Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Oct 1978

Vol. 308 No. 7

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 7 (resumed), 8 (resumed), 9 (resumed), 10, 11, 4 and 5: Private Members' Business from 7 p.m. to 8.30 p.m.—No. 17 (resumed).

On the Order of Business, in view of the fact that we have had an indication from the Government that there will be a further debate on the EMS, that there will be a Bill dealing with adoption, a Bill dealing with contraceptives and one would assume an Adjournment Debate and as there are only approximately 20 sitting days between now and the Christmas recess, will the Taoiseach indicate if there are any other Bills coming before the House that he anticipates will be dealt with before the Christmas recess?

I shall have a look at what the business is likely to be and I shall let the Deputy know.

Does the Taoiseach not agree that the dismal performance of his Government up to now with regard to legislation is a matter of genuine concern not only to Members on this side of the House but to the country in general?

We cannot permit a debate on that matter at this point.

Will the Taoiseach give an undertaking that the Bill dealing with the National Council for Educational Awards will be produced at this time, as was promised on two occasions?

The Minister for Education has given that indication.

He is on holiday in America.

He is not on holiday: he is on the nation's business.

He is opening the same exhibition for the third time.

(Interruptions.)

We are hearing from the Minister for Labour for the first time in a month. For the first time he has surfaced and characteristically he does so only to cause trouble.

On the Order of Business, I move that the National Monuments (Amendment) Bill, 1978, which is No. 1 on today's Order Paper, be taken in Private Members' Time.

We are opposing it on the grounds that a draft scheme of a Bill to repeal and replace the National Monuments Acts of 1930 and 1954 is being prepared and it will be introduced by the Government as soon as possible.

It is opposed on the grounds that Senator Robinson's Bill was shot down repeatedly in the Seanad six or seven years ago. We are still awaiting a Fianna Fáil Bill on that subject. Senator Robinson's Bill was trampled on on the grounds that Fianna Fáil were preparing a Bill of their own.

(Interruptions.)

In the event of the motion of the Minister of State being accepted, does this mean that we are being denied debate on this Bill?

The Bill will disappear from the Order Paper if the motion is defeated.

In that case I think it disgraceful that an opportunity is not being given to have a debate on an important matter——

We cannot have a debate on the matter.

A debate was raised on an important matter——

The Deputy will have the opportunity of saying what he wishes——

Obviously the Government have something to be afraid of when they are not prepared to debate the matter.

On a point of order, the Chair has ruled that there is no debate to ensue on this motion. Is that the position? I suggest that the Chair puts the motion.

Is it seriously intended that we will not be allowed to discuss this matter in our own Private Members' Time? Is that the way the Government intend to do business in this House?

Tommy Mullins rides again.

Is it seriously suggested that we may not discuss this subject in our own Private Members' Time?

Not necessarily. The Deputy can put down a motion if he wishes.

I wish to be clear about this. Is it the intention of the Government to prevent the introduction of Private Members' Bills in this House, a right that Members have always had?

The matter before the House at the moment is a motion that this Private Members' Bill be read a Second Time in Private Members' Time and I am now putting that motion.

Is it in order in the procedure we have now, introduced in order to prevent the voting down of Bills on First Stage, that the Government can move in this way?

The Chair has no option but to put a motion when it is proposed. The motion is before the House. It is no business of the Chair to deny its being opposed or otherwise.

Has the Member proposing a Bill the right to make a statement in favour of such a Bill?

No, not at this stage. The subject matter of a Bill cannot come up for discussion at this stage.

Will the Taoiseach say why he is prepared to vote down a Bill tabled by an Opposition party which they are prepared to discuss in Private Members' Time, traditionally the time when Opposition parties have an opportunity of discussing such matters?

The Minister of State has given notice that he is opposing it and that he can give reasons.

The reasons being that a Government Bill is in the course of preparation.

In view of the change in Standing Orders relative to the introduction of Bills in Private Members' Time, will the Chair rule that the Government have no power whatever in relation to Private Members Time for the taking of the Bill? This resides entirely with a group of Deputies and the indication given by the Taoiseach is out of order.

That is not correct. The Bill must go to Second Reading by motion and the motion is that the Bill be read a Second Time in Private Members' Time. That is the motion before the House.

I would point out that we had a precedent in the last session of the Dáil. The Standing Order in question does not indicate that the Bill "may" go to Private Members' Time. The Standing Order clearly indicates that the Bill "shall" go to Private Members' Time and there is no residual right on the part of the Government. This was changed by an all-party committee headed by Deputy O'Malley, now Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy. The right does not reside with the Government and Deputy Bruton is entirely correct in moving that the Bill be transferred to Private Members' Time and it must be taken at that stage.

I should like the Chair to read out the appropriate Standing Order under which the ruling has been made.

The Deputy is well aware that we have gone through all of this before. The word "shall"——

Will the Chair read the appropriate Standing Order under which the ruling was made?

The ruling of the Chair is that there is a motion before the House which the Chair has no option but to put. Otherwise there would be no need for a motion. The question of automatically fixing a date has been argued before.

All I am asking is that the Chair would read out the appropriate Standing Order under which the ruling was made.

Standing Order 88 (3) states:

A member of the Government, Minister of State or a private member nominated for the purpose under Standing Order 85 (2) may present a Bill without previously obtaining leave of the House and any Bill so presented shall be printed and an Order for its second reading shall be made.

That is not the Standing Order. The Standing Order is relative to a group of Deputies.

That is the point. When a motion is before the House the order shall be made. We have gone through all this before.

Which is the order which prevents the House even from debating Deputy Lalor's motion and differentiates that motion from every other motion before this House?

We are not going into the merits or demerits of what is happening here. We are merely interpreting Standing Orders as they are supposed to be and as they have been by precedent.

Could the Chair tell the House for its guidance which rule differentiates the motion before the House which is moved by the Minister of State from every other motion?

I demand the right to speak on my motion.

On a point of order—

The Deputy has made a point of order several times.

I wish to make a further one. I am entitled to do so. I ask you, Sir, to read the Standing Order whereby a group of Deputies of this House are entitled to put forward a Bill for Private Members' Time. Once the Deputies, that designated group, move that the Bill shall be taken in Private Members' Time so shall it be taken, and there is no authority on the part of any other group in the House to prevent it being moved in Private Members' Time. I challenge you to quote Standing Orders.

That is not the proper interpretation. "Shall" is used in Standing Orders throughout the entire Standing Orders and it is not mandatory. There is a motion necessary and the motion may or may not be defeated. In this case it is opposed and the Chair must put it whether it is carried or not. The Deputy is alleging that it should automatically go to Private Members' Time without a motion. The Deputy states it must and I am putting the motion now. I have no other option.

(Interruptions.)

At this stage the Deputy is asking you to read the appropriate Standing Order. Surely that is a reasonable request.

