I have been given notice of a particular proposal about this stage of this Bill.
PUBLIC CHARITABLE HOSPITALS (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL, 1923.—THIRD STAGE. - SUGGESTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
It has been suggested to me that instead of occupying the time of the Dáil as a whole that this matter should be now referred to a Select Committee of the Dáil. The suggestion, I think, is an excellent one, and I think that it would save the time of the Dáil and of the Ministers and render unnecessary speeches that would be delivered here, and we might evolve a satisfactory measure with a minimum of time and labour. Therefore, I am willing to accept the suggestion made to me, and I am quite willing also that the nomination of the Committee should be left in the hands of An Ceann Comhairle (a laugh). I do not see why that statement of mine should stir the risible faculties of Deputies. The matter is a very serious one, and the choice of An Ceann Comhairle in selecting the Committee, to pass this Bill through all its stages is also a serious one. But I think he is quite equal to it, and if those who criticise the matter are willing to agree to that course I certainly think it would help to expedite the business of the Dáil, and get us nearer the passing of this Bill through all its stages in the Dáil, but I am quite prepared to go on if that is not done.
I would like to explain the position. We have here an Order for the consideration of this Bill in Committee of the whole Dáil to-day, and I take it that the Deputy is asking that leave be given to him, without notice, to move to discharge that Order, and to commit the Bill to a special Committee. If there is dissent from that I am afraid it cannot be done.
I dissent.
I would like to see the Terms of Reference to the Select Committee. I would favour this proposal if there was a clause in the Terms of Reference that the Committee would not report sooner than six months. After all, this is a serious matter as Deputy Milroy says, and requires mature reflection. In the meantime, we could be getting on with the more frivolous work of the Session. A Select Committee would want to be a very Select Committee, to do justice to this Bill. On the whole, I think, if the Deputy drafts the Terms of Reference and produces them to the Dáil it might be well.
I think the Terms of Reference are the very matters on the Orders of the Day, dealing with this Bill. I am not very much of an expert on Parliamentary procedure, but I presume that the Committee set up to deal with the Bill has the power of the Dáil in Session as a Committee. Therefore, the Terms of Reference are the Terms of Reference that this Dáil would have as a Committee if it proceeded with the Orders of the Day. I regret the rather flippant comment of the Minister for Home Affairs suggesting that the Committee should report six months hence. I did not make the suggestion for a Select Committee. The suggestion was made to me, and I decided to accept it, as I regarded it as a suggestion to save the time of the Dáil and to expedite the consideration of this Bill whether the Bill eventually be thrown out or carried.
I object to the refering of this Bill to a Select Committee, The value of having this matter discussed in full is that Deputies generally should be really convinced by the promoters of the Bill of its value, and of the value of specific clauses in it. That can only be done effectively by public discussion in the Dáil. We ought to bear in mind that, in addition to the function of persuading members of the Dáil as to the merits of a particular clause or amendment in the Bill, it is also the function of the Dáil, especially with a Bill of this kind, to educate the public. Here we have a subject which has excited an immense amount of interest, one on which we are asking the Oireachtas to revolutionise the public view upon the morality of sweepstakes. We have accepted the law that prevailed up to this, which looked upon sweepstakes of this kind as an institution which was not desirable for a community in normal circumstances, and, consequently, that law, which we have accepted, is embodied in our Code. Now, Deputies come forward with a Bill, the effect of which is to completely change the moral outlook of the public of Ireland. It is very desirable, if the Deputies who are in charge of the Bill want to change the public opinion of the country, that they should educate that public opinion, and the way to do that is by open discussion in the Dáil.
Very well, we will go on with the Bill. I withdraw the suggestion I made.
You cannot withdraw until I have finished.
We are not afraid to go on with it.
Deputy Milroy must not interrupt. He will have an opportunity to speak later on.
I submit that the proposal to refer this Bill to a Select Committee ought not to be proceeded with. I am open to be convinced of the merits of the Bill as a whole, and of the several clauses in the Bill as originally promoted. I am also open to be convinced of the merits of the several amendments put down in the name of the promoters of the Bill, and in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs and of other Deputies. It will be a valuable education in politics, in Parliamentary procedure and in public morality to have this matter fully discussed, to have all the arguments and all the authorities that may be brought into requisition to show that this kind of a Bill, bearing in mind its value to the hospitals and its effect upon the public mind, is such that we ought to pass it into law. Now, we have never yet, in all the proposals that have come before us, even in matters requiring very detailed discussion, matters of technical importance, we have never yet followed the proposal to refer a Bill of this kind to a Select Committee. I think some of the Bills that have been before the Dáil ought to have been referred to a Select Committee, but they were of a different character from this Bill. They dealt with technical matters, with matters of administration and of Local Government, and with matters that affected the daily lives of the people. They were very intricate, and required close inspection from the point of view of detail, but this is not such a Bill. It deals rather with broad, sweeping and general principles, and, consequently, it is one which ought to be fully dealt with in the Dáil, so that we shall have the value of the expositions which Deputy Milroy and Deputy White and those who are supporting the Bill on these benches will give to the Dáil and to the country, because when our children and our children's children come to read the debates on this Bill, and come to examine into the why and the wherefore that the Dáil, in the first session after its Constitution, should set itself to the work of revolutionising the public view in regard to betting and gambling, and in regard to the morals of sweepstakes, it is well that it should be clear to that public of the future what arguments were brought forward in favour of this Bill. In view of these considerations I submit it is undesirable that the Dáil should agree to the proposition that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
In view of the fact that there is such opposition to the proposal to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, and in view of the fact that the proposal is not on the Paper, I do not think it can be placed before us.
I will endeavour to overwhelm the opposition to the referring of this Bill to a Select Committee. I desire to support the proposal to refer it to a Select Committee, and possibly by the time I have put my arguments forward, the opposition may vanish.
So as to put the matter in order, is the Dáil agreeable to take a motion that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee?
Agreed.
