As a quorum is present I will now call the meeting to order.
Election of Chairman
Election of Chairman.
Acting Chairman (Clerk to the Committee)
There are two people at the Forum this morning.
Acting Chairman
Are there substitutes?
This meeting was fixed very late last night.
Acting Chairman
I will take nominations for chairman. That is the first item on the agenda.
I nominate Deputy Robert Molloy.
I second the proposal.
I propose Deputy Alice Glenn.
I second the proposal.
I understood that Deputy Molloy was to be chairman of this committee.
Acting Chairman
I have two proposals.
It is customary for somebody from the Opposition to be chairman of these committees.
I understood that it was decided between the Whips that Deputy Molloy would be chairman of this committee. Could we clarify the matter now with the Whips before we get involved in argument? Perhaps we should adjourn the meeting for about 15 minutes in order to clarify this matter. Are we to take it that the Government side want to take the Chair in this committee? Let us clarify the position.
We are not aware of any understanding.
What we want to do is to clarify the position as to agreement between the Whips.
If there has been an understanding we will honour it. We are not aware of any understanding.
Do the Government want to take the Chair?
I do not think that is the issue. What I want to clarify is if there has been agreement between the Whips.
I do not know of any agreement.
I was under the impression there was agreement; but, that aside, I would also have considered that, in view of the urgency of this committee, an Opposition Member would have been permitted to take the Chair.
We have two choices. We either adjourn and see if there was an explicit commitment. If not, we have two nominations validly before the committee and we can proceed now. It is up to the committee to decide which course of action they want to take.
Sorry, Madam Chairman. It is a Private Members' Bill. In those circumstances one would assume that the Deputy who promoted it and whose name is on it would be chairman.
I would second Deputy Brady's proposal that we adjourn to clarify the matter.
I did not make that as a proposal. I said that if there was any confusion, perhaps it would be the best thing to do. I would nevertheless feel that that should be the last option, if we cannot reach agreement.
Could I ask what happened on the last occasion that a Private Members' Bill was transferred from the Dáil to a special committee?
Acting Chairman
It was in 1957. The chairman was Mr. McGilligan.
Did Deputy Quinn have a Private Members' Bill withdrawn from the House and referred to a special committee?
No. It was quite different. We are now on Committee Stage on the Deputy's Bill. What happened in relation to the Land Bill was that it was left on the Order Paper and there was a select committee whose terms of reference were broadened to take in a whole range of factors. We are about to go into committee on a piece of legislation. It is quite different, in fact.
Different but very similar at the same time.
It was suggested that there was an understanding. We will honour the understanding if there was one. I am not aware of any.
If there is a precedent we do not want to be in breach of any precedent that has been set. I do not think that is the intention of any one of us.
In view of the fact that this committee has arisen from Private Members' Business and at the request of the Opposition, would the Government not agree that an Opposition Member should be chairman?
No.
We are on Committee Stage. It is as if we were in the House now debating this Bill. If we were in the House, Deputy Tom Fitzpatrick or Deputy John Ryan would be in the chair. That is what we are at. We are not in an ordinary committee situation, or in a joint committee of the Houses.
Let us establish a precedent, so.
In the absence of an agreement around this table, I suggest we adjourn for 15 minutes in order to clarify the matter.
Could we hear first what happened in 1952 or whenever it was.
Acting Chairman
There was a Private Members' Bill referred to a Special Committee in 1957 and an Opposition member, Deputy McGilligan, was chairman.
Who was the chairman?
Acting Chairman
Patrick McGilligan.
I move that we proceed. There are two valid nominations before us.
I propose we adjourn.
I propose we take a vote now.
If there are precedents surely they are of some standing.
The Opposition had the chair the last time this happened.
Acting Chairman
I am not too sure if it was the last time. I think it was 1957. I would have to check it out.
It does not appear to be an exact precedent in an exactly similar situation.
There is a proposal from Deputy Brady that we adjourn for 15 minutes — in fairness to our official who finds it difficult to put her finger on something that happened; it is difficult for her.
