It is proposed to take No. 23. In 23 Votes 26, 26 (Supplementary) and No. 3. Vote 26 (Supplementary) and No. 3 are being taken with Vote 26. Questions at 2.30 p.m.
Order of Business.
I wish to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of Question No. 9 of 24th June and Question No. 6 of 1st June both relating to home helps for the old and infirm.
The Chair will communicate with Deputy Bruton.
On the Order of Business, may I bring to the Chair's attention the very unsatisfactory position regarding the bells for both the assembly of the House and for divisions. As we are now in a period when we are likely to have very vital divisions in the House, it is most important that the bells should work in all parts of the House.
I understand that the Board of Works are looking into the complaint and that there may be a meeting of the Committee of Procedure and Privileges next week to go into the matter and get something done about it.
We will need bells between August and September.
The difficulty is that there could be vital divisions in the House and Deputies could miss those divisions. I would ask the Chair to treat this as a matter of urgency.
We will need those bells especially in late August and September.
On the Order of Business, may I draw your attention to the Official Report of Thursday last, 15th July, where it is recorded at column 1569 that Deputy Lemass, addressing Deputy FitzGerald, told him to go back to the Star Chamber. Having regard to your ruling of the 13th July that such a remark is unparliamentary and irregular and should not have been made, may we respectfully suggest that you might ask Deputy Lemass to withdraw these words which are a very serious reflection on a committee of this House?
As I pointed out at the time, I did not hear the words referred to by the Deputy but in the meantime I have examined the debate and I could not find that there is a prima facie case for a breach of privilege. The Deputy may, of course, put down a motion on the matter to refer it to the Committee of Procedure and Privileges.
May I respectfully point out that you appear to be confusing two dates? The date about which I am now making a complaint is Thursday, 15th July, when Deputy Lemass made the remark of which I now complain, a remark which you deemed, two days previously, if you had heard it, to be one which you would require to have withdrawn. Now that it is officially on the record, two days later, repeated by Deputy Lemass, I say, with respect, that there is now a clear obligation to have this remark withdrawn and I assume that you will take the appropriate steps to ensure that this is done.
If the Chair had heard the remark the Chair would have asked the Parliamentary Secretary to withdraw it but in view of the fact that I did not hear the remark there was nothing I could do about it.
The remark of which I complain is on the record. There is now an irregular and unparliamentary remark on the record and, with respect, Sir, while the Chair may have difficulty in hearing we are aware that the Chair has no difficulty in seeing. This offensive remark, which indicates a contempt for a committee of this House, is now on the record and with respect I suggest that you should now discharge your obligation by inviting the Member in question to withdraw it.
If the Deputy is so concerned, what does he think of Deputy Keating's remarks?
I cannot deal with the matter now in view of the fact that I did not hear it but the Deputy may put down a motion which would refer the matter to the Committee of Procedure and Privileges.
With respect, this is not what has been the practice in this House. When a remark is made, even one which is subsequently seen, the Chair has approached the offending Member and invited him to withdraw it. There are many precedents of that kind on the record of this House and you yourself have acted in a similar manner when such remarks have been made in the past. I, with respect, would now urge upon you to do that and not to be making suggestions which you know are utterly impractical because the opportunity for having motions of that kind debated in this House are non-existent and you know that to be a reality. Now, Sir, I invite you once again to discharge your obligations of the Chair and to save this Chair from the reputation which seems to be growing about it which is not favourable to the Chair.
The Chair cannot ask any Deputy to withdraw a remark that the Chair did not hear.
Or that is on the record?
Is the Chair disputing the record?
It may be on the record but the Chair did not hear the remark——
Can you read the record?
——and in the circumstances I cannot ask any Deputy to withdraw a remark that the Chair did not hear.
Is the Chair disputing the record?
I have read the record and I have pointed out what the Deputy may do. He may put down a motion for discussion at the Committee of Procedure and Privileges.
I would invite the Chair to see an audiologist immediately as a matter of extreme personal urgency.
That is a very personal remark.
That is not the type of remark that should be withdrawn, I suppose?
That is the sort of remark that should be withdrawn.
Complete disgrace.
Do you want the Chair to indulge in censorship—muzzle the report? That is what you want.
Do not be hypocritical. This is a serious reflection on the Official Reporters.
Before you proceed with business, I want to say that the House, I take it, will conclude at 5 p.m. in the ordinary way.
I thought you were going to dissolve the Dáil.
You would be scared out of your pants if I did.
That is where you would be wrong.
And Charlie waiting with the tomahawk for him.