I have read the one under which I am ruling.

You have not. I am asking you to read the Standing Order relative to Private Members' Time. You have read the Standing Order relative to a motion of a Bill introduced by the Government. There is another Standing Order—

I have read this—

We challenge you on this issue.

The Chair has ruled before on this and is not changing its ruling now. There can be no change.

You can rule only in accordance with Standing Orders. All we are asking is that you read out the appropriate Standing Orders.

The Chair has ruled.

Just because they do not like to have a Bill in Private Members' Time.

I read the order under which I am ruling. I will read it again. We cannot waste any more time on this. This is the Standing Order under which the Chair is ruling.

(3) A member of the Government, Minister of State or a private member nominated for the purpose under Standing Order 85 (2) may present a Bill without previously obtaining leave of the House and any Bill so presented shall be printed and an Order for its second reading shall be made.

"Shall be made".

That is the point, "shall be made".

If the House does not make the order the order is not made, and the motion for the order is before the House at the moment.

Surely if that had been the intention it would have been "may be made", not "shall be made".

If it is to be interpreted in a different way here that will allow it to be changed in many places in Standing Orders.

I ask you, Sir, under what Standing Order is no discussion permitted on this motion. My understanding is that a motion when put must be debated and the proposer of it is entitled to explain why he has put the motion and the opposer is entitled to give his reasons against. On what grounds are you ruling that there can be no debate on the motion?

The Deputy is asking a question which is elementary in relation to his experience in the House. Any Bill may be opposed on its First Reading or order for Second Reading, and no debate is permitted.

That is not correct.

Did you cite the Standing Order which states that no debate on this motion or a motion is permitted?

The motion before the House at the moment is that the Bill be taken in Private Members' Time. That is all that is before the House. The subject matter of what is in the Bill is not before the House.

Surely the merits of that motion in the event of its being opposed must be discussed.

It must not be discussed and it will not be.

On what basis is the Ceann Comhairle ruling?

On what Standing Order are we precluded from debating this motion and giving reasons for pressing the motion?

The Standing Order is that the only matter up for discussion is the motion before the House that the Bill be taken in Private Members' Time.

On a point of order, I refer you to the report——

You may discuss the pros and cons of taking the motion but the subject matter of the Bill cannot be discussed.

On a point of order, I point out that when this problem arose in the last session you ruled erroneously and the argument became so heated that you had to adjourn the House and we gracefully, with deep respect to you, Sir, got you off the hook. There is no need to impale yourself on it again this morning. In the report of the Dáil Informal Committee on Dáil Procedure chaired by Deputy O'Malley the subsequent amendment of Standing Orders clearly indicated that a group of Deputies in this House in Opposition had an absolute right to transfer any of their business, including a Bill, into Private Members' Time and that no prevention was authorised whatsoever on the part of the Government of the day. It was so amended and so enacted in the last Dáil. I think, a Cheann Comhairle, that your two advisers in front of you know that perfectly well.

The Deputy has repeated himself several times. The Chair cannot get over the Standing Order which I have just read. An order is necessary and unless that Standing Order is changed the Chair must take the order. The order is subject to a decision of the House, on which there may be a division.

On a point of order, it does say that the order shall be made.

The Deputy knows that "shall" in the same context is used through the Standing Orders.

Had it meant that the Government could block a Member or group of Members transferring a Bill to Private Members' Time it would have said "may" which would imply "may not", but it says "shall".

Have you got your troops in yet?

As far as troops are concerned we all know that the Government want to use their 20 of a majority to trample on democratic procedures.

(Interruptions.)

You might bring them on anyway.

What we are doing and what we hope will be successful is we are appealing to the impartiality of the Chair to ensure that Standing Orders are fairly and impartially interpreted.

That is exactly what the Chair is doing. I remind the House that the argument about this has gone on before. I ruled in accordance——

You cannot change your ruling.

Order. The Chair has ruled that there must be an order and an order must go before the House. Regarding the interpretation of the word "shall", that is used in relation to every stage of any Bill in Standing Orders. It says that Second Stage, Third Stage and so on shall be taken and it can be opposed. There must be an order for Final Stage of any Bill and the word "shall" is used throughout. If we are going to change it in relation to this it must be changed in all Standing Orders. "If leave to introduce the Bill is given, an Order shall be made for its second reading and the Bill shall be printed." You may define every single one of those despite the fact that "shall" is used throughout. The Chair cannot find an easy way out of that. The decision must be in accordance with the proper interpretation.

The Chair could not find an easy way out when this happened previously. As Deputy Desmond has explained to the Chair, on that occasion you, Sir, had to adjourn the Dáil and a solution was found. Anyone can make a mistake. We do not expect the Chair to be infallible but we expect the Chair to be impartial and consistent.

The Chair did not change his ruling on that occasion.

The Chair did not.

I wish to exercise the right, which you have confirmed that I have, to discuss the merits of the motion which I am putting forward. It would not be necessary for this discussion to take place if the motion were not being opposed. In the event of it being opposed such a discussion must take place. I would like to point out that, informally, notice was given to the Government side that this motion would be moved. No indication was given by the Government until the motion was moved this morning that it would be opposed.

Are we having a debate on this?

The Ceann Comhairle has ruled that there may be a discussion.

We are discussing the pros and cons of whether it can be taken. The subject matter of the Bill is not before the House.

(Interruptions.)

The Government cannot silence us completely.

That would be very hard to do.

(Interruptions.)

The Minister should not get the Minister for Justice to prompt him.

(Interruptions.)

Will the Chair control the Government benches.

My basic reason for moving that this Bill be taken in Fine Gael time, time which we could use to discuss other matters in this session, and a deliberate choice having been taken by our party in that matter, is that we believe that the subject matter of this Bill is so urgent that it must be discussed before the recess. The information was already elicited, in response to a question from the leader of the Labour Party, that we already have more than enough Government Bills to occupy all Government time between now and the recess. There is only one way in which the important subject matter of this Bill, the protection of our national monuments, can be debated and decided in this House between now and the recess, that is by the acceptance of this motion, which would enable this Bill to be taken in Private Members' Time. The Bill is urgent for a number of reasons. First of all, we have the proposition of the Government to destroy a national monument which has been declared to be——

The Deputy may not go into that. That is exactly what is not permitted. If the Deputy continues in that strain I am putting the motion.

I am explaining why it is urgent that this matter be taken. I do not propose in my contribution to deal with the general merits of the Bill.

The Deputy will not be permitted to deal with the subject matter of the Bill at all.

