individual Deputy in it is protected in the exercise of all his rights and that in this House under Standing Orders the rights of the most isolated Deputy are quite as sacrosanct as those of the Taoiseach or leader of any Party, large or small.

It is for that reason that an amendment of the Standing Orders has already been adopted by the House today. It is all part of the pattern which is now in the process of adoption to ensure that if Deputy Dunne or any other Independent Deputy feels deeply in respect of any matter affecting his own constituents, or any other matter relevant to the proceedings of the House, he shall have the right to bring any Minister of the Government to render an account of his stewardship here to this House and if, in the course of question and answer and supplementary question and supplementary answer, he fails to get satisfaction from that Minister he shall have sacrosanct the right—and we have today established it for the first time—to call the Minister back to the House when the House adjourns at half-past ten and even if the Deputy is the only one in Dáil Éireann interested in the matter which he wishes to ventilate he can force the Minister to sit here and listen to him for 20 minutes in public and he can constrain the Minister——

That is not what this motion says.

That is what these two motions are designed to do.

That is not what the motion says.

I am as old a hand at this business as the Deputy. I want the House to understand the whole position and not to have the truth twisted for the purpose of deluding the public into believing that there is some dark conspiracy to suppress the rights of individual Deputies. As Deputy Dunne rightly said, I first came to this House as an Independent Deputy——

Might I ask Deputy Dillon——

I must ask the Deputy not to interrupt me. He will have an opportunity of intervening afterwards. I want to establish the fact that we are now amending Standing Orders for the better protection of the individual Deputy——

(Interruptions.)

——and we have established the right of the individual Deputy to question a Minister and constrain him to appear here and answer in public, or whatever he does, even though the Deputy has not the support of any other Deputy in the House.

That is not correct.

That is true. That we have already done. To that, I attach very special importance.

On a point of order, Deputy Dillon is now discussing the previous motion. There is nothing in this motion in connection with the Adjournment Debate. This motion deals with Private Members' time. I suggest to the Chair that Deputy Dillon should be brought to Order and made to discuss what the motion is about and not be sidetracking.

Deputy Dillon is endeavouring to relate this to the motion before the House and I think he is quite in order.

And I suggest that is precisely what Deputy McQuillan does not want to allow me to do because I know what I am discussing, he knows what I am discussing but the difference is that I want the public to know and he does not. But I am going to let the public know——

(Interruptions.)

Acting Chairman

The Deputy should be permitted to make his speech.

I want to let the public know that a Deputy has the right to raise a question which, as Deputy Dunne mentioned, may affect only his own constituency——

By putting down a motion.

——which may command no interest among his colleagues but which, in his judgement, may be of vital interests to his own constituents. That right is now vindicated for the first time. In the summer session last year, that right was challenged and, on the spot, this Opposition Party, under my leadership, immediately insisted on an appropriate amendment of the Standing Orders to ensure that it would never be challenged again——

Under this, you are preventing him from putting down a motion on the subject.

We now come to the second step in the protection of the rights of the individual Deputy. It is quite true that people who are not familiar with them may not understand the significance of Deputy Dr. Browne's and Deputy McQuillan's operations. There are more ways of getting publicity than by getting bitten by a dog. You cannot bring a photographer here for the purpose of this special kind of publicity but one of the ways of getting publicity is, the day after Dáil Éireann assembles, to retire into an alcove in this House and to write out 40 amendments——

The Deputy has a petty mind.

——plant them on the Order Paper and present yourselves as the only Deputies with any diligence. That is an old gag. It reminds me of the man who protests his intention of fighting a boxing match according to the Queensberry Rules and then kicks his opponent in the groin, hoping that the referee will not see him. Let us face this fact—Parliament functions only so long as each one of us in this House accepts the self-denying ordinance of submitting himself to the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle——

And has done so for 40 years.

——and the orders of procedure. Anyone can turn this House into a bear garden at the drop of a hat.

Not anyone; you can.

Anyone can.

A circus, you make it.

One of the ways of doing it is to sit in the benches, tell the Ceann Comhairle he is the son of a sea cook, and that you will not leave the House and to bring in the Captain of the Guard to carry you out and then, having made that affirmation, we are all forced to adjourn; then we adjourn and the hero rambles out at his leisure because he does not want to lose his Parliamentary allowance.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy Browne and Deputy McQuillan need not imagine that I can be provoked like an Alsatian dog. I am not going to bite, no matter what they say, no matter what they do.

You were never fit to bite anyone.

That is all right but I am going to say what I intend to say——

Hear, hear.

——whether they like it or whether they do not.

Come to the point.

The point is that the Order Paper of this House has for its purpose the provision of an opportunity to any Deputy to bring any relevant matter before it by way of motion, if he wants to do it.

That is not true.

The Order Paper of this House is not intended as a publicity machine for Independent Deputies, with whom I have every sympathy, who are working up a bit of sympathy in the hope of getting votes in the next general election. I do not want to condemn it but I want to make this perfectly clear, that the object of this amendment of Standing Orders is to provide something quite simple, that is, that if the Fianna Fáil Party, the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party or the Independents put down motions on this Order Paper, they will be called in strict rotation and each group will be given an opportunity of bringing the matter for which it is concerned before the Dáil in strict rotation, no matter what strategic advantage any one of us may have attempted to take of the other.

There must be seven names to the motion——

That is quite wrong.

——before the Ceann Comhairle can accept it.

Read it properly.

The Deputy has misunderstood the Standing Order. What the Standing Order provides is this, that if he, alone or in association with Deputy Dr. Browne, puts a motion on the Order Paper, if Deputy Dunne puts a motion on the Order Paper, if any other Independent Deputy puts a motion on the Order Paper, if Fine Gael Deputies put a motion on the Order Paper, if Fianna Fáil Deputies put a motion on the Order Paper, if Labour Deputies put a motion on the Order Paper, the Ceann Comhairle will call the Fianna Fáil motion, which will be debated in Private Members' Time; when that is disposed of, he will call the Fine Gael motion, which will be debated in Private Members' Time, and when that is disposed of he will call a Labour motion——

In other words——

Hold your horses. when the Labour motion is disposed of, he will call a motion from the Independent benches.

There must be seven names to it.

No, no, no.

He knows perfectly well but does not want to know.

I want the House to understand it.

I have read the motion and I have read the intention behind the motion, which is worse.

Acting Chairman

Deputy Dillon should be permitted to make his speech.

He should be accurate.

I want the House to understand what the Standing Order proposes. This is important because there are forces abroad in the world concerned to create the impression that Parliament no longer functions as a citadel of individual liberty. If Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy McQuillan stood over their thesis they could do Parliament and this country a very real injury if they presented the appearance of Parties combining to silence individual Deputies. That is what they want to do.

What I want to do is to make it clear, not only to the mind of this House, but to the public at large, that the purpose of this amendment of the Standing Orders is to ensure that even though Fine Gael puts down 100 motions on the Paper, even though Fianna Fáil puts down 100 motions on the Paper, even though the Labour Party puts down 100 motions on the Paper, every fourth motion debated in this House must come from the Independent benches and there is left to us no power to prevent the Independent benches being called every fourth motion. Now, to my mind, that is a great and invaluable guarantee of the fundamental rights of the Independent Deputies in this House but it is even more effective than I am suggesting because in our knowledge of Parliamentary practice Private Deputies' Motions are rarely, if ever, put down by the Government Party and what this Standing Order really means is that every third motion called in this House must be called from the benches in which Deputy Dunne, Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy McQuillan sit.

There must be a group of seven behind it.

No, no, no.

Read it. Do not go on with that kind of stuff in this House. You may cod the House, but not the public.

