It is proposed to take business as on the Order Paper, Nos. 1 to 6 inclusive, No. 6 to be taken immediately after No. 1. No. 6 is an Estimate for £50,000 for payments under the Damage to Property (Neutrality) Compensation Bill. If the House is agreeable I should like to get the Estimate through all its stages to-day, so that we can commence to make payments.
Adjournment Motion.
What is the date for the adjournment?
29th October.
Will an opportunity for discussion be given on the motion for the adjournment?
Yes, if we complete the business before 10.30.
Do you propose to meet to-morrow?
Not if we complete the business to-day.
We got an assurance when the House last sat that, on representations being made by any responsible group that the Dáil should be convened to discuss a matter of public importance, the request would be acceded to. Since the Dáil last sat, a request in these terms was communicated to the Government and we had a somersaulting type of reply by the Taoiseach, endeavouring to give reasons why the Dáil should not be convened. To-day, we find 91 questions on the Order Paper, indicating that, so far as Deputies are concerned, they were anxious to address queries to the Government to ascertain the position in respect of a wide variety of subjects. It is now proposed to adjourn the Dáil until the 29th October and, presumably, if a request is addressed to the Government in the meantime to convene the House, that request will be treated with the same contumely as was the request recently addressed by the Labour Party to the Taoiseach.
I want to protest against that outrageous breach of a solemn and honourable undertaking, that the Dáil would be convened on the request of any responsible group. We got a definite promise from the Government that such a request would be acceded to, and we saw the Taoiseach completely disregarding the undertaking given by the Tánaiste on his own behalf and on behalf of the Government. It is now proposed that the Dáil should adjourn for six or seven weeks—very critical weeks if we are to judge by the replies given to questions to-day and, particularly, by the unsatisfactory replies given on the subject of fuel and the variety of foggy replies on other subjects. The Dáil should insist that the House meet at least once a day per fortnight to deal with matters of public importance. The large number of questions down for to-day indicates that Deputies are restive, and that the country is restive and anxious to get information which cannot be got from the occasional announcements made by the Government. It is highly undesirable that the House should go into recess for seven weeks, and that the people be denied an opportunity of learning the viewpoint of the Government in that period. I think the House should adjourn to this day fortnight and meet every fortnight until the 29th October when, perhaps, there will be sufficient business to keep the House in session for two or three days per week. It is very undesirable that the House should adjourn for seven weeks. It will have a very bad effect on the people both in the country and in the cities—that the Dáil should simply go asleep and do nothing during a period of crisis and danger. If we adjourn to-day, as proposed, the people of the country will know that there will be no re-assembly until 29th October because the Government will treat any request for re-assembly in the same way as it treated the request of this Party recently.
I think it right to refer briefly to the matter to which Deputy Norton has referred. There is no doubt that, when the Dáil was adjourned last July, the Tánaiste, on behalf of the Government, gave his word that, on representations being made by the leader of the Opposition or the leader of the Labour Party or any responsible group of Deputies, the Taoiseach would approach the Ceann Comhairle and ask to have the Dáil recalled. I did not, personally, agree with the Labour Party in their request for a meeting of the Dáil when they asked for it, but, whether we agree with the Labour Party or not as regards the prudence of their request, I think it was very deplorable that the Government should repudiate the word of the Tánaiste. Human relations become absolutely impossible if you cannot accept a man's word. If every time we ask the Taoiseach or the Tánaiste for an undertaking we have to follow it up with a demand for guarantees and countersigns, public relations will become impossible. I must say that, in my experience of ten years in this House, when a Minister passed his word it was never necessary to pursue the matter. Here was a case where, unquestionably, the leader of the Labour Party was well within his right in making the request he did, having regard to the undertaking which the Tánaiste had solemnly given. The Deputy's request was refused. I appreciate that there were grave difficulties in meeting Deputy Norton's request, but I think that the Tánaiste and the Government should not have gone back on their plighted word. I do not see how in future any person in the position of Opposition leader can accept the Government's word on such a matter, because, unless the request meets with the convenience of the Government, the Government will consider itself justified on going back on the undertaking given. In the circumstances I think it would have been infinitely better to call the Dáil at Deputy Norton's request even if the summons were to be belated owing to the difficulties. I think it was most unfortunate that the word of the Tánaiste was broken by his colleagues in the Government and I sincerely trust that an incident of that kind will never recur because, if it does, it will make Parliamentary relations extremely difficult.
The undertaking to summon this House, on representations from the leader or representatives of a group in this House, was given to the House over a year ago by the Taoiseach——
There was a specific undertaking given.
——and not, as Deputy Dillon seems to think, on the 25th or 26th of July. When the House was summoned on the 15th or 16th January, at the request of Deputy Cosgrave, no member of this group got up here and said that he did not agree with the request that was made by Deputy Cosgrave, but I would refer the Tánaiste to his own assurance, which was a repetition of the assurance given by the Taoiseach, both publicly and privately—publicly to the members of this House assembled, and privately to members of the Parties—that the House would be summoned on receipt of a request from any group inside the House. The request to summon the House for the 3rd September was made by myself and Deputy Keyes on behalf of the Labour Party, after we had consultations with the representatives of our Party from all parts of the country and after we had listened to their accounts of the serious state of affairs which they alleged existed in the country. It was not a Party manæuvre, as described by the leader writer in the Government Party organ, and I am very glad that the Taoiseach, in the reply he sent to us, did not suggest that it was a Party manæuvre, but he made one suggestion, in the letter which I have before me, which is not correct. He said: "It has already been agreed that the Dáil should meet on the 17th September." That is quite so, but the Tánaiste, before that, gave the House the assurance that the House would be summoned on receipt of a request from any group in the House, and I am certain he is not going to deny that to-day.
