Deputy FitzGerald wishes to raise a point of order.
Business of Dáil.
I want to raise the question of the manner in which in the House action is taken when an allegation is made against a Deputy, and when it is denied, and evidence is not produced. Which procedures should then be taken by the Chair? On two occasions yesterday allegations were made against Deputy Mitchell by the Minister for Health. The first was that Deputy Mitchell had been briefed by someone, the implication being that the briefing was from someone who had a vested interest, which Deputy Mitchell denied, and the Chair's reaction was to say: "I take it the Deputy is not briefed by anybody". The Chair then said: "I accept it is withdrawn. It is withdrawn, and that is that".
The Minister had not, in fact, withdrawn it, or said anything. On the second occasion, the accusation was twice made that Deputy Mitchell had a vested interest in tobacco consumption. The Minister made it in specific terms. The Chair's reaction was to say that he was not aware the Deputy had any vested interest, and the Deputy asked was it the Chair who accepted that. The Chair subsequently said: "If the Deputy says he has no vested interest, that is OK, we accept that". He later said: "If the Minister states that Deputy Mitchell has a vested interest in the matter before the House, in cigarette or tobacco firms, and he says he has not, the Minister withdraws that".
The Minister, of course, had said nothing of the kind, or intervened at all. Finally, the Minister said: "What I said is that the Deputy's speech left me with the impression of being a supporter of the vested interests of the tobacco companies", which is not the whole of what the Minister had said. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle then said that he had been given the impression of the Deputy's speech being in support of the vested interests of the tobacco people, and that there was nothing wrong in that. At the end, the Chair said: "The Minister has accepted that the Deputy has no vested interests in the tobacco people. I have got that acceptance".
Up to that point the Minister had not in any way accepted the denial, qualified or unqualified. I am asking the Chair whether the correct procedure in such cases is for the Chair to put it to the person making the allegation that he must withdraw it, rather than to say he has withdrawn it when clearly he has refused to do so.
I accept that the Chair seeks to pacify the House, to have a mollifying effect on all concerned, but I submit that there is a danger that if the Chair does not adopt a procedure of seeking a withdrawal from the Deputy who has made the allegation, or if, as in this instance, the withdrawal may not be received, the allegation may stick, and the protection of the Chair will not have been accorded to the Deputy against whom the allegation had been made. Therefore I would ask the Chair if the correct procedure in such circumstances is to seek the withdrawal of such allegations and to pursue the matter with the Deputy who has made the allegation, unless there is substantiation.
The Deputy is discussing the ruling of the Chair yesterday when the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was in the Chair. I am not familiar with what happened, but I would say the Leas-Cheann Comhairle dealt with the matter in a manner that was satisfactory to the House at the time. I am not aware that there was any complaint. I would not be competent to make any further comment at this time except to add that unparliamentary remarks should be withdrawn freely. There are times when the Chair does not like to ask a Deputy to leave the House for a remark made, sometimes not too audibly. Indulging in such remarks is a practice which denigrates the House and affects the prestige and decorum of the House. Where possible, the Chair would take immediate action.
I thank the Chair for that reply. I accept he cannot comment on a particular case which he has not had a chance to consider. However, far from the House being satisfied, though the matter has been pursued at length, I take the Chair's last remarks in regard to procedure for withdrawal as being in the best interests of the House.
I take it that when the Chair is looking into this he will also have a look at the improper allegations made daily by the same Deputy Mitchell.
Mr. Mitchell rose.
The Deputy's Leader has been allowed to raise a point of order and to give an explanation.
(Cavan-Monaghan): They have a majority of 20.
Do we have to apologise for our majority?
After the allegations had been made yesterday by the Minister for Health that I had a vested interest in tobacco consumption, and he had repeated that allegation, I made it clear——
I allowed the Leader of the Deputy's party to raise this matter on a point of order.
Is there not to be a withdrawal by the Minister for Health?