Such a motion would have to be drafted with some care, and would have to be duly proposed and seconded. Having got notice that some such proposal would be put forward, it has been prepared, and would read something like this: "That the Order of the 11th May continuing the Third Stage of Public Charitable Hospitals (Temporary Provisions) Bill 1923, be discharged, and that the Bill be committed to a special Committee of the Dáil to consist of the following Deputies —we would have to name the Deputies here—"and that the Committee have power to examine witnesses in regard to the Bill, and send for papers and records; that ... number for a quorum and that the Committee report back to the Dáil within a fixed number of days."
If there is any Deputy prepared to fill in the blanks in that proposal as to the number of Deputies on the Committee, and the number forming a quorum, and the date on which they would report back to the Dáil, we could then receive the motion and discuss it, and everything would be perfectly in order. Would Deputy Milroy undertake that?
I am quite sure any selection I would make would clash with the Nonconformist conscience made articulate a short while ago, and it would rise in remonstrance, as so many people seem to be bent upon corrupting the morals of this unfortunate country. I have met the Nonconformist conscience before to-day.
The Deputy has risen to say he is not prepared to fill in the blanks.
Fill in the Bill.
Is the Deputy accepting the motion?
I will accept it, under duress.
On a point of order, would it be permissible to put the motion in a form that would leave the nomination of the Committee to the Ceann Comhairle, or must they be nominated by the proposer?
The Standing Order on the matter says that the number and the names of Deputies must be put on the motion. It is a nice point as to whether it would be sufficient to provide machinery for the nomination.
Will the Dáil accept my nominations?
Put them up first.
Let us hear them.
If this is going to be discussed, the important point is whether or not this Bill will be referred to a Select Committee. I will take a simple motion to the effect that the Order of the 11th May, continuing the Third Stage of the Bill, be discharged and that the Bill be committed to a Special Committee.
I move that motion.
I second it.
I think this motion ought to be adopted. We have a great deal of business before the Dáil, and later on there will be a considerable amount of private business brought on by Deputies. It does seem to me that we ought not to allow the time of private members and the time of the Dáil to be taken up with a discussion, in Committee of the whole Dáil, of such a Bill as this. I would add that this proposal to send the Bill to a private Committee is a decent method of burial. I do not believe that a quorum of that Committee will ever meet. I doubt that if they are told to report by a particular day they will ever have any report to produce. It seems to me that when a great man dies you give him a public funeral. Unfortunately, we have had too many of those lately in this country. I do not think we need go through the ceremony Deputy Johnson suggests—that we should bury this Bill in public. A Select Committee would be better. They can "bury it darkly, at dead of night" and whether the members of it turn the sod with bayonets or otherwise, it matters not; they may do it with sweeping brushes if they wish. Do not let us waste the time of the Dáil as a whole on this. If the Committee prefer to go on with it, good and well. If it does not, I have no doubt the Bill will get the ceremonious treatment Deputy Johnson desires to give it, in detail. Do not make two bites of a cherry. Let the Committee chew it up for us first, and then we can deal with it.
I am astonished at the spirit of levity and I might say indelicacy just now manifested by our respected colleague, Deputy Fitzgibbon. I am not a member of the legal profession, and I have not the gift of oratorical hot air that my colleague in the Dáil has. He has made use, as I said, of rather indelicate—and I might go further and say—I was going to say blasphemous sentiments, but I do not. Blasphemous is, perhaps, too strong, but he has sought, in his subtle and judicial manner, to endeavour to pour ridicule on this Bill. Now, I appreciate the significance of this, and I submit with all respect to the Dáil, the great responsibility that would lie on us when we consider this Bill. I think it would be much better if Deputy Fitzgibbon would spare his magnificent gift of ironical oratory or hot air for some other place. Now, this proposal to submit this Bill to a Select Committee was made in all sincerity by my colleagues and those members of the Dáil who appreciate the significance of this Bill. We know that there were very many people dying to display to members of the Dáil, and to the people of Ireland, their scorpionic eloquence on this Bill, and it was with the idea of shutting off this scorpionic eloquence and hot air that my colleague and myself, in all sincerity, submitted a suggestion that the time of this Dáil was more precious than to listen to the hot air of those gentlemen.
I think the Deputy will have to withdraw that expression "hot air" I allowed it once. I will not allow it again.
I will withdraw it.
On a point of order, how many times is a Deputy in order in using the words, "hot air"?
I have made use of the expression, which I have read, subject to correction, in the reports of the American Senate, and if you wish me to withdraw the expression "hot air," I now withdraw it.
As one who supported this Bill, I do not wish to see it buried without proper ceremony.
Without being killed.
I am not sure that I understand what is meant by a Select Committee. I would like that those responsible for the suggestion would explain whether that Committee should, or should not, be confined to those who are in the habit of wearing tall hats?
As a proposer of the motion, I suppose, I can reply?
Provided the Deputy finishes the discussion. If the Deputy speaks now he concludes the discussion.
Finish it now, for heaven's sake.
Before he concludes, I would like to say that I noticed, with very complete sympathy, the look of amazement, disgust and pathos on the face of Deputy White as he listened to the treacherous support of his motion given by Deputy Fitzgibbon. He asks us to believe that he holds the employment of calorified atmosphere as something objectionable. Yet, he himself indulges in it profusely. He reminds me of the case of Domhnall MacTavish who returned from one of the Dominions beyond the Seas. When asked by the inhabitants of Dromitractara what manner of people he had lived his life among there, he replied, "They are English, and mind ye, they are unco clannish, but I was wise, I never let on I was a Scot." Deputy White, I think, makes the same eminently successful cover for himself in his animosity to hot air. This is a very serious proposal, and ought be dealt with very seriously, to withdraw from the full, open discussion of the Dáil a measure which has already occupied us for so many days and so many hours.
If the proposal had been made in the beginning after the Second Reading that this measure should be referred for further treatment to a Select Committee, I undoubtedly would have supported the proposal, for a variety of reasons, which, perhaps, I ought to unfold now in detail But when it has already been submitted on two occasions to discussion in the Committee of the whole Dáil I suggest with all due submission, that it would be highly irregular and unprecedented to give it this mixed treatment of part discussion in the full Dáil, and part in a Select Committee.
Quite irregular.