Now, apart altogether from the question of the merits of the request which was made then, the time that has been taken up here to-day in answering questions on the Order Paper is clear proof that there was a justification for that request, and I think it would be very unfair on the part of the Government, who have a clear majority in this House, if they were to deprive Deputies on the Opposition Benches, or their own Deputies, of the right to have some discussion, on the adjournment, of matters arising out of the information, or lack of information, which was given by Ministers in the answers to the Parliamentary Questions here to-day. If the Dáil were meeting in a normal period it would not, and should not—it hardly ever did—take any more than an hour to answer Parliamentary Questions. Now, apart altogether from these two reasons, this country, or the lives of the citizens of this State, have been regulated for a considerable time past by a volume of Emergency Orders that are being issued. These orders are dictated by civil servants, signed by Ministers and issued to Deputies, in some cases, three months after the orders are made. I received a bundle of such orders within the last week and I took the trouble to look up the dates of the orders. Out of about a dozen orders received by me and other Deputies of the House I find that one of them, Statutory Order No. 272 of 1941, was signed by the Minister for Supplies on 9th June, 1941; that Order No. 375 was signed by the Taoiseach on 8th August, 1941; and that another order, No. 379, was signed on 15th August, 1941. Here we have Deputies of this House, who are responsible to the people of the country for the good government of the country—the Government itself, of course, is primarily responsible in that matter—not knowing what was in an order, signed by the Minister for Supplies on the 9th June, until some day this week, three months afterwards. Is there anybody on the opposite benches who will get up here and say that that is efficient government or the right way to conduct the business of a democratic assembly or what is supposed to be democratic government? This is the kind of thing which is going to kill the confidence of the people of the country in the kind of Government which is in existence here to-day. I am not prepared to swallow everything that is contained in an order, signed by a Minister on the 9th June, when I do not know its actual contents or its meaning until I receive it on some day in September, three months afterwards. Yet we are to be deprived of the opportunity of discussing at reasonable periods the contents of these orders, when we ask for that opportunity to be given us.
I do not want to suggest that Deputies should be summoned here for a meeting every week if the Government—and it is their responsibility— cannot produce business for their discussion or consideration. I do suggest, however, that there is enough of both public and private business on the Order Paper at the present time for a two-day sitting. We have four Bills for Second Reading—or four Bills that will be down for Second Reading after the First Reading is passed to-day. There is also a Supplementary Estimate which, in the ordinary course, should take a couple of hours for discussion, if discussion is to be invited. There are four private members' motions, which are entitled to 12 hours' discussion, and there is also a private members' Bill which would be entitled to the same time. I suggest that here and now we have business for a two days' session, apart from the time that we are entitled to get on the adjournment to discuss the serious matters that were raised in this House to-day. The country is being confused on some of these questions by some of the Ministers who go down the country and do not tell the truth. We had a speech of a most extraordinary nature delivered by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs during the last week or so, and published in the Cork Examiner on 16th September. The Minister said:—
"There has been no serious breach of the political truce, although a great deal of severe criticism of the Government has been made."
He goes on further and makes this statement—which I do not understand at any rate, and I do not know that any other members of this Party can understand it:—
"Fianna Fáil," said Mr. Little, "seemed to be becoming more social and less aggressive in public life owing to the present understanding which existed among the Parties."
There is an understanding that existed between the Parties on the day previous to the adjournment, in connection with the rights of the Opposition in this House, and it is dishonoured shortly after it was made here in this House. If we are to have a discussion on the motion for the adjournment I hope the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs will get up here and elaborate on the so-called political truce and about the social sense of the Fianna Fáil Government and Deputies, and tell us the reason why they are not so aggressive as, I presume he intended to say, they had been in the past. I would advise his colleagues, who sit on the Front Bench and those who sit on the Back Bench, to look up the Cork Examiner of the 16th September. It is in the Library.
We would not even read it.
We only read a decent paper.
It is not a matter of great importance in what paper it is published, but the printed words show that the editor is actually quoting the words used by the Minister. If there is a political truce, I know nothing about it, except the political truce that exists in matters affecting the defence of the country. There is national unity on the question of defending this country, but apart from that, I am not acquainted with what is the meaning of the Minister's statement so far as a truce on any other question of major importance to the people of this country is concerned. It is not a matter of great importance to me either whether the people of the Minister's constituency will swallow that kind of statement, but at any rate there is a clear case— and I submit that I am not making it from a Party point of view—for a discussion on the motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of dealing with matters arising out of replies to questions that were given by Ministers to-day. There is also a good case for an early meeting of the Dáil —not later than two weeks from now— for the purpose of discussing the two days' business which appears to me to be there, so as to give an opportunity to members of the House to discuss matters in a proper Parliamentary manner.
For goodness' sake, let us at any rate make an effort to show that this is a Parliament, that the members of this Dáil are in control of the political destinies of the people of this country and not give the impression that is being created throughout the country —I have heard it repeatedly expressed in my own constituency—that the Government is being let down by a lot of civil servants. It is quite true that the civil servants are the people who are manufacturing emergency powers orders faster than the printers can print them and send them out to us. When we held the balance of power here three or four years ago, some members of the Government Party went down the country and said that the Labour Party were responsible for holding up the work of Parliament. Now you are telling the people—at least it has been said by some people in my constituency—that it is the civil servants who are letting you down. I am not prepared to surrender my rights to any civil servant, especially my right as a member of the Opposition to demand that this Dáil should meet at reasonable intervals during this critical period in the history of the country to help the Government to do the business of the people in a better way than it has been done for the past three or four months.
I want to say a word in reply to Deputy Norton and Deputy Dillon. I did state, when asked by Deputy Norton what the date of the re-assembly was, that the Dáil was adjourning to 29th October. It was intimated to me before I made that announcement that the date had been notified to the Whips of the different Parties in the House and that there had been no objection to it. At least, that was my understanding of the position. Then Deputy Mulcahy, supported by Deputy Dillon, raised the point that we should have an earlier meeting and I think Deputy Norton chimed in and agreed with them. A discussion arose as to the meeting to be held to deal with amendments to certain Bills coming from the Seanad. After I thought we had got agreement as to the date of adjournment, I did give an assurance that in view of the long adjournment, the Dáil would be summoned at any time if representations were made from responsible quarters. I certainly gave that definite assurance in my own name and the name of the Government.