There is another problem. Two of our Members are members of the Forum: one who is here, Deputy Brian Lenihan, and one who is at the Forum. Today there is a special meeting of the Forum and the cameras are out there and we do not want people to think that he is not attending it. He wants to attend the meeting of the Forum.
We are talking about the chairing of a committee. We are talking about somebody who is going to be as useful as the Ceann Comhairle or the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. What is the issue?
(Interruptions.)
I am sure the Ceann Comhairle would have something to say about that.
I do not think we should use this committee as an opportunity to cast aspersions on the Ceann Comhairle.
This committee is being used to have chairmanships, as is happening in most committees.
This is not an ordinary Joint Oireachtas Committee or a single House of the Oireachtas committee. This is actually a session of the Dáil. That is what we are talking about here. We are not talking about a sharing out of chairmen. We have done that. That has been done through the Whips. We are talking here of an exact precedent and by right, if possible, the Ceann Comhairle should be chairing it, but he is not and we have been given the option to select our own chairman.
There is a precedent which does not support your argument.
I have not heard to my satisfaction that there is any definite, exact precedent. It would appear that this might be the first time.
A Private Member's Bill promoted by Deputy McGilligan, when he was in Opposition, got a Second Reading apparently. It was referred to a special committee, which is what this is, and Deputy McGilligan was chairman.
That was in 1957. This is now 1983. We are here as a committee. There is an item on the agenda, which is the selection of a chairman.
A number of people inquired if there was a precedent. A search was made and one was found. Now a precedent has come forward. Now, because it happened in 1957 it has to be disregarded.
We are not sure whether the precedent is exactly parallel and what happened, I would respectfully suggest to the Members of Fianna Fáil, that what happened last week, by the action of the Tánaiste, is totally without precedent as far as any of the current members of Fianna Fáil in this House are concerned. I would propose, if we want to ensure that Deputy Lenihan can appear at the Forum——
The Chair continues to quote precedents in the Dáil Chamber as sufficient justification for decision-making by him. It does not matter whether any of us was a Member of the Dáil or not when the precedent was created. That is irrelevant.
The Acting Chairman indicates that she is not absolutely sure that it is an exact precedent, that Deputy McGilligan did not actually promote the Bill. Is there any other reason?
Adjourn the meeting until next week if you want to, but at the end of the day we still have to vote for the Chair.
I would suggest that we proceed as the Minister has suggested.
Two of our members have to attend the Forum and it sits all day long today.
The situation is unsatisfactory. It would be better to adjourn for a week.
We cannot unilaterally adjourn and we have got to vote to adjourn. Are you formally proposing that we vote to adjourn?
It has been proposed.
It was suggested that we might adjourn. We are not adjourning this meeting.
Sorry, the Minister should not say that we will not adjourn this meeting. Surely a vote will decide?
We are not suggesting that we adjourn.
You are pre-empting the voting.
This is the wrong way to go about this. Surely the spirit of the situation always has been that the Opposition held the chair in committees. I know there is a difference between this committee and other Oireachtas committees, but the precedent is there. In all common sense and equity, surely the Opposition should have the Chair. It is not going to mean that much to the Government. What are the Government afraid of in this respect?
The Government are afraid of nothing. The Government have gone to this committee in the first instance but the Government are asserting their position in a situation where there are eight members of this committee members of the Government; there is, on the order, a vote to be taken on the question of the Chair. There was no understanding, as far as we are aware. Whatever precedents there were in the past, I do not feel bound by them and I am proposing that we proceed with the vote in relation to this matter now.
You ignore precedents when they do not suit your point of view.
We had better be sure before creating a further precedent by breaking a previous precedent. We had better have a bit of common sense about it. I do not want to start off the committee without a settlement. Otherwise we will be at each other's throats for the duration of this committee if we do not settle it amicably. This is democracy in action. It is exactly why we are here. I would not like to think that for the rest of the committee's life we would have to take a totally party line all the time, just because we started off fighting on the Chair.
On the other hand, where there is a precedent it should be followed.
Not necessarily.
It is necessary. The Ceann Comhairle is forever quoting that precedent should be followed. This is a committee of the House. Surely that situation should continue.
