I desire to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House, in accordance with Standing Order No. 27, to discuss a matter which I think is of considerable public importance. Standing Order No. 27 says that the Deputy requesting leave to move the adjournment for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance shall state the matter and deliver to the Ceann Comhairle a written statement of the subject to be discussed. I have a written statement here. I desire to give notice that it is my intention to ask leave to move the adjournment of the Dáil for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, viz., the action of the Saorstát Executive Council in re the arrest and imprisonment of Mr. de Valera. Have I your permission, sir, to move the adjournment of the House to discuss that matter?
Private Business. - Arrest of Deputy de Valera.
The Deputy has been good enough to give me ample notice of this matter, and I discussed it with a representative of the Deputy. The matter which it is desired to raise is the action of the Executive Council of Saorstát Eireann in regard to the arrest and imprisonment of Deputy de Valera. Standing Order No. 27 contemplates that a matter to be raised should be of urgent public importance. In order that it should be urgent it seems to me that the matter should be of such a nature that any delay in discussing it might prevent effective action from being taken. In this case, as the Deputy recognises by the form of his question, the position is, that a member of the House is in the custody of another Government. A matter of a similar nature was raised before on 19th January, 1926, and it was then ruled that no discussion in the nature of criticism of another Government could be allowed here. In a case of this kind the Executive Council, which is the Government responsible here, could be asked what action they had taken. Therefore the discussion that is to take place here is to be a discussion in regard to the action or inaction of the Executive Council. Some action— I am not saying whether it was satisfactory or not—having been taken, it does not seem to me to be a question which, in all the circumstances, is one of urgency. I think what the Deputy desires to debate is the action already taken by the Executive Council in regard to the arrest and imprisonment of Deputy de Valera by way of criticism of past action, not by way of getting anything done to-day. While I cannot accept notice under Standing Order No. 27, in view of the precedent that might be created. I suggest that the Deputy should raise the matter on the adjournment. In making that suggestion I recognise that the usual half-hour allotted to a discussion arising out of a question on the adjournment would not be sufficient in this particular case, and I suggest that more than half an hour should be allowed for it.
Surely the matter of the arrest and imprisonment of a distinguished member of this House and one who plays an important role, not only in this House but in the public affairs of the country, is a matter not alone of importance but of urgent importance. So far as public business in this assembly is concerned he is here playing an important rôle in the public affairs of the country, and many matters will arise here, even to-day, every day, and in the next few days, matters of grave public importance, in which he is involved as a public representative, and as the responsible head of the second largest party in this House, and also as a responsible public representative. Speaking for a very large body of public opinion, outside this House as well as here, we think it is of the most urgent public importance that Mr. de Valera should be here in his place to do his public duties.
We are not going to discuss, on this point, whether any action that might have been taken, or could be taken, would get him here, but we did have in mind that if this matter were given the importance it should be given, and if it were allowed to be discussed under this Standing Order, it would be put on a plane quite different to the plane upon which you, sir, would put it when you referred to it as a matter that, like some small sewerage scheme, or something of that kind, could be discussed on the motion for the adjournment. That is, you wish to put it on the lowest possible plane, and in that way relegate it as far as you could by making it a light matter. To us it is no light matter. This is a very serious matter that reflects on this whole House, that reflects on every member, and we would urge upon you that it is our right. in all the circumstances, even if we were to go the length that you suggested of creating a precedent, that the matter should be discussed on the plane on which we ask it should be discussed, that it should be treated as a matter of urgent public importance, and one to which the very serious attention of this House should be given at the earliest opportunity. This is the first opportunity we have had of raising it. It is a matter that has certainly excited considerable attention outside, not amongst one Party, but everywhere. In view of the importance that is attached to it by the public outside we think that you should not relegate it, like some small parish-pump affair, as you would do if you relegate it to the motion on the adjournment in the usual way. We think that you should give it that attention which it deserves, not because of the personal importance of Mr. de Valera, but because of the public position which he occupies. We think you should allow it to be discussed under Article 27 of the Standing Orders.