The Deputy may be simple or he may be devious but certain it is that the motion does not mean what he thinks it means. The motion means what I say it means.

Like Alice in Wonderland.

I think the Taoiseach will agree that if any words are necessary to give effect to what I have said, and which the Deputy appears to apprehend, they will be employed?

The wording is quite clear.

I know, but if words were necessary, the change will be made—is that not so? Yes. The sole purpose is to provide that no matter how many motions Fine Gael puts down, no matter how many motions Labour puts down, in effect every third motion debated in this House must come—must come—from the Independent benches.

I do not want to describe the Deputy, in his own terms, as daft. Why is the figure seven used in the motion?

Acting Chairman

Deputy Dillon should be permitted to make his speech.

The Deputy possibly does not understand.

Acting Chairman

Deputy McQuillan will have an opportunity of addressing the House if he wishes.

I am very sorry.

Here are the facts. I am authorised to say—I say, and the Taoiseach agrees with me—that if any change is required in the words to ensure——

To any—to "one".

To "one".

"Any single Deputy".

My concern is not to protect any group of two. My concern is to protect any individual Deputy who puts down a motion. I think Standing Orders require that a motion must be proposed and seconded but I am not sure.

One name only.

I guarantee to the Deputy that the proposal as it stands on the Paper means what I have said.

May I ask the Deputy just one question? If that is the case, it is much ado about nothing.

Will the Leader of the major Opposition Party agree to have removed from this motion the first part:

82A (1) For the purpose of this Standing Order a group shall mean—

(a) Any Party which had not less than seven members elected to the Dáil at the previous General Election.

Certainly, I will guarantee the Deputy this, if these words restrict in any way the unqualified truth of the proposition which I make, that the purpose of this Standing Order is to provide, admitting that Fianna Fáil do not put down private motions, that hereafter the Chair must call a Fine Gael motion, a Labour motion and a third motion from the Independent benches and if there is no other motion in the Fine Gael Party's name, he must go on calling from the Labour Party or if they have no motion, he must go on calling motions from the Independent benches, even if there is only one Deputy's name on them——

Is the Deputy serious in suggesting that the Fine Gael Party will have only one motion down?

If we put down 100 motions on the Order Paper and the Labour Party put down 100 motions, and Deputy McQuillan has three motions on the Order Paper, then the motions must be called in the following order: one from Fine Gael, one from Labour, one from Deputy McQuillan.

I guarantee to the Deputy that that is the meaning of this Standing Order. It has been so drafted by the officials of this House to give effect to that interpretation. If there is any ambiguity about it, then the wording can be changed.

May I ask Deputy Dillon a question? We assume that Fine Gael, Labour—leave out Fianna Fáil—and the Independents will put down motions as groups. Does the Leader of the Opposition agree that he would include in the rotation Fine Gael, Labour, NPD?

No. The position is that it has always been felt, in relation to a number of procedural matters in this House, that the smallest Party which can be recognised for the purposes of the House is a Party which returns not less than seven members at the previous election.

Now we have it.

The group of Independents is deemed to be a Party of seven.

That is for the purpose of the payment of allowances to the leaders.

The two NPD Deputies will deprive Deputy Dunne of his rights now.

One from Fine Gael, one from Labour, one from the main independent benches. I have intervened in this matter because I love parliament. I love its institutions. I am deeply convinced that it is vital to the survival of this country as a free country and vital to the individual liberty of us all. I am deeply conscious of the fact that, because Deputy Dr. Browne's activities are very frequently grossly obnoxious to me, I have an exceptional duty cast upon me to ensure that his rights in this House are held sacrosanct and must be most carefully protected. I am deeply conscious of the temptation under which I myself labour to recoil with violence from many of the things he and Deputy McQuillan do and advocate.

It nearly chokes the Deputy.

I agree. Some of the things the Deputy does almost choke me. Some of them almost make me sick. That puts me under an even greater compulsion, and I acknowledge it, to consent to the Deputy being treated fairly. I am honestly trying to resist temptation and to recognise that I have an exceptional obligation in respect of these two Deputies, and even the Deputy behind them, Deputy Leneghan. The more offensive they are to me personally, the more I believe my obligation to be to see that their rights are as strictly protected as are my own. That exposes me to ridicule from certain quarters. But those are the facts and it is because they are the facts that I have intervened in this debate and exposed myself to the kind of front that habitually comes from that part of the House. There are certain jobs which require one to sustain that treatment in public life and, if one is not prepared to take it and hand it out, then one ought not to be in public life at all. It is because my mind is quite clear that this Standing Order effectively protects Deputy Dr. Browne, Deputy McQuillan——

That is why it was brought in?

I am glad to hear that. It is a new one on me.

——and Deputy Dunne that I support it. It is designed to ensure that Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy McQuillan will not be allowed to smother me, or Deputy Dunne, by any procedural artifice, and that Deputy Dunne will not be allowed to smother Deputy McQuillan, or me, or any other Deputy, by the employment of a procedural artifice.

What did the Irish Party do in the House of Commons? That was another artifice, was it? The Deputy is very closely associated——

I am not to be provoked into making the kind of reply which comes tripping to my lips, but I assure the Deputy that the purpose of this amendment of Standing Orders is what I describe it to be.

Say what the Deputy likes!

That is the very right I am trying to preserve for the Deputy, the right to say what he likes.

The Deputy will never take it from me.

Never, so long as we can keep this House functioning under the Standing Orders we have laboriously devised. They are designed to provide that neither the Taoiseach, nor I, as Leader of this Party, nor Deputy Corish as Leader of the Labour Party, will ever be able to take from Deputy McQuillan, or Deputy Dr. Browne, or Deputy Dunne. the right to speak and say what he wants to say here so long as he can get a quota of electors to send him here. It is that right I stand for. That right is concerned to protect us. It is that right I am concerned to vindicate.

I am entitled to believe when I say I pledge my word unequivocally to all Deputies that the purpose of this Standing Order is to provide that when the Chair calls Private Motions, he must call a motion from Fine Gael, a motion from Labour and then always a motion from the benches in which the Independents sit and, until he has called that motion, he cannot return to call another motion from either Fine Gael or Labour. That is the purpose of this amendment. Combined with the amendment of Standing Orders and the Standing Orders themselves, these two together guarantee to the most isolated Deputy a far greater security than he has ever enjoyed in this Parliament since this State was founded. That is the way I want it to be. So long as I am in the position in which I at present am, Deputy Dunne, Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy McQuillan may rest assured that, much as I detest many of their activities, I shall continue to fight resolutely for the protection of their rights to say in this House what they want to say, within the Standing Orders, so long as they can find a quota of voters silly enough to send them here.

Who would have thought, listening to Deputy Dillon's effusion, that this motion is vitally necessary? He assures us that this motion is designed to protect the rights of private Deputies and to maintain those rights sacrosanct in the teeth of any opposition that might come. He tells us this is a motion which will achieve that object. We have waited for the best part of 40 years to get this from Deputy Dillon.

Yes. The Deputy never had me leading the Opposition before.

What happened during all those 40 years to those unfortunate Private Deputies who were deprived of the protection of the motion we are now discussing?

You never know your luck.

What a shame that it should have taken Deputy Dillon so long even to consider the position of the poor unfortunate Private Deputy? What happened that he should decide at this particular juncture to introduce this motion in the interests of the Private Deputy? I do not know whether one can be a conscious humbug or whether one is always an unconscious humbug, but I have no doubt in my mind at all that this exercise in hypocrisy by Deputy Dillon today has never been excelled by the same Deputy in all the years I have sat here listening to him. He has attempted to show that we are improving the position for the Private Deputy. He must know very well that the decision of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in relation to this motion is all part of a pattern. It is part of a pattern which has evolved naturally from the disappearance of the old inter-Party differences which so naturally divided this country, so that we are gradually moving here, regrettably, to the creation of the one Party society in so far as there is nothing at all now dividing them on ideological, political or any other grounds whatsoever.