There is another precedent. The Chairman of the House is a member of the Government and as this is a committee of the House there is a precedent, an overriding precedent that the Government should provide the chairman.
To take the point that Deputy Lenihan made, if we follow the precedent of the last committee, in my experience since 1976, none of us would be at this committee this morning because the Bill would have been voted down at the end of Private Members' Time last Wednesday. We are in a situation where we are creating new precedents. The Government have agreed in the full House on Second Stage to grant Second Stage and to go on to Committee Stage.
There is no new precedent and you know that.
It gave Second Stage in Private Members' Time. In modern political parlance it is certainly a precedent.
In your political experience. Maybe I have a very short memory. Since the State was founded whatever precedents are there are deemed by the Chair in the House to be justification for decisions on his part.
We should put the record right about the statement that has just been made that the Ceann Comhairle is a member of the Government. He is not a member of the Government and he is also not a member of any political party. It is indicative of a certain frame of mind that he should inadvertently have been described in the terms in which he was.
I am glad that you recognise that, Deputy O'Malley.
Those members who are in the House as long as I am can remember when the Ceann Comhairle came from the Opposition benches. Mr. Hogan from the Labour Party was appointed by Fianna Fáil in one Government.
I do not think that is the argument. That is a side issue.
This is very far removed from concern for the tenants who are placed in the plight they are in. We are not doing them justice. They have a grab-all Government.
Acting Chairman
I have just found the minutes of the 1957 Special Committee meeting. On the motion of Deputy Haughey, Deputy McGilligan was elected chairman. I wonder were there two Deputy McGilligans in 1957?
No, that one was quite adequate.
Was it Deputy McGilligan's Bill?
Acting Chairman
It seems to have been Deputy Kyne's Bill.
An Opposition Bill.
There was a suggestion that there was agreement between the Whips and I think this matter should be clarified as to whether there was agreement.
Any doubt or misunderstanding about the precedent of 1957 has now been clarified. There is no longer any doubt or misunderstanding on the part of anybody.
There is supposed to have been an agreement between the Whips. Could we have that clarified?
I am not aware of any agreement.
Acting Chairman
The Minister for Health at that time was Mr. MacEntee.
We do not need any clearer precedent than that.
We have no idea as to the background of that particular Bill. We have no idea what the arrangements were, whether it was set up by agreement.
It was Deputy Kyne's Bill. Deputy Haughey proposed Deputy McGilligan to be Chairman. Deputy Kyne was a member of the Labour Party. Deputy McGilligan was Fine Gael.
I have no knowledge of what prior private arrangements were undertaken at the time or what number of Independents there were in the Dáil at the time. As far as I am concerned and as far as Labour and Fine Gael are concerned at this committee there are two nominations for the position of the chairman of this committee. I propose that we should proceed.
I object very strongly to this railroading.
I am not railroading.
You are railroading. A precedent has been quoted.
First of all, we were not sure whether there was a precedent or not. That came across from the other side of the House. Now when it has been established, the Minister says he is not interested in a precedent. He wants a vote. It is very clear that the Government intend to take the Chair, whether there was agreement or not. They intend to have the chairmanship of this committee. That is the reality of it.
We were also told that there was an agreement between the Whips.
We have already wasted over 20 minutes this morning and if we are going to continue——
I do not think we can proceed.
We can proceed. There is no way that we cannot proceed.
I think that we should adjourn and recommence tomorrow morning or Tuesday morning.
If at that stage it appears that that precedent was one of which there was not clear action——
It is not, no.
We will adjourn to some time on Tuesday that is convenient, say 3.30 p.m. That will be after Question Time.
I think, with all due respect to everybody, the Order of Business of the House this morning was re-ordered so as to accommodate this particular discussion. I think we are failing in our duty if we adjourn the whole thing again.
The Order of Business was also——
Also I would point out that there are a number of tenants in a serious situation in relation to the matter of discussion here and I think that, if we are serious about doing something about that, we should proceed now and not after Christmas.
The order of business was also made.
We will say Tuesday. Can we make it 4 o'clock instead of 3.30 p.m.?
Agreed.
The Committee adjourned at 4 p.m.