I would like to be informed if and when a decision was reached with reference to motions appearing on the Order Paper in the names of Private Deputies. Could I be informed when it was decided to put a motion or motions handed in last week ahead of motions handed in as far back as last October?
Precedence of Motions on Order Paper.
I take it the Deputy is referring to the position occupied by a motion in the name of Deputy Corish?
Mr. Hogan
That is right.
The motion in the name of Deputy Corish seeks the annulment of a statutory order made under the provisions of the Gárda Síochána Act. The Deputy approached me last Thursday week on the matter, stating that he desired to move for the annulment of the Gárda Síochána Allowance Order, 1929. He desired to know whether any provision could be made for taking a decision on that matter before the expiration of the twenty-one days provided for in the statute. I suggested that the Deputy should raise the matter before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, and I undertook to see whether I could suggest some solution of the difficulty. The matter was raised at a meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges last Thursday by Deputy Corish, and this is the minute of the Committee:—
Deputy Corish raised the question of providing facilities for the discussion and decision of a motion proposing amendment or annulment of a Statutory Order or Regulation, within the period provided for under the relative Act.
The Chairman suggested as an arrangement that might be given a trial, that such motions should be given precedence over other business in private members' time on a day within the period prescribed by the Act. He further suggested that the time given to proceedings on such motion should not exceed 1½ hours, and that notice of the motion should be given as early as possible, but at the latest within 8 days after the Order or Regulation had been laid upon the Table.
The Committee agreed that the allocation of time in private members' time should be left to the discretion of the Chair, and that the arrangement should not at present be made the subject-matter of a Standing Order.
In accordance with that suggestion, and by agreement with the Committee, Deputy Corish's motion appears to-day before other motions on the Order Paper, the idea being that it should be taken in Private Members' time and decided to-day. In the case of a motion of this kind, an early decision is all-important.
Mr. Hogan
It will be within your recollection that I pointed out, with reference to the State Lands Act, that a Paper was tabled as far back as last October. I put down a motion asking the Dáil to disagree with that proposed lease or letting, and pointed out that unless I got an opportunity to discuss that within 21 days the Department could act, and thus nullify the provisions of the Act. That motion has been on the Order Paper since last October. I raised this matter with you, Sir, publicly, and you stated on that occasion: "The Deputy, being a Private Member, is only entitled to make a motion in the time allowed to Private Deputies and in the order in which the rules and practice of the House would seem to indicate. I can go no further." I submit that in fairness a motion which has been on the Order Paper since October last, and for which there is a statutory limit provided, should take precedence of any other motion.
Does the Deputy suggest that his Motion No. 14 on the Order Paper should be taken now?
Mr. Hogan
I suggest it should get preference to Motion No. 9 on the Order Paper. The position is that I cannot understand why a motion handed in a fortnight or a week ago, and for which there is a statutory limit, should take precedence of a motion handed in in October last, for which there is also a statutory limit, and which dealt with the action of the Department of Finance in regard to State lands. That was just as important as the subject matter of Deputy Corish's motion, and I submit that my motion should take precedence.
Has the statutory period already elapsed in the case of the Deputy's motion?
Mr. Hogan
I submit that it might be considered to be the duty of the senior officer of this House to see that the Rules of the House or any flaw in the regulations of the House would not nullify the provision of an Act of this Dáil.
I am at a loss to understand what the Deputy's point exactly is. To take Item No. 14 now would be of no effect if the statutory period has already elapsed. If the Deputy's point is that the solution which has now been found in connection with Motion No. 9 should have been found last October or November for his motion, I could understand that.
Mr. Hogan
The point is that the same opportunity for having the matter discussed could have been afforded in October, and the fact that it has been longer on the Order Paper than the other motion, ought to give it precedence now, and we ought to have a decision of the Dáil on it, whether it is post factum or otherwise.
A post factum decision is ruled out under the arrangement now made. The idea is to get a decision before the Order becomes operative. In any event, when the Deputy raised the matter in October or November last he raised it in the House, and not otherwise. I then stated to the Deputy: "I can see no way by which the Deputy can move his motion except by arrangement with the President, who has control of the time of the House, or by arrangement with other private Deputies who have motions on the Order Paper." That was on 14th November, 1928. I suggested, therefore that there were two courses open to him but he had not up to then taken either of these courses and did not, to my knowledge, do so subsequently. As well as these two courses there were two other courses open to him, one of which is commonly taken nearly every day by Deputies. One was to consult the Ceann Comhairle as to how the difficulty could be got over, or to consult some officer of the House. The other course was to have the matter raised at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The Deputy took neither of these courses. Deputy Corish consulted the President and then the Ceann Comhairle and, at my suggestion, had the matter raised at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I think that the solution reached is reasonable. If Deputy Hogan had taken all these steps last October, possibly some solution would then have been found. In regard to taking his motion now there appears to be no urgency.
Mr. Hogan
Am I to understand that it does not matter whether my motion is taken or not, that it may disappear from the Order Paper, as the rules of the House do not provide machinery for taking a motion asking the Dáil to disagree with certain papers laid on the table? Am I to understand that no decision can be taken by the Dáil on the matter but, now that another motion of a different sort is brought forward, that machinery can be provided?