Then a discussion arose as to the date of the earlier meeting. The Opposition Parties were not satisfied evidently that the Dáil should adjourn until 29th October without some arrangement for an earlier meeting. The 10th and the 17th of September were suggested, and I reminded the House that Ministers would be engaged in the Seanad for some time after the Dáil adjourned. They were actually engaged for three successive weeks in the Seanad after the Dáil adjourned. There would be very little time for vacation either for Ministers or staffs if the Dáil were to meet on the 10th September. It was agreed then, on the suggestion of Deputy Mulcahy, that the meeting should be held on the 17th September. Deputy Norton then asked if, even before the 17th September, any matter of urgency arose and representations were made to the Government, would the Dáil be summoned, and I said that was understood. I submit that no matter of urgency arose.
I do not think the Minister's statement is quite correct.
I shall read the official report for the Deputy:—
"General Mulcahy: If that were so, we might sit on the 10th or the 17th September as an interim date.
Mr. Norton: May I take it that if the House is not likely to sit in order to deal with Bills from the Seanad, the fixing of 17th September would not prevent the House being called earlier by request if any matter of urgency arose?
The Tánaiste: That is understood."
That was the whole atmosphere. Surely the Government would not claim to be the sole judge of urgency?
Is Deputy Norton to be the sole judge of urgency?
No; but the Government surely should not arrogate that function to themselves on a question of this kind.
The people who were to make the request were to be the judges of its urgency. That was the obvious meaning attached to the undertaking.
I do not accept that.
You can easily make promises on that assumption any time.
I do not think promises are made here in the way the Deputy suggests.
The Minister agreed that a promise was made that the Dáil would be summoned on a request from a responsible quarter to consider any matter of urgency but his statement that no matter of urgency had arisen would imply that there was no question of the Opposition Parties having any sense of urgency. It is possible for the Minister to promise anything on that basis.
After all, somebody must be a judge in the matter of whether there was any change in the situation. In the letter asking for the meeting there was no matter of urgency put forward.
We thought there was.
I do not think so.
It is not necessarily so because you think so.
I say in my judgment —in the Government's judgment.
Our judgment is just as good.
I doubt it. We are the Government.
We shall know in future what your promises are worth.
No promise has been broken.
Unquestionably there has.
I deny that.
We say it was broken.
I had not intended to intervene on this matter, but I shall confine myself to one or two sentences. It is regrettable that the Government broke this promise, but it is still more regrettable that we have had to listen to the explanation we have heard from the Tánaiste. I think the explanation is, I shall not say disgraceful, but worse than the breaking of the promise.
The Deputy is entitled to his opinion, which is not worth much.
Like the promise.
It is proposed to take the business in the order Nos. 1 to 6 inclusive.
Have we not a right to discuss these matters on the adjournment, or have we any rights?
Yes, if there is any time left before 10.30 p.m. after we complete the other business.
In connection with the order of business, a statement was made that the adjournment is to be to 29th October.
The House has already arranged the date of re-assembly.
Oh, no. The order of business is now being fixed and we are dealing with it.
The House has already arranged to meet on the 29th October, but there must be a new order now made, the Dáil having met in the meantime.
A motion will have to be made fixing a new date. Is that motion now being moved?
I take it the date, 29th October, already agreed to, stands.
I submit to you, Sir, that the House, when it last adjourned, agreed that it should meet on the 17th September, and that we must fix a new date for the re-assembly. Once we sit we must fix a new date. The Tánaiste suggests that it should be 29th October. If this is a motion let us discuss it.
The Dáil adjourned on the occasion of the last sitting until 17th September. Before that, it had been arranged, or the question had been discussed, that we should not meet until 29th October. To-day's meeting was to be an interim meeting but, the sitting having taken place, a new motion will have to be made for the adjournment.
Then I move that the adjournment be until 29th October.
The motion is then that the Dáil should adjourn until 29th October. That provides an opportunity for examining the reasons which the Tánaiste has just given us as to why, once a date is fixed for re-assembly, the Government can disregard any request made to it by leaders of political Parties in the House for the convocation of the Dáil, if in the opinion of these Party leaders it is desirable that the Dáil should meet to discuss matters of public importance. When we last met, the implication in the Tánaiste's reply to me was that if the Government received a request from any Opposition group in this House to convene the Dáil, the Dáil would be duly convened. Whenever such a request was previously made to the Government, it was honoured. On this occasion, when we submitted to the Government reasons why in our opinion the Dáil should meet on the 3rd September we were told by the Taoiseach in a letter why in his opinion it was not necessary for the Dáil to meet. Then the Government Party organ apparently thought that the Taoiseach could not make a sufficiently convincing reply to us. It had to be instructed to write a leading article under the caption "A Party Manæuvre", showing quite clearly the Government's whole approach to the request for the assembly of the Dáil.
On that occasion we were given clearly to understand that if we made a request that the Dáil should be convened the request would be acceded to. But now we get from the Tánaiste this most amazing confession, that whenever any Party asks for the Dáil to be convened as a matter of urgency the Government are the sole judges of the urgency. The Tánaiste can very well see that he can make that promise, and keep that promise and yet not convene the Dáil so long as he is permitted to be the judge of the urgency. Surely the Tánaiste must concede to opposition groups in this House their right to attach importance to a matter to which the Government do not attach the same importance. If the Fine Gael or the Labour Party say that in their view it is very urgent, they should get an opportunity of discussing the particular matter. Surely the Tánaiste will concede that those other Parties are not obliged to accept his view of urgency, because they may see the matter from an entirely different angle. I might give reasons to-day why the House should sit to-morrow to indict the manner in which some member of the Government performs or neglects to perform his duty. The member of the Government concerned might not see the matter as one of urgency.
Looked at from our standpoint, we might think a matter should be debated as one of urgency and one for which the Dáil ought to be convened with expedition. If the Tánaiste says now that when the Government are asked to convene the Dáil they are to judge whether it is to be convened or not and to judge of the urgency, I hope the Tánaiste and the Government will make no more promises—no more promises to the Labour Party at all events, because I would not accept any promise made by the Government if that is the way in which they interpret the promise and if that is the way in which they conceive the promise they made. If that is the spirit underlying the promises, the promises are just worthless, worse than the permits issued for the purchase of coal which could not be got, and Heaven knows that was bad enough.