I object to this cruelty, for it is a species of legislative cruelty, to propose to bury a measure before it has been killed. It would be better that it should be killed. If the Deputies propose now to withdraw it behind the shadows of a Select Committee, or convinced from their own diagnosis of it that it is dead, or as good as dead——
It is far from dead.
It is only displaying molecular activity, which I think is the doctor's name for some of those contractile motions of the muscles which the dead exhibit after the phenomenon of normal life has disappeared.
Wait and see.
If the diagnosis be that the little manifestation of life that it has made this afternoon is merely molecular activity, then it is not the proper thing to order a prolonged funeral or wake—because that is practically what Deputy Fitzgibbon proposed for it, a prolonged wake in the name of a Select Committee—after which the public will be allowed to know the painful fact that it is defunct. I think some reasons ought to have been given by Deputy Milroy to convince us that this is the proper treatment. I recall that on this day fortnight, after a very analytical discussion on a proposal—a wise proposal, let me add—of Deputy Thrift, it was arranged that the Dáil should suspend the consideration of the measure until important facts had been brought to our knowledge, without which we could not hopefully proceed further in the discussion of that wise amendment of Deputy Thrift. I have been awaiting with anxious interest, I have been in fact trying to support a painful life in the interval, waiting for those important facts to be disclosed—to wit, what it costs, or rather what it has cost, to carry out successfully the work of promoting a sweepstake for those large sums in the form of prizes which have hitherto staggered humanity.
I understand that Deputy Milroy gave an undertaking—I need not say a solemn undertaking, for everything Deputy Milroy does, is done solemnly—to procure the information for us. It has not been circulated as a White Paper of the Dáil, or as a Green Paper of the Dáil; neither has he communicated it to us orally, and I do not see how we can continue to discuss this measure which, after all, as a practical thing—if it has any practicability—depends altogether upon the modus operandi. We ought to know whether in giving legislative sanction to this work of promoting sweepstakes in the cause of charity, it can be done without having recourse to those processes which Deputy Gorey, on a former occasion, characterised as belonging to the shadier side of what we might call the camp-followers of sport.
I am afraid the Deputy is wandering into the Bill.
I am trying to advance an effective reason why we should not withdraw the discussion of the Bill from the Committee of the whole House. One of the arguments that appeals with particular effectiveness to me is that under the pressure of criticism in the whole House, and largely because of the lively interest excited in all the Deputies by the considerations made in the Committee of the whole House, we reached this stage of exploration being called for, and the demand for how the working efficiency of the scheme was to be secured in the event of the sanction of the Dáil being given to the measure. I hope that is in order, sir. If we withdraw the discussion into Select Committee, I wonder will the Select Committee be authorised to hear evidence upon oath. If I thought that depositions upon oath, that cross-examination, and a public record of such evidence given upon cross-examination, would be forthcoming, then I could, undoubtedly, vote for this motion as having brought about a great public reform incidentally. Out of small things of little or no consequence, the history of the world shows us that great reformations have issued. There has been, as we are all aware, a great deal of unnecessary comment made as to the morality of sweepstakes. I do not propose to enter into that, because it would be disorderly.
Is there any Entertainment Tax this evening?
If I could be assured that this would be done, that Deputy Milroy's Committee would be seriously appointed, that the men would be selected because of their known capacity for the sifting of evidence, and for their dispassionate and judicious methods of dealing with evidence, and that that Committee would be empowered to call witnesses and go into the working of similar enterprises in the past, showing how much has been collected and how much has been paid for the service of employees, how much in commission, and the like, then I would be satisfied that Deputy Milroy—even though he may eventually fail to carry this measure— would have done the country a very great service indeed by the publicity he would have secured. Consequently, whether I vote for or against this proposal will depend largely upon the assurances Deputy Milroy is prepared to give us in this regard. The outline which you, sir, in the Chair, proposed for Deputy Milroy's acceptance, gave the cadre of a very excellent proposal—that before we proceed further the personnel of this Committee should be revealed, and that part of the motion should be to take power for the examination of witnesses. Unless I know what the sequel to this truncated or limited motion is to be, I am not able to make up my mind definitely as to how I shall vote. As Deputy Milroy is panting to replace me in occuying the attention of the Dáil, I would beg to ask him to give us these assurances, and to unfold his mind in the matter, so that we may treat the question with all that seriousness that it so obviously deserves.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
Before Deputy Milroy replies I would like to urge the view that this Bill should not be referred to a Select Committee, and that the considerations for and against the Bill, and for and against particular amendments that are set down to the Bill, should not be urged in private. It is a matter of public interest, and very considerable duties are imposed by the Bill on a particular Department of the Government, the Home Affairs Department. The considerations that that Department, through its Minister, wishes to urge, ought to be urged in public, and ought to be known to the people so that if the Bill receives a majority and is ultimately passed, at least it will not have been passed before the view of the Department most concerned is heard upon it Deputy Magennis had adverted to what occurred here upon the last occasion on which this Bill was discussed. A very pertinent question was raised as to what proportion of the net proceeds of a sweepstake would go to the alleged charitable object, and what proportion would go in expenses and in commissions and in revenue to the promoters. That is a very important point. Deputy Milroy was to make inquiries. Evidently the result of his inquiries is such——
It is quite satisfactory.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
That it could only be communicated in a back room to a select number of Deputies.
I should say that a Special Committee would be reported by the official reporters, and would also be open to the Press.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
That is something I was not aware of. Then the important thing would seem to be the powers of inquiry of this Select Committee, and if those were clearly set out it might appreciably alter my own attitude to the proposal. Are we discussing now the mere proposal to refer this to a Select Committee, or are the powers of the Select Committee set out in the resolution?
We are discussing merely the proposal to refer the Bill to a Special Committee, merely because in the special circumstances the proposer of the motion is not able to give the Dáil the names of the Deputies whom he would put on it. But the Dáil could, if it so decided, give the Committee power to examine witnesses, and to send for papers and records. The Committee would then have, in that matter, the same powers, I think, as a Court, and could compel attendance.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I think that we should know fully what would happen. I do not think that any Bill so far has been referred to a Select Committee, and I, for instance, might be willing to support a resolution to refer the Bill to a Committee having certain powers, and be unwilling to refer it to a Committee that would not have these powers. Also, what would be the procedure when the Committee reported back? Would there be a mere vote on the result of their labours, or would there be a discussion?
