I desire to give notice that on the motion for the Adjournment I will draw attention to the seizure of salmon nets from fishermen at Lough Foyle by officials of the Foyle and Bann Fishery Company while fishing on the night of the 24th inst. or in the early morning of Tuesday, 25th inst.
Question on the Adjournment.
Notice has already been given by Deputy Corry to raise a particular matter this evening.
Could I not follow Deputy Corry?
I would be expected to follow Deputy Corry, but I am willing to give way to Deputy White.
Deputy Corry has established a monopoly in raising questions on the adjournment. I think that in this instance he should give way to me. He should not be absorbing to-night and to-morrow as well.
He is not absorbing to-morrow.
I intend raising the subject-matter of Question 3 to-night because I think it is a national scandal.
This is another national scandal.
I want to raise the subject-matter of Question 5 on the Motion for the Adjournment as soon as possible, either to-morrow or next Wednesday.
Am I to take it that my motion will not be discussed to-night?
Not to-night. I understand that Deputy Corry wants to raise the subject-matter of Questions 1 and 2 to-night and that of Question 3 to-morrow, but I am not prepared to allow him to raise one matter to-night and another to-morrow on the Motion for the Adjournment. I will hear him to-night and allow Deputy White to raise his question to-morrow. The matter which Deputy Aiken mentioned was discussed yesterday, and is not so urgent.
I am quite satisfied.
Now, in regard to what is to be raised to-night?
I will raise the subject-matter of Question 3 to-night.
May I intervene just to say that the Deputy is going to raise a matter about which he knows very little? I suggest that in a matter of this kind he ought at least see the Minister privately before he raises the question. There may be matters in connection with this which it would be undesirable to have raised in public, and perhaps if the Deputy were aware of all the circumstances he might be in a better position to deal with it.
If the Deputy has asked for and got permission to visit the graves, I think that he should defer raising the matter until he has seen them.
I gave notice on another matter twelve months ago and was told to see the Minister privately. It was not on all fours with this, but it was something like it. It was a question of the dependents of some of those men who are now buried there, the parents of whom are drawing home assistance from the South Cork Board. I was told to go and see the Minister. I went to the Department, but got no satisfaction. This is a handy way of evading the issue.
Not at all.
This is not a question of getting compensation or allowance from the Ministry of Finance. This is a matter in which a number of people, relatives of these executed men, are concerned. The only interest which I have in the matter is that it is a difficult one to discuss in the Dáil. Its discussion in the Dáil might possibly hurt some people's feelings, and no one here desires to do that. I suggest to the Deputy that if he is anxious to raise the matter this evening he should see the Minister in the interval, or he should adopt Deputy Davin's suggestion, visit the prison, and then take whatever steps he may think necessary.
There are three different matters in the question.
I would be quite satisfied to allow the matter stand over, but for the fact that last week an old man of eighty-three years, the aged father of one of these men, went to the gate of the jail to see where his son was buried, but he was refused admission.
That is another matter altogether.
The Deputy could not raise that on Question 3, as there is nothing in the Question which concerns the admission of relatives. That could not be raised on the adjournment.
Very well. The Minister for Justice stated that so far back as 1923 they decided that those bodies could not be removed, but this year they have voted £25,000 for the graves of British Tommies.
I agree that it would be rather a delicate matter to discuss the removal of the remains. If we did so it might hurt the feelings of some Deputies here. I think that Deputy Corry should consult the Executive Council about this matter. as I fully realise the difficulties concerning the remains of men interred for a considerable time in Cork County Prison. I also wish to refer to the question of remains in Cork Military Prison. While I wish that those remains could, if at all possible, be removed, I realise the difficulty of doing so at present. With all due credit to the Colonel of the Military Barracks in Cork I must say that he took particularly good care in seeing after the grave of my brother and in also erecting a headstone there. I do not think that it would be advisable to discuss such matters in the House, and I would suggest that the best way out of it would be to have a consultation with the Executive Council so that some means might be devised of having the remains removed.
I do not think that Deputy Corry is raising this question simply to air himself or with a view to making charges. I think that his desire is to have these graves properly kept. If that be the idea, surely the better method of approach would be to see the Minister. If he is dissatisfied after seeing the Minister, then obviously it is a matter to be raised here. The other two matters which are raised in the single question are very important, and they should not be the subject of discussion in this House. They do not lend themselves to discussion here, and I think it would be very painful to relatives and friends of the deceased men if they were made the subject of discussion here.
Is Deputy Corry raising the subject matter of questions No. 1 and No. 2 to-night?
Yes. I will leave the other matter over until next week.
Will you kindly inform me where I stand?
That is what we all want to know.
There is no Standing Order which prescribes what the Ceann Comhairle should do when notice is given by more than one Deputy with a view to a discussion on the motion for the adjournment. Although that is the case, it has been generally possible to find a method of settling the matter between Deputies concerned.
Question No. 1 in the name of Deputy Corry was on the Order Paper some time ago and the question of how it should be raised arose. Deputy Corry at that time also expressed a desire to raise the matter on the adjournment. Therefore, since this question has been raised previously and not regarding it as an unsuitable subject to be raised on the adjournment, I am prepared to give Deputy Corry an opportunity of raising it to-night. There are two other questions-that to be raised by Deputy Aiken with regard to the subject matter of question No. 5, and the question which Deputy White wishes to raise. There has already been some discussion in regard to the subject matter of question No. 5. I would therefore take Deputy White's question on the adjournment to-morrow, if he is satisfied, or on next Wednesday, if he prefers it to to-morrow.
I would prefer to leave it over until Wednesday, because the chances are that the Ministers who are dealing with it will have more information at their disposal on Wednesday next than on to-morrow.