On the amendment and on the remaining Stages of this measure, we propose——

Before Deputy Cosgrave proceeds, in the unlikely event of the Dáil finishing before 2.30, is it proposed to take Questions then?

We can proceed to Questions when the Marts Bill has been concluded.

The Tánaiste would not understand: he has not been here often enough.

He replied to the question the Deputy asked.

One of your Members has not been here for 18 months.

Two of them.

Deputy Dowling will not be here for the next 18 years.

He is upset at having to be up so early.

Deputies, please, the Dáil.

Deputy Tully has asked if we are to have Questions at 2.30. That question has not been answered.

It has been answered but you are too ignorant to listen to it.

For goodness sake, you are ignorance personified.

We are starting early.

Under the shadow of the guillotine, we refuse to discuss the remaining amendments or sections or the remaining Stages of the Livestock Marts Bill which seeks to give absolute control by means of legislation over a trade which has been traditionally free from such control and which has grown to its present satisfactory position in the agricultural community without any such control or direction. The fact that it has achieved this has conferred very considerable benefits on the agricultural community. In the shadow of the guillotine, which was introduced here last night, we are not a position to continue to discuss in a rational and democratic way the remaining Stages of this Bill but we propose with remorseless exactitude to oppose every remaining section and amendment.

Hear, hear.

What does that mean?

You will learn.

You are not discussing it but you want to oppose it.

I am putting the amendment. Na Teachtaí atá ar thaobh na tairiscinte abraidís "Tá".

Tá.

Na Teachtaí eile abraidís "Níl".

Níl.

You are on your own. There cannot be any doubt about that decision.

By gum, you are skidding.

Fast but not fast enough.

Amendment No. 3a.

I move amendment No. 3a:

In page 2, line 16, to add "but does not include the sale otherwise than by auction of livestock the property of the proprietor of such a place".

I am putting the amendment.

Excuse me, Sir. What are we on?

The Marts Bill.

Amendment No. 3a.

Are we discussing it?

It has been put.

I move the amendment.

It is not the Parliamentary Secretary's amendment.

It was put and Deputy Carty has supported it.

Hear, hear.

The amendment is moved and it may be spoken to by any Deputy who wishes to speak.

You put it, Sir. We have voted.

The Minister did not hear me say it.

You said it anyway, and that is enough.

Surely a vote cannot be interrupted?

I said quite definitely that the amendment may be discussed. The amendment was formally moved.

You put it, Sir.

It was not heard by the House because of the confusion.

Deputies must exercise commonsense.

Yes, and fair commonsense, Sir.

I am absolutely fair.

You put the question.

I said the amendment may be discussed, if so desired.

A Cheann Comhairle——

Now, while they are getting the boys raked in, I am going to have a cup of coffee.

Am I right? It is section 1, amendment 3(a) on page 2, line 16, to add——

He does not even know what it is about.

How could I?

The amendment before the House — I want to know if the Minister wants to speak to it — is 3(a) on the Order Paper.

That is what I thought. It is rather difficult to know what is going on. So far as this amendment is concerned, it would appear that the Opposition, while they have said nothing, are in favour of their own amendment and I just want to point out the folly of their ways in wishing to have such an amendment inserted in this Bill.

Sir, I propose that the question be now put.

On a point of order, has the amendment been discussed?

I do not see how the question can be now put.

May I point out that the amendment has been moved by me and has been supported by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach.

There can be no discussion on the motion: "That the question be now put." I am not accepting that motion.

Very good.

At any rate, as I was saying when I was interrupted, the addition of these words would, in fact, be unnecessary to begin with and, secondly, would take from the intention and meaning of the section as it stands. The section would then read:

In this Act—

"business of a livestock mart" means the business of selling livestock by auction or providing, for the holding of sales of livestock by auction or otherwise, a place adapted for the sale of livestock by auction but does not include the sale otherwise than by auction of livestock the property of the proprietor of such a place.

Now, I know it makes no sense, but I am very concerned to know what sense Fine Gael thought there was in it.