Or on the grounds of Standing Orders.

There is complete unanimity on the Standing Orders to suppress two Deputies who have been particularly active in their Parliamentary duties. Quite frankly, my first reaction to this motion was: what a very pretty compliment it is indeed! There are 144 Deputies in the House and you feel that we may not any longer have right of access to the tiny microcosm of Parliamentary time available in Private Deputy's Time.

All cod.

We happen to be a very tiny group—two of us.

Like the dogs.

It is our job to try to put forward a point of view. I think both sides of the House will agree that we have used Private Members' Time usefully on many occasions to put forward social and economic ideas based on a socialist background, a James Connolly background, for the benefit of other Deputies in order to try to persuade them to take our point of view. We do happen to be living in a Parliamentary democracy. It does not come very well from either side of the House to lecture our generation on the merits of Parliamentary democracy because as I pointed out—I do not like to go back any more than anybody else—we have shown a very much higher regard for the procedure of Parliament than either of you people have shown in your own time. We have only got to remember the march of the Blueshirts on this House at one stage in the 1930s. You have only to remember the present President's attitude to this Parliamentary democracy before you start being sanctimonious in your old age, thinking over the wild oats you once sowed and the complete contempt you showed for the decision of individuals to decide to establish a Parliament to debate, discuss and try to convince one another by dint of argument and not by the use of the gun. We have not been guilty of that, which is more than you can say.

There is no doubt that this is part of a pattern which has developed over the past three years in Ireland. I regret to see it. There is no doubt that the first incursion on the right of private Deputies, the first assault, was made by the former Taoiseach, with the consent of the present Taoiseach, when it was decided that they would try, by removing proportional representation, to get rid of the Independent Deputy altogether out of the Dáil. That was the purpose. You were coming very close to it. Both major Parties had established a nice sort of city club for country Deputies, a sort of quiet, somnolent mausoleum, a St. Michan's in the city of Dublin, to which you could come, spit at one another in a quiet sort of way in your old age and then go back and pretend you were doing the job of public representatives.

That was the first attempt made to get rid of the Independent voice in Irish politics, the nonconformist voice in Irish politics, the Deputy who could not and would not toe the line merely because somebody said this was sacred and was the irrefutable truth handed down by some individual and because it was handed down, it must be the truth, the Deputy who insisted on his right to come to his own conclusions on current social and economic problems. They would not toe the Party line on either side. Consequently, they must be brutally forced into the acceptance of the Party line.

This is the tendency in the countries which Deputy Dillon so frequently criticises, the insistence on adherence to the Party line by countries which they call Communist countries. They are criticised and abused for insisting upon one-Party Government, absolute conformity and acceptance of the diktat of the higher-ups. That is exactly what you are trying to establish here. So they went to the country and tried to get rid of the Independents. Not one of us would have come back if they had changed proportional representation. In passing, I think it is important to the Labour Party to bear in mind the assault which was made on them at that time in order to get rid of them. These two great Parties are not the friends of democracy. They would as much see the end of the Labour Party as they would of the Independent Deputies and our tiny group. It is rather significant that 144 of you should combine together to take away the rights of two Deputies who have attempted to bring a new point of view into this old mausoleum over the years. The next attempt so far as I was concerned, certainly as an Independent Deputy, was made by gerrymandering my constituency in the most absurd and outrageous way.

Deputies may not discuss the Electoral Act on this motion.

We are not going to discuss it, either. I mention it in passing as indicating a pattern which has evolved and is ending up here today when they are depriving us of having motions debated in our names, a practice which has gone on for the past 35 or 40 years. Having failed to get rid of us by altering proportional representation and gerrymandering our constituencies, they now bring us in here to alter the whole pattern of behaviour in regard to the putting down of motions.

No case was made here at all that we were in any way irresponsible in regard to the time we took up in discussing motions we put down on the Order Paper from time to time. Many of the motions are there on the record to be seen. The debate on them is there to be read. The conclusions arrived at in relation to them were of great value and in some cases they resulted in the betterment of the general social and economic conditions in the country.

It was arising out of a motion put down by us that a Commission was established in order to consider the position of the Irish language. On a number of occasions, with Deputy McQuillan, I put down a motion concerning the provision of better health services. I put such motions down again and again. Finally, the main Opposition Party put down a similar motion. A Select Committee of the House has now been established to consider the improvement of our health services.

We put down a motion concerning the electoral system to the Seanad. As a result, under the former Taoiseach, a commission was established. It did not make any far-reaching changes— certainly it did not make the ones we suggested—but it was quite clear that we made a good case for some form of inquiry into the system of election to the Seanad that then pertained.

On a number of occasions, we put down motions concerning the appalling state of our educational system. We gave facts for the consideration of the House and we made a case for the improvement of our educational system. That was done long before people who are now professing an interest in education made their voices heard. We welcome their interest now. Presumably the motions which we put down were part of their education.

However, long before these Deputies showed an interest in education, we were debating it in the Dáil and showing up the grave defects which then existed and which still exist in our educational system. We have now reached the stage that there is general unanimity that grave defects exist in our educational system and we think some changes will be made. Those were valuable contributions by a tiny group of two in this House.

We also had the satisfaction of putting down a motion concerning the price of flour and bread and the desirability of bringing the flour milling industry into public ownership. We got the support of, I think, the whole House—certainly of the Opposition— on the desirability of considering the matter seriously.

Private Members' Time, for the discussion of motions, was invaluable to us. On another occasion, which I shall not develop, we had what might be termed the Irish Press affair. I could not pursue that in the ordinary course of business by means of Parliamentary Question. However, I was able to pursue it—in my view, to a satisfactory conclusion—by putting down a motion——

How does this motion prevent the Deputy from doing it?

I shall tell the Deputy in a moment. The Taoiseach certainly said: "Put down a motion" on some other issue. He knows, quite rightly, that it was a wonderful facility that one could put down a motion. It was a facility of great value. There is obviously a deterioration in the situation as far as Deputy McQuillan and myself are concerned in our small Party. I do not think there is any controverting that truth.

We have seen a gradual attempt to restrict the right of small groups in this Parliament. Deputy Dillon has many times suggested that he is a great believer in the idea of: "I do not agree with your political views but I will go to the wall in defence of your right to express them."

Hear, hear.

Yes, it is quite clear that he is now using this motion in order to destroy our right to carry on, as we did in the past, in relation to Private Members' Time.

It seems to me completely unfair that, in a Parliament which operates under the system of proportional representation, small Parties should be put into this position. The system of proportional representation inevitably brings in a high proportion of Independent Deputies. It permits the presence in the Dáil of small groups, such as our group, of two, three, four, or whatever it may be. That is the decision of the people. Within recent years, the people have given their decision that they desire to maintain the system of proportional representation.

It may be very inconvenient to have people like us who do not toe the Party line, who do not accept the diktat of the Taoiseach or Deputy Dillon on any particular issue. You are doing that within this House: you could not do it outside. You are undermining the things you profess to believe in. You are undermining the whole conception of Parliamentary democracy. It is a particularly difficult system to operate: there is no doubt about that. However, I do not know if anybody has yet discovered a more desirable one. Admittedly, they have found more effective ones.

We see, then, here in the House, the suppression of the minority point of view. In the newspapers, in television and on the radio, the strictest censorship possible is maintained in regard to the expression of the nonconformist political point of view in this country. That censorship is operated right from the cradle to the grave. It is operated right through the schools and, when they leave the schools, it is operated in the newspapers. Now, it is most rigidly operated through the media of television and radio.

