It is proposed to take item No. 1 on the Order Paper. The Dáil will adjourn then to Wednesday, 27th November.
Order of Business.
Is it intended to give the mover of a resolution half an hour to reply at the end of the debate, if the Government confines the debate to one day?
That is the usual practice.
In case the Taoiseach should contemplate moving from his place, I should like to raise a matter on which it appears to me I have ground for complaint, before he leaves the House. The question of this resolution was raised last night at the Taoiseach's instance, as he desired to be informed of the probable ambit of the debate. That was a courtesy that we were very glad to extend to the Taoiseach, through his messenger, and we held ourselves at his disposal if he wished to have any further information; and we were informed that he did not. I must say that he expressed his willing readiness to see us if we desired to discuss the matter with him. The Taoiseach questioned on that occasion the expediency of raising matters relating to international politics in connection with the terms of the motion here set down. On those representations we accepted that view and further informed him that, if anything transpired between then and 3 o'clock to-day which would lead us to change our view with regard to the matter, we would inform him without delay so that he might take such steps as he thought fit. At ten minutes past three to-day I was informed that the Taoiseach had handed out notice to the Press that he would make an important statement to-day. I communicated at once with his Party and was informed that they knew nothing about it.
I was subsequently informed by the courtesy of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach that the Taoiseach did propose to intervene in the debate at 6 o'clock, and to deal with the very important matters which he requested us not to deal with last night. Now, I fully understand that the Taoiseach may have had to change his mind between last night and to-day, but I think ordinary courtesy would have suggested, in that event, that he would have informed us at the earliest possible moment instead of requesting us to abstain from touching on such matters, and then informing the Press that he intended to deal with them exhaustively, without even bothering to acquaint the Leader of the Opposition or any one on this side of the House of the change in his intentions. I do not wish to misrepresent the Taoiseach in any way.
I think there would have been another way of dealing with this particular matter. However, as it has been raised in this particular way, I have to inform the House that I did last night, in view of the situation as I saw it, ask that members of the Opposition should be asked whether it was in the public interest that this debate should go on in as much as from its very nature it was bound to raise certain questions, and raise them perhaps in a way in which it might not be in the public interest at the moment that they should be raised. The request that ths debate from that point of view should be considered and, possibly, put off was met by the view that on the whole it was better that the debate should go on. I accepted that view, and, if I am to intervene in this debate, I think it is in the public interest that I should speak. I cannot, as head of the Government, keep silent at a time like this. If this debate did not occur at all, and was not proposed at all, I would have to seek an early occasion to speak on the matter. I think there is no discourtesy to any one. Certainly, none was intended. If, in a debate of this character, I intervene, it is obvious that I will have to deal with the question fairly fully. Now, this is not a time for petty questions of courtesy or discourtesy. It is a question for this House to realise that we may be facing a very serious crisis, and that it is right that I, as head of the Government, should take the first occasion to inform the public of the position as I see it. I think the matter should have been considered sufficiently seriously by the Deputies on the opposite benches, and if they wished to raise this matter they could have made representations privately to me.
At five minutes past 3 o'clock the Taoiseach was sitting in the front bench. Perhaps the Taoiseach is not aware of the fact that I was asked whether we here to-day would act on the honourable understanding with the Taoiseach that certain matters would not be raised. I was informed half way through Question Time, when the Taoiseach was sitting opposite to me, that the Chief Government Whip wanted to see me behind the Speaker's Chair. I went out and saw him and was informed ten minutes after I came into the House that the situation was changed. No one here challenges the right of the Taoiseach to speak on any matter that he thinks it right to speak on. But, surely to God, we are entitled to say: If you specifically ask us not to touch on certain matters for reasons of high policy, and we say "very well," and if you change your mind as you have a perfect right to do—something may have turned up to make you change your mind—then, at least you ought not to let us embark upon a debate without saying: "I am sorry that in the altered circumstances I must touch on those matters, and I give you back your freedom to speak freely".
There must have been a misunderstanding, because I was not aware that the Deputies were asked definitely to refrain from touching on international affairs. My anxiety was that the debate should not go on, inasmuch as it might lead to a considerable misunderstanding and possibly do harm. But, when the debate was to go on, then the members on the opposite side would have to use their own discretion as to how they should deal with it. I certainly did not undertake directly or indirectly—as far as I know there was no undertaking—that we on this side should not deal with a matter which is of such importance to the public at the moment.