If this matter were under the jurisdiction and within the competence of the Executive Council, so that immediate action could be taken by them by way of solution, then I think there might be a case for raising the matter as one of urgent public importance, but it seems to me that the case for urgency cannot be made. I am now deciding that the matter cannot be raised under this particular Standing Order. In regard to raising matters on the adjournment, although matters of perhaps no great significance are occasionally brought forward, when that is so I am usually, as the Deputy will recollect, an unwilling co-operator. On the other hand, very grave matters indeed have been raised in that way. If the adjournment of the House is moved by agreement at nine o'clock so as to have this matter taken, it will be treated with the same importance that it would get under Standing Order 27. The practice has been to debate a question on the adjournment sometimes for half an hour, sometimes for an hour. and sometimes for longer. I am not accepting the Deputy's notice under Standing Order 27, but I suggest to the Deputy, as I have already suggested, that the other procedure is open to him.
With all respect may I remind you of another aspect? On matters raised on the adjournment no vote, can be taken. I do not suggest there should be a vote in this case; but suppose that during the discussion of this important public matter the House did desire to express a certain opinion there would be no opportunity of their doing so. If it were raised under Standing Order 27 some such action could be taken. It could not be taken on the adjournment because it is prohibited by the Standing Order.
Might I suggest to you, sir, that the urgency of the case is that the Executive Council did not take proper action to secure the release of Deputy de Valera and that now if proper action is taken Deputy de Valera may be set at liberty. Therein lies the urgency of the case.
The immediate urgency.
With regard to Deputy O'Kelly's point, that under Standing Order 27 a decision can be taken, that is so. The Standing Order leaves the initiative in moving the adjournment to the Deputy who succeeds in obtaining leave under the provisions of the Standing Order. A motion moved in such circumstances might in fact result in a discussion equivalent to a discussion on a vote of censure on the Executive Council. It seems to me in this particular case that, since the Executive Council is not responsible for the arrest and detention of Mr. de Valera, such a procedure is not suitable. If a motion were put down, it would be a different matter. I am not therefore acceding to the request.
I think your ruling amounted to this——
I was asked for a ruling by Deputy O'Kelly and I have given it. I feel that having given that ruling I cannot have any discussion on the matter. I have given a ruling and that closes the matter.
What about Deputy Hogan's point?
I had dealt with that. In any event the Ceann Comhairle is not obliged to engage in controversy with regard to any decision he may give.
May I point out that though the Executive Council are not responsible for the arrest, surely they must be responsible for the action they have taken in relation to it. They have thus added insult to injury.
You yourself, a Chinn Chomhairle, suggested that the matter could be raised on the adjournment. You also referred to the fact that frequently occasion has been given here for the allocation of more time than is usually allowed to motions on the adjournment. Can we have time this afternoon—any time between now and the time for private members' business —for a discussion on this matter?
That is a question for the President.
I would suggest that the matter be taken at 9 o'clock and give an hour and a half to it.
A Deputy
Private members' time.
I think that would not be fair. It is a matter of public importance in which the Government is involved. I think Government time should be given to a matter of this kind.
I would like to assure the Deputy that it is an accident led me to suggest 9 o'clock. If this were not a day on which private members' time were allotted, I would propose that it should be taken at 9 o'clock.
Will the President agree to terminate Government business at 7.30?
I do not think so. I could not undertake to do it at the moment, at any rate.
We could meet on Tuesday of next week.
Private members' business to-day is the Legal Practitioners (Qualification) Bill and the Oireachtas (Payment of Members) Bill. Deputies who have notices on the paper have certain rights in the matter.
As proposer of the Oireachtas (Payment of Members) Bill I am prepared to give way at 9 o'clock.
I am also prepared, as proposer of the Legal Practitioners Bill, to give way.
The suggestion, therefore, is that at 9 o'clock the adjournment of the House will be moved in order to enable Deputy O'Kelly to draw the attention of the House to the action of the Executive Council of Saorstát Eireann with regard to the arrest and imprisonment of Deputy de Valera, the debate to conclude at 10.30 p.m.
There is usually half an hour allowed for an adjournment debate; perhaps that half an hour may be necessary.
I am in the hands of the House in that matter.
I think it very unfair that private members' time should be occupied in trying to drive a bit of backbone into the Ministers.
Let us be, at any rate, clear. The adjournment will be moved at 9 o'clock. The President made some remark about the adjournment at 10.30. Under the Standing Orders the debate could continue until 11 o'clock. If there is no objection to that course, it can be done.
It is very strong on my part. I would suggest shorter, more concise and more direct speeches. Eliminate the rank and file, get on all your hierarchy, and we will get along faster.
The adjournment is to be moved at 9 o'clock in order to enable Deputy O'Kelly to raise the matter of which he has given notice.