I merely propose to deal with the urgency of the Bill so far as I believe it must be discussed and decided in the House before Christmas. I am merely concerned with those aspects of the Bill which are of such urgency that they require a decision on the matter before Christmas. I am sure that you will agree, in discussing that, though not the generality of the Bill, I am entirely in order and entirely within the terms of this motion. I submit if this motion is not accepted it will mean that this matter cannot be discussed before Christmas. That is my submission to you. I believe that the imminent destruction of a national monument—there is the prospect of a decision by the Government to that effect before Christmas——

The Deputy is seeking by a device to circumvent Standing Orders and the Chair's ruling. I will not permit that.

On a point of order, if the Deputy is entitled to discuss why the motion should be taken he must explain the reasons.

The Chair is conscious of the effort the Deputy is making and he will not permit it.

I am making an effort to be within the terms of your ruling and no more.

We are only discussing the question of whether or not it should be taken. There is no question of referring to the subject matter of the Bill and I will not permit it.

On a point of order, surely if one is discussing whether or not a Bill should be taken it is reasonable that in that discussion one can put forward arguments why it is necessary to take the Bill. So far that is all the Deputy is doing.

That can be used as a device to discuss the Bill. The Deputy knows that well. I am not permitting any discussion.

One bad ruling in a morning is enough.

The Deputy should withdraw that remark. The Chair is ruling in accordance with Standing Orders and by no other guidance or motives.

Contrary to Standing Orders.

I will not have the Deputy referring to it as a bad ruling. The Deputy will withdraw that remark.

I will not.

If the Deputy is referring to the Chair's ruling as bad——

I am stating that your ruling this morning with regard to this Bill is contrary to a previous ruling you made.

That is not correct. There is no question of the previous ruling being changed. The Deputy knows it and the record is there. The Deputy will withdraw the remark that it is a bad ruling.

It is contrary to a previous one.

Surely he is entitled to submit his view on a ruling of the House. It is not disrespectful to the Chair for him to suggest that you ruled differently on that other occasion. You may disagree but it is not disrespectful.

Deputy FitzGerald is only wasting the time of the House.

On a point of order, I understand you to call for the withdrawal of a remark. Is it being withdrawn?

That is precisely why I rose on a point of order to suggest to the Chair that on reflection the Chair should not press that point because a Deputy is entitled to raise questions on rules of the Chair, to raise the question of whether the Chair ruled differently on another occasion and to suggest that the ruling of the Chair is incorrect in a respectful manner. I ask that the Chair would not, therefore, proceed to press the issue of seeking withdrawal in those circumstances because that would certainly infringe the liberties of this House.

On a point of order, may I submit that Deputy Cluskey was not making a submission. He was making a statement about a bad ruling but, irrespective of whether I am correct or Deputy FitzGerald is correct, it seems to me that if the Chair calls for a withdrawal of a remark that has to be obeyed if we are to have any order in the House whether we are right or wrong.

It is a matter for the Chair not the Minister.

I asked Deputy Cluskey to withdraw his statement that it was a bad ruling and he amended it to say it was contrary to a previous ruling, which is not correct.

I do not propose in the statement I am making in this motion to discuss the general merits of the Bill. I recognise that this would not be in order or in conformity with your ruling. Although I may dispute that ruling and dispute the order under which it is made I must accept it. I submit to you that it is patently obvious that if this motion is not accepted there will be no opportunity to discuss the subject matter of this Bill or any other Bill of a similar subject matter before Christmas because the Government time is already used up with Bills which may have been delayed for a very long time but which are now in prospect. The only way in which this important matter can be discussed in the House is if this motion is accepted and Fine Gael are allowed to use their own time, which we could be using for destructive criticism of the Government, but which instead we have chosen to use for a constructive purpose, to debate this motion. If we are not allowed to do so we will be forced into the tactic, which was used throughout the last Dáil by the then Opposition, when they never put forward a single constructive proposal but satisfied themselves with destructive criticism which, if it were to be turned into a constructive proposal, would have involved us in large-scale expenditure of public funds. We in Opposition now seek to use our Private Members' Time constructively to put forward Bills which, if enacted, will improve our laws. We are to be prevented from even having these Bills discussed by the use of this artificial strategem and are forced into the type of pointless destructive criticism which was typical of Fianna Fáil when they were in opposition. I believe that the standards of this House will be lowered and that parliamentary democracy will be damaged by the exercise of this jackboot power by Fianna Fáil in voting down the opportunity to discuss in Fine Gael time a Fine Gael Bill. That is what it amounts to.

I have said that I intend to confine my remarks in support of my motion to the need to have this matter dealt with before Christmas. I do not propose to discuss the general subject matter of the Bill. I merely propose to discuss those aspects of the Bill which are directly related to the time in which it is taken. In my view—and the Government are free to put forward another view——

If they have another view.

——this Bill should be taken before Christmas in the only way in which it can be taken before Christmas, namely, in Fine Gael time. I believe that this is an urgent Bill because there is a proposal in section 8 to prevent the Government destroying a national monument——

The Chair will not permit that aspect of the discussion.

I am strictly in order in my submission.

The Chair is the judge of that.

The Chair may be the judge of that matter but the people are the ultimate judge of the conduct of every Member of this House, including the Chair.

The Chair is only concerned with the enforcement of Standing Orders.

Anyone would swear it was a banned book or something like that. Is not the Chair making itself ridiculous by administering the ruling in this way?

Order, Deputy Kelly.

Everyone can buy this Bill, see what is in it for themselves and compare it with what Deputy Bruton is saying.

That is not the Chair's business.

I am as anxious as the Chair is to protect the dignity of the Chair.

The Deputy is advocating a second reading debate irrespective of whether or not it is permitted.

The only way that the subject matter of section 8 of this Bill can be discussed in this House is in Fine Gael time because the Government time is used up.

The Deputy has said that many times.

I will say it until it penetrates the gloom which surrounds the understanding of some people. I believe it is urgent that action be taken to ensure that the control of this House is exercised over the destruction of national monuments. That is what section 8 will do, and that is why I believe it is an urgent matter and should be discussed before Christmas.

The Deputy is seeking to work into a second reading debate, and I will ask him to resume his seat if he continues in that strain.

I propose that the question be now put.

That is a disgraceful suggestion from the Minister.

I am in order in proposing that the question be put and I am doing it. By now the Deputies opposite have had every opportunity to get their Deputies in. They need not be looking for any more time, and I propose that the question be now put.

I would ask the Chair not to rule that the motion be now put as there are others who wish to contribute, within the terms of the Chair's ruling, to a discussion on this motion.

Incredible arrogance.

The Chair at its discretion may or may not make such a ruling. If the Chair is of the opinion that the matter has been adequately discussed, the Chair will put the motion. The Chair will permit the Deputy to raise the matter of the refusal to allow the motion to be passed but not the subject matter of the Bill.

All right.

On a point of order, is it the Chair's intention not to allow any member of this party to make a contribution to the discussion?