The Bill, after consideration by the Special Committee, would be reported back to the Dáil as amended in the Special Committee in precisely the same way as a Bill is now reported from a Committee of the whole Dáil. When the Bill is so reported amendments could then be moved in the Dáil, just as we have had amendments frequently moved to Bills reported from a Committee of the whole Dáil.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
In that case, given that these powers mentioned in the Standing Orders attach to the Committee, I would rather support Deputy Milroy's motion, that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, and I am glad to find that there is some matter in connection with this Bill in which I can agree with him.
Do I understand your ruling is that a Select Committee of the Dáil, of its own right, without any sentence to that effect in the resolution committing any measure to such a Committee, could call for such witnesses as it pleases; that if this motion were to be adopted, that the Select Committee, proposed in the motion, would have the right to call up any person who had held a sweepstake in Ireland within the last twelve months, or any person employed by such a person, and to compel them legally to give such evidence as might be required as to the profits made, or not made, losses incurred or not incurred, and compel them to give that information in full before that Committee and before the public Press. Are these the powers of a Select Committee of this Dáil, because if these are the powers it is quite clear that my attitude and the attitude of several Deputies would be greatly altered in regard to this motion?
I understand Deputy Figgis to say that I said a Special Committee, or a Select Committee, as he called it, appointed by this Dáil would have certain powers, even if we did not give them to them. I said no such thing, and I am amazed that Deputy Figgis should have conceived the notion that I said any such thing. I explained to the Minister for Home Affairs that if this particular motion now being discussed were passed, the Dáil could give the Special Committee power to call witnesses and to send for papers and records. I did not say the Committee could do it of its own volition, and I would like to place on record my amazement that any Deputy would credit me with such an extraordinary statement— such a very extraordinary statement.
Do I take it that although this Committee has power for calling witnesses, it has not power to compel witnesses to attend?
This motion does not provide for anything except the reference of the Public Charitable Hospitals (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1923, to a Special Committee. If and when we decide to refer the Bill to a Special Committee we can then define the powers of that Committee, and if we decide that the Committee shall have power to examine witnesses, and send for papers and records the Committee shall have that power.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
Can one move an amendment or an addition to that resolution stating that the Committee shall be one which will have power to do so and so?
Yes, certainly.
I presume that if that amendment comes up the discussion will be confined to it. I should like to say a word or two before it does come up.
Deputy Milroy will get very fair treatment.
Am I in order?
Not until we hear the Minister for Home Affairs. He desires to add certain words to the motion. The motion is "that the Order of the 11th May, continuing the Third Stage of the Public Charitable Hospitals (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1923, be discharged, and that the Bill be referred to a Special Committee." The Minister desires to add "that the Committee shall have power to examine witnesses in regard to the Bill, and to send for papers and records." Would Deputy Milroy accept that amendment?
I prefer to speak on it to explain my position.
Very good, I will take the amendment.
On the amendment, I take it, if passed by the Dáil, that power to send for witnesses would be an authorisation to the Minister for Finance to pay the necessary expenses. The sending for witnesses to Altdorf, in Switzerland, would cost a considerable amount of money. I do not know whether the resolution, if passed as proposed to be amended, would be deemed as sufficient authority to the Comptroller and Auditor-General to approve the expenditure of money for this purpose, and I take it that even if we do pass the amendment, it is still within the option of summoned persons to refuse to attend. I wonder whether it would be possible to insert in the amendment compulsory power, so that persons called up be treated as sub-poenaed witnesses who would be bound to attend to give evidence on oath. Like most other Deputies I am ignorant of the powers of a Select Committee in such a matter, and it would be well on a night like this, when we have plenty of time, and when everybody is in good humour, that advantage should be taken of the occasion to examine into the powers of Select Committees.
On a point of order, is this discussion merely an attempt to waste time or are we seriously discussing the business before the Dáil? I think that interruption is justified by the last observation of the last speaker.
I am afraid it is not a point of order to ask me whether this particular discussion is being availed of, as the Deputy says, to waste the time of the Dáil.
A most improper observation.
I will alter it, and say "to deflect the attention of the Dáil from the reál subject which should be discussed."
I am not able to make any declaration. I might be allowed to dissent from the opinion that we have plenty of time. If we are going to send this Bill to a Special Committee I suggest we ought to do so. If not, I suggest, instead of giving me the task of carefully listening to the debate, to see that Deputies did not discuss the Bill in Committee, we should go into Committee. We have had already fiftyfour minutes entertainment upon it.
If I had any assurance that there was a reasonable likelihood of witnesses responding to the call of the Select Committee, and any good grounds for hoping that the newspapers, which are largely interested in betting men's advertisements, and in reporting the results of sweepstakes and the surroundings of all draws, and generally in matters appertaining to this institution, would report the proceedings at a Select Committee, even with as much, or as little, care that they report the proceedings of the Dáil, I would be inclined to agree with the Minister for Home Affairs in his amendment that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.
One does not like to think of a Bill of this nature being remitted to a Select Committee, and then that the matters to be discussed by this Committee should remain hidden in the pages of the official report from the eyes and ears of the great majority of the members of the Dáil, of the Seanad, and of the country generally, until the official report is published in a bound volume. Because of the price of the official report, that the Minister for Finance has insisted upon, the public do not care to acquaint themselves with the proceedings even of the Dáil, let alone of a Select Committee of the Dáil, and we cannot depend upon a very large circulation of the official reports. Without the assistance of the newspapers, and the newspaper reports of the proceedings of a Select Committee, the Dáil would be at a great disadvantage in having a matter of this kind referred to a Select Committee If the mover of the amendment can adduce any reason for thinking that reasonable publicity would be given to the proceedings of a Select Committee, and if he would express his faith in the response witnesses would give to the summons of a Select Committee, and if the papers which would be called for would be brought into evidence, I would be quite prepared to reconsider my attitude to this proposal.
If the Committee appointed has power to summon witnesses, and call for papers and documents, it has power to get them.
I would like to be satisfied that this Special Committee about to be set up would have the power to compel witnesses to come before it.