Nonsense.

That is what I suspect, but I would rather have heard from Fine Gael themselves, and I rather wonder at the fact that they are not discussing this amendment and are merely opposing it for opposition's sake — I forget the term used by the Leader of the Opposition — and whether it is that they now realise that this amendment is of a kind and kindred to those that have gone before and, indeed, will come after, that they never should have been put down, that they were never intended to be taken seriously or, if they were, their only purpose could be to nullify, or stultify, or make obscure, or confuse the definition section in the Bill.

Now I should like to suggest to the Opposition and to the House that this amendment does bring to notice two, three, or four and, maybe five, six, or seven interpretations, all of which, if added to the section as it stands, would make a very poor job. The words I am complaining about are those completely contained in the particular amendment and, if they were added, one interpretation I would put to the people who sponsored this amendment is that it would be impossible, if this were done, that the Bill could, in fact, be operated. This again, of course, is presented in a most humble fashion to the legal luminaries on the Opposition benches as my interpretation, as I see it. But, if the words were added, one interpretation I can see is that it would be impossible to operate the Bill as any livestock — any livestock — could become nominally the property of a proprietor of an unlicensed mart while they are in the mart for sale.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

One of the several interpretations that I feel are pretty obvious in regard to this amendment is that, if added, it would have the effect of nullifying the Bill, which may have been the intention, and, if it was not the intention, it would not do anything for the Bill other than to confuse and provide an escape for those who wish to run unlicensed marts as against those who are running licensed marts, who are doing the job properly today and will do it properly tomorrow. Fine Gael would be lending themselves, as their various confusing amendments have indicated, to encouragement of and provision for those who would evade the law to the detriment of those who observe it.

Do Fine Gael realise that this is one of the very definite side effects that some of these confusing amendments would have? They totally oppose the Bill — we can understand that. They are now totally something else and something else in regard to all parts of it today, including their own amendments, because they are not moving them or talking for or against them.

We shall move them for them.

How will they oppose these things, if they will not oppose them? Why will they not do the decent thing and withdraw them, as this amendment should be withdrawn, or do they want to make further upheaval in the House, in the order of the place, and try to nullify the whole institution here by their methods now being adopted. This morning, they appear like spoiled children from whom the candy was taken last night, despite the fact that they knew the debate on this measure will end at 5 o'clock this afternoon. I asked them, the day before yesterday, to get on with the Bill and to discuss it and to give us the benefit of whatever they have to say which is worth hearing, but they are running away from it. Today, they are running away not only from the Bill but from the amendments. I am not surprised. That interpretation which I have given is one thing. There is an unlimited number of devices that, if these amendments were carried, could be used by those who wish to have unlicensed marts in the future, to evade licensing.

The very serious point about this is not so much that these people without licences would get away with running a mart improperly or a badly-constructed mart, or poorly serving the people or charging exorbitant fees or battening on the farming community but, in addition, they could discriminate against whom they wish at any time whether it be the large farmer, the middle-sized farmer, the small farmer, the dealer, the tangler, the shipper, the exporter or the people from the dead meat trade either here or from abroad. These things could all be done and any one of them could be done.

Are Fine Gael serious in their refusal to withdraw this amendment at this time? Are they really seriously allowing this to stand in their name that will have the effect, if carried, of giving to those who wish to break the law not only the facility to do it but the important thing is to compete unfairly against those who will abide by the law, who are, in fact, today, in their operations in their marts, without practical exception throughout the country conforming to what is required in this Bill? Are they to be thrown to the wolves by Fine Gael? Are they to be put in the position that unfair competition will be allowed to flourish by their side with the protection of a definition section rendered so abortive by this amendment?

On a point of order, I ask for a house. I think the Minister should not be allowed to speak to empty Fine Gael and Labour benches.

(Cavan): The Parliamentary Secretary should be responsible or leave the House.

On a point of order, is Deputy Coogan allowed to speak from behind the barrier?