Did the Deputy not hear Deputy Bruton saying repeatedly that it is Fine Gael time, not Labour time?

I know that the Government, particularly the Minister, know nothing about industrial relations, but they should learn a little about demarcation. It is the Chair's business to rule on this matter.

The Chair will not prevent any Member from contributing to a debate so long as he speaks in order and not contrary to the ruling of the Chair.

I now propose to deal with the brief contribution made by the Minister of State in opposing my motion. The reason he gave was that a Government Bill on this subject would be introduced as soon as possible. Those hallowed words which we have heard under successive Governments mean nothing. There is no commitment on the part of the Government to introduce this Bill at any time. There might be some prospect of the House being advised to accept this motion if the Government had said, "We propose to introduce a Bill before Christmas", or "We propose to circulate a Bill before Christmas and it will be discussed in this House before Easter". Instead of doing that they deliberately chose not to give a commitment. I wonder why, in using this unusual stratagem to prevent discussion of a Bill on the ground that they had their own Bill, they could not do better than say they would introduce their own Bill as soon as possible. "As soon as possible" could be any time within the next ten years. There is great public interest in the subject matter of this Bill. There is a demand for legislation on this subject not only from those who are directly concerned with conservation but from concerned people everywhere, from people who have demonstrated in the streets. These people want legislation on this subject, and all the Government can offer is that they will introduce a Bill of unknown content as soon as possible.

Does the Minister of State know when the Government Bill will be introduced? Does he know if the heads of the Bill have been approved by the Government? Does he know if the Bill has gone to the Parliamentary Draftsman? Does he know if the draft of the Bill has been circulated to Departments? Does he know if the draft Bill is on the Government agenda? Does he know if any of those steps have been taken to bring the Bill before the House? I believe that no more than one of those steps has been taken to bring the Bill before the House. I believe that we will not see a Government Bill on this subject this year or next year.

I believe that in saying this Bill will be introduced as soon as possible, as the Minister states, he is in bad faith because he knows as well as I do that this Bill and its subject matter are very low in priority with the present Government. They are not interested in this Bill; they do not want this matter discussed here because it would embarrass them. That is why they try to prevent discussion on the matter on this motion and, in opposing this motion, to prevent discussion of the matter in general in Private Members' Time. They do not want the matter discussed. If they were sincere in believing this Bill would be introduced as soon as possible they would have no objection to allowing our Bill to be discussed, because we know that if they dislike certain aspects of that Bill they have a majority. If they allowed the Bill to go to Committee they could make whatever change they liked. They could delete sections or amend sections ad lib because, although we might oppose in the division lobbies some amendment they wanted made to our Bill, we would have no power to stop them because of their majority in the House.

They would have to think about it themselves.

They would, and that would be difficult. If they believed such a Bill was to be introduced as soon as possible they could have no objection to discussing a Bill from the Opposition in Private Members' Time and ultimately in Committee because they could amend it as they wished to conform to their own desires. Indeed, they would be using Private Members' Time that we could utilise for other purposes to achieve their own legislative objectives. They could amend the Bill as they willed and they would in fact find themselves using our time for their purposes. No, they did not decide to exercise that option. Why? Because they do not want national monuments discussed. They do not want national monuments legislation, and they are in bad faith in saying they would introduce such legislation as soon as possible.

If they were sincere in their wish to introduce national monuments legislation as soon as possible, as we are told, even if they were not prepared to accept the Bill, going into Committee and amending it as I suggested, a discussion on Second Stage on the subject matter of the Bill introduced by Deputy Donnellan and myself would allow general issues of national monuments policy to be discussed and give Members on either side an opportunity to express their views. Even if the Government were going to reject the Bill the Government would have heard what Members of the House felt and in framing their own Bill to be introduced subsequently they would be able, so far as they deemed it politic, to take account of the views not only of the Opposition but of their own back-benchers who no doubt would have a very useful contribution to make on national monuments. I do not want to name any Deputies but I know there are Members behind the Government who are interested in this subject and could make a useful contribution which the Government should be anxious to hear in Private Members' Time. If they were sincere about introducing a Bill as soon as possible I believe they would be anxious to hear those views and take them into account even if they were not accepting our Bill as a framework for action. I believe they should have accepted our Bill on that basis, but even if they did not, even if they allowed the matter to Second Stage and then defeated it, I believe they would then have had the benefit of the views of the House.

I ask: why would a Government not want to hear the views of Members of the House on national monuments? Why should they want to silence the Opposition and, perhaps more significantly, silence their own back-benchers on a matter of this sort? Why would they be so sensitive as not to want the matter even discussed here in time provided by the Opposition? I think we are entitled to an answer to these questions. I do not believe we will get a satisfactory answer. We are entitled to ask the questions, and I hope the Government's spokesman in discussing this Motion will explain why they do not want to hear national monuments discussed. Why this thin skinned approach, this wish to remain deaf and blind as regards the preservation of national monuments?

The Deputy is using this strategy to get into a Second Reading debate. I remind him that repetition is disorderly.

It is of great importance that it be open to Private Members to introduce legislation, and Standing Orders were altered some time ago to allow this to be done and allow Bills to be published, as my Bill was published with the support of a group of Deputies, without necessarily having first to obtain the approval of the Government to its publication. To my mind, this was a very laudable move initiated by a Committee on Dáil Reform chaired by the present Minister for Commerce and Energy. If we look at other parliaments in the English speaking world—it is easier to get information about those—we find special procedures are available for discussing Private Members' Bills. In Britain there is a procedure where Members enter a lottery and names are drawn out of a hat. The Member whose name is drawn may introduce a Bill and nobody can prevent that Bill being discussed, Government or Opposition. In America, all the legislation is sponsored by Private Members, and there is ample opportunity also, I believe, in continental legislatures for Private Members to introduce constructive Bills intended to change the law of the land. Obviously, the majority can decide to reject or amend or change those Bills in any way, but in no other parliament to my knowledge is there a systematic policy such as now seems to be in the course of being initiated by the present Government to prevent discussion of Private Members' Bills where these Bills are in the slightest way embarrassing to them.

Our function as Members of the House is to be legislators. We were not elected, either Opposition or Government Deputies, to become destructive critics of every constructive move made by the Government. I do not see that as my mission in politics. I would not be in politics if that was all I could do. I would not make the sacrifice that I and every other Member must make just to come here every day trying to trip up the Minister for Economic Planning and Development or some other Minister. That would not give me or any other Member sufficient reason to be in politics. I say that sincerely. The main reason I am in politics—and I am sure I speak not just for myself and I say it in no pious sense—is that I may put forward constructive proposals to improve the law of this land. I believe that is the motive of every Member of the House entering and making the sacrifices which must be made by anybody wishing to enter the House.

Hear, hear.