The House is now asked to adjourn until the 29th October. If we had peaceful conditions here that would be an abnormally long period. What must the country think of an adjournment for a further seven weeks at a time when tens of thousands of our people are fleeing to England and across the Border; at a time when Ministers cannot tell us how much turf is being cut and what supplies of turf will be available for people in the non-turf areas; at a time when the Minister for Supplies cannot guarantee half a gallon of paraffin per month, according to the statement made to-day; at a time when the Government tell us that the stock of coal on hands will only last one month; at a time when, in the experience of everybody who has any contact with the masses of the people, they are going to face a very trying time from the standpoint of their ability to provide sustenance and clothing for themselves during the coming winter months? Faced with a crisis of that type, faced with a set of circumstances threatening to engulf the masses of the people in poverty and destitution, the Government propose in the most leisurely way possible to adjourn Parliament, the only body whose opinions are not yet censored, so far as the official reports are concerned, for a period of seven weeks.
We can only conclude, if that is the object of the Government and of the Government motion to-day, that lying behind the adjournment is a desire to burke criticism, a desire to avoid discussion, a desire to prevent people being told the true facts of the economic, the fuel, and the food situation which is facing them to-day. I am not going to ask the Government to agree that the Dáil should meet in a fortnight. I am not going to waste time asking the Government to agree that the Dáil should meet at the request of any Party group. I am satisfied to vote against the motion that the Dáil should adjourn for seven weeks at a time when the people expect the Dáil to do something more than merely go into a seven weeks' leisurely retirement.
I hope the Government will reconsider this question. The 29th October brings us into winter, perhaps into a winter that people will have to face not merely threatened with but with an almost certain shortage of light and fuel. We have had a number of questions addressed particularly to the Minister for Supplies to-day. I wonder whether the members of the Government themselves are satisfied with the nature of the answers given to Deputies on these questions. But imagine the country facing a winter such as threatens the ordinary inhabitants particularly in the country districts; a winter in which they are very likely to be without light and in some cases without heat. And yet the Government can calmly propose that the Dáil, which is supposed to exercise a certain amount of influence on the Government—I am afraid the Government are impervious to any reasoned arguments put forward, but after all that is the function of the Dáil—they propose that the Dáil should adjourn without an opportunity being given to the members to put the views of the country on these important matters before the Government. The Government themselves must see from the number of questions, if from nothing else, on the Order Paper to-day the amount of uneasiness that there is in the country in reference to these matters. The country wants further clarification and enlightenment on all these things. Yet the proposal is that we should wait until the winter is on us before an opportunity will be given. Surely there is nothing—even the tremendous business that the Government pretend to be doing or are doing—to prevent the Dáil meeting before then. They are really not merely flouting the Dáil, but they are flouting the country. I speak of light and fuel, but every kind of supplies seems in a highly critical position.
I do not like to look forward to the possibility of the whole countryside being plunged into darkness. It would have a bad effect on the people's nerves already tried by various threatenings, war and so on. I think that will be greatly increased and their nerves will be less able to bear it when they see the Government apparently callous to any representations made to them, and when they see the Government deliberately going out of their way to prevent any representations being made to them in public. In the interests of some kind of reasonable government in this country, I ask the Tánaiste to reconsider the date, six weeks from now, on the very eve of winter, practically in winter, to which he proposes to adjourn the Dáil. We are no longer in summer. The various crises, painted in gloomy pictures by the Ministers themselves, will be all ready to burst on the country. Yet, so far as these sorely-tried people in the country are concerned—we need not now go into the question of how far the Government are responsible for their being so sorely tried—they see their representatives and the Government apparently quite indifferent to their opinions, determined to give no opportunity for discussion of their needs and of their fears. In the interests of decent government or an attempt at decent government, I ask the Minister to reconsider the question of adjourning until October 29th: it is much too late and suggests irresponsibility on the part of the Government.
As the representative of farmers I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to the serious position that would arise if the House adjourned until October 29th. We are now on the threshold of a new cereal year. During the next few weeks the tillage policy for the coming year must be undertaken, and the plans of the Government to promote that policy must be carefully developed. Accordingly, it is only right and proper that the duly elected representatives of the people should assemble here to discuss in detail plans for the provision of food for the people. If we adjourn until October 29th the House will be adjourned during the most vital period, in which all plans for increasing the area under tillage will be carried through. The function then of the elected representatives would be simply to hold a post mortem on plans that the Government had decided upon in regard to agricultural operations for next year. Probably the most important work in regard to increasing food supplies will be undertaken during the next month. The supply of artificial manures is almost non-existent and if we are to have adequate food supplies, particularly of wheat, grown next year it is essential that all pasture land should be put into cultivation.
If that is to be done with best results it should be ploughed during the coming month. If there is to be a substantial increase in food production it is of the utmost importance that the Government should now announce their tillage policy, the prices to be paid for cereals, as well as the acreage of tillage required. It would be altogether wrong, while such questions are being decided by the Government, that the elected representatives should not assemble here. There is also the question of fuel supplies. That is a problem that will have to be dealt with before October 29th. It is not right that the representatives of the people should remain away from this House while such a serious question was being determined. As Deputies are aware, people cannot at present get fuel while, at the same time, enormous quantities of turf that are stored in the bogs are in serious danger of being destroyed if they cannot be removed. That is the result of conflicting Government Orders. Why should not the representatives of the people have an opportunity of meeting to discuss these questions and to bring their grievances before the Government? It will certainly be too late to solve the fuel question on October 29th.
I should like to protest most vehemently against an adjournment until October 29th, and to protest particularly against the flagrant manner in which the Tánaiste has violated the interpretation of a promise that he made previously. I suggest that nobody could interpret the promise he gave at the last meeting in the way he has attempted to interpret it to-day. It is breaking all precedents established in this House, when the Leader of the Government, the Taoiseach or the Tánaiste gives a promise to have the Dáil assembled in response to the request of a responsible section in the House, to have underlying that the special reference that it should be proved, to the satisfaction of the Minister concerned, that there was a necessity for it. Previously the responsible elements in the House were treated as if they had sufficient responsibility, and would not ask for a meeting if there was not a matter of urgency.