You are closing the last peep hole that did exist—the political possibilities we put forward from time to time, which exist in other countries and which the Government and the main Opposition Party have so frequently attempted to suppress. It is flattering to think that this is the only strategy left open to them. I find it very comforting that you have no answer to the social, political and ideological views which I am prepared to put forward here in regard to the organisation of education or health services or the economy of our society.

If you had an easy answer, if you had a ready answer, if you could refute what I have to say—my charges, my conclusions—surely you would take every opportunity of getting up and doing so and in that way of silencing me? It is a comfort to know that the things in which I believe cannot be refuted by anybody in this House in general terms. Because of that, you have now taken this course.

I come now to the decision about the seven members. I have not discussed this with Deputy McQuillan but if it were altered to allow——

One member.

——Fine Gael, Labour, ourselves, Independents in any group they desire, in rotation, I can see a lot could be said for it. It is not our fault that we happen to be a small group. It has its drawbacks. It is no great pleasure. If one tries, as a small group, to cover the number of subjects contained in motions, it is obvious that, for two people, it is a very formidable job. Consequently, it would be very pleasant to have 19 or 20 people in our group. We do happen to have given a lot of thought over the years to these various subjects and because of that, we are clear in our minds what we should like to see done in relation to any one of them.

Because of that, we do not need to debate this among ourselves as the big Parties presumably have to do. We cannot be blamed for that. We believe therefore we have this right to use the facility of Private Members' Time. It is only a very tiny part of all our Parliamentary time. As Deputy Dunne said, the Government naturally have all the time they want and the major Opposition Party have clearly the right at any time to ask the Government for public time to debate something about which they are greatly concerned. They are naturally unconcerned from our point of view with the division of Private Members' Time which was the only tiny part of Parliamentary time left to us in which to put forward our views.

It is left to you.

The position now is that this facility which we had is being taken away from us.

We are now being looked upon not as a Party. We are now being grouped in with the Independents. One of the points of proportional representation is that it does facilitate the emergence of Independents or small groups. That is what the people want, and good luck to them. It is quite unthinkable that any three or four of us, or the Independents, because we do not feel we can agree with the others on broad principles——

Did anybody ever agree with Deputy Dillon when he was an Independent? I know he got them since.

It is quite clear that the figure seven excludes us as a Party. We are now pushed in with the general group of Independents. Deputy Dillon cannot seriously suggest that that is protecting the rights of small groups, small Parties. I suppose it is a form of specious argument to suggest he did this for the good of the Independents — that he suddenly became concerned about the Independents.

Not suddenly. All my life I have been concerned about them.

He thought we were abusing Private Members' Time in putting down a number of motions. I can give another view on that. This is the third or fourth Dáil session and because of that a number of these motions have been debated already and we did not change our point of view on them. Most Parties could have accepted them and I do not see why they did not put down motions such as these. There was every opportunity and every right for them to do so. There must be some other way rather than wiping us out—that is what you are doing—as a political Party. The right to put down motions has been taken away from us.

By virtue of the fact that we are to be grouped in with the Independents. Whether it is the intention to do that or not, it is what will happen and as far as we are concerned, these Private Members' motions will not be discussed except practically by a miracle because, as Deputy Dillon and the House know, Private Members' Time is very limited and even if a lot of motions are put into the Order Paper, it is quite rarely we can get to them, quite rarely these motions are taken.

We have already asked the Government for two days each week for Private Members' Time and the Government are prepared to do it.

The Deputy should join one of the big Parties as he did before.

The time is relatively increased——

It is twice what it used to be.

It still means a serious deterioration in our position. I do not see why there could not have been some other way of deciding—by lot, for instance, as is the method in other Parliaments.

The Deputy's chances would be worse by lot.

That is but a suggestion. There are other methods.

Is there any proposition better designed to guarantee the Deputy's rights? It gives him a guarantee of two in three.

It does nothing of the kind and Deputy Dillon knows that very well.

We are not Independents.

But you have no more rights than I have.

This is the end of motions as far as the NPD are concerned.

We are discussing the use of Private Members' Time.

And the abuse of it.

We are now changing it so that the big Parties will dominate the time of Parliament. They will now take over the greater proportion of the time. As it says in this document, "larger groups having precedence over smaller groups——"

That is simply to start.

If any Deputy wants to make a case otherwise, there is no doubt this was aimed specifically at our small group.

Nonsense.

It would have been nice to believe, it would have been comforting to believe, that you had within you the fineness of spirit or the grandeur, or what have you, to say: "Right; you are a troublesome, difficult lot; you caused a lot of difficulties for us from time to time——"

You flatter yourself.

"——but, at the same time, there is no great harm done".

Will the Deputy look at the Order Paper as it stands today? He will find his motion comes first.

Deputy Dillon will come and take all the time, leaving no time for anything else. That is the way he wants it.

The Deputy will come first, then Fine Gael, then Labour, then the Deputy's motion, then Fine Gael, then back again to the Deputy's motion. He knows that damn well. He is only talking.

Of course, he has told us he is more important than the rest of us.

Did he not start a war the other day?

The Government should step aside and not take away all the rights of Deputies. Of course it is 142 to two, so I suppose we should feel complimented.

That is the way the people voted.

You have not got the manliness to continue to give us the facilities we enjoyed in the past.

I, as an Independent, look on this motion very differently from Dr. Browne. I listened to Deputy Dunne who does not seem to understand what Deputies Browne and McQuillan are driving at. Otherwise, I feel sure he would not support them. If the two Deputies were to get equal footing with the big Parties and if the seven Independent Deputies were to be treated, not as seven Parties but as one, then Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy McQuillan could speak every three months, whereas Deputy Dunne would speak only every two years. It amounts to that, so he would not agree at all.

Here is the way it would work out. Fianna Fáil usually do not put down motions or, at least, the Party in power usually do not. Fine Gael would put down a motion; the Labour Party would table a motion; and the two Deputies behind me would table a motion. I would table a motion, but I could not table another motion for three years because the turn of the other six Independents would have come then, but all the time the two Deputies behind me could continue to table motions. They could speak seven times more than the other Independents. That would not suit Deputy Dunne. We would oppose that.

Let us get it straight. We did not initiate this proposal. In fact, I am a member of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and, in that committee, I opposed it because I was asked to oppose it. I opposed it only because I was asked to oppose it. Personally, I agree with the proposal before the House. I support it because I think it is fair. I do not think the Deputies who are complaining have anything to complain about. I do not think they will lose a lot of time. Only two or three Independents put down motions anyway. There are four motions in the name of Deputy Dunne on the Order Paper and there is one motion in my name. That is all, apart from the motions in the names of Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy McQuillan. I am not fond of putting down motions. I think many of them are nonsensical and only serve as a sort of publicity gimmick and when they appear on the Order Paper, they are forgotten about.

I have a motion on the Order Paper —I think it is important—dealing with people who, I believe, should automatically get a proportionate increase when everyone else gets an increase in income. That is important. Several members of the Labour Party have supported the principle underlying that motion. There are 11 motions on the Order Paper in front of me in the names of Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy McQuillan. I have been kept waiting a year and it looks as if I shall have to wait another year or 18 months, all because two people are hogging the agenda.