It would.
Very well. I daresay this power would extend within the confines of the Free State. I am not quite sure if that power would extend to Switzerland or to England.
Or the Six Counties? It is a question of international law to solve which we should have the Legal Adviser. Before I can make up my mind about these witnesses from Switzerland, I should like to know whether it is advisable to have them. We also want to know the number of tickets sent out for recent sweepstakes. We want to know the total of the moneys received. Unless we are in a position to know all that, we are not in a position to come to a clear decision at all. If I can be assured the Committee will have all those powers I may alter my views. Until I am assured we have the power to compel a man from Switzerland, or from any part of the country to come before us, I do not think this Committee is worth anything.
One utterance dropped from the President to-day which I appreciate more than anything else I have appreciated in my life. He said he would like to have at his disposal large supplies of chloroform. Really, if some of the Deputies who spoke here to-night on this matter cannot contribute in a more sane way to the subject before the Dáil than they have done, they ought to remember that "silence is golden." I listened, I shall not say with exasperation, to Deputy Magennis. He reminded me of Tennyson's babbling brook, "Sweepstakes may come, and sweepstakes may go, but I go on for ever." There is also another analogy that I might draw.
Is Deputy Milroy discussing the powers of this Committee?
I think I ought to have at least as much latitude as others who have been speaking.
Longitude you mean.
His arguments were like the babbling brook, silvery but shallow. I do not mind the youthful Moses on the front Bench, who is trying to formulate another commandment: "Thou shalt not buy a sweepstake ticket." I suppose he, with Deputies Johnson, Magennis, and Gorey, might be called four just men, or, as this has something to do with horse racing, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. They have attempted, on a simple definite motion, which merely deals with one of the ordinary steps of Parliamentary procedure—the committal of a Bill to a Special Committee—to raise a whole moral issue as if the morality and the fate of this island of saints and scholars were trembling in the balance. They have also attempted to impute that we, in suggesting this committal of the Bill, were trying to dodge criticism of the Bill. As I said, the suggestion was not mine. I am sorry I made the suggestion, and I mean to vote against the committal of the Bill to a Special Committee. I am sorry I made the suggestion, because it has been utilised by Deputies to make a display which is rather humiliating to the sovereign assembly of the Irish Nation. Deputy Gorey still persists in making that display. I withdraw the motion that I made. If it is pressed to a division I will vote against it, and I will go on with the Bill, as I said at the beginning I was prepared to do. I have nothing to be ashamed of, and I challenge any man here to find an alternative means of providing what this Bill hopes to find, If they defeat the Bill. You would think, to listen to some of the dissertations here to-night, and other nights, that we were engaged in some touting job for some turf agents. If all the Deputies here know as little about turf agents as I do, there will be innocence in regard to horse racing and such matters. I wish that, once and for all, we would get rid of this moralising and this hypocritical pretence of trying to safeguard the interests of the Nation, and consider this Bill on its merits, as to whether it is an instrument that can be made of use for the benefit of these institutions or not. I withdraw my motion, to commit the Bill to a Special Committee.
On a point of order, was not the original proposal of Deputy Milroy different from what he is now withdrawing? The Minister for Home Affairs proposed an amendment, and we were engaged, I understood, in discussing that amendment. How, then, can he withdraw the motion until the amendment has been disposed of?
He cannot.
Am I in order in speaking to the amendment.
Yes.
On a point of order, is it not one of the Standing Orders that if it is obvious that the intention of a Deputy is to waste the time of the Dáil, it should be ruled out of order?
Yes.
Is it not obvious that that is the intention of Deputy Magennis?
As soon as these things become obvious to me, I shall take action. The Minister for Local Government has made two or three efforts to speak.
I only want to be assured as to the powers of the Special Committee. I take it that you, A Chinn Comhairle, have acquainted yourself very fully with the matter. It seemed to me that while our Adaptation of Enactments Act stated that references to the British House of Commons were to be read as references to Dáil Eireann, it would probably be necessary to have an Order under Section 12 of that Act made by the Executive Council before a Special Committee of this Dáil would have the powers of a Select Committee of the British House of Commons. When we set up a Committee on Finance, I think it was called, it was necessary for an Order to be made and laid on the Table of the Dáil giving that Committee the powers of a Committee of Ways and Means or a Committee of Supply in the British House, and I think that certainly at the moment, and unless there was going to be an Order made by the Executive Council—and I do not know that the matter has been before them for consideration—it would probably be impossible for the Committee to compel the attendance of witnesses. I would like, for my own satisfaction, to have your view on that matter.
It seems to me that there is a very important legal question involved. I was under the impression that a Special Committee appointed by this Dáil to consider a Bill would have the same power as similar Committees appointed in England, owing to the very thing in the Adaptation of Enactments Act which the Minister has cited. If the Executive Council has doubts on that matter, it seems to me that the proper and reasonable procedure would be for the Minister for Home Affairs, who is a colleague of the Minister for Local Government in the Executive Council, to withdraw his amendment. It would be proper for the Minister for Home Affairs to withdraw his amendment in view of this doubt which exists in the minds of the members of the Executive Council.
On a point of order, I suggest to you that it is within the competence of the Dáil to propose an amendment to the amendment of the Minister for Home Affairs, conferring the power upon the Committee so set up to compel the attendance of witnesses.
The amendment of the Minister for Home Affairs, I think, purports to confer that power: "That the Committee shall have power to examine witnesses with regard to the Bill to send for papers and records"—that is the precise amendment proposed by the Minister.
If the Dáil approves of that, then, obviously, it would be the duty of the Executive Council to take such steps as would be required to put the views of the Dáil into operation. If the powers of the British House are as defined by the Minister for Local Government, the course of action which would be followed in that House by the Ministry there would undoubtedly be followed here, so that, apart from the legal decision, if the Dáil decides in favour of the amendment, I take it the course is clear for such action.
Does the Minister for Home Affairs withdraw the amendment?