We are now given to understand that the determination of what was a matter of urgency lay with the Taoiseach or with the Tánaiste. With that implication lying behind the promise, the Minister was perfectly safe in making it when there was no intention of honouring it. The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste say that there was no matter of urgency to justify a meeting of the Dáil. That has been reinforced by to-day's decision moving the adjournment until October 29th. A sitting of the Dáil even for one day would not be agreed to, to deal with matters adverted to on August 3rd. Even after answering 91 questions, the Tánaiste is not satisfied that there is any urgency now. There is only one implication to be drawn from that, and that is that the Government does not want the Dáil coming here.
The Government has been generously treated by the Dáil in getting emergency powers. The day that they got these powers we were told by Front Bench speakers that they would not be abused by the Government; that they would be treated with respect, and that the House would meet regularly when required. Every other day shows that there is a drift further away from the respect with which Parliamentary institutions should be treated. If the Dáil is to be treated with contumely and contempt by the Government, what respect can we expect for the Dáil from the people? That is what the Government is achieving. I think the purpose of Ministers has been a very sad and sorry one, and that it will have very serious reactions on the country. Ministers cannot see that there is an emergency although it has been indicated in various ways. At the same time, the Government is prostituting the labour exchanges to export tens of thousands of our people to other countries to obtain work that they cannot get here. They do not want to be told that story here. They do not want to be told of the muddling of the turf situation whereby the second crop has been ruined by the meddling of officials. The Parliamentary Secretary was not in a position to tell us how the position stood. Later on he may be able to tell us but, as Deputy Cogan pointed out, it will be too late to do that on October 29th. The Parliamentary Secretary must know that if a second crop of turf was prevented from being cut, it was because the first crop had not been disposed of. In various ways the Government should be aware of the muddle they have made of matters that are vital to the country. They do not want to let the representatives of the people meet to tell them the truth, so the Dáil must adjourn until October 29th; but orders will still be ground out, and when they have become operative the elected representatives will know all about them.
That is the desire, at least of the Government. The Tánaiste showed that contempt to-day in a very effective fashion when he stated that he would allow the Dáil to re-assemble on the request of any responsible section, having behind that a mental reserve of his own that the interpretation must lie with him as to whether or not there was urgency enough to justify such a meeting. That is the respect for Opposition Parties that he shows, making the way for a clear dictatorship. I must flatly protest not only against the adjournment but against the method of adjournment. The language used by the Tánaiste in explaining away how he broke his promise was of the worst type, as far as respect for democratic institutions is concerned. It shows clearly where we are drifting to. The Government should seriously examine their consciences, for they are treading a very dangerous path.
One of the things that appeals to me in considering this matter is that there certainly would be no object in having the Dáil assembled here if there were nothing for it to do. Let me apply the analogy of a business institution to this Dáil and look at it in that way. At the present time, as far as one can see, there is at least a fortnight's work on the Order Paper. I would not advocate that the Dáil be kept sitting here if there were nothing for it to do. A business concern with a large number of orders on its books would not suggest that it should close down early. That is the position of the Dáil in a time like the present. We ought to clear everything that stands on the books to be considered.
There are some other matters that also ought to be considered. All sorts of rumours float about the country and, when the Dáil is sitting, it gives people an opportunity to ask questions. You had to appeal to-day to the members not to put supplementary questions, as the answering of the questions then would be unduly prolonged. They took two and a half hours to answer, even though there were very few supplementary questions. I would just mention one of the rumours that I heard to-day, in order to give the Tánaiste an opportunity to deny it— as I am sure he will. As everybody knows, we are passing through a period of an acute shortage of oil. It is rumoured that there was a tanker for disposal here and that it could not be accommodated owing to the tanks of the oil companies being full. If that is true, it is absolutely monstrous; if it is not true, it should be denied right away. Most people feel that this country is in an impossible position, and that we are drifting towards a state in which some change of policy must be made.
It has been brought out here to-day that the export of people from this country has risen to 7,000 per month. If it gets to 70,000 a month, what will we do? Is any effort being made by the Government to reach some accommodation or some change of plan? Early this year, I think, the Minister for Industry and Commerce said that he was looking into that matter, to see whether a number of industrial concerns could not be found work which, if not exactly war work, would at least be acceptable as work that could be turned out and for which materials would be obtained from the other side. I never heard whether the Minister for Industry and Commerce ever reached any conclusion on that point, or whether his deliberations have finished; but, undoubtedly, most people feel that practically all the industrial concerns here are running on existing stocks, and that nobody is bringing in materials as fast as they are sending them out. A state of crisis will arise. I am not a prophet and will not attempt to foretell whether that will be before the 29th October or not, but certainly before that date the industrial position will have been exacerbated to a very considerable extent. I would appeal to the Government to do what an ordinary business concern would do—to clear all the work that is before this Assembly and then, if there is nothing for them to do, they can send the members home.
It is clearly undesirable and most unreasonable of the Minister to persist in this decision not to convene the House until the 29th October. It seems to be a very wide departure from the promise given by him some weeks ago here and from the undertaking given by the Taoiseach about a year ago, when he had so much to say about the co-operation and goodwill that should exist amongst the various Parties. By way of explaining away the promise that he gave us very definitely on the last occasion on which the House met, it is very easy for the Tánaiste to turn round and say here that there is no matter of urgent public importance which would justify calling the House together. I do not know exactly what the Minister would consider a matter of urgent public importance, but it would seem to me that he and his colleagues are so much out of touch with the people and with the happenings in the country that they are probably incapable of judging what is a matter of urgent public importance. The cessation in the production of margarine is a matter of urgent public importance as far as a very large section of the community is concerned, but I am sure it is a matter of absolutely no importance to the Minister or his colleagues.