That is why we are here. We are not here just to have a slanging match across the floor about Standing Orders or anything else or to be getting into rows with the Chair and getting our names in the papers as being "a hard man". I am here so that I can put forward constructive proposals.

What did the Deputy do about the museum when he was Parliamentary Secretary?

I spent considerable time preparing this Bill. It is non-partisan. It is constructive. There is no criticism of the Government in the provisions of the Bill. There is no political content in it. It is not designed to damage the Government in any way. If we wanted to damage the Government there are many other ways in which we could do it. There are many more constructive uses in that respect to which we could put Private Members' Time. We have chosen not to do that. We have chosen to use our time to introduce a constructive Bill like this to improve the law of the land.

If Opposition Deputies are to be prevented from putting forward constructive legislation proposals of this sort, not only will it be damaging parliamentary democracy, but we will be initiating a process which will make us worse in terms of a diminution of the rights of elected representatives than any other member state in the European Community. Are there any other members of the European Community in whose Parliaments it would be impossible for private members to have Bills discussed? We have been told we went into Europe to contribute to the democratic traditions of Europe, to contribute to making Europe a better place, to contribute our insight. Is our insight to be a refusal in this Parliament to allow Bills to be introduced by the Opposition and discussed because the Government have an overwhelming majority?

To play ducks and drakes with the rules.

If the Minister believes I am out of order, he should make a submission to the Chair to that effect. Otherwise he should hold his peace.

The Minister has already done so. I entirely agree that the Deputy is out of order.

Is the Minister suggesting the Chair is in dereliction of his duty?

The Chair would like to point out that all that is before the House at the moment is the question of whether or not a Bill should go for Second Reading. By its very nature such a motion does not lend itself to a long debate. I think I will have to ask the Deputy to conclude.

Five minutes.

He is merely wasting the time of the House.

On a point of order, are we now having a debate on the motion for the Second Stage of the Bill? Am I correct in interpreting it that this is what the debate is?

The motion is whether or not Second Stage should be ordered.

I should like to draw the attention of the Chair to Standing Order 86 (2) which makes provision that such a debate shall not exceed a period of six hours in the aggregate and, at the expiration of the said period, if the proceedings have not been concluded, the Ceann Comhairle shall put forthwith the question or questions necessary, and so on. Standing Orders envisage a debate of this kind——

The Deputy is being naïve now. That is what happens when it goes for its Second Reading. I cannot permit that sort of thing.

A Cheann Comhairle, you have just ruled in reply to a question of mine that this is a debate on the motion for the Second Reading of the Bill. Having got that ruling from you, I drew your attention to the Standing Order which relates to it. There is nothing naïve about that. It is perfectly correct procedure.

On a point of order, is the debate on whether the Second Stage be taken in Private Members' Time?

That is the whole purpose.

The motion is that a Bill be discussed in Private Members' Time. That motion has been opposed, as the House has a right to do. The Chair has no option but to permit it and to have a division on it. I permitted Deputies to discuss the question of why it should or should not be opposed. That would require a very brief statement. I have been more than tolerant. Now a Deputy has tried to suggest we have actually taken the Second Reading.

No. I got a ruling from you that this is a debate on a motion for the Second Stage of the Bill. I have drawn your attention to the time provision in respect of the motion.

This is is not a debate on Second Stage.

It is a debate on a motion for the Second Stage. I am reading from Standing Orders.

No. 88 (2)?

No. 86 (2) reads:

The time allowed for the debate on the motion for the Second Stage of a Bill initiated by a private member shall not exceed a period of six hours in the aggregate.

You have ruled, Sir, that this is a debate on a motion for the Second Stage.

I have not ruled on any such thing.

I sought such a ruling and received it from you two minutes ago.

The Deputy is seeking a strategy to overcome the ruling of the Chair. He knows perfectly well that a Bill goes for Second Reading after the House has agreed by order to let it go to Second Reading. The motion then before the House is that the Bill be read a second time. That is always the motion. It is not the motion we are discussing now.

I asked you was this a debate on a motion for the Second Stage of the Bill and you said yes. You cannot now retract or contradict that ruling. That having been ruled by you, this debate can continue—although I trust it will not—for six hours.

The Chair made no such ruling. Deputy FitzGerald is seeking to attribute to the Chair a ruling which he has not made.

The records of the House will show it, I trust.

The time of the House is being wasted. The Chair has firmly decided that we will not continue in this strain for much longer. If Deputies have points of order to make they may make them. Otherwise the Chair will put the motion.

There will be other speakers.

That is at the discretion of the Chair. After the misinterpretation by Deputy FitzGerald assuming we are debating the Second Reading I must be firm. This device cannot be permitted to be seen to succeed.

I did not say we were debating the Second Stage.

The motion before the House is whether or not the Bill be taken in Private Members' Time for a Second Reading. That motion is opposed.

I am proposing that motion.

The Deputy is proposing that the Bill be taken in Private Members' Time. The Minister of State has given notice that he is opposing the motion. That is all that is before the House. No strategy will be permitted to succeed.

The Chair has stated he has made a firm ruling. Could the Chair tell us what precisely that ruling is?

The ruling is that the motion before the House is whether a Private Members' Bill be taken in Private Members' Time. It has been proposed by Deputy Bruton and opposed by the Minister of State, Deputy P. Lalor. A division must now take place and a debate on the Bill is not permitted. Brief statements may be permitted. The Deputy has spoken for a long time and I will not permit any further debate. I am going to put the motion.

I have only proposed the motion. There has been no discussion whatever by any other Member of the House.

The Deputy was nominated by his party to do so.

I was not ruled out of order. The Chair did not challenge me on what I was saying.

The Chair can decide when there has been sufficient discussion.

There has been no discussion, only one statement.

It should be a rather brief statement. The Deputy has now been speaking for an hour.

Do you want to silence everyone else?

The Deputy should know the rules.

I should like to make a brief statement on the motion before the House and only on the motion.

The Deputy will be permitted to make a brief statement.

We have to accept your ruling, Sir, on the force of the word "shall" until Standing Orders are revised. When Standing Orders were amended, clearly it was not the intention to eliminate the First Stage provision which enabled the Government of the day with a majority to prevent a First Stage debate. When that reform was brought in, clearly it was not the intention that power to prevent debate would simply be transferred to the Second Stage. Accepting the Chair's interpretation of the wording, and accepting the Chair's ruling, it is clear that there was a misunderstanding and a misapprehension and that, in the redrafting of Standing Orders, an error was made and the intention of the parties in the House was not carried through. This is a matter for rectification. I submit, however, and I do not propose to go outside the Chair's ruling, that we have been put in a somewhat ludicrous position. Though entitled to speak to the motion that this Bill be given a Second Reading in Private Members' Time, and that motion is opposed, we are not permitted to say why the motion should be accepted. In all logic one cannot say why the motion should be accepted unless one refers to the motion. It is a situation in which we are expected to be permitted to speak on the question of why the motion should be accepted without even saying what the Bill is about or why the Bill has an element of urgency in it.