Mr. O'HIGGINS
It is an important matter, and personally, if I had any doubt that the Committee had compulsory powers, I would not favour referring the Bill to such a Committee at all. It was in the hope of the useful and edifying information we might be able to extract from that Committee that I moved the amendment. In view of the doubt, and considering that there is a grave legal and constitutional question involved, I would ask Deputy Milroy to agree to a postponement of this Bill until such time as that doubt has been cleared up.
The real point is, does the Minister for Home Affairs withdraw his amendment?
Mr. O'HIGGINS
Perhaps I might know whether the Deputy would be disposed to agree to a postponement of the Bill pending an investigation of the full powers of such a Committee.
I proposed to discuss the amendment, but was interrupted by a point of order made by Deputy Milroy. Afterwards subsequent speakers were allowed to efface me——
I think Deputy Magennis has had a reasonable opportunity of discussing this particular question of a Special Committee either on the motion or on the amendment. The Minister for Local Government made several efforts to speak, and I called upon him finally, and he had a very important remark to make. I think we are nearing a solution of this grave difficulty, and perhaps Deputy Magennis would waive the right to speak again on the matter, with a view to seeing if the contending powers on this question could be got to agree.
It was really on this important question I wanted to comment.
Which question?
Whether the Committee contemplated has power to compel the attendance of the necessary witnesses.
I was not proposing to go into that question now. If the Minister for Home Affairs and the Deputy in charge of the Bill could agree to a certain course of action, we would then be in the position we are usually in when a Minister in charge of a certain Bill agrees to do something and the Dáil agrees to let it stand.
I appreciate your suggestion, but, on the other hand, as the Minister has pointed out, unless Deputy Milroy will postpone the proceedings until this important matter has been cleared up, we shall be simply proceeding into a legislative quagmire.
If Deputy Magennis had not spoken three times he would now know from Deputy Milroy whether Deputy Milroy would agree to do this particular thing which will preserve us from a legislative quagmire.
I do not see that the power of a Special Committee has anything to do with this Bill. I am not going on with that Committee, but as these various eloquent Deputies have wasted enough of my time I propose to waste some of their time.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
It has a great deal to do with the amendment.
The point is that if the Minister for Home Affairs withdraws the amendment, and if Deputy Milroy withdraws his motion, then you will get somewhere. I would like to warn Deputies that I am looking at a particular Standing Order. What is the Minister for Home Affairs going to do?
Is it competent for a Deputy to move the postponement of this discussion in view of the important question raised as to the powers of such a Committee?
Yes.
Apart from levity, the Dáil is seriously concerned with the matters raised here, as to whether the discussion should take place in Select Committee or in the Dáil. Probably the most important consideration is whether this Select Committee shall have the powers that have been suggested, and I submit it is an important matter to find out whether the powers are such as have been suggested or not before we decide the question that has been moved in the form of a motion and amendment Consequently I move that the whole discussion be adjourned until the next day on which private members' business has a right to be taken.
I have much pleasure in seconding the proposition. I raised the question this evening as to whether or not what was proposed was to refer the Bill to a Select Committee which would really inquire into the matter by calling witnesses. I would vote, and I believe the majority of the Dáil, if not all the Deputies, would vote, for the original proposal if satisfied that the Select Committee would have this power conferred upon it. Therefore our ability to come to a determinate conclusion on the matter is conditional upon our knowledge as to what are the powers belonging to a Select Committee ipso facto of its own nature, or whether those powers have to be conferred upon it by express resolution.
There is no doubt about that; they have to be conferred by the Dáil.
That was my own opinion, that they must be conferred by special resolution. I do not know now whether it would be in order to point out what has just happened, which is, that once Deputy Milroy has realised the nature of the ordeal to which he will have to submit his Bill to in a Select Committee, he wants to get away from such an examination of it and to get back to a Committee of the whole Dáil.
The Deputy is speaking on a motion to adjourn the discussion upon this particular amendment.
I am seconding that motion, and I am telling you the reason why I am encouraged to second this postponement, because it is most necessary to see what is the precise position legally. If it eventually can be proved that a Select Committee of this very effective and searching character that we desire, can be brought to bear upon the Bill, then I shall vote for its submission to that Select Committee, although I have my own doubts as to the propriety of allowing a Bill to undergo discussion in general Committee, up to a certain point, and then to do the unprecedented thing, to withdraw it and submit it to a Select Committee. I second the motion for the adjournment.
Deputy Johnson, in proposing his motion, made a remark that the Dáil took the Bill rather seriously. To my mind, the Dáil may have taken it seriously, but the Deputies here do not take it seriously, judging by the amount of unnecessary discussion that has taken place. I would be quite prepared to support the Bill in its original form, but until Deputies realise that it is the real genuine Bill and the one intended for the purpose for which it was drafted, I will support the motion of Deputy Johnson.
I desire also to support Deputy Johnson's statement in moving this motion, that this matter is one of vital importance. If we are to discuss this question and come to a definite conclusion, the promoters should put all the facts before us, and time should be given to the promoters for that purpose. If this Committee has not the power, and if it is ultimately ascertained that it has not the power, what is the use of such a Committee. We will have, perhaps, to examine the Treaty and the Constitution and relations with Great Britain to find out whether we have the power to bring British citizens over here from Britain and examine them here. This is a very big and a very broad question. If we have that power it is a big proposition, and then we would have to examine into our relationship with continental countries.
On a point of order, is the time of the Dáil to be wasted with this kind of extraneous nonsense?
Am I in order, A Chinn Chomhairle?
Yes.
I am quite satisfied, if I can get the assurance that opinion will be forthcoming, to support this resolution, and I think this discussion should be postponed to enable us to get this information. We have not got this assurance, and we have not our Legal Adviser here, and so we do not know. I assure Deputy White and Deputy Milroy that I am not as hostile to this as they pretend to think.
Oh, we know you.
And upon this important question of hospitals and charities, the Deputy who is most interested in these matters is not here.
Order, order. That certainly is extraneous.
I rise to oppose this motion for adjournment. Even after listening to that unholy coalition, or shall I say Trinity, of Deputy Johnson, Deputy Magennis, and last, but by no means least, Deputy Gorey, I find that even the concluding words of the eloquent Gorey have failed to convince me that this is a real genuine motive inspired by any other object than that of trying to sidetrack the Bill.