A very simple request was made by Deputy Norton that the House should meet to-morrow. Surely it is apparent that, unless that request is acceded to, little or no opportunity—and certainly no adequate opportunity—will be given for a discussion on the various facts, fictions and evasions which we had to listen to by way of Ministerial replies to the various questions on the Order Paper to-day. It seems to me, and it must be apparent to everybody, that if the Government refuses to agree to call the House together at least once a fortnight and if they refuse to give us an opportunity to meet to-morrow, they are either afraid or ashamed to face the representatives of the people here, on account of the bungling of the Government, which may be revealed to an even greater extent to the people generally.
I think the Tánaiste should take into account the various representations which have been made to him in connection with the adjournment. An adjournment from now to the 29th October involves some seven or eight weeks. I suggest for his consideration postponement of the Estimate for this Neutrality (War Damage to Property) Bill until the 1st or 8th of October. The Bill has been improved very much in the Seanad. It could be improved still further and, if the intervening period were utilised by the Minister in examining some of the special steps that were taken in 1922 in that connection, it might be of some use. For example, while the Bill has been considerably improved, there is one particular hiatus in it. Compensation may be awarded of an amount insufficient to carry out building reconstruction. On the last occasion, in 1924, a Bill was passed enabling the corporation to advance money to any person who would be rebuilding and the rate of interest charged was only 10/- over the rate at which the corporation was able to borrow the money. The length of the loan was the same as the loan that the corporation had been able to negotiate, out of which the money was advanced. During the last few weeks very many people have been representing to various members of the Oireachtas concerning the shortage of oil, tea and other commodities which are necessary in the national economy at the moment. Ventilating these matters in the Dáil may not improve the supply but, at any rate, it would be advisable that public explanation should be made of the reason for the interruption of business occasioned by the shortage. Ministers ought to realise that members of the Dáil are available at almost all moments to their constituents and other persons who represent to them the privations caused by the shortage of certain materials. It would certainly tend towards restoring public confidence to some extent to have the Dáil meeting and to have these matters discussed here.
Unfortunately, I have not been here for portion of this debate but the suggestion has been made that, somehow or other, the Government broke its word in regard to summoning the Dáil. I received a letter from Deputy Keyes and Deputy Davin and I think that the reasons which were given in my reply to that letter were quite sufficient to indicate what the position was. I think it will shorten time if I read my reply. It is dated 23rd August and is as follows:—
"A Cháirde, I have received your letter of the 21st instant requesting that Dáil Eireann be summoned to meet on Wednesday, September 3rd, for the purpose of discussing the supply and distribution of essential items of food and fuel, etc.
"As you are aware, it has already been agreed that the Dáil should meet on the 17th September. At this meeting the Bills from the Seanad will be taken and questions can be asked about any matter on which it is desired to secure information. The Seanad has only just risen so that the interval when one or other House of the Oireachtas will not be sitting will be short. Arrangements with staffs, etc., have already been made generally on the basis that the Dáil will not meet until the 17th proximo and to summon it now for an earlier date would cause very considerable inconvenience.
"Moreover, in the short period of time which has elapsed since the Dáil rose on the 24th ult. there has not been any significant change in the general position nor have any new factors emerged which, in the opinion of the Government, would justify calling the Dáil together earlier than the date already arranged.
"As you know, the economic position of the country as affected by the war situation has been the subject of discussion on many recent occasions in Dáil Eireann and Seanad Eireann both in its general and specific aspects and numerous statements have been made by the responsible Ministers in the course of these discussions.
"In regard to some of the matters referred to in the enclosure to your letter, e.g., turf and crops, the position at the moment has not developed sufficiently to enable any more detailed or reliable information to be furnished than that already made available.
"In the circumstances I trust you will agree that the date fixed on the adjournment will suit your purpose equally well."
Surely members of this House are aware of the fact that there are staffs and others who must get some period of holiday and that public business has to be arranged so as to enable people to get the amount of rest that will enable them to face another strenuous year. It would be quite different if there had been a long period from the time in which one of the Houses was in session but it was only a period, roughly, of a little over a fortnight and surely, if the position was urgent, I would have expected that I would have a reply back. I got no reply whatever and I took it, quite naturally, that, whatever point they might want to make about it, the case that had been put to them was such as commanded the assent of their reason.
The suggestion, I believe, has been made that the time that has been proposed is rather long. I would like to point out to members of the House that the present situation demands from the Ministers much more personal and detailed attention than is required in ordinary times, and if a large portion of their time is to be taken up here attending the Dáil, that time, of necessity, is taken away from the administrative work. With respect to some of the items that have been mentioned, namely, fuel and some of the other matters, they were matters which the members of the Government ought directly and immediately to deal with if the situation were to be remedied. What we have to ask ourselves is, is it better that that remedy should be obtained or that we should simply talk about them?
I will admit that it is desirable—I have always said so—that Deputies should have an opportunity of explaining how they find things in the country. That is one of the great advantages of an institution like this. But there is the other matter that has to be attended to, that there is administrative work falling to be done by members of the Government and that is particularly heavy at the present time. I think that there is no just ground for complaint in the fact that the Dáil did not meet on the 3rd September, when it was meeting a fortnight afterwards and when the House had met only a short time before. It has been usual in ordinary times to have a fairly long period of adjournment at this time of the year. One of the things that has to be done during that period is the preparation of Bills for the coming period.
The time that is usually most valuable from a legislative point of view, from the point of view of passing Bills, is the period from the time the Dáil meets—it used to be at the end of October—until the March session, because once the March session begins, the rest of the period is taken up almost entirely with financial business, Estimates and so on, and it is extremely difficult, if there are to be any legislative proposals at all, to make the necessary preparation and get the necessary time in the Dáil after that. Therefore the time in which the preparatory work for the Dáil is usually done is this period. The Oireachtas staffs are allowed to take the necessary holidays during that time, and the other staffs are preparing any proposals that the Government may have for legislation. I ask members of the House to be reasonable in this thing, and not to expect that you can have continuous session all the time. If it was something new that had to be dealt with, if there was something of particular, special urgency that had cropped up for the first time, then a case could be made for it.