Although I am making that statement, I did not initiate this proposal, nor did any other Independent. If the two Deputies were to have their own way and be treated as a Party, each of us Independents could talk only about once every two years. We will not agree with that. As the proposal stands now, as I see it, the two Deputies will be able to speak every couple of months and the position will be that there will be a Fine Gael motion, a Labour Party motion, a motion probably put down by the two Deputies behind me, and then perhaps Deputy Dunne will put down a motion, and then the same thing again. So, as I see it, every fifth motion will be put down by Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy McQuillan. As double time is being granted now, our turns will come up every two months while the House is sitting and we are in a position to discuss Private Members' Business.

I think this proposal is fair to the other Independents. I am not supporting it because I happen to vote for the Government. That has nothing to do with it. I am, I hope, orderly-minded, although some persons seem to think I am not. There was a situation on Dublin City Council two years ago —long before there was any question of voting for the Government—in which a member put down 15 motions. The rest of us realised it would be six months or a year before we could talk. We immediately demanded an amendment of the Standing Orders and we have just completed it. We have actually decided on something like what the House is now deciding on, because we believe it is fair.

The proposal of Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy McQuillan is dangerous to the rest of the Independents and I, as one, would not agree, nor would the others. If Deputy Dunne were here, he would know what I am driving at because if these two Deputies got away with it, Deputy Dunne could speak only once every 12 months or two years. He would not like that. For that reason, I think this proposal is fair. I again want to emphasise the fact that I at no time objected to the time given to Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy McQuillan. Even if it was wasted time, I have never commented in any way. I am now speaking my mind on this motion. I support it. I would not support Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy McQuillan being treated as a Party unless each individual member of the Independents got the same rights.

It is not very often I agree with Deputy Dillon. I think this is about the first time and it may, for all I know, be the last. I must agree with him on this motion because it is a shocking state of affairs that any two Independents who take a dislike to everyone in the House should form a mixum-gatherum two-man Party and monopolise the time of the House. That is the position at which we would actually have arrived unless some amendment, like this, were made to Standing Orders. There is no use in codding. I do not know what type of people in Irish life this alleged Party represent. Certainly they do not represent any of the type of good. decent Christian people who live in the west of Ireland. I do not think they are really representative of one-tenth of one per cent. of the people of this country at all.

Surely any fair-minded and sane-minded man must realise that the bigger the Party in the House, the more backing they have amongst the people because of the type of elections we have, and consequently the more time that Party should have in the House. It would be just as easy for Deputy Sherwin and me to come together and start the same type of nonsense as has been carried on here since we came in today, if we formed a two-man Party. There is nothing to stop, say, Deputy Barron and Deputy Dunne from forming the same type of Party. I should like to know what advantage that type of system would be to the country. It would be no advantage in the world. There is no reason in the world why any two men in the House who are disgruntled should try to monopolise the time of the House. I want to congratulate both the Government and the Opposition on making a concerted effort to put an end once and for all to the type of nonsense which I have seen going on here for the past 12 months.

Acting Chairman

The Parliamentary Secretary.

I gather he is not concluding?

Acting Chairman

Does the Deputy wish to speak?

We shall all be able to speak three or four times so.

I know there is not much use in appealing to Deputies at this stage to hold their hand on this motion, but, even so, while the opportunity is available to me, I think it is only right that I should clarify one or two points made by the Leader of the Fine Gael Party before I deal with the wider issues involved in this.

Deputy Dillon states specifically that this motion is not intended to prevent the N.P.D. utilising the Order Paper and Private Members' Time during the period laid down. I want to say quite categorically that it is the intention behind the motion. This was planned outside this House and it was planned by a member of the Fine Gael Party who associated very closely with a very high opposite number in the Fianna Fáil Party, and they introduced the subject for discussion in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

Deputy Dillon is an innocent in regard to thinking up this situation. He was presented with a fait accompli and I suppose it is up to him to be loyal to those under him who planned this political gagging of a minority in this House. However, it has shattered once and for all any little confidence I had that Deputy Dillon was prepared, in his own words, “to go to the wall” in regard to defending the rights of what he described as the humblest Deputy. I think that statement of Deputy Dillon's can no longer be quoted with any confidence by any member of his Party who may at any time in the future run foul of Deputy Dillon.

This motion was introduced to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, a body which I have maintained was illegally constituted. I was a member of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges for a number of years and while I was a member, I never forgot the occasion when the former Chief Whip of the Fianna Fáil Party, Deputy Ó Briain, introduced a motion for discussion by the Committee which would, if brought before this House——

Acting Chairman

The Deputy is out of order. He may not discuss the business of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges on this motion.

Deputy Dillon dealt at length with various matters before he led up to the implications of this motion. Surely I am entitled to give the background to this motion and how it came about?

Acting Chairman

The Deputy was not doing that when I pointed out he was not in order.

I feel I am because you are not in a position to know——

Acting Chairman

It is not in order to discuss the various matters discussed at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

After this, we shall be shot down altogether. I beg you at this stage not to limit me in explaining how our political execution seems to have been brought about.

Acting Chairman

The Chair is not limiting the Deputy on the motion.

I do not know what you are doing, if you are not doing that.

Acting Chairman

The Chair knows.

There is a sinister build-up behind the whole idea of limiting the freedom of Deputies in this House. As far as the motion is concerned, the Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party, the Taoiseach, did his utmost to have a Standing Order prepared for this House that would prevent a Deputy from raising in Private Members' Time a subject matter which could relate to CIE, the ESB, Bord na Móna or any other State or semi-State concern. The argument put forward at the time was that the Minister has no responsibility for these Sate bodies.

Acting Chairman

And they do not come within the terms of this motion.

I do not suggest they do, but I suggest that the mentality which tried to prevent the discussion of those matters is the mentality which is concerning itself with other liberties which are being affected in the motion under discussion.

In the British House of Commons, there is no restriction on the right of a private member to ask the House of Commons for the expression of views on any State or semi-State body. In this Dáil, we cannot do it by Question. The attempt was being made to prevent its being done by motion. That failed and what has happened——

Acting Chairman

The Deputy may not discuss that any further. I have said it does not arise.

I restrain myself. I am accepting the fact we are being shot down.

Acting Chairman

Not on the motion.

What had we after that? At the first sitting of the present Dáil, we had the establishment of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and although I was nominated for appointment to that Committee, my name was not brought forward——

Acting Chairman

Appointments to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges may not be discussed on this motion.

The Taoiseach referred to it.

Acting Chairman

I did not hear the Taoiseach refer to it. My ruling is as I have given it now. Discussion on the formation of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges is not in order on this motion.

I presume you take cognisance of what other occupants of the Chair rule in your absence. In this instance, a discussion took place between the Taoiseach and myself on his statement in this House in regard to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in which he said all Parties were asked for their views, or consulted, in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges prior to this motion being drafted.

He did not say any such thing.

I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me that in the course of the debate last June the Taoiseach did say this was the wish of the House.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy is out of order.

He said the Committee on Procedure and Privileges was representative of the Dáil.

It was representative of all Parties of the Dáil, which is a different kettle of fish, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows well. I pointed out at the time that we were not consulted at any stage and the reason we were not consulted is that I was deliberately kept out of that Committee.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy is now out of order.

I shall pursue another line. Deputy Dr. Browne gave one portion of the background to this. Deputies' memories are not so short that they cannot cast them back to an occasion during the last session of the House when a disciplinary motion was introduced increasing drastically the penalties for alleged transgressions of rulings by the Chair. Now, the day that motion was brought in, it was intended that this motion was to be discussed as well. The aim at the time was to prevent, in so far as it was possible, Independent Deputies and Deputies in small groups like the one to which Deputy Dr. Browne and I belong, from asking awkward or embarrassing supplementary questions at Question Time. By restricting the rights of Deputies at Question Time, one avenue of criticism on behalf of the public was closed in this House.