On a point of order, is not that a grave insinuation.
Do you deny it?
I do deny it.
Order, Deputy Milroy must address the Chair. He must remember that I am the judge of the matters he is now putting forward as facts.
I recollect that you must hold the balance between all parties, even if it is a Sweepstakes Bill that is fighting for its life, and I believe it is going to survive. However, that is not germane to the motion before the Dáil, which is the motion of Deputy Johnson, to adjourn this matter until the next day of Private Business, or until, as Deputy Gorey suggests, he finds out what is the international law relating to sweepstakes.
On a matter of personal explanation, I do not think that I suggested I was to find out. I did not say anything like that.
If the Deputy would exercise some little restraint it would be well. I may tell him that I have no intention of attributing to him more common sense than he really possesses.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
On this matter that Deputy Gorey suggested, that the promoters of the Bill get time, I agree.
I think I have as much time in that sense as either Deputy Gorey or the Minister for Home Affairs. I have quite enough of it, and if I am to get another does of it, if either of them is prepared to take my place, I have no objection. But to come back to the question, if these righteous Ministers and Angels of Grace will permit me, the question before the Dáil is to adjourn to discover what are the international usages of sweepstakes. I ask the Dáil can they take that as a serious argument in favour of adjournment? The simple question of whether the Dáil should remit this Bill to a Select Committee can be decided here and now. A much simpler question, in order to expedite business, is to allow the motion to remit the Bill to a Select Committee to be withdrawn, and let the Dáil proceed with the Bill. Even in spite of my own reiterated statement, that the intention of those who suggested the committal of this Bill to a Select Committee was in no way a move to cloak the objects of the Bill—even after my reiterated and emphatic statements to that effect, Professor Magennis has repeatedly insinuated that, and I do not think it is worthy of him.
On a point of explanation, if I insinuated anything of an unworthy kind against Deputy Milroy, I have only to seize this opportunity now, and I seize it with great pleasure, to express my infinite regret for giving him any such impression. Any charge that I made, I made it clearly, definitely, explicitly, and specifically.
I regret that any remarks of mine should have given the honourable Deputy an opportunity to make another speech. Now I want to come back to the point whether there is any real reason for adjourning on this question. I do not think there is. I regret that since 6 o'clock this evening the time of the Dáil has been wasted, but not by me. It was quite obvious to everyone that the motion that was made was seized upon as a means of postponing discussion on the Bill. I see no reason why the Dáil cannot go right ahead now and discuss the merits of the Bill in Committee of the whole House. I know members are tired, they are all anxious to get away; probably they would have got away before now if it had not been for their own folly in making such curious and irrelevant speeches as they have delivered here this evening.
The Deputy is attacking the Chair now, although the Chair is not very much concerned.
That is not my intention, especially seeing the protection you afforded me during this critical discussion. I see no reason why the Dáil should not proceed with this business on the Orders of the Day. I see no purpose to be gained by adjourning this discussion until next Wednesday or Friday. I do not suppose that by that time the Legal Advisers of the Free State Government will be able to satisfy Deputy Gorey as to the merits of international law relating to this matter. I have no doubt that his knowledge of these matters is so profound and far-reaching that he would contest any opinions they would put forward, and, similarly, I am quite sure that if the Minister for Home Affairs was able to report a pronouncement of the Law Adviser on this matter, that Deputy Magennis would get up and maintain the House spellbound for an hour or two showing the deficiencies of the judgment of the Law Advisers, and then, when they had finished, I am sure Deputy Johnson would come with those solemn, ponderous platitudes of his to convince the House that even in international law relating to sweepstakes there was no security for the morality of the Irish Nation.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
On a point of order, it is really the power of the Select Committee that the adjournment is proposed in connection with.
The motion is that the discussion on the amendment be adjourned until the next day on which Private Members' business is taken. The amendment is, that the Committee have power to examine witnesses in regard to the Bill and to send for papers and records, and the Motion is, "That the Order of 11th May, continuing the Third Stage of the Public Charitable Hospitals (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1923, be discharged, and that the Bill be now referred to a Special Committee." The amendment is, "That the discussion on the amendment be adjourned until the next day on which Private Members' business is taken." Would it meet Deputy Milroy's point of view if I put this motion now?
I am opposing the idea of an adjournment.
There is no idea of the adjournment of the Dáil. It is the adjournment of the discussion on the amendment that is before the Dáil. If that is defeated, the Motion on which the amendment arose stands, and the Motion on which the amendment arises prevents the Dáil from going on with the Committee Stage of this Bill in Committee of the whole Dáil, because it brings under discussion the question of whether the Bill should be discussed in Committee of the whole Dáil or in Special Committee.
Would I be in order in moving that the original motion be now put?
No, not until we dispose of this.
Motion put: "That the discussion on the Amendment be adjourned until the next day on which Private business is taken."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 19; Níl, 20:—
Tá
- Donchadh O Guaire.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Domhnall O Mochain.
- Riobard O Deaghaidh.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- Darghal Figes.
- Tomás Mac Eóin.
- Liam O Bríain.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Piaras Beaslai.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Séamus Eabhroid.
- Seán O Laidhin.
- Liam O Daimhin.
- Caoimhghin O hUigin.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Domhnall O Ceallacháin.
Níl
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Séan O Maolruaidh.
- Micheál de Duram.
- Sir Séamus Craig.
- Gearóid Mac Giobuim.
- Liam Thrift.
- Eoin Mac Neill.
- Pádraic O Máille.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Criost ó r O Broin.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Aindriu O Laimhín.
- Proinsias Mag Aonghusa.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Tomás O Domhnaill.
- Uinseann de Faoite.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Risteard Mac Fheorais.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
Motion declared lost.
The business before the Dáil is the amendment by the Minister for Home Affairs.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
Perhaps this would be likely to lead to a lengthy debate, and possibly the Deputies might desire that we move the adjournment of the Dáil.
A good deal of levity has been raised in this matter. We have a motion to adjourn the debate on this amendment. The motion to adjourn the Dáil leaves the amendment on the paper, and has precisely the same effect as the last proposal.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
As a matter of explanation, I was not moving the adjournment. I suggested, as there was likely to be a lengthy debate on the amendment that it would be a good thing to take the adjournment now. I admit, and I regret it, that a certain amount of levity has occurred in connection with this matter.