I submit that ruling is not called for by Standing Orders. Therefore I would hope that on further reflection the ruling will be reconsidered, though I am not challenging it at this time. The illogical result of such a ruling requires further reflection. Admittedly, the public know what we are discussing, and through the media they will know the subject matter even though we are not allowed to mention it. It is a subject matter in respect of which tens of thousands of people have marched already. There will be no doubt in people's minds as to the importance and urgency of it. I submit that though you must rule on this issue, it was improper for the Government to use an ambiguity in the revision of Standing Orders to prevent discussion just because they have a majority of 20, and that exercise and abuse of power will not necessarily benefit the Government.

I hope that on reflection, and in the light of the reactions there may be in public opinion to the debate and to the curtailment of discussion, though we have been unable to mention the subject matter, the Government will reconsider the dictatorial and illiberal and arbitrary tactics adopted by them here, especially because this issue is of such widespread public concern. The Government may have calculated that by suppressing Private Members' Bills in this Dáil—this is the second occasion they have done so—they might obscure the contrast between their record of negative Opposition, almost exclusively through motions attacking the Government of the day, and our positive approach which has been of introducing legislation in our own time to deal with matters, urgent matters in particular, for example, in relation to the inadequacy of penalties for infringements of our fishery limits following a court decision, and on this occasion the protection of national monuments because the danger of their destruction arises for the first time in the history of this State as a result of an unprecedented Government decision which no one anticipated ? Government would or could take.

That is all I wish to say at this point because of the restrictions on the time of the debate. However, I would ask you to reflect further on the limitation imposed on the discussion. It seems totally illogical. I suggest we will have to come to terms with the whole question of Private Members' Time if this Parliament is to be seen to be a legislative assembly in which there is the right of free speech and the right of Members of the House to put forward proposals and to be protected in that right.

I will also restrict myself to the reason why I believe this Bill should be given a Second Reading in accordance with your ruling, but I do so, Sir, without prejudice to any action my party may see fit to take with regard to our judgment of your ruling. Deputy FitzGerald, to my mind, has conceded somewhat that your ruling was correct. I do not share his interpretation of Standing Orders, and though one would naturally wish to be co-operative and restrained in any dealings with the Chair in the House, that cannot be done at the expense of democracy. Every Deputy in the House has a right in regard to parliamentary debate and this right cannot be sacrificed in order to be seen as being restrained, co-operative and gentlemanly. Democracy is far more important than any of these elements, desirable though they may be, in one's approach to business in the House.

I do not consider that there is any ambiguity in regard to the Standing Order in this respect. Indeed a similar situation arose previously in the House and after the Chair had made the ruling and the Dáil had been adjourned, on reflection the Chair saw that a wrong decision had been made. It is regrettable that the Chair is now repeating his previous mistake, which he so graciously and courageously corrected on that occasion. It is regrettable that he is doing the same thing again.

This Standing Order was changed in order to permit Opposition Deputies to put forward constructive Bills where in certain areas of national policy the Government had been either reluctant or neglectful in taking action. We have been told here this morning the reason why this Bill may not be read a second time in Private Members' Time—I emphasise that it is not a question of looking for Government time but to utilise the limited amount of Private Members' Time that is at the disposal of Opposition Deputies. What is being denied here is the right of Opposition Deputies to use the extremely limited amount of time they have to put forward Bills which they consider to be in the national interest.

We have been told here this morning that the Government are opposing the Second Reading of this Bill because they are coming forward with a Government Bill covering this subject matter. There seems to be a definite inconsistency in that approach. There is a Private Members' Bill before the House at the moment—it was introduced last night by Deputy Eileen Desmond and the debate will be resumed on it tonight—dealing not only with adoption and the position of adopted children but also the rights in law of illegitimate children and the extension of eligibility of children for adoption. That Bill, which the Government opposed, was not denied a Second Reading, for an obvious reason—the reason is obvious now, it was not obvious yesterday—because the Government wanted to do a P.R.O. job on a Labour Party Bill on a matter that covers such things as the security and the well-being of children and the mental anguish of more than 50,000 people, parents and children.

The Government have not taken action on these matters, and when we introduced that Bill we extracted here last night from the Government, reluctantly, a suggestion that they will introduce a Bill before Christmas to deal with one aspect of this problem—the Labour Party Bill covered three aspects of child welfare.

This is not in order——

We are now discussing Private Members' Business in Government time.

We are discussing whether a Member or a group of Members have the right to be given a Second Reading of a Bill in Private Members' Time, and what I am doing is pointing out that they have that right and that the Government are trying to deny them that right, but not denying it consistently, because when they see that they can extract political advantage by extending the right, they make the right appear as a Government concession to the Opposition. That is the point I am making, and it is completely within the compass of your ruling.

The Deputy is dealing with the Chair's ruling rather than with the question of whether the motion should be taken. I would point out that we had this discussion on a previous occasion and, contrary to what has been stated here today, the Chair did not change its ruling. On that occasion Deputy FitzGerald undertook to raise the matter at a meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, the appropriate place to raise it. The Chair can only interpret Standing Orders as they are before the House, and there are no grounds now for a prolonged debate on this issue. The strategy appears to be to discuss the merits and demerits of the Bill concerned. The Chair will not permit that. The House is aware that any Stage of a Bill may be opposed and there is nothing new in that. The Chair is not concerned with what is contained in a Bill or who is embarrassed by it but must rule in accordance with what is in Standing Orders. I will not permit a prolonged debate unless Members are in order.

The debate will be more prolonged if the Chair continues to interrupt me when I am trying to make a point.

Lectures on arrogance.

Who is the arrogant person now?

The Minister for Economic Planning and Development has made enough of a mess of our economy without making a mess of our democracy and our procedures.

I am studying the Deputy's technique of arrogance.

I should like to point out to the Chair that we have had interruptions from the Government side of the House on three or four occasions but the Chair did not say a word. However, as soon as there was an interruption from this side the Chair intervened immediately. That calls into question the fairness of the rulings of the Chair, and it is only right that I should draw the attention of the Chair to that.

As I stated at the outset I have no option but to accept the ruling of the Chair. The only other option open to me is to disrupt the business of the House, which I am not prepared to do.

The Deputy is making a good job of it.

No matter what my opinion of what the Chair's ruling might be there are other channels which I can use to make my opinion known. That is a matter I will consider. We are discussing the right of Opposition Members to utilise Private Members' Business as they see fit. That right is being denied by the Government for political purposes.

I should like to point out to the Deputy that the right of the Opposition to use Private Members' Business is not the matter before the House.

