It is proposed to take the business on the Order Paper, Nos. to 8, inclusive, and then Nos. 2, 3 and 4; Public Business not to be interrupted at 12 o'clock to take Private Deputies' Business. It is also proposed to ask the House to agree to sit late until No. 7 is disposed of. The Dáil will then adjourn until Tuesday next.
Order of Business.
I suggest to the Tánaiste that the request to sit late on this occasion is very unreasonable. The Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice have already indicated that there is no immediate urgency for the passage of the Bill at present before the House. It is a Bill upon which the fullest opportunity should be given for every Deputy to speak his mind if he so desires, and I submit that it would be most undesirable in connection with a Bill of this kind, in the atmosphere in which it has been introduced, to propose anything in the nature of a closure. We all know that a motion to sit late presupposes the opening of a debate and its indefinite continuance, though anyone with a knowledge of Parliamentary procedure realises that it is a most effective closure. I suggest that is a most imprudent thing to propose in all the circumstances. If the debate concludes before 2 o'clock the Government will get their Bill. If it does not conclude then, the Government may rest assured that it will not conclude because there are Deputies who want to speak and who have every right to speak upon it in the circumstances.
I think the request of the Tánaiste to sit after 2 o'clock is a most unreasonable one, particularly having regard to the important character of the Bills we are asked to discuss. Last night the Taoiseach told us that there was no urgency about these Bills, and that it was just a matter of getting them passed this week, next week or next month. He indicated that adequate time would be given for the discussion of the Bills and for the submission of amendments thereto. Now he asks the House to sit late in order to dispose of these two Bills which are of vital importance, and which intimately affect the lives of our citizens. We are not just passing emergency legislation. We are passing legislation which is going to be the statute law of the country when enacted. We are writing into our law important legislation of this unusual character. The Tánaiste suggests that we must do that in a hurry, that we must do it with the utmost expedition.
These two Bills are now apparently to be passed simply by wearing down resistance and by exhausting Deputies in the hope that a point will be reached when Deputies will say: "Let them go through; we cannot stick this discussion any longer." I think that is a most unreasonable attitude to take, on these Bills in particular. If the debate should conclude at 2 o'clock the Government are going to have their Bills but if the debate does not conclude at 2 o'clock, there is no reason whatever why we should be asked to sit to a late hour to-day and apparently resume on Tuesday next. If the discussion does not conclude at 2 o'clock, no harm is done in carrying the Bills over until Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.
I imagine that there is some misunderstanding in the minds of some Deputies about what I have asked. I have asked that the House sit late so that the present stage of No. 7, the Treason Bill, should be finished. I do not think that is unreasonable.
Mr. Morrissey
Surely it is.
The Deputy may not have been here but there was a fairly general acceptance of the measure by the House.
Mr. Morrissey
I was here all right.
Does the Tánaiste ask the House to dispose of the Offences Against the State Bill and then the Treason Bill?
No.
Is he asking that the Treason Bill be taken first?
Perhaps I am misleading the House in what I did ask. I suggested that No. 7, the Treason Bill, should be finished to-day. We should like to get the present stage of that through to-day by 2 o'clock or 6 o'clock, if necessary.
Is it proposed to take No. 7 first?
It is proposed to take it at 12 o'clock and, if possible, to get it through by two o'clock. If not, we should ask the House to sit until six o'clock, if necessary, to get No. 7 through.
Is the proposal that No. 6 be taken up to 12 o'clock and then No. 7?
The Government is not in the presence of any plan to obstruct them. There is no question of obstruction and I do not think that the Government suspect obstruction. Why not say, then, that they will take the business in the usual way and, if disposed of, they will be glad to get it but, if it is not, they do not want to rush the House? There is no question of their having to face a plan to obstruct or hold up the business. It is simply a question of enabling back-benchers and front benchers to speak on Bills of this kind, if they so desire, and, in all the circumstances, I think that is a wise thing to do. If the Government get the Bills to-day, well and good; if not, they will get them on Tuesday or Wednesday.
There is a situation with regard to No. 7 which makes it necessary we should get this stage of it to-day.
Why?
It is possible that the Taoiseach, who is in charge of it, will not be here after to-day.
Would not that be a distinct advantage as regards clarity of expression as to what the purpose of that Bill or any other Bill is? Yesterday, we got an explanation from the Minister on the Bill before the House and we thought we had some idea of what the purpose of it was. The Taoiseach got up later to tell us what the purpose of the Bill was and I doubt that anybody in the House now knows what the purpose of the Bill is. I suggest that, in order to help the House, the Taoiseach should stay out.