The adjournment to the 29th October I think has been suggested. That was mentioned to the Whips, and there was no objection made to it. I do not know myself whether anything may occur in the meantime which would make it desirable from the Government point of view to bring the Dáil together. If that did happen, naturally the Government would ask the Ceann Comhairle to summon the Dáil in special session. I believe, at any rate, that a reasonable period of time for preparatory work is required if the Dáil is to be properly served during the coming year, and I ask the Deputies on that account to be reasonable, and, if there is not some special advantage to be gained by meeting, to leave that time that is so valuable from the point of view of preparation to the Ministers and the Departments. I leave it to the good sense of the House.
On this general discussion, despite what the Taoiseach has said, I regard it as most unfortunate, when the Tánaiste passed his word in this House that a certain thing would be done that that thing was not done. I said before, and I now repeat, that personally I did not sympathise with the Labour Party's request that the Dáil should be summoned on the date named by them, because I felt that the meeting to-day would probably meet the situation; but when the leader of the Labour Party, acting on the Tánaiste's pledged word, saw fit to ask for that meeting, he should have got it, whatever other arrangements were made thereafter.
There is one other matter to which I want to refer, and it is a matter in referring to which I take no pleasure, because I have to refer to a man with whom I never had anything but relations characterised by courtesy and civility whenever I had any dealings with him. I refer to the late Minister for Local Government and Public Health. I and members of my Party and members of the Government went around this country during the last nine months, and we said to young fellows who had jobs that we felt this country was in such danger and such difficulties that we were justified in asking them to give up their safe permanent employment and join the Army. I know lots of boys who came to me and said: "Do you think, Mr. Dillon, that we ought to give up our jobs and join the Army?" I replied: "That is advice which I hate to be asked to give, because it is an awful thing to ask another man to make heavy sacrifices for the State."
The Deputy might pause for a moment to consider whether the matter I anticipate he is going to debate, has any relevance to the motion that the Dáil adjourn to 29th October.
I will make a submission, Sir.
It appears to me that the matter he is raising should be raised by motion and not in this casual fashion.
I am submitting, Sir, that everything we do at the present time, and always, in public life must be judged by the criterion of whether we are doing our best within the powers that the law has given us. We are asking our neighbours to make the limit of sacrifice, and the question arises whether we in Dáil Eireann are doing our part too, whether we are ready to bear our full share of the burden. I feel that public morale, courage and fortitude amongst our people are a vital consideration in taking a decision whether we should adjourn, whether we should continue in session, whether we should criticise the Government or whether we should hold our peace.
I do not think it relevant. The Deputy should take some other opportunity and another method. It has absolutely no relation to the question at issue.
It is not a personal matter. I want to raise the matter of the propriety in an hour of crisis of a Minister of State leaving his office and taking a soft job at £4,000 a year.
It has no bearing on the adjournment of the House.
Surely I am entitled to compare the action of the rest of the community with the action of a member of the Government? Surely I am entitled to say to the Government: "If this be your view of the character of the emergency in which we find ourselves, that you are prepared to release from public service a Minister of State to take up a £4,000-a-year job, what right have you to ask the people or to ask Deputies to exert themselves to the limit of their capacity in order to do their duty to the State?"
It is not relevant.
Then I cannot make that comparison?
As it is irrelevant, no.
And I cannot say to the Government——
The Chair has twice stated that it is irrelevant. The Deputy may not debate it by way of a submission.
If you so rule, Sir, all I can say is——
It should be obvious to the Deputy that it has no bearing on the motion.
I do not want to question the ruling of the Chair, but it is not obvious to me. That is a matter for the Chair to judge; it is not for me to judge. My job is to accept the ruling, whatever it is. It is a matter to which I shall return on another occasion. All I do want to say is this: I said it before to-day, but I am glad of the opportunity of saying it while the Taoiseach is here. Heretofore, when we passed our word to one another across the floor of this House it was taken without question, and I never had any reason to complain of its being broken. If that tradition is to be departed from on any grounds, the conduct of Parliamentary affairs in this country will become virtually impossible. I understood that on this matter of the adjournment a general debate was permissible. Am I to take it that, this evening, that is not the case?
The ordering of business is not a function of the Chair. That is a matter for the Government. Items 1 to 6 were indicated as to-day's business. What would have happened between the conclusion of that business and 10.30, if the business concluded at 8 o'clock, I cannot say. Presumably there would have been a debate on the adjournment. The motion before the House now is: That the House do adjourn to the 29th October on conclusion of the business indicated.
Are we not discussing the adjournment?
No. We are discussing the question: That the Dáil, on the completion of the business indicated, do adjourn to 29th October.
And your ruling is that general questions may be raised after the disposition of the business set down on the Order Paper?
The Chair has not so ruled.
What are we discussing now?
The motion moved by the Tánaiste.
I have been discussing that in the most general terms. I confess myself puzzled. Is there a new rule? What is the rule? Will anyone tell me?
There is no difficulty. When the business was indicated, the Tánaiste was asked whether it was proposed to adjourn to 29th October. Some Deputies objected, and the Tánaiste submitted a motion which I have before me: That the Dáil, on completion of the business indicated, do adjourn until 29th October. That is what is being debated. When that is decided the business indicated will be entered on.
And the debate at this stage is to be strictly confined to the question of whether we are to adjourn to that date?
Yes.
Very well. I will reserve my remarks to a later stage.
I want to say on this motion——
I will hear the Deputy later. I do not know whether this motion would preclude the House from meeting to-morrow. I do not know whether it would preclude a meeting to-morrow if business were not concluded, or whether it would permit of a debate on the adjournment, to-morrow.
As I understood it, we are meeting here to-day to deal with certain points. The moment those were dealt with, it was likely that there would be some proposal for an adjournment debate. I had hoped that the business for which we met here would be concluded fairly early, and that there would still be time, perhaps two or three hours, for an adjournment debate in the ordinary way, but I do not know what the position has developed into now. We are having a semi-adjournment debate on this question, which is really an order-of-business question in the first instance.
The Chair is anxious to have this motion decided and to ascertain whether if the Government so desired, some hours might be given to-morrow for a debate on the adjournment.
