Business, as set out in the Order Paper, will be taken in the following order: Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 8. It is proposed to take Votes Nos. 29 and 41 today and, if the House is agreeable, to take a further Supplementary Estimate for Agriculture with Token Estimate Vote 41. Private Members' Business will be taken from 6 to 7.30 p.m. It is proposed to take Motion No. 59 in conjunction with Vote No. 29.
Order of Business.
I want to draw the attention of the House to a matter which I have already drawn to the attention of the Chair and of the Taoiseach's Office and which I consider to be a gross denial of the rights of private Deputies. In June, 1962, that is, some 16 months ago, I put down a motion dealing with Dublin housing — long before the houses fell or anybody thought of their falling.
I did. I gave evidence at the inquiry.
The main Opposition Party put down a motion, in different terms from mine but having reference to the housing position in Dublin, in September of this year— in other words, 14 months after my motion had been put down. My motion has gone through the ordinary process of waiting to be discussed and, normally, would fall for discussion this week or next week in Private Members' Time.
However, because of what I consider to be sharp practice on the part of whoever was responsible for this in the main Opposition Party, apparently it is proposed to take the motion of the main Opposition Party, which was tabled 14 months later than mine, with the Estimate for the Department of Local Government today, the result being that any discussion of my motion will be extinguished because my motion would be deemed repetitious.
Why not take yours, too?
My motion is different from and, in my opinion, far superior to that put forward by the main Opposition Party. I consider this collusion, if it be such — one can forgive the Taoiseach because he may not be familiar with it owing to his absence in America — highly undesirable in this House despite what the Leader of the main Opposition was at pains to say so eloquently last week about the rights of private Deputies. Here we have an example of the kind of protection afforded to such rights.
I have already made quite clear that we have not the slightest objection to the Deputy's motion being taken at the same time.
I have already made clear my position on that. It is not at all satisfactory for a Deputy, who has finally achieved what he wants in Private Members' Time, to have his motion lost in the welter and mass of material which necessarily comes up when dealing with a Minister's Estimate.Of course, the main Opposition Party used that as a technique to get in before anybody else to talk about housing in Dublin. I am not satisfied with that. I think I am entitled to insist that my motion be taken separately. I would ask the Taoiseach to consider, in equity and in the interest of fair dealing with Deputies, dealing with the Estimate for Local Government as one matter and let Private Members' Time proceed, without this arrangement which has been disclosed going through.
The Deputy understands that I do not determine the Order of Business in Private Members' Time and, so far as I am concerned, the Deputy's motion will proceed in Private Members' Time in the ordinary way.
The Chair appears to consider that the discussion of Motion No. 59 would rule out discussion of the details of Motion No. 29, my motion, because there cannot be repetition.My motion would not appear to come within the rules of the House if discussed with the Estimate, because it necessarily envisages legislation. I would ask the Taoiseach to reconsider the matter.
What does the Deputy want me to do?
I want the Taoiseach to have the Estimate taken as an Estimate and not to fall in with this political manoeuvre, which is what it is.
I received this request from the principal Opposition Party and I did not feel that I should refuse it, if they thought it would facilitate discussion in the House.
It is obvious the Taoiseach is in collusion with them.
However, it did not occur to me I was in any way impeding the discussion of the Deputy's motion.
The Taoiseach sees the matter in the same light as I do but he will not acknowledge it.
May I suggest that all our proceedings should relate to reality? We ask that the resolution standing in the names of the Deputies of this Party should be considered at the same time as the token Local Government Estimate, first, because we thought it was desirable to discuss it in the House at the earliest possible date and, second, because we did not think it expedient to travel the same ground in two separate debates. May I suggest that, if the Deputy does not want to follow the same course, he can move his motion, he can say all he wants to say on that specific matter during the debate, at the end of which separate divisions can be taken in the House on his motion to which we have set down an amendment? There will be a debate within a debate on this specific question. But let us not allege bad feeling against one another when, in fact, our common purpose is expeditiously to debate public business of consequence to us all.
Since Deputy Dunne's motion is in regard to Dublin Corporation, other people, who know all about Dublin Corporation, may want to answer Deputy Dunne; but that cannot be done in Private Members' Time. I know all about Dublin Corporation. I have the highest attendance record for eight years. I know everything about it. I am not guessing. I know the answers. But how can I give them on Deputy Dunne's motion if I get only ten minutes and he takes an hour and a half? However, it can be done on the Local Government Estimate, where I can speak at length with facts and figures rather than hearsay and propaganda.
I am sure it will be very beneficial.
I have just told you you know nothing about it.
If Deputy Dunne is agreeable, I have no objection to dealing with his motion in conjunction with the token Estimate.
Very unsatisfactory.The Taoiseach knows he is wrong.