There is this difference, that if the adjournment of the discussion had been passed it would have involved the bringing forward of the matter again next Wednesday or Friday. The adjournment of the Dáil does not carry any such implication.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I would withdraw it and not bring it up on Wednesday next if, in the interval, I found the Committee did not have automatically compulsory powers with regard to witnesses and documents.
With regard to the point raised by Deputy Thrift, there is a motion and an amendment before us. If we adjourn now without disposing of them, we have to dispose of them again when the matter comes up the next day.
How can you dispose of them without getting legal advice?
By a vote of the Dáil, certainly.
I move that the question be now put.
Question put and agreed to.
Question put: "That the Committee shall have power to examine witnesses in regard to the Bill and send for papers and records."
Mr. O'HIGGINS
Compulsory powers.
The Minister cannot amend his amendment at this stage.
Question put and agreed to.
The motion, as amended, is: "That the Order of the 11th May continuing the Third Stage of the Public Charitable Hospitals (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1923, be discharged, and that the Bill be referred to a Special Committee. That the Committee shall have power to examine witnesses in regard to the Bill and send for papers and records."
Motion, as amended, put and agreed to.
What has become of the motion?
The motion decides the terms of reference of the Committee and its powers. The questions that remain to be decided are the number of Deputies on the Committee, the number to form a quorum, and the date on which the Committee shall report to the Dáil.
In the event of the Committee finding that they are not empowered to have these witnesses brought before them, what will be the position?
That is a hypothetical question of the first water.
On a point of order, I want to know, A Chinn Chomhairle, if it is too late to challenge a division when you say "I think the motion is carried"?
Certainly not.
I did so, and subsequent to my calling for a division you said "The motion is carried." I would like to know what the procedure exactly is, and whether I was too late in calling for a division.
When I say "I think the motion is carried," there is time for calling a division. When I have said "The motion is carried," it is too late to call for a division. I heard nobody call for a division, although I paused after saying "I think the motion is carried." I therefore declared the motion carried. If Deputy Beasley called for a division and I did not hear him, I am afraid he must agree to regard that as a misfortune. The motion is carried.
I thought the Deputy called for a division.
There never has been a motion before the Dáil in which I have had less interest than this one. I have no objection to Deputies calling for a division, but if Deputies want a division they have got to call for it within the Standing Orders and within the observances and procedure of the Dáil. If they do not call for it sufficiently clearly to be heard, that is, as I have said, their misfortune. I will not reconsider this matter at all. The question is, whether we shall proceed to the formation of the Committee or adjourn that question until Deputy Milroy will have had an opportunity of considering it.
I think the selection of a Committee in this case ought to form the subject of special mention on the Agenda. There are members absent from this sitting who have no knowledge of the appointment of such a Committee. I think it is due to the Dáil that Deputies should have notice of its intention to set up such a Committee, and a motion in that regard ought to be handed in.
Notice will be given—I presume by Deputy Milroy for Wednesday next—of the number, names and the quorum.
On the question of procedure, this is the first Special Committee we have had except the Special Committee for dealing with our own Standing Orders and procedure and matters of that kind. I would like your guidance, A Chinn Chomhairle, as to whether next Wednesday would not be the day upon which to move any instruction we desire to give to that Committee. Of course, the terms of reference will be set down in the Notice of Motion, but it is also lawful to give special instructions to a Special Committee—for instance, not to report until they had got all the particulars and details. Would that be in order?
It will be in order to move that special instructions be given to this Committee.
Is it your suggestion that I should mention the names? I do not think that that would be satisfactory at all. If there is anybody here who could make an impartial nomination it would be yourself. I am quite certain that otherwise the selection of 9, 10, or 12 men, whatever the number was, would give rise to criticism of a rather undesirable nature. I do not know what the procedure for setting up committees is. I certainly suggest that the committee should be composed of those who sincerely wish to examine the Bill, not of those who wish to kill the Bill, and I certainly would not take the responsibility of suggesting a full list of persons for such a committee. I might suggest the number as not to exceed eight, with the chairman, or seven.
Now, the responsibility for carrying to completion the motion which Deputy Milroy has succeeded in carrying this afternoon rests, I am afraid, on Deputy Milroy. Notice of that will have to be given, and unless notice is given, I am afraid the matter will not come up. The next business is the adjournment.
I move the adjournment until Wednesday next, at 3 o'clock.
I am sure it is a bit irregular to come in on this matter again, but before you made your suggestion I had intended to say that if the onus is on me to nominate a committee I would like to have some indication as to whether or not my selection or nomination would be regarded as impartial. If so, I have no objection to doing it, and I certainly would not nominate simply those who had been speaking and voting in favour of the Bill. But I shall not nominate a series of names which will give rise to unnecessary and acrimonious criticism. If I were assured that I would get fair consideration for the names I would put forward, I would not mind doing it.
Perhaps we will not be troubled with this again. I think the result of the English Derby will be known next Wednesday, and all the sweeps will have finished then.
I see one way out of the difficulty, and that is that we should appoint a number of Deputies who have not made their appearance here for the past five or six months. Deputy Milroy is anxious to have an impartial committee, and the Deputies who have not made their appearance here have not taken any part in the discussion on this Bill, nor have they voted on it, and I think they would make a very suitable committee to refer this matter to.
I shall allow no further discussion on the personnel of the committee. It must be put up in motion.
Will the matter not come forward again unless I produce a list of names for the committee?
The matter will not come forward again unless somebody produces a list of names.
It will be in the form of a motion, I take it?
It will be in the form of a motion.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
Will it be open to me, for instance, to put down a motion?
I think I would be obliged to give precedence to the motion on the Order Paper to the Deputy who moved for a committee.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
Would it be open to anyone else to put in a motion, because
I fear that Deputy Milroy is slightly biassed in favour of the Bill?
Does the Minister insinuate that he wishes to put in a list himself, because I would be equally afraid that he would be biassed, too?
Adjournment motion put and agreed to.
The Dáil adjourned at 7.55 p.m.