I gave you notice this morning, Sir, that, with your permission, I was now seeking a ruling from you on the question as to whether or not the statement of Deputy Neil Blaney in Arklow on April 16th last that he knew the names of 25 Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas who had, he said, handed over their own firearms for use in the North is a prima facie breach of privilege by Deputy Blaney and a grave imputation against the integrity of all the Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas. The sources are the statements contained in the Evening Press and the Evening Herald of 17th April, 1971.
Private Notice Question: - Privilege.
I thank the Deputy for giving me notice of his intention to raise this matter. In my view the matter raised by him is not a prima facie breach of privilege. Unless there is some interference with or reflection on the Dáil or its Members in the exercise of their duties there can be no breach of privilege.
In other words, Deputy Blaney's inference means that there are some 25 of 144 Members of this House guilty.
A Deputy
Shadow of a Gunman.
If there is an allegation that a Member has broken the law then it is a matter for the Garda to prosecute.
It is a reflection on Members of this House. I wonder if the Taoiseach, not alone as Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party but as Leader of this House, will make a statement on the allegations that were made.
My ruling simply means that the Member may not proceed further with the matter at this stage. It is open, of course, to him to table a motion inviting the House to accept his own point of view.
In the light of precedents set by you in relation to a breach of privilege and references to the Committee—I refer to the previous incident in relation to Deputy O'Brien—if you cast your mind back, I think you would regard your ruling as quite extraordinary. I accept your ruling.
We cannot discuss the matter at this stage.
I will put down a motion along the lines suggested asking the House to express its opinion on Deputy Blaney's statement.
(Interruptions.)
May I ask you if it is permissible for me to raise this matter on the Adjournment?
This matter is not in order.
In what sense is it not in order?
I have already told the Deputy he can put down a motion and have the matter debated by the House.
Might I ask the Taoiseach if there is to be any comment at all because not alone was there this reference to Members of the House and arms but there was also reference to the present Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and there was a reflection on the Garda Síochána.
I only heard shortly before lunch that this Private Notice Question was not allowed. I will take my own action in my own time.
It got a lot of publicity.
When allegations are made from this side of the House the Taoiseach usually tells us to either put up or shut up. Will he ask Deputy Blaney to either put up or shut up?
The matter cannot be discussed at this stage. The Chair has given its ruling on the matter.
(Interruptions.)
May I raise what seems to me to be a question of privilege affecting the rights of Deputies of this House?
It is usual to give notice so that we have an idea of what the Deputy intends to raise.
I looked at the Standing Orders but I was not sure what the procedure was. I will indicate what I have in mind. Yesterday the Minister for Finance, as a matter of courtesy, which was appreciated, gave to the leader of the main Opposition Party a copy of the Capital Budget and a copy of the Book of Estimates. I understand also that a similar concession was given to the leader of the Labour Party. There was an embargo on comment on these documents until 12 o'clock midnight. Nevertheless, yesterday the Minister for Finance held a press conference at which he commented on the contents of both the Capital Budget and the Book of Estimates, thereby preempting the rights of Deputies in this House in relation to a matter of considerable importance. This directly affects the question of privilege of Deputies and I ask you, under the terms of Standing Order No. 74, to consider whether this should not be reported to the Committee of Procedure and Privileges for investigation.
I followed the normal procedure.
It was without precedence as far as I am aware.
I should like at this stage to raise a question of which I had intended to serve notice, but I am sure the Taoiseach will be able to answer it now. Article 26, 2.3 of the Constitution provides that when the Taoiseach is out of the country the Tánaiste will act in his absence. I wonder if that part of the Constitution was observed during the Taoiseach's absence in the past week or so because it appears from certain newspapers that neither Deputy Childers nor other Ministers knew the Taoiseach's whereabouts.
This is completely untrue. There was a box item in the Irish Times to that effect. My whereabouts were known. Indeed, I consulted with the Tánaiste on the day I left the office and fully informed him of my views on certain matters of policy, and of my whereabouts and where I could be got in touch with.
The Taoiseach will understand the reasons for my question.
There was a misleading reference in the Irish Times of yesterday.
People regard it as a reputable newspaper.