Machinery has been provided for the motion brought forward by a Deputy who took proper steps to see that some machinery was provided. Deputy Hogan's motion does not come within the category to which this new arrangement applies, as the statutory period has presumably elapsed. I am not ruling that it cannot be taken, but it cannot be taken on the ground of urgency.
Mr. Hogan
Am I to understand that all the motions on the Order Paper may be taken before No. 14?
No, certainly not.
Is not this in the nature of Government Business? It is directly concerned with an action of the Government, laying a Paper on the table. Should it therefore be taken in Private Member's time?
That is a wholly different matter. That is a suggestion that the arrangement made should not be carried out. The suggestion was that this kind of motion should, as a trial, be given precedence in Private Members' time. That arrangement is easy at the moment owing to the position of other Private Members' motions. No. 10 cannot arise until the Minister for Industry and Commerce returns. No. 11, I understand, is to be taken in Government time.
Mr. Hogan
I should like to say that I am not at all satisfied with the method of procedure. I am not at all satisfied either that machinery could not be got to discuss my motion within the statutory period; nor am I satisfied that it was not the duty of some officer of this House to see that no flaw in the machinery of procedure ought to nullify any provision of an Act passed by this Dáil.
It is the business of a Deputy who wants to get something done to take the appropriate steps. It is the common practice here, and I think everywhere, that when a Deputy is in a difficulty regarding procedure he consults either an officer of the House or the Ceann Comhairle. That is done practically every day by Deputies of every Party and usually a solution is found. It is not the business of the Ceann Comhairle to seek solutions for difficulties about which he has not been consulted.
Am I to take it that this arrangement applies to this particular motion and does not commit us to give Private Members' time to motions which we had not an opportunity of considering on their merits? I think each motion of this nature should be discussed on its merits.
What does the Deputy mean by "on its merits?"
In regard to statutory limits. I mean that the Dáil should have an opportunity of discussing questions—whether by virtue of some statutory limitation it should be brought up in Private Members' time or not.
Anyway it can be brought up.
The Dáil could not have an opportunity of discussing where it ought to come in, but the Deputy's point may be met in this way—namely, that every such motion might, where possible, be brought before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges before it gets precedence. The idea of giving this motion precedence is to see how the arrangement will work. If it is found that it does not work, the Committee can consider the matter and make a recommendation to the Dáil.
Mr. Hogan
Am I to take it that the competence rests with the Chair of deciding the order of these motions?
Which motions?
Mr. Hogan
For instance, the relative merits of Deputy Corish's motion and mine.
A decision has never been made by the Chair as to the relative merits of motions.
Mr. Hogan
As to precedence.
No. The Chair will not accept responsibility for making any such decision.
I am not quarrelling with the fact that No. 9 has secured precedence, but I do not think that the machinery provided quite meets the situation. I understand that a Deputy has a certain statutory right to raise a discussion in the Dáil in regard to certain matters done by the Executive within a prescribed period. Unless he can ensure that that discussion will take place within the prescribed period, his statutory right lapses, becomes inoperative, and is of no value to him or to the public generally. I suggest that when certain reservations of that sort were made in regard to acts by the Executive it was never contemplated that the Deputy, who is questioning the acts of the Executive which were brought before the Dáil by the tabling of papers, should have to go as a suppliant to the President, the Ceann Comhairle, or even the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. There should accordingly be in the Standing Orders some definite machinery provided for considering motions like Nos. 9 and 14. I think that as that right is definitely afforded to Deputies by certain statutes, machinery should be provided whereby they could exercise that right within the time necessary to make such motion effective.
The Deputy is mixing up two different things, the decision of the Dáil and the ventilation of grievances. There is provision made in regard to the ventilation of grievances in Private Members' time. If the other Deputies with a motion down had not given way to Deputy Corish, some other method would have been found.
I submit that that is not so. No. 14 was put down in due time, but it has not been considered in due time, and I think, with all respect to the Ceann Comhairle, that it is not entirely the fault of Deputy Hogan. I think that the fault lies in the machinery of the House. There should be some machinery provided for discussing motions of this type which are not exactly akin to Private Members' motions.
There was one phrase used by Deputy MacEntee to which I would like to take exception. He said that Deputies should not be asked to go as suppliants to the President or the Ceann Comhairle. In the case of the President, he has control of Government time and the Deputy who is asking for Government time is asking for some privilege, but a Deputy coming to the Ceann Comhairle as to how a particular difficulty in procedure can be met does not come to him as a suppliant. Many Deputies have come to the Ceann Comhairle and have been assisted as a matter of right. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges was alive to the fact, the matter having been now brought up definitely, that there was a certain case for making a Standing Order, but the experience of the Committee is that Standing Orders should be made only when there is as much knowledge as possible as to how they are going to work. The suggestion made to the Committee in regard to this particular procedure was that it should be allowed to run for a certain time. The minute of the Committee reads: "The arrangement should not at present be made the subject matter of a Standing Order." The Committee has, however, in mind that there is a right to get the matter decided and, perhaps, later, when we have had more experience of how many motions of this type will be put on the Order Paper, we may make a definite Standing Order. In the meantime, if this procedure works, a Standing Order may not be necessary. The Committee is quite clear as to the necessity of providing machinery. I take it that in Private Members' time to-night Deputy Corish's motion will be taken.