(Cavan): On a point of order, has the Parliamentary Secretary called for a house?

The Parliamentary Secretary has asked for a house.

Is it not a rule of this House that the Government should keep a house?

There is no rule of that kind.

We are doing that.

Is it not the responsibility of the Parliamentary Secretary to ensure that a quorum is present?

An amendment from the Opposition benches is being discussed. We have to do that as well.

There is a house present now.

As I was pointing out, the very serious feature about this is not the facility with which the unlicensed mart would be enabled to evade the law and avoid licensing and any requirements that would be necessary for the good of the farming community and the benefit of the cattle trade and sales of cattle but those who are now conforming, those who have been talked about here, and rightly so, as to the input of capital and the efforts they have made over the years to establish marts, as we know them at the moment, these people who have striven in every way possible to build up structurally useful marts in all aspects, who have made the provisions that enable the veterinary regulations to be carried out, who adhere, by their structure, to the health regulations that apply through the local public health authority, would have their efforts nullified because of the fact that some bright spark down the road — maybe he would be Fine Gael: probably he would: probably this amendment was intended to let in these boyos on the cheap — would be enabled to trade unfairly. I should not mind letting them in without licences if that came to the point. Even if they broke the law, it would not be very serious from the point of view——

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

There is a house present.

I was trying to point out that the seriousness of carrying an amendment such as this does not lie only in the facility with which the law might be broken by friends of those who put down the amendment, if needs be. It is not that to which I should really seriously object but to the manner in which the efforts of those who have striven and put capital into building up marts, and taken quite a number of years to do it, would be frustrated and probably they would be put in jeopardy in so far as their into carry on against unfair discrimination is concerned. That is very serious.

The breaking of the law, to anybody, must be serious, particularly to any of us here in the House, but it is only one point. The second point is the unfair trading and discrimination and the advantage that it would give to those who would throw up any old structure anywhere and get in and carry on without a licence. They could discriminate against those selling and against those buying; they could victimise people and not list them in the order in which they should be taken. They might not like the fellow who is in first and put him at the end of the day, at 8 o'clock or 9 o'clock in the evening, when whatever buyers were there had gone, when his particular type of animal, for various marketing reasons, would no longer be attractive from a sales point of view. He would have missed the boat as well as missing the market. In practice, this is what could happen, and undoubtedly would happen, if this sort of person who would be induced by this sort of looseness were allowed to get into the business. We do not want these people and the marts already established, as well as any that may come into being, whether private or co-operative, obviously do not want any part of this sort of trick of the trade in which that type of character would engage.

We have the further difficulty that without there being a requirement on these people who could evade a licence, they could evade all the requirements that may be necessary and that are already provided by the other marts. They could ignore these and from the point of view of veterinary operations, we as a Department could be in great difficulty and as a result our trade in cattle could be put in jeopardy, not at home but abroad. We have this matter of blue cards to be dealt with, and we have brucellosis coming along, and this has to be tied in in some system. We have had in operation the warble fly regulations and the certification of animals that were regarded as being clear. These matters could not be seen to properly by the officers of my Department where they would need to be seen to most, in an unlicensed establishment, where, no doubt, any sort of mixing of cattle would be allowed, the mixing of bulls and heifers, to the detriment of the trade. We would have no say in this sort of thing and we would just have to stand by and allow it.

Those friends of Fine Gael who helped to get this amendment before the House could do as they wished, not just for their own pleasure and good but for their undue benefit, for undue discrimination, victimisation and intimidation together with the aborting of the veterinary regulations which are required to be put into operation by my Department and by a number of importing countries. These requirements will be more onerous in the future and therefore will require to be better seen to and better regulated in the future. Existing marts and those which will be licensed will facilitate us in doing these things and carrying out new regulations now emerging from European countries, and particularly the Common Market. We could not allow this thing, even if we were inclined to——

Are the marts not quite efficient already without your assistance?