I have no objection to that, but I think, after the Taoiseach's reply, that I am entitled to say what I think about the matter he raised with regard to not summoning the Dáil on 3rd September as requested by the Labour Party.
On the question of order, merely, a Chinn Comhairle, we have first of all to settle when the Dáil is to re-assemble. That has to be settled. Then there is the question of this particular session. My own view is that, when Deputies are brought up here from the country, if there are questions that are to be discussed they should be discussed then, rather than put off for a longer period. Within reason, it is desirable that Deputies should be given an opportunity when they come up here for a meeting like this or for any other meeting, of dealing with matters which they regard as urgent and important. I think that is very much more desirable than that we should be meeting and not getting things done, meeting, going away and meeting again. You cannot order business on that basis. I suggest that we should decide on the date when we will reassemble. If there is an amendment to the proposal before the House, let us deal with it. The 29th October is proposed. If there is time to-night we can have an adjournment debate, and if there is a strong desire amongst Deputies to continue the discussion to-morrow, though it would be extremely inconvenient from the point of view of other arrangements that have been made, nevertheless these other arrangements will have to go by the board and we can have a continuation of the debate to-morrow. To start with, perhaps we can decide whether the 29th October will suit.
The Chair ruled so that I am restricted in the observations I choose to make on this motion. If the Taoiseach's submission meets with your approval, surely it is open to me to move that the Dáil do meet 14 days from to-day inasmuch as I regard the action of the Government in releasing the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to take up a job at £4,000 a year as evidence that they are not acting responsibly in the absence of the Dáil. Will you accept that amendment?
I will accept only an amendment relating to the date of reassembly.
And you will not assign me any reason?
I should like to point out that Deputy Norton has already moved an amendment.
I desire to move to the Taoiseach's motion an amendment to the effect that the Dáil shall adjourn to this day fortnight and the reason I submit that amendment is that we consented to a long adjournment on the assumption that the Government would act with a due sense of responsibility. My feeling that the Government are so acting has been gravely shaken by the incident to which I already referred and that was that having permitted us, and gone themselves to the country, to urge young men to throw up their jobs in order to join the Army, to jeopardise their immediate futures, which they did in thousands——
The Deputy may move an amendment to the effect that the Dáil shall meet on the 1st October, but may not follow the line of argument he has entered on.
I am submitting that the course of conduct of the Government in permitting the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to relinquish his office and take over a comparatively soft job at £4,000 a year is evidence that they are not acting with that sense of responsibility during the long recess that we were entitled to expect of them when we suspended the vigilance of Parliament for a protracted period.
The Deputy may put down an amendment that the Dáil shall meet on the 1st October——
Fourteen days from to-day.
——and table a motion for the Order Paper on the lines he now suggests. He may propose a date for the assembly of the Dáil. No reason is stated on the order beyond fixing the date.
I am not putting down an originating motion. I am moving an amendment to the Government motion. The Taoiseach has explained that they have a lot of work to do and they cannot prepare the programme if we do not give them a long recess. To which my amendment rejoins: "We do not want to give you a long recess. We want to give you 14 days." The House may ask: "Why do you want to give them 14 days?" and my reason for granting the Government a recess for only 14 days is that I am not satisfied they are acting with a due sense of responsibility; that the Dáil is in recess and things are occurring which require to be called in question at an early date. I am entitled to say to the House that while we were in recess a very large number—I am not going to give any number—of young men in this country took up arms, having given up their normal jobs.
The Deputy is repeating himself.
Am I not entitled to say it?
Not three times.
You have told me that it is not a relevant thing to say at all. I submit it is. I do not want to circumnavigate your ruling, but I may mention that on this subject I have a lot more to say. Just now I want to give my reason for moving that we should re-assemble 14 days from to-day. With your leave, I propose to do that.
The motion before the House is that the Dáil do adjourn to the 29th October. There is an amendment by Deputy Dillon that the Dáil meet in a fortnight's time, and he assigns as his reason that he has not confidence in the actions of the Government. The Government cannot be arraigned so simply.
I do not wish to include that in my amendment. I beg to correct the Chair.
Deputies
Order, order!
There should be no interruptions when the Chair is speaking. There is actually a Standing Order to that effect.
You are putting my amendment——
The Deputy desires the House to meet in a fortnight's time for a certain reason which he has already stated two or three times. All that can appear on the Order Paper is that the Dáil meet on a certain date. There cannot be casually attached to it a motion of censure on the Government. The Deputy having been precluded from dealing in detail with the matter, may not raise it by way of an amendment.
The amendment I wish to put to the Taoiseach's motion is that the House do meet in 14 days. That is the text of my amendment. I ask your leave now to recommend that amendment to the Dáil. I think I have your leave to do so. May I proceed to recommend that amendment?
I shall hear the Deputy.
On a point of order. I submit that the Tánaiste early in this debate moved that the House do adjourn till the end of October. Deputy Norton moved an amendment that the Dáil do meet on 1st October.
I was not aware of any such amendment.
You were not in the Chair at the time; the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was. That is the motion that is in order, and not what has been suggested by the Taoiseach or by Deputy Dillon. That was the motion, moved by the Tánaiste, which gave rise to this discussion.
I have no amendment from the Taoiseach.
The Tánaiste mentioned the 29th October, and Deputy Norton suggested 1st October.
Is the Deputy certain that Deputy Norton proposed that formally?
Yes.
I did not hear that.
Such an amendment should be in writing.
You are taking Deputy Dillon's amendment.
Not yet.
Before Deputy Dillon moved his amendment I stood up. I thought I was in possession, but you seemed to ignore the fact that I was here at all.
Deputy Hurley will be heard.
I have not got a chance to utter a sentence yet. I sat down when the Taoiseach rose and I did not get an opportunity after that. Deputy Dillon seems to monopolise the time of the House.
Is this a point of order?
Deputy Hurley was in possession when Deputy Dillon rose.
I am in your hands.
I claim my right as a member of the House.
The Deputy is being given his right.
Is Deputy Norton's proposal excluded by Deputy Dillon's amendment?
The Tánaiste moved the adjournment till the 