The Deputy may make reference to it when dealing with the motion, which is that the Second Stage be taken in Private Members' Business. That motion is opposed, and that is all that is before the House.

If the motion is being opposed am I entitled to give my opinion as to why it is being opposed by the Government?

The Deputy has already given his views.

I started to give my reasons as to why it is being opposed by the Government. There is another Bill before the House which is not opposed by the Government although there are two aspects of it, the rights of illegitimate children before the law and the extension of eligibility for adoption, which the Minister would not commit himself to take any action on. On that Bill which concerns the future welfare of thousands of children and their parents we had a three minute intervention last night by a Fianna Fáil Minister.

This is not relevant.

I am entitled to make my point on this issue.

The Chair is ruling that the Deputy may not discuss another Bill which is before the House. We are discussing one matter only.

Are we discussing whether the Bill should be given a Second Reading in Private Members' Business?

The reason we are discussing this motion is because the Second Reading is being opposed by the Government, and surely I am entitled to give my reason why the Government are adopting that attitude.

The Deputy is entitled to make a case but not to have a long debate on something which is not relevant.

Where is that in Standing Orders?

Allowing for the interruptions I have had to contend with, I have spoken for approximately ten minutes, and that could hardly be interpreted as a long contribution. I want to give the reason why the Government are opposing a Second Reading. We have been told that there is a Bill pending, but I want to highlight the behaviour of the Government last night during Private Members' Business when we discussed a Labour Party Bill. They did not oppose a Second Reading but the Minister for Justice indicated that a Bill would be introduced before Christmas to deal with one important aspect of it. We have had a different approach to this matter. The Bill which the Government are said to be preparing to cover national monuments——

On a point of order, I should like to know how much Government time is to be taken up on Private Members' Business?

The whole purpose of the debate is to give a Second Reading to the Bill in Private Members' Business.

The Chair will put the motion when the Chair thinks it has been adequately discussed.

On the Order of Business, in pointing out to the Taoiseach that we have approximately 20 sitting days before the Christmas recess, I stated that he had told us that before Christmas there would be a further debate on the EMS proposals, that the Minister for Justice had announced that a Bill with regard to adoption and the rights of adoptive parents would be introduced, that the Minister for Health had stated yesterday that a Bill would be introduced to deal with the sale or availability of contraceptives, and that we would have the normal Adjournment Debate covering about three days. It is expected that that business will be dealt with before Christmas, but now we are told that the Government are preparing a Bill to cover aspects referred to in the Bill dealing with national monuments before Christmas.

One of the most controversial issues in this Bill is the question of Wood Quay. Some weeks ago the Government made an order extending the time for the excavation of Wood Quay for seven weeks. It is clear that the Bill the Minister of State referred to will not be circulated to Members before Christmas. This is clearly a political ploy and, unfortunately, the Chair's interpretation of Standing Orders is lending itself to that political ploy. We have had a dismal record of legislation from the Government since they took office.

That is not in order. The Deputy is ranging around a wide variety of subjects which are not in order on this discussion.

Let us face it, half of the Departments have been on automatic pilot since the Government took office, including the one concerned with this Bill. The only hope of getting constructive legislation through the House is for us to use the limited time in Private Members' Business. That right is being denied to the Opposition this morning. It is not a question of personal frustration for a few politicians on this side of the House. It is something which is basic and fundamental to the democratic procedures which we observe and respect here. We cannot be denied our rights simply because there are 84 pairs of feet ready to walk into any lobby the Government wish.

It was a terrible offence for the electorate to give us so many seats; it has been hurting the Deputy and the Opposition ever since.

Had they given the Government party more sense than feet they would have been doing the country a good service.

Are we expected to give back some of the seats we won? The Opposition got too much of a kick.

We have had enough irrelevancies without interruption. I warn the Deputy that I will shortly put the motion. I consider this to have been adequately discussed. The discussion, unfortunately, is not relevant.

As I was the person who raised the matter I would ask——

I am concluding now.

The right of individual Deputies or a group of Deputies to have a Second Reading in Private Members' Time is a right which the Chair must uphold in this House not in the interests of either the Fine Gael or the Labour parties but in the interests of democratic proceedings here.

Can I ask for three minutes?

I propose to comment on the debate. I would refer the Ceann Comhairle——

I am not going to discuss Standing Orders again. Will the Deputy please resume his seat when the Chair is speaking?

May I contribute to the debate?

Will the Deputy please resume his seat? I must point out that we discussed this question of Standing Orders before we allowed a debate on the motion, a debate which does not permit of any lengthy discussion.

The Ceann Comhairle is not allowing a debate.

The Standing Orders were revised in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. On the last occasion we had such a discussion it was undertaken to have the matter raised there, which is the appropriate place. The Chair has ruled in accordance with his interpretation of the Standing Orders and is standing firm on that ruling until it is proved otherwise. I am not permitting any further discussion.

I do not wish to cause further embarrassment or to promote further destructive ridiculous discussion such as we have had for the past hour-and-a-half and for which there was no need if common sense had prevailed, but with deep respect I would refer the Ceann Comhairle to Standing Order No. 85 (4).

We have had this.

I implore the Ceann Comhairle to listen for just one minute.

This is a repetition.

It is not a repetition, and the Ceann Comhairle cannot know whether it is or not until I say it. I assure the Ceann Comhairle it is not. Standing Order 85 (4) reads as follows:

At least ten days prior to the date on which the motion is moved or a Stage of a Bill is taken in the Dáil the member nominated shall indicate to the Ceann Comhairle the motion which he proposes to move or the Stage of the Bill to be taken and——

I would ask the Ceann Comhairle to listen carefully to this.

——the Ceann Comhairle will give the motion or the Bill appropriate precedence in the Private Members' Business on the Order Paper.

That does not even concern what we are discussing.

The Ceann Comhairle unfortunately due, I presume, to his very lengthy parliamentary experience and the fact that this House has always regarded the taking of Bills and the proceeding of the Stages of the Bills as being entirely a Government prerogative—in the amendment which we made to Standing Orders I would refer the Ceann Comhairle to the 1972 report of the Informal Committee on the Reform of Dáil Procedure. Both the Ceann Comhairle and I shared membership of this committee. Paragraph 49 of that report says:

we believe it to be unfair that in all cases the private Member must in effect be dependent on the Government to secure a Second Reading debate in Private Members' time.

It was because of that observation shared by Deputy O'Malley who was then Minister for Justice, and by Deputy Andrews that the Standing Orders were amended. Deputy Richard Burke, Deputy Michael O'Kennedy now a Minister and the late Deputy David Thornley were all members of the committee. In the last session when a motion was being opposed I was provoked to implore the Ceann Comhairle not to make a precedent, and the Ceann Comhairle correctly said that we would go ahead and let the motion be taken in Private Members' Time and that it had nothing to do with the Government. I would appeal to Deputy Lalor——

I wish to correct the Deputy.