What is the difficulty about taking No. 7 as first business. Then, we should have an assurance that we should be able to discuss the Bill until two o'clock, at least.
If I may answer Deputy Norton, there was not the slightest intimation to the people interested in the Treason Bill last night that it would be taken to-day. It was obvious, without any information, that No. 6 would be continued to-day. If the arrangements of the Taoiseach necessitated the taking of the Treason Bill to-day, Deputies who had amendments down to that Bill might have been told last night.
I conveyed the information to Deputies that we should require these two Bills—the Offences Against the State Bill and the Treason Bill—to-day. The matter was in my mind all day, and I told everybody I met. I am sure I told Deputy Doyle.
The Parliamentary Secretary may be referring to a conversation which he had with me at 25 minutes past 10 last night?
Yes.
Then, he conveyed no such thing to me. He asked me what the chances were of finishing last night, and I said that there was not the remotest chance. He then said that he would have to move to sit late to-morrow to dispose of the business.
I got the telephone bells in every room in Leinster House rung last night between 10.30 and 10.40 to find out what business the Government proposed to take up to-day.
I gave everybody who asked me that information.
Is it not obvious that the sensible thing to do, in the absence of any apprehension on the part of the Government of obstruction, is to say that the debate will go on, and that we shall finish if we can? If you do not do that, no matter what the Parliamentary Secretary or the Tánaiste may say, the impression will go abroad that it has been sought to closure the proceedings. For the sake of one day of Parliamentary time, let not that impression arise in connection with these Bills.
I would remind Deputies that time marches on.
There will be no question of the Offences Against the State Bill being brought on unless the Treason Bill is through earlier than I expect to-day. I imagine that the Treason Bill could be put through by two o'clock if we were to start now. If it were not through, we should like to have it to-day, and, if necessary, I should move to sit late to get that stage of the Bill finished. There is, I think, not much objection in the House in principle to the Treason Bill.
Is the Treason Bill to be taken first?
Yes.
I urge the Tánaiste to sit on Tuesday, if necessary, but not to put on any closure. It is most inexpedient.
I am afraid the Tánaiste has not quite grasped the situation. Nobody was under the impression that the Treason Bill would be taken to-day. The Deputy who principally discussed the Treason Bill was Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney. He had no intimation that that Bill would be taken as first business to-day. Certain amendments are down in his name and he was promised consideration of some of these amendments by the Taoiseach. The Bill is now to be taken in his absence. That is absurd.
Leave it over until Tuesday.
Or later to-day if the other Bill—No. 6—be finished before 2 p.m.
Leave it over until Tuesday, and the situation will right itself without difficulty.
The Chair is anxious for some concrete proposal.
I propose that the matter be left over until Tuesday, when I am quite convinced it will right itself. Of all Bills, these are Bills in respect of which the representations of the Opposition ought to be considered.
Could the Taoiseach be sent for and asked to give some explanation to the House which we cannot get under present circumstances?
We shall have to go on with No. 7, and I shall move to sit late, if necessary.
On the motion to sit late, restrained representations have been made by the Opposition, and I take it that this motion to sit late can be debated——
The motion has not yet been moved.
I have not moved the motion.
What is before the House?
Is there to be a motion to sit late?
There is ample time in which to move that motion.
May I put it that we ought to know now from the Tánaiste whether he proposes to move now, or at a later stage, that the House sit late.
The Tánaiste has stated that he intends to move such a motion later.
Will he inform the House when he proposes to move the motion?
I can move that motion up to 12 o'clock, I take it?
That is so.
For the convenience of Deputies, can the Tánaiste tell the House now at what particular time he proposes to move the motion?
No. I do not propose to tell the House.
If this motion is moved, sufficient time should be given to discuss it. The Government should meet the efforts of the Opposition and other Parties to accommodate them on those matters, and the motion should not be put merely because 12 o'clock intervenes. The Tánaiste has been asked, but he will not even tell us what time we are to be given.
There is no reason at all, if the Tánaiste wants to sit late, why that motion should not be moved now and have time given for discussion.
The Deputy is aware that a long time cannot be given for discussing a motion of that nature.
I am quite aware of that, and nobody wants to take an excessive time, but it is a very different matter if at five minutes to twelve the motion is moved and it is put at 12 o'clock.