The second prong, shall we say, of the attack launched on this group was in connection with the motions. It has been suggested by some speakers that the Standing Orders which are in operation were good enough for the past 35 to 40 years as far as Private Members' Time was concerned. Suddenly this decision was taken by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges at the instigation of the Fine Gael representatives on that Committee, ardently backed by the Fianna Fáil representatives, because nothing suited them better than to have Fine Gael on this occasion doing the dirty work. The idea was: "We can gang up on this issue and close the mouths of these two."

Why was it done? Because over a number of years, in a series of very important motions, we forced both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael into the one Division Lobby. They hated the idea of being shown up. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have played the old Party politics in this House so long that they felt that the motions which were introduced were likely to show the general public that there was no difference between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael; that the difference was that between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. When on a number of motions both Parties had to come together and go into the same division lobby against a smaller group of Independents or Labour, it was significant that they were disturbed as far as their political safety was concerned and they felt that the public might say: "There is very little difference between them. Why do they not get into the one group once and for all?" Motions put down by our small group were a definite political danger as far as the major Parties were concerned. Not that it made much difference in this House because the motions would not be carried, but when the public read that the views of both major Parties were similar, then it was a different matter.

I should like to instance some of the situations in which the two major Parties decided in their own interests and in the interests of the country that they should come together. There was a discussion here on the question of the United Nations sending representatives to the Six Counties to observe the situation there and to observe whether there was any great case to be made that the minority in the North were getting anything but a fair crack of the whip with regard to appointments and conditions generally. What happened that? Both major Parties combined to oppose it and it was defeated by an overwhelming majority. When it came to the abolition of that notorious Act of Parliament, the Offences Against the State Act, or even of getting a portion of it amended, there was again a line up by the two major Parties against the idea of any changes. There was no difference whatever between them.

When it came to a motion which a number of back benchers in both Parties agreed with—or should I say, supported — namely that in light of modern developments in welfare, the present expenditure on defence equipment could be considered wasteful in large measure and that Dáil Éireann was of the opinion that a Select Committee of the House should be set up to examine into the question of national expenditure on defence generally, that motion was defeated by a combination of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. They did not want any stir or any thought, any new approach, in a matter of that nature. When they were put together on a number of these issues, they were, as I said, embarrassed and wanted to make sure that this embarrassment would not occur as frequently in the future.

That is only one point. Over the years, rural Deputies will recall that the motions discussed in this House in connection with rural Ireland, moved by Deputy Browne and myself, were responsible for forcing the Government to change their policy to a considerable extent. I want to bring home quite clearly the occasions when that happened. Deputies on both sides will recall that the Local Authorities (Works) Act was suspended and Deputies in the Fianna Fáil Party will recall that at their own county councils strong pressure was brought to bear on them to get the Government to restore the Local Authorities (Works) Act. As far as rural Ireland was concerned, that Act brought untold benefit in the form of reclaimed land for small farmers.

Surely all this does not arise on this motion?

I am referring to motions in our names that have already been dealt with and my argument is that we will not be in a position to deal with motions such as these again.

The Deputy may not deal with them on this motion.

My argument is that we will be prevented from putting motions down and I am entitled to make the case about the advantages that some of them——

The merits or demerits of the motions certainly may not be discussed on this motion.

Surely in order to prove that there is a disadvantage to rural areas to limit any speaker in putting down motions, I am entitled to point out the benefits conferred by previous motions and to argue that such will not be the case in future as a result of this?

Not to the extent to which the Deputy is going.

I did not catch what the Chair said.

Not to the extent to which the Deputy is endeavouring to go.

I will not deal with any of them in detail. I will simply refer to the Local Authorities (Works) Act. When it came to a question of a division in the House the Minister intervened immediately in the debate and said that the Government's intention was to bring in an intermediate drainage scheme. That came about because of the motion which had just been under discussion. That was useful and I congratulate the Government on so doing. There is no doubt that the intermediate drainage scheme —it has not yet come to my constituency—has done quite an amount of work in the constituency of the Parliamentary Secretary who sits so smugly opposite me. He can thank that motion for helping his constituency.

Not one scheme under the intermediate drainage scheme has been done in my constituency—not one. It is like the rest of the Deputy's statements.

That is even worse, because the Minister said that the first scheme of two rivers would be in Donegal.

The Minister and I do not belong to the same constituency.

You are both from Donegal. The Parliamentary Secretary should switch over to the Minister's constituency at that rate. However, I will not pursue the idea of dealing with the motions concerned but I will get down to the motion on the Order Paper.

For the first time, we are getting in Standing Orders recognition of political Parties, although, as Deputy Dunne pointed out, there is no mention of political Parties in the Constitution. There may be in this House, for the purposes of prestige, some kind of arrangement that a Party with seven or more members is entitled to a Parliamentary allowance, but there is no recognition of political Parties either in Standing Orders or in the Constitution. But, because the Parties found the figure of seven Deputies good enough in order to ensure they would have a good Parliamentary allowance for their own organisational work, they felt it would be desirable in determining what constituted a political Party to suggest there must be seven members in any Party to entitle it to put down a motion in Dáil Éireann.

A sort of lucky member.

Therefore, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour members on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges decided that a political Party must consist of seven before it can put down motions for discussion in Private Members' Time. That is the decision that is to be forced through this House.

The Deputy knows perfectly well that that is a misrepresentation.

Let us see how silly this motion is.

A single Deputy can get a motion through.

Let us understand the arrogance of the Deputies of the two major Parties who have spoken. Let us examine this proposed Standing Order. It says:

For the purpose of this Standing Order a group shall mean any Party which had not less than seven Members elected to the Dáil at the previous General Election.

Let us decide X Party had seven Deputies at the previous general election, that two by-elections came, as they did in 1948, and took two seats from that group and gave them to another which already had six, giving them a total of eight. They are still prevented by this Standing Order from putting down on the Order Paper a motion for discussion in the priority to which they are entitled. Did these smart gentlemen who thought up this proposed Standing Order see the implications of the wishes of the public? There is nothing to suggest that inside the next four years our small group of two could not get five more.

It is more likely they would lose one.

It may be a subject for laughter. I agree it is not likely, judging by the present situation; but it could happen. I shall put it in a more reasonable way. Suppose we had five or six Deputies in the NPD at present. We are restricted under this motion from acting as a political Party, despite the fact we might win a seat or two seats in a by-election. That is the arrogance shown by Deputy Dillon, who pretends he is interested in the rights of the humblest Deputy. They were not even able to draft in a proper technical manner a motion to make it clear that the balance in regard to the number in Parties could be changed as a result of by-elections. There has never been a session in the life of the Dáil in which, unfortunately, we did not lose members. That never dawned on the gentlemen who sat down to prepare this. They were too greedy in trying to get us out to see the implications of what they were doing.

I do not think this proposed Standing Order should be considered by the House in any circumstances. It flouts the wishes of the general public. I want to ask you, Sir, as Chairman of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and also as Ceann Comhairle, what will be the position if a group of Deputies with six seats win a seat in a by-election from a group that already has seven? Is this House entitled to prevent the new group of seven of their rights, even though the public feel they are entitled to have them and have given them a new member? Do we consider that the decision of the public is to be flouted without any excuse whatever?

