Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 3 Nov 1964

Vol. 212 No. 1

Statement in Seanad Éireann.

I have given notice to you, Sir, that I propose to raise on behalf of the Fine Gael Party what we consider to be a breach of the privileges of the House in relation to two statements made in Seanad Éireann on 15th July, 1964. In the first statement the Minister for Transport and Power described speeches made in this House as "screaming nonsense." The reference is at column 1618 of the Official Report. At column 1651 the Minister for Local Government indicated that what was discussed in this House was not debated but just "drawn out". That, I suggest, is a criticism of you, in so far as it implies that the rules of order were not complied with. In regard to both criticisms of the discussions in this House, it is well settled that it is not permitted for one House to criticise the proceedings of the other.

The Deputy is getting very sensitive.

I thank the Deputy for giving me notice of what he proposed to raise. In my view, the matter raised is not a breach of privilege. It is the usual practice that no Member of either House may reflect on the actions of either House. The matter is solely one for the House in which the statement is made, and the Chair in each Houses intervenes where he considers that a statement is contrary to practice. In regard to the suggestion that there was criticism of the Chair of the Dáil, I may say that I examined the reference given by the Member and I do not accept that there was such an implication.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Ryan

They can say what they like.

Do not be too gentlemanly.

Mr. Ryan

It is downright bad manners and nothing else. We will teach you the hard way.

(Interruptions.)

It is like the Roscommon letters.

Is it in order to ask at this stage if Seanad Éireann gave any explanation of their rejection of the Pawnbrokers Bill?

Mr. Ryan

More bad manners on the part of the Minister for Justice. Now he is criticising the Cathaoirleach.

Is it not obvious that the Minister for Justice as he then was could not behave himself?

The sustained impudence of the Minister for Justice.

As he then was.

Top
Share