An item was handed round to Deputies which is not on the Order Paper. It is asking leave to introduce a Bill regarding the sale of intoxicating liquor. If there is no objection to a First Reading now we might perhaps take it, and I think that the Bill will be in the hands of Deputies this evening or early to-morrow. It deals mainly with the regulation of hours.
PUBLIC SAFETY (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL, 1923. - INTOXICATING LIQUOR BILL.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I think that we ought to know exactly what the business is to be. We are to have new Bills introduced now. Is it intended that they should be proceeded with? Are we to have Bills introduced, printed and proceeded with or not, and is this one of those it is not intended to proceed with? I think this is another Bill of which we ought to have notice before the Orders of the Day are altered, and I think that the regular course should be followed from this time forward.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I do not want to press this Bill if there is an objection to taking it, or even to press the First Reading, but after it is in the hands of Deputies, if there is any definite, crystalised objection to proceeding with it, I would not propose to do so. I thought that it was a Bill regarding which there was a certain measure of agreement and I thought that some members of Deputy Johnson's party were agreed that it could be introduced. If that is not the case I do not press this First Reading, and even if the First Reading is granted I would not propose to press the Bill if it were found that there was any definite objection to it.
My objection lies in this, that because a certain liberty has been allowed in the past in regard to Standing Orders we are to take the liberty as a precedent and that we need not take into account the Standing Orders henceforward. That is more or less the line taken, and I am inclined to think that we should be much more rigid, though that rigidity hurts all of us; that the procedure set down ought to be followed, even on the First Reading of the Bill. We have two days this week in which the Minister could, following the regular procedure, introduce this Bill if he desires, and there can then be no question of order, but having suspended the Standing Orders for one measure, to ask the Orders to be suspended again on a matter having no claim to be of urgent importance, is, I think, asking more than we should agree to, and merely for the purpose of insisting that some regard should be had to the necessity for orderly procedure I oppose allowing this Bill to be introduced at this stage. To-morrow or Friday it could be put on the Order Paper and the First Reading could be granted. Then we can know the mind of the Ministry as to the Bill and whether it is a contentious Bill or not. We do not at present, and I submit that the proper procedure ought to be complied with.
Mr. BYRNE
May I ask the Minister could he not give us now an outline of the Bill. There may be agreement in the Dáil to allow the First Reading to go through if it is of a non-contentious character. If it is a question of fixing hours, I believe there is a feeling abroad that all the hours should be the same. If the Minister could give us some idea of what is in the Bill, agreement might be arrived at, but I think it is most unfair to ask for the First Reading of the Bill, without giving us any opportunity of knowing what is in the Bill.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
The object of the First Reading is to get leave to have a Bill printed and circulated, so that Deputies may know what it is about.
What is asked for is not that the Bill be introduced, but that leave be given to introduce the Bill. The Standing Orders have only been waived either by agreement arrived at unanimously, or by motion made under the Standing Orders, and carried in a proper way. I understand from the Minister that unless he can get an agreement now to move the First Reading of the proposed Bill he will not move it. The question is whether there is agreement. I understand there is not.
I think the Labour members should allow the Bill to be read. After all, it is more a trade union question than anything else.
It is not the Bill, or the provisions, that are objected to at all. That could not be in question, because we do not know what the provisions of the Bill may be. The question raised by Deputy Johnson is the question of procedure in the Dáil. Deputy Johnson's objection is not at all to the introduction of this, or any other Bill of the kind, but to the method attempted to be adopted in this case. It is not a question of the contents of the Bill, but of the procedure attempted to be put in force in asking permission to introduce it.
Agreement to allow the motion for leave to introduce cannot, therefore, be obtained.