The Leader of the Opposition was very anxious to suggest that time was a problem in relation to the Order Paper. I have not forgotten, as Deputy Dillon conveniently forgets, that on two occasions during the last session, the major Opposition Party were given time for discussion of their motions. Not alone is Deputy Dillon in a position to get Government time to discuss his motions, but he wants also to restrict the Order Paper so that his silent backbenchers can prevent us from getting our rights. At no time has Deputy Dillon or the Leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Corish, been refused by the Taoiseach, if they requested Government time for the discussion of their motions. They can never say that Deputy Browne or Deputy McQuillan prevented their motions from being discussed. Deputy Dillon had only to say to the Taoiseach: "On behalf of the biggest Opposition Party in this House, I suggest you make time available for the discussion of a motion in the name of Deputy So-and-So of my Party," and the Taoiseach replied that the Whips would consult, and two or three days later, possibly, a full day was given over to the discussion of that motion. Having Government time at his disposal for the discussion of what he considers important motions, Deputy Dillon also wants to have Private Members' Time at the disposal of his backbenchers. In so doing, he cuts off from us our rights to move motions on the Order Paper in our names.

The list of motions I have before me ranges over a wide and varied field from flour distilling to the expansion of the whiskey industry.

What is "flour distilling"?

I am very sorry for a slip of the tongue—I meant the flour milling industry. The other motion relates to the distilling industry. There were two motions involved. I am very sorry for not making myself clearer to Deputy Dillon. I want to make clear that all those motions now go off the Order Paper and there is not the slightest possibility that one of them can come up for discussion in our names in the lifetime of this Dáil which is entitled to run for another four years.

Nonsense.

It is absolutely true.

It is utter nonsense.

The less Deputy Sweetman says, the better. We know the person who boasted of this on the Committee of Procedure and Privileges. I think Deputy Dillon should have a little chat with the members of his Party so that he will know what goes on behind his back. There might be a tomahawk waiting for him somewhere.

The Deputy might take the trouble, for the benefit of the people outside, to try to understand what he is talking about.

This decision has been made by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and we are asked to support it, that a group of seven shall now constitute a political Party. Deputy Sweetman, Deputy Dillon and his comrades have decided that any group under the strength of seven cannot be described, or describe themselves, as a political Party. I want to make it clear that in the last election I stood before the public, as did Deputy Dr. Browne, as a candidate for the National Progressive Democratic Party. We are a small Party but we were elected as such, but we are now told here: "You are not entitled to describe yourselves as a Party, even as a small minority Party, and this House is going to ensure that you will not be described as a Party." Once we are not described as a Party, we are automatically precluded from getting our motions discussed as they should be discussed in Dáil Éireann.

That is the situation. Deputy Dillon tries to suggest that we could join up with the Independents. Deputy Dillon knows perfectly well that he went down the corridor and would not sit with the other Independents. He was an Independent of Independents attached to Fine Gael. He said: "I would not sit in the same room as Deputy Cogan." That is no reflection on the Deputy from Galway. Deputy Dillon at that stage would not consult with other Independents, unless they were under the same umbrella as himself. How would Deputy Dillon feel if he had a motion for which he wanted Government time and if he had to consult Deputy Cogan or Deputy Jack Flynn? I have no objection to Deputy Sherwin personally but he seems to have a strong political objection to me. He is entitled to that but there is no possibility of Deputy Sherwin or what passes for a Deputy from Mayo behind me agreeing with me on a motion. Is it not nonsensical to suggest that four or five Independents who represent policies or views poles apart are going to co-operate with Deputy Browne or myself in order to let our small group get motions on the Order Paper?

Why? One man can move a motion.

Not at all. All I have to say is that there is no need to speak or to object. All the others have to do is to put their motions on the Order Paper and say nothing.

We will not object—

Has Deputy McQuillan not just told the House that he will not associate with other Independents?

I do not know where this little man has risen from now. He was going around as a little satellite for the past two months making speeches about the Common Market. Evidently he has not yet come down out of orbit and does not know what is going on.

It is a pity the Deputy does not read my speeches. I did not make one about the Common Market.

We look upon ourselves as a political group or Party. We are not going to take the Minister's definition or Deputy Dillon's as correct just because they have decided to put their own interpretation on it. They have thereby helped to remove from the Order Paper the motions which are in our name.

I do not want to delay the House except to appeal even at this late stage to Deputy Dillon to consider an alternative which I am going to put to him now and to the House. We are prepared to take potluck with any other Deputy in respect of motions. When the House was set up, every Deputy had equal rights. There was no consideration in the Constitution of major or minor political Parties. Deputies came in here to represent the views of certain people. They may be terribly silly views, as Deputy Dillon suggests, but if he had any respect for democracy, he would say they were entitled to have their representatives in this House to express those views on their behalf. That is what we are trying to keep going on in Private Members' Time. That is what Deputy Dillon is trying to prevent——

He is automatically, with the help of the Government, trying to suggest that you must have seven or nine——

Only one—one deputy can put down a motion.

Do not try to cod any more people. If the Deputy were genuine, he would accept my proposition, which is this, that every Deputy puts his motion into a drum from Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour, Independents, Clann na Talmhan and NPD. Specify the period inside the year in which Private Members' Time will be allowed and each Deputy who wants it, shall draw from that drum. If he is successful, the rights of that Deputy are protected. I am prepared to do that, although as far as we are concerned it means that there will be 40 Fine Gael fingers to dip in the drum. Each Fine Gael Deputy has a right as an individual to a dip in the drum, whatever Deputy Dillon may say. Deputy Dillon may feel that he has a maverick in the back benches with an awkward motion that may not suit him. Fianna Fáil have had a few mavericks also putting down awkward motions here. This would be a marvellous thing to stop Deputy Corry putting down a motion. He can never again put down a motion on his own without the prior——

If he puts one down, it will be taken first.

That is not true.

If Deputy Corry puts down a motion, it is taken before anybody else's motion.

Of course, it is a Government motion.

No, if he puts it down himself——

He becomes an Independent then?

If he puts down a motion and moves it, he is entitled to have it taken before anybody else's.

If every member of Fianna Fáil put down motions, how do the other members of Fianna Fáil stand then?

I do not know what you mean.

That is the answer.

One Fianna Fáil, one Fine Gael, one Labour, one Independent. That is the way it will be, in strict rotation.

That contradicts what the Deputy said before.

Who decides which Independent shall put down the motion?

That is a matter you can settle among yourselves.

I think my proposal is a reasonable one. Not alone does it preserve the rights of small groups but it gives rights to each individual backbencher in the larger Parties. It will prevent the Whip being exercised against Deputies wishing to put down a motion. I would urge at this stage that rather than have a decision taken immediately on the motion before us, the Parliamentary Secretary should request or urge the Taoiseach to postpone any further decision until my suggestion has been examined by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

I stand as one of Deputy Dillon's backbenchers. I was not told what to say. On this Order Paper, the NPD, whatever they are —the people down the country do not know what they are—have eleven out of 29 motions, more than their share, if they think they are going to get away with it. As far as I can see, they are a Party trying to create confusion in this House, as they are trying to do outside. I do not know who the President of that Party is. I do not know how they come to a decision, what their voting power is, who decides whether the Ceann Comhairle is brought into it or not. I do not know. I am entitled to ask them do they know what democracy is.

The proposed Standing Order is to ensure that democracy will prevail in this House. We have a responsibility this evening and we on this side of the House will stand up to our responsibility. Here we have a Party that has studded this Order Paper with motions which they will try to put into orbit from a launching pad. Possibly they feel their launching pad is being taken away from them, like other launching pads have been taken away.

Deputy Dillon said he was protecting the Independents.

There is such a thing as the use and abuse of privileges in this House.

The Deputy is letting the cat out of the bag.

This is not a Communist paper, anyhow, and it did not come from Castro, another doctor.

Go and take a dose of castor oil. That is what you want. You are suffering from mental constipation and verbal diarrhoea.

We have listened to a lot of it all evening.

A bad condition.