Fortunately, Sir, the Tánaiste has moved a motion, and that is to take Private Deputies' time, on which I propose to address a few observations now at some considerable length. The proposal of the Tánaiste to take Private Members' time is part of a general scheme to apply the closure to the debate on those two Bills. In those circumstances, the Opposition have made the most restrained possible representations to the Government that it is not in the general interests of the country to give it to anybody in the State to say that Parliament was silenced when those Bills were brought before it. Everybody knows that a Government may, in certain circumstances, if confronted by a situation which is urgent and wherein they believe the State itself to be imperilled, legitimately resort to the closure. But the Taoiseach himself, in introducing those Bills, said that he deliberately elected to approach the House in a way which cannot possibly involve any emergency, and the House, accepting that undertaking and proceeding to discuss the Bill in a constructive way, are informed on the following morning that, for no reason at all except that the Government has just taken a notion, they are going to resort to the most objectionable of all forms of closure, and that is to exhaust the House. I say that they are deliberately flouting Parliament. We cannot close our eyes to the fact that although the legislation which is at present before the House may be necessary, and although it may be right to give the Government the powers they now seek, they do represent a very substantial intrusion on the liberties of our people, so substantial an intrusion that many of us have urged the Government to make of those measures only emergency measures. We have urged them not to incorporate those provisions in the ordinary law at all, but only to make them of a kind that would be invoked by proclamation in times of emergency.
The Government is asking from the Oireachtas a wide discretion of executive power. They are asking the leave of the Oireachtas to wield, as an Executive, powers which they admit they would not like to ask for if they did not believe that a real danger threatened the State. Is it right, is it sensible, in the history of this country, to introduce that procedure by flouting Parliament itself, or should the Government take the opportunity of saying: "Although we are asking for drastic Executive powers, we want to give an object lesson to the country now that the minorities have very important rights, which we are especially concerned to respect in this present time of emergency"? I put it to the Government that, from the point of view of the country itself, this is the time they ought to say:—"If reasoned objections to the course we propose are put forward by the Opposition, whether we agree with the objections or not, we are going to meet them, just in order to lean over backwards in our desire to abolish any suggestion of dictatorship."
May I interrupt the Deputy?
Certainly.
I understand from the Taoiseach that he will, if necessary, make himself available on Tuesday, so that it will not be necessary for me to move the motion to sit late.
Thanks.
I acknowledge that gesture.
Does that mean that Private Members' time is taken from them to-day at 12 o'clock?
Yes.
I strongly object to that, Sir. We have down here in the Order Paper a number of very important motions, which we should like to have discussed.
As soon as financial business has been entered on it has been customary not to interrupt public business to take Private Deputies' business.
I know that, Sir, but at the same time I feel we should have time to discuss those very important motions. We were twitted the other night by the Minister for Finance about the implementation of some of those motions, and I should like to hear what the Government has to say on them.
Might I draw the attention of the Deputy to the fact that, in another Dáil, an agreement was reached at the Committee of Procedure and Privileges that Private Deputies' time should be taken by the Government for financial business?
Might I say that in our view the request to take Private Members' time in the circumstances is a reasonable request, which we will not resist?
Might I point out that the Bills which it is intended to discuss now—the Offences Against the State Bill and the Treason Bill—are really Coercion Bills? They are non Financial Bills.
That is so, but when those Bills have concluded, financial business will be resumed.
It is now three minutes to 11, and we have lost 27 minutes through the Government's incompetence. We have lost more than that. Deputy Costello came in here at great personal inconvenience this morning to resume his speech on a Bill which is of some importance. He has had to go away. Professional men have obligations; he had to keep an appointment, and, in consequence, he is unable to address the House on that Bill. I think it is very discreditable indeed.
I have made my protest against the taking of Private Members' time by the Government.
Is the Deputy satisfied with a protest?
I challenge a division on it.
Question put: "That public business be not interrupted at 12 noon to take Private Deputies' business."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 9.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Dillon, James M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Friel, John.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Hughes, James
- Kelly, James P.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Loughman, Francis.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Cleary, Mícheál.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Crowley, Fred Hugh.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Mullen, Thomas.
- Munnelly, John.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Sean T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Loghlen, Peter J.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Reidy, James.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Everett, James.
- Hannigan, Joseph.
- Hickey, James.
- Hurley, Jeremiah.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Nally, Martin.
- Norton, William.
- Pattison, James P.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Keyes and Hickey.
Question declared carried.