This is not what Fine Gael are saying in this amendment. What they are saying is: "Let us go ahead and have the Marts Bill; let us destroy it in every detail we can, but still let us have it. Let us have as many loopholes as possible for the trick-of-the-loops." We do not want the trick-of-the loops. I am pointing out to Deputy L'Estrange that this amendment would facilitate and ensure the entry into the marts business of trick-of-the-loops who would not have to conform to any regulations whatsoever because this sort of amendment would take them right out of the terms and duties imposed on them by regulations under the Bill.

I should like to ask Fine Gael would they not think again, liverish and all though they may be this morning, and not blindly follow the course of action announced already that they are going to oppose everything all day today again. They are not going to discuss things but just oppose them. What is the purpose of this? Whom does it benefit? I do not think it benefits Fine Gael, but that is their business. I hate to see them really writing themselves off as an incompetent Opposition as well as a useless one, but it is not good for the standing of the House that an Opposition should behave, as they are behaving, like spoiled children from whom the candy has been taken.

Their amendments are not going to be discussed and there is no discussion on the sections of the Bill or what is in the Bill, and this is confirming what I suspected, that Fine Gael do not want to have the terms of the Bill ventilated. They are afraid to ventilate their own amendments, and if possible, they do not want to have any discussion so that the terms of the Bill and the ministerial amendments will not be brought to light and will not be seen to contain the benefits they undoubtedly do contain. I challenged Fine Gael last night, and I begged them at least to use today to discuss the Bill but they have fallen down completely. They have confirmed my worst fears that they do not want the public to know what is in the Bill.

The public know quite well.

No, this is the point. The public have been given to understand that the Bill contains many things which Fine Gael allege it contains but which it does not. This amendment, as other amendments, is held as being something useful and worthwhile, in an endeavour to show to the public a false picture in regard to what this section is intended to do.

Will you get a market for the farmers' cattle, sheep and wool? They are being annihilated.

Why, for a change, when things are not going your way——

Order. Will Deputies please keep order?

What I should like to say is, that when things are not going your way in debate, or otherwise, do not start dragging in things which have nothing to do with the debate. This upsets the debate and makes for a longer discussion than is really necessary. I would appeal to the Deputy not to do that in the future. It is not good for him, for me, for the House or for the country. It certainly is no help to this Bill. It tends to put me off what I was about to say in regard to the amendment.

The devices I was talking about that could be used by the bright boys who would come into this are too numerous to mention, and probably not even all are known to me. It will take time to find them all out. One way we could find out would be to put this amendment through, or half a dozen of the Fine Gael amendments, and let the bright boys find their way through them, as they would. They would find so many holes that it would be like a sieve. Possibly this is now emerging as Fine Gael's real intention. If these words were added, it would read "would not include the sale otherwise than by auction of livestock the property of the proprietor of such a place." It is confusing. Its interpretation has the three disadvantages I have mentioned, the main one being the unfair competition that Fine Gael would bring about for the legitimate marts that will be licensed when this Bill goes through, the marts that have been doing such a good job, have invested so much capital and have been carrying out improvements over the years, as I am sure they will continue to do as time goes on.

I consider that the scandalous feature of this amendment. The Party regarded as the main Opposition Party have so little regard for the well-being of the marts, about which they have been shedding crocodile tears all these weeks, that they would deliberately— one might almost say, with malice aforethought — bring in an amendment that would put into competition with the legitimate marts that will be licensed in the future unlicensed trick-of-the-loops, who would not spend anything, not conform to anything, who would have advantages above and beyond the legitimate people doing their business properly, who would leave the Department and its regulations standing, who would ignore the local authorities in regard to hygiene and other regulations.

It concerns all these things and many more that only the minds of these trick-of-the-loops seek to provide for here and to take advantage of, to the real detriment and loss of the legitimate marts operating to-day. I believe they will continue to flourish, particularly with the help and assistance of this Bill, which will keep out of the business these people whom I am inclined to think of — perhaps I am being uncharitable at this hour of the morning — as the friends of the Fine Gael Party who cannot find a legitimate or useful way of life under present circumstances and who want to have a particular loop-hole through which they could work to their own advantage, and to hell with the country, the cattle and the farmers.