Very bad. Any Party which can get more than its fair share in the House are asking for too much of democracy. They remind me of the two boys who went to a party and because they did not get the whole birthday cake for themselves, were prepared to kick up a row. This motion is not to muzzle them any more than the police dog was muzzled. There is a grave suspicion about any Party that has to use the tag of democracy as a cover for something else. Parliamentary democracy is what we need in this House and that is what we are standing for and that is what we will have. As a back-bencher, I am in favour of this motion. We are doing our part. We were sent here by the people and no doctor, one way or the other, or on one side of the world or another, will prevent us and we shall not go into orbit in discussing it.

There should be no need at this stage for me to try to elaborate further on the proposed amendment to Standing Orders because the matter has been amply covered by previous speakers. At least two Deputies refuse to accept the proper interpretation of what the Committee on Procedure and Privileges is seeking to do here. Under the Standing Orders of this House, there is the right of every Deputy to put down on the Order Paper as many motions as he likes. That is in Standing Orders now. There is no question whatever of changing that in the proposed new Standing Order. Every Deputy can have on the Order Paper as many motions as he likes.

He could write them on the walls.

The question the Committee on Procedure and Privileges did discuss was the order in which they should be taken.

That is the only thing that matters.

That is the point——

Exactly.

——that has been ignored by at least two Deputies here, either deliberately or otherwise. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges had a number of things they could have done. They could, as already suggested, do what is done in Britain, draw them out of a hat. That could operate to exclude completely some Deputies particularly Independents. They might never get one of their motions brought, whereas in a draw system a large Party has a very good chance of getting one of its motions taken. On discussion, the Committee decided against that system.

Generous hearts. Do not think you are getting away with this.

Whom are you trying to fool?

Under the present system, the method operated is that the motions in first must be taken first. No matter how an individual or Party may try to abuse that system, that can be counteracted by another system which will exclude them effectively also. For instance, the day a Deputy is elected to the Dáil, he may rush to Leinster House and put down 100 motions on the Order Paper in order to monopolise Private Members' Time for years ahead. A member of another Party can get in behind him and put down 600 motions and make sure he never gets another opportunity when his motions are finished with. That is absolute chaos and a ridiculous situation and that is the one covered by Standing Orders at present. That is how it is laid down.

It has been here for 40 years.

There is not a single Standing Order in that book that cannot be frustrated or abused by an unreasonable Deputy. That it has not been done in 40 years is due to the fact that people used common sense. There is not a single order in the book which cannot be abused if a Deputy wants to abuse it and we have seen it done—not too often. Here is one instance where it can be done. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges is as representative of this Dáil as it is humanly possible for that Committee to be. The Committee, in their wisdom, decided on what is the nearest thing to an ideal solution. We do not deem it to be perfect. At least we devised a system. That was not done by any particular Party or member. It was discussed openly by the Committee and unanimously decided. The Committee decided on a system whereby every individual in the House will have an equal chance to have a motion discussed in Private Members' Time. I do not see what anybody can find wrong with that. They could have done much worse if they wanted really to be unfair. They could take the members as individuals and operate the same rotation.

They could take the members as individuals. They are entitled to. Every Deputy could put down his motions and have them taken in turn.

Is that not the way it is now?

Instead of that, the whole Party of Fianna Fáil, the whole Party of Fine Gael, the whole Party of Labour, goes only as one man against the Independents. The Independent has an equal opportunity against the entire Party.

They just did not think of it and they did not have the energy to think of it.

I am merely describing how the system works. The Deputy does not want to listen.

We know the system without your telling us.

How can you know the system when you said a moment ago that we prevented you from taking motions off the Order Paper? You can put as many motions on the Order Paper as you wish. The system we are operating ensures you will get only your turn and no Deputy is entitled to anything more. That is exactly what the new Standing Order means and the two Deputies of the NPD have spent the past three years trying to use this Dáil to tell people that they are of so great importance that 144 Deputies are afraid of them. They are not afraid of them but they will not allow them to abuse the privileges set down in Standing Orders. That is the common sense of it.

Rubbish.

Under that system every single Independent will get his turn, his opportunity, which he is not getting under the present system.

How will he get it? Explain that.

In his turn. That is the mechanics of it. Under the present system, the first motion on the Order Paper is taken. If Deputy Dunne had 25 motions on the Order Paper, his 25 would have to be taken before Deputy Sherwin's would be reached. The present system starts off giving the advantage to the large Party. It is only from the beginning, remember, that the advantage operates. The largest Party has the advantage from the start. Now the first motion should be a Fianna Fáil motion, but the Government never table a motion. Fine Gael is the next largest Party. A motion is allowed three hours.

Is a Fianna Fáil back bencher not entitled to put down a motion?

Every Deputy has that right.

Then why did the Parliamentary Secretary say that Fianna Fáil do not table motions?

Any Deputy who wishes may put down a motion. Deputy Dunne asked me to explain how this will operate.

How will it operate in relation to the Independents?

I was explaining that when I was rudely interrupted by the Deputy who does not want to be informed. If no member of the Government Party tables a motion on the Order Paper, then the first motion called will be a Fine Gael motion, because it is the largest Opposition Party. When that motion has been discussed, a Labour Party motion will be called. There is complete freedom of choice. Even if a Deputy tables a dozen motions, he can choose the one he wishes to have discussed. The next group is the Independents. They can decide among themselves whose turn it is to have a motion discussed.

Thereby hangs the tale. Will the Parliamentary Secretary call them together to decide?

The Parliamentary Secretary is entitled to make his statement.

It is not my function or duty to call any Party together. Lots can be drawn. The Deputy was suggesting a moment ago that the whole House could operate a system of drawing lots. Surely you can agree among yourselves easily enough. It is a matter for yourselves.

Let us take the position now of the two Deputies who want to be described as a Party. We have two Clann na Talmhan Deputies in the House. We have one Clann na Poblachta. That would be three extra Parties, making six Parties. That would be six Parties in the rotation system. That would mean the Independents would have a much slimmer chance of ever having a motion discussed.

That is why there may be no Party system at all.

The Deputy gets an advantage by operating the Party system, and the Deputy knows that perfectly well. The alternative is to take every member as an individual. If that is done, under a rotation system, a Deputy would have a chance of getting a motion discussed once in five or six years.

I was perfectly satisfied with the system as it was.

Under this system, the Deputy will have equal rights with the biggest Party.

All we want is equal rights.

Deputy Dunne made a statement and he really should be satisfied.

I am sorry. I am being provoked.

It is one thing to pretend to be seeking equal rights. That is what this motion is giving. It is another thing to pretend to want special rights. If Deputies were allowed to abuse privilege by putting down motions and monopolising the time of the House, that would be unfair, but certain Deputies would have it that that would be fair.

Why does the Parliamentary Secretary not be honest and say that he does not want us putting down motions?

The Deputies who profess to be so concerned now did not enter into the discussion on this in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. They did not give two hoots. If they try to attach importance to it now, then that idea is their idea, and no one else's.

Why did the Parliamentary Secretary do it so? Why did he go to all this trouble?

These Deputies have a great advantage. They have been prevented from abusing a privilege and that is the only grouse they can have. I have attempted to explain a procedure which three Deputies pretend to interpret wrongly, pretending that they will not have an opportunity of saying many things they might not otherwise have a chance of saying. They know perfectly well this system will operate to their advantage. They are being given a fair opportunity. They are being prevented from abusing a privilege, a privilege which was open to abuse. I suggest that the proposal. Which was unanimously approved by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, be unanimously accepted by the House.

Question put and declared carried.

Will the Deputies asking for a division please rise in their places?

Deputies Dr. Browne, McQuillan and S. Dunne rose.

The names of the three Deputies will be recorded.

Top
Share