Deputy Mulcahy has given me notice of a question relative to an alleged violation of the privileges of the House. As such matters take priority, I am allowing him to put that question now.
Question of Privilege.
I just want to say that, in the papers of yesterday, there is an account of a speech by the Minister for Local Government which makes serious allegations against the Chair. In the report in the Irish Press, at three separate points in his speech the Minister makes these remarks:—
"This Assembly is becoming a place where Parliamentary immunity is availed of to license slander and where the coarse tongue of a corner boy can precipitate a brawl with but the weakest intervention from the Chair."
Later, the Minister said:—
"I cannot help reflecting how regrettable it is that those responsible for controlling the proceedings of Dáil Éireann should have permitted him and his friends to cover their contempt for the courts with the privileges that attach to the proceedings of that Assembly."
Finally, towards the end of his speech, the Minister said:—
"Unfortunately, those responsible had been allowed too much licence by those sitting in the Chair."
The question arises: if a Deputy can so criticise the Chair with impunity, the House is in this difficulty, that no self-respecting member of it will ever take the Chair or can easily remain in it if he takes it. I want to submit that the Ceann Comhairle, as an officer of this House, serves a vital function, that everybody in the House is interested in the manner in which he is treated in his office, that this is a matter of concern for the whole House and is entirely above Party. The Ceann Comhairle is the sole judge of order and, in that matter, he is not subject to direction or control by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges or the majority of this House or any other power or body. He can be criticised only by substantive motion moved here. I suggest that, if any Deputy in the House can, with impunity, criticise the Chair in the manner in which the Minister for Local Government has done, a problem is created of which there can be little hope of solution. I suggest that a person who offends in this particular way should not be able to serve in the House until such time as he shall have tendered a suitable apology to the Chair for his action.
Deputy Norton rose.
As Deputies will have observed, there is no motion before the House. A statement has been made and before a discussion can take place a motion should be moved.
Independent of discussion, the protection of the Chair is not, of course, the special concern of the chief Opposition Party. Other members of other Parties would like to express their view of the Minister's action in criticising the Chair.
There cannot be a discussion now. Permission has been given to put a question, but discussion must be based on a motion.
A motion?
Yes, something definite before the House.
Would the Chair take a motion extemporaneously?
The Chair understands that the Deputy who raised the matter proposes to table a motion.
I raised the matter on the understanding that the matter could be settled by appreciation on the part of the Minister of the problems involved for the House. I did not think that it would be necessary to put a motion before the House on a matter so clear and so simple. If the matter cannot be resolved without putting a motion before the House, I have a motion which I would ask the Government to take.
Regarding the statement made by a Deputy, I am reluctant to intervene, being personally concerned in this case. It concerns the whole House as much as it concerns the Chair or the Vice-Chair. Ministers have a right to be heard unless they are actually suspended.
We will be delighted to hear the Minister.
Will Deputy Mulcahy be permitted to move the motion now?
If we are not in order in speaking, I think we ought to have a motion and due notice should be given.
My point in raising this question now is——
The Deputy might move the motion.
I move:—
That in view of his speech, reported in the daily papers of Monday, 28th April, in which the Minister for Local Government criticises adversely the conduct of the Chair in the Dáil, the Dáil is of opinion that the Minister should be suspended from the service of the House until he has made a suitable apology in the House.
Though questions of privilege take precedence I suggest that an interval would be advisable. Time might then be afforded as early as possible for its discussion.
I take it that the Chair is accepting the motion.
I think we should get due notice of this motion, say, for to-morrow. If it is desired to move the motion, Government time could be given to-morrow.
Surely, where a Minister or a Deputy—I do not want to prejudge the issue—gives utterance to a statement such as that by the Minister for Local Government, the question is a matter that must be settled now, as to whether he should take part in the business of the House or whether the Chair can allow him to do so.
The House has has not ruled on that matter.
The House should be given an opportunity to rule.
Time might be given to-morrow. If it is any form of censure on the Minister, I think some time should be given for prior consideration.
I object personally to sitting in a House where a Minister of the Government criticises the Ceann Comhairle in the terms in which the Minister for Local Government has criticised him and I appeal to the Leader of the Government, to the Taoiseach, to realise the position in which the House is put if we are asked to sit here to-day feeling that the Ceann Comhairle is in the position in which he has been put by the Minister for Local Government. I had this motion drafted here, preparing for an emergency, but I think that emergency is here now and that now, a quarter past three, is the time to discuss this matter. Can we not have an acceptance by the Government that business cannot be carried on here if any Deputy in the House, not to speak of a Minister, and with a prepared statement carefully circulated to all the Press, sets out at three different points of his speech to criticise the Chair? I say it is above Party.
There is a rule that those who come to seek equity should come with clean hands. I could not help, as I listened to Deputy Mulcahy, thinking of the position of another very important functionary of the State. He is not fortified or in the same position of dealing with the matter as we are in to-day.
On a point of order, is this motion under discussion now?
Discussion should, I submit, be deferred.
If it is under discussion we should proceed to discuss it, but if not, I suggest that the Taoiseach should keep within the rules of order.
The Taoiseach wants to discuss something else and draw in a red herring.
Would not to-morrow suit?
I am concerned to move this motion, if the position we have there is that the Taoiseach is going to allow members of his Ministry to criticise the Chair in the way the Minister for Local Government did.
The Deputy will have full opportunity to-morrow and I ask that debate be deferred until then.
I bow to your request.
Can we take it that the Public Health Bill, which is in charge of the Minister, will not be proceeded with in the meantime?
It is not in his charge, thank God.