On amendment No. 3a, we have the situation where Fine Gael want to have it both ways. They do not want to move the amendment but they want to vote on it.

You will not let us vote until you get the boys in. You are searching the hotels.

We had to move it for them. I do not know what is going to happen if other amendments are not moved. Can Fine Gael indulge in the luxury of having a vote on them?

On a point of order, I should like to direct attention to the fact that I understood Deputy Cunningham to say the amendment was not moved by the Opposition.

It was moved by me.

Not at all.

It was moved, and the question put.

It is before the House anyway.

It was put from the Chair and then the Minister asked leave to speak.

What has that to do with it?

All this is an interruption of the vote that took place. We voted for the amendment and then the Chair decided to allow the Minister to speak.

This is before the House. Is it a reflection on the Chair if we are allowed to speak?

I do not mind reflecting on the Chair in this instance. What I am saying is perfectly correct. The Chair had put the amendment and we had voted on it.

This is in keeping with your tactics.

I am sure the Chair does not resent it at all. I think the Chair will agree that what I said is 100 per cent correct.

It is 100 per cent correct that you are reflecting on the Chair.

What is 100 per cent correct is that the bloodhounds are around the grounds, scratching at every hotel door to try to bring them in.

I move that the question be now put, Sir.

I will not accept the motion at this stage.

Not from this side of the House.

It is quite clear, in view of the Fine Gael decision not to have any further discussions on this Bill, having spent all this week and last week on a few amendments to section 1, that they do not want the press and the public to hear what is really in the Bill. They have not got very far with the first section. They have not even discussed it at all, apart from the amendments. They do not want the Fianna Fáil Party to have a discussion on the full Bill, as set out and as amended by the Minister in certain respects. They do not want to have a discussion on the Minister's amendments at all.

He was forced to relinquish the guard.

I take it this discussion is on amendment No. 3a, not on the Minister's amendment?

They refused to discuss amendment No. 3a. We are compelling them now to listen to what we think amendment No. 3a is about Last night the Minister discussed the Incorporated Law Society and said that these amendments were not as innocent as they looked.

I again draw attention to the fact that we are on amendment No. 3a.

Amendment No. 3a may look innocent, but it is not innocent at all. It proposes that the owner of a livestock mart should be exempt if he proposes to sell his own cattle in that mart. Think of the loopholes that amendment could provide. First, a livestock mart may be a co-operative society with 3,000 or 4,000 members.

Would the Deputy be interested to know that the Minister for Lands and the Minister for Transport and Power have arrived?

No, but I would be very interested to know where the Labour Party are and where they have been all the week.

They consider this is a farce.

You can fight it out between you.

Is fugitive Aiken on the way to China?

Will the proposer of the amendment say if a mart established by 3,000 large or small farmers is owned by these farmers? If they should decide to sell their own cattle, are they exempt? Do they have to have a licence? I think that this amendment and other amendments proposed by Fine Gael have been drawn up very cleverly. They have an innocent appearance but they are very clever indeed because if either or any or all of them were adopted, the Bill would become useless because in other amendments we have seen the loopholes which they proposed to insert in the Bill. Although at first glance this amendment looks very reasonable, when you get underneath the skin and see all the avenues it opens up——

Two more Fianna Fáil Deputies have come in now.

——one can visualise a number of marts being held in buildings — we are not now arguing about fields — and no licences would be required at all if the Minister and the House agreed to accept amendment No. 3a. It is for this reason that we have moved this amendment for them.

That is wrong.

Is this your amendment?

It was moved by the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Carty, when Fine Gael refused to move and discuss the amendment. All they wanted was to have a vote on it. They are not going to get this or any other of their amendments that easily and we will discuss it.

Discuss the one about the civic guards.