I will conclude. Unfortunately Deputy Lalor, myself and Deputy Donal Creed did not have an opportunity to discuss this matter before this morning. Had we done so I am sure we would have come to an amicable agreement on the matter. Unfortunately, typically, the Office of Public Works and the Department of Finance rushed Deputy Wyse into saying "throw it out. We will not have it" and then we all reacted. The matter can be resolved. Deputy Lalor need only indicate that if we wish to take the Bill in precedence in Private Members' Time under Standing Orders, by all means take it. That is all Deputy Lalor need do. There would be no hassle and the matter would be resolved without involving the Ceann Comhairle in further destructive scenes in the House.

This whole debate has been preposterous. The way we conduct our business in this House would make one sick. For ten years I have fought to get these awful Standing Orders revised. They are decrepit, they are incredibly bad, and they are not worthy of a banana republic. We should have the Standing Orders properly revised, but in the meantime what we have we hold, and let us behave ourselves as parliamentarians earning £7,000 a year. The English football team are worth more this afternoon than we.

We will have no discussion. I do not wish to prolong the debate.

(Interruptions.)

Order, please, while I am talking. The last Deputy chose to speak entirely on the question of Standing Orders.

That is the issue.

That is over and done with. I want to make it clear that on the previous occasion the Chair did not change the ruling. The Government on that occasion decided not to oppose the motion. It had nothing whatever to do with the ruling of the Chair. Until Standing Orders have been discussed by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges this is not the place to discuss it. While the Standing Order which I read remains the Chair is bound when a motion is before the House to permit a division to be taken on it. The Chair has no option. A Bill cannot go to Private Members' Time without an order of this House, and an order of this House means that it may or may not be opposed. As long as it is being opposed the Chair must accept that and put it to a division. The Chair is not actuated by any motives other than his interpretation of Standing Orders as they are.

As one of the joint sponsors of this Bill am I allowed a word?

The things have been adequately covered.

I will not delay the House except to say——

The motion has been now put under Standing Order No. 55 (1).

——that I object to the procedure being pursued in this House not alone on this occasion but on other occasions.

(Interruptions.)

There is little sense in Members introducing a Private Members' Bill here if it is up to the whim of the Government as to whether it is accepted or rejected. The Government know well that the Bill which we wish to introduce is very relevant at the moment and that it would be embarrassing to the Government to allow us to introduce this Bill by virtue of the fact that they have been neglecting their duty over the past number of years.

Order. Will the Deputy please resume his seat? Deputy Lalor has asked that the question be now put. Is that agreed?

On a point of order.

I am putting the question.

(Interruptions.)

More jack-boot tactics.

Could I ask——

Order, please. I am awaiting a point of order.

On a point of order the issue before the House is whether or not the Opposition have the right to nominate Private Members' Business. The attention of the Chair has been drawn by Deputy Barry Desmond to certain issues——

That is not the issue.

——and I would suggest that the Chair adjourn the House to consider Deputy Desmond's submissions.

There is no need to adjourn the House.

I will make a case for an adjournment.

The Minister of State has proposed that the question be now put and I am putting that question.

(Interruptions.)

I take it that the motion is carried.

We have been opposing it for the past hour-and-a-half.

The Minister of State has put the motion that the question be put now.

I thought we were discussing the motion in my name.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 38.

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Kit.
  • Andrews, Niall.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Brady, Gerard.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Cogan, Barry.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Fitzsimons, James N.
  • Flynn, Pádraig.
  • Fox, Christopher J.
  • French, Seán.
  • Gallagher, Dennis.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Haughey, Charles J.
  • Hussey Thomas.
  • Keegan, Seán.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Killeen, Tim.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lemass, Eileen.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leonard, Tom.
  • Conaghan, Hugh.
  • Connolly, Gerard.
  • Cowen, Bernard.
  • Cronin, Jerry.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • de Valera, Sile.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Farrell, Joe.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzgerald, Gene.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom.
  • (Dublin South-Central).
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lynch, Jack.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Moore, Seán.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • O'Donoghue, Martin.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Woods, Michael J.

Níl

  • Barry, Peter.
  • Barry, Richard.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Belton, Luke.
  • Bermingham, Joseph.
  • Boland, John.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Burke, Joan.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Clinton, Mark.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Collins, Edward.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Cosgrave, Michael J.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • Crotty, Kieran.
  • Deasy, Martin A.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • Donnellan, John F.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom.
  • (Cavan-Monaghan).
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Horgan, John.
  • Keating, Michael.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • O'Brien, Fergus.
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Donnell, Tom.
  • O'Leary, Michael.
  • O'Toole, Paddy.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Ryan, John J.
  • Taylor, Frank.
  • Treacy, Seán.
  • Tully, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies P. Lalor and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies Creed and B. Desmond.
Question declared carried.
Question put: "That the Second Stage be taken in Private Members' Time."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 38; Níl, 60.

  • Barry, Peter.
  • Barry, Richard.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Belton, Luke.
  • Bermingham, Joseph.
  • Boland, John.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Burke, Joan.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Clinton, Mark.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Collins, Edward.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • O'Brien, Fergus.
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Toole, Paddy.
  • Cosgrave, Michael J.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • Crotty, Kieran.
  • D'Arcy, Michael J.
  • Deasy, Martin A.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • Donnellan, John F.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hegarty, Paddy.
  • Horgan, John.
  • Keating, Michael.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Ryan, John J.
  • Spring, Dan.
  • Taylor, Frank.
  • Treacy, Seán.
  • Tully, James.

Níl

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Kit.
  • Andrews, Niall.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Brady, Gerard.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Cogan, Barry.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Conaghan, Hugh.
  • Connolly, Gerard.
  • Cowen, Bernard.
  • Cronin, Jerry.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • de Valera, Sile.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Farrell, Joe.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzgerald, Gene.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom
  • (Dublin South-Central).
  • Fitzsimons, James N.
  • Flynn, Pádraig.
  • Fox, Christopher J.
  • French, Seán.
  • Gallagher, Dennis.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Haughey, Charles J.
  • Hussey, Thomas.
  • Keegan, Seán.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Killeen, Tim.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lemass, Eileen.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leonard, Tom.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Meaney, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Moore, Seán.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • O'Donoghue, Martin.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Woods, Michael J.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Creed and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies P. Lalor and Briscoe.
Question declared lost.

Assuming we are still on the Order of Business, I wish to give notice again that it is my intention to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of question No. 482 on the Order Paper of Tuesday, 17 October 1978. I should appreciate it if the Taoiseach could reply to the debate.

I will be in touch with the Deputy as to whether it will be in order. I cannot take any action is to who should or should not reply.

Top
Share