We will discuss it sensibly because I think I have demonstrated clearly that what Fine Gael are seeking by this amendment is to have marts in improperly constructed marts and not to have them licensed.

I propose that we move to the next business.

After two speakers?

You must send for the Ceann Comhairle.

I had offered.

Will Deputies sit down until I put my submission to the Chair? Has the Parliamentary Secretary no manners at all?

I can assure the Deputy that I have every respect for him. I am drawing the attention of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to the fact that I had offered and that I wish to contribute on this. Tóg bog é.

I wish to move that the question be now put and I do so because of the determination of the Government Party to avoid voting on our 40 amendments to this Bill.

I had offered.

Would Deputy Clinton tell me if he wishes to move the closure?

Yes.

Then I will send for the Ceann Comhairle.

An Ceann Comhairle took the Chair.

I move that the question be now put and I do so because if a protracted discussion is allowed, there will not be time to put the amendments remaining on the Order Paper to a vote and we want them put to a vote.

On a point of order——

No point of order may be raised.

There have been only two speakers.

There can be no discussion on the motion that the question be now put. To accept a motion requesting that the question be now put within an hour of the Dáil sitting would certainly be unreasonable and I do not accept it.

Not in view of the guillotine.

And you accepted one on a major motion——

Another partisan decision.

You accepted one after less than two hours last night on a major motion.

Deputy L'Estrange will please resume his seat.

On a point of order, between now and 5 p.m. there should be 40 divisions and it is quite clear that if this motion is not accepted, these divisions will not take place.

There is no point of order concerned in this.

In other words, you are backing up again the decision to guillotine this debate and prevent democracy functioning in this House.

It is not within the Rules of Order to reflect on my decision. It is highly irregular to charge the Chair with giving a partisan decision. The Deputy has a motion on the Order Paper criticising the action of the Chair. He can put his name again to it as to my action. It was perfectly fair.

Will you give time for it or will you operate the guillotine on it?

I will not discuss the matter further with the Deputy.

On a point of order——

There is no point of order on this matter.

Hear, hear.

It is not on the closure motion. It is a point of order arising from a remark made by a Deputy, a remark made by Deputy L'Estrange that this was a partisan decision on the part of the Chair. Is this proper?

Deputy L'Estrange did not say that.

He said it.

I said the statement was quite irregular and disorderly.

But true.

Deputy L'Estrange did not make that statement.

It is true.

Deputy Ryan is repeating it.

On a point of order, it has been suggested in the course of this discussion that this amendment was moved by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach.

It was.

Clarification is required, I understand, by your own staff in this connection, Sir. I ask the Chair if the position is that I moved the amendment and that when a vote was about to be taken, the Minister offered to intervene, and at that stage Deputy Carty said he would move it. May I say this, as a point of personal explanation? I said a few minutes ago I did not mind reflecting on the Chair in this connection. That was not intended as a personal reflection but merely to indicate that I felt quite firmly that my recollection of what took place was correct.

I accept the Deputy's statement in respect of moving the amendment. He is perfectly right; he did move it. I said to the House that the amendment was before the House, but in the confusion, it was impossible to hear what a Deputy said or what I said. Therefore, I repeated my statement. I do not know whether the official reporter heard it or not, but that is exactly the position. I repeated my statement that the amendment was before the House and might be discussed.

That is my recollection, but I did not hear you the first time.

I accept that from the Minister.

There was no talk the first time it happened.

That is cleared now.

Absolutely.

I must thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach for his indication of support for this amendment, which I trust will recommend itself to the Minister.

My speaking did not indicate what Deputy O'Higgins, in his optimism, thought was support for the amendment.

If the words "but does not include the sale otherwise than by auction of livestock the property of the proprietor of such a place" were added, it would be impossible to operate the Bill in regard to any livestock, because all livestock could nominally become the property of the proprietor. This may seem to be a gross exaggeration, but even though we assume that the majority of the people are basically honest, there are a certain percentage who make it incumbent on us and make it incumbent, indeed, on all Governments, to provide protection against those who are willing to take advantage by sleight-of-hand, or by play with words. We see this operated in numerous cases, particularly where livestock itself is concerned. We have licensed hauliers; we have people without licences who are also hauliers and who would be entitled to bring their own livestock to a mart or fair. However, if they do so for hire or reward and if they are stopped by the gardaí, they first claim the cattle are theirs. Until such time as it goes to court and they are put under oath, they will remain adamant in this contention.

A similar situation would undoubtedly arise in the livestock business if this amendment were added. It would leave itself wide open to abuse, abuse that would be to the detriment of the entire Bill, might well undermine its effect, and certainly would make the operation of it nigh impossible.

I wish to move, Sir, that the question be now put. The position is that there are approximately 50 divisions to be taken today. In view of the fact that the Government have guillotined this discussion and that the Opposition require to get a decision from the House on their amendments, I think it reasonable that the discussion should not be protracted, particularly when the Government are quite clearly——

May I point out——

We cannot have a discussion on this motion. The House is not in session.

An Ceann Comhairle took the Chair.

I move under Standing Order 53 that the question be now put. I do so because there are approximately 50 divisions to be taken between now and 5 o'clock, with a break for Questions. There is a number of amendments moved by members of the Fine Gael Party on which we require and, I think, are entitled to get a decision from the House. In view of the fact that a guillotine motion was moved and closure of the guillotine accepted by the Chair last night after a discussion of approximately 1½ hours, I suggest it is only reasonable that the minority in the House be given an opportunity of getting decisions from the House on these amendments. I suggest it is quite clear that in moving this motion there is no question that it is an infringement of the rights of the minority in the House because it is the Government majority that are endeavouring to prevent a decision being taken on these amendments.

It is less than ten minutes since I refused a similar motion in respect of the question now put. Nothing has arisen since to alter the position in this regard and I think it a gross abuse of the procedure of the House to move a motion within ten minutes of the previous one being rejected.

Another partisan decision.

It has always been accepted that the decisions of the Chair should not be referred to as partisan and to do so is grossly disorderly and irregular. There is a procedure by which the actions of the Chair can be questioned and brought before the House. If the Deputy wishes to do that, he will be facilitated in every way but to describe the actions of the Ceann Comhairle in the Chair as partisan is disorderly and irregular. There can be no discussion on the remarks of the Chair in reference to this matter.

Arising out of the Chair's remarks——

There can be no discussion on the remarks of the Chair in reference to this matter. The Deputy will resume his seat.

I am not referring to the decision of the Chair but arising out of the remarks of the Chair about a motion being necessary to censure the Chair, is there any truth in the rumour that Deputy Patrick Hogan of Clare has resigned from the Labour Party and joined the Fianna Fáil Party?

The Deputy will resume his seat.

I was pointing out to the House the dangers involved if this amendment were included. I said that we have had experience of people with lorries who are not licensed who would be permitted to transport cattle of their own to livestock marts.

These can be dealt with under the Transport Acts.

I am merely drawing a comparison——

Because you do not want to vote.

I am merely pointing out the dangers that would arise. If the words "but does not include the sale otherwise than by auction of livestock the property of the proprietor of such a place" were inserted, it would be more than simple for the proprietor of an unlicensed mart to claim that the animals were his and, indeed, while an inspector or any member of the public or any person might be well satisfied that these cattle were not in fact the property of the proprietor, it could be difficult to prove this. Therefore it would leave the entire business of licensed marts open to abuse unprecedented in this country.

Fianna Fáil's recent concern with abuses is most amusing.

Similarly, if any contravention of the regulations occurred——

They would get out of it if they were in the Fianna Fáil camp.

What is the Parliamentary Secretary reading from? Who prepared that?

The Deputy might extend to me the same courtesy as I extended to him during the past few days. I did not interrupt him. The Deputy might show a little restraint.

The Parliamentary Secretary is supposed to make a speech and not read.

I am referring to notes, as I am entitled to do. Surely, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, you are the person to rule on whether someone is reading or referring to notes and surely it is not the prerogative of any Deputy on the Opposition Benches to instruct you on your functions in this House? We have seen how unworkable this amendment would make the entire Bill. Indeed its principal purpose would be to make the Bill completely worthless. If this amendment were accepted, the Bill might as well be rejected by the House immediately.

I do not think any responsible person wants this Bill rejected, because everyone appreciates that the new regulations especially emanating from the EEC make it incumbent on us to build up a very high regard in all spheres of our livestock, as we have built up in our freedom from foot and mouth disease, as well as the value of a certificate from the Department of Agriculture in this respect.

These are things we must guard jealously in this House and to ensure that any amendment, no matter how well intentioned—and I assume they were well intentioned—would not frustrate the overriding aim to bring about a proper and regularised method of sale. We want to ensure that it will remain constant as the Northern Star by bringing in this Bill.

Like the Fianna Fáil cumainn.

I can assure you that there are people who have made mistakes in the Fianna Fáil cumainn. I would not say they are all infallible. There is only one man who claims to be infallible, but I do say that there are people in our Party who seldom, if ever, made a mistake.

After talking about the conditions of the cattle industry in the EEC countries and so on—you never heard of foot and mouth disease?

Deputy Davern is entitled to speak.

There would be no limit to the number of devices which might be adopted to frustrate this Bill and its purpose if this amendment were included and, indeed, Deputies from rural Ireland know full well that the majority of the farming community and the majority of the people involved in the livestock industry one way or another are honest men, but unfortunately as in every walk of life, there is the small percentage who would queer the pitch for their own personal gain, on a short term basis only, with no reference to and no thought whatever for the overall position from the national point of view, or indeed, from the point of view of their neighbours or anyone else connected with the livestock trade.

I feel strongly about this amendment. We have proved to this House that its inclusion in the Bill would be a complete and utter waste of time because it would waste the time the House has spent on the Bill to date and will spend before the Bill is passed. If it completely frustrated the provisions of the section——

I thought the Minister was anxious to move on from section 1.

He wanted to get away from it and get on to the meaty sections of the Bill.

Surely the Deputy does not say that an amendment put down by the Fine Gael Party is not worthy of full discussion?

Sophist. I wish to move that the question be now put.

Any Deputy is entitled to put that motion to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, who has now sent for the Ceann Comhairle.

It looks as if it is not necessary to do so, if the Minister is agreeable that the question be put.

Is the Deputy withdrawing it?

Yes.

Amendment No. 4.

A Cheann Comhairle, in regard to amendment No. 4, it is possible that amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6, although spread over different sections, could be regarded as related. I am only suggesting that to the House. They do seem to have a certain relationship which might make for single discussion.

Does Deputy O'Higgins intend to move amendment No. 4?

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 2, line 17, to delete "licence" wherever it appears and substitute "certificate of qualification".

Is it agreed that there is relationship between the other amendments proposed?

Let us just take amendment No. 4. We might take amendments Nos. 5 and 6 together.

From my reading of it, amendment No. 4 is probably consequential on amendment No. 6. Is that right?

Yes.

If we were discussing them, I would have agreed to discuss them together but we will take the decision on amendment No. 4 and then we will consider the relationship between amendments Nos. 5 and 6. I think amendment No. 7 stands on its own.

It does not stand at all.

It falls on its own.

I am suggesting that amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 are related to each other.

Amendment No. 7 is clearly different.

Deputy M. J. O'Higgins has moved amendment No. 4.

The amendment that the Deputy has moved is, as I see it, consequential on Deputy O'Higgins's amendment to section 3 which seeks to provide that the authorisation to carry on the business of livestock marts should be given to the district courts. Am I right in that?

If the Minister is prepared to take a decision on this, we can deal with the other later but if the Minister proposes discussing them all together I am not agreeable.

On a point of order, is it in order to read the daily paper during the debate? Some of the Opposition Deputies are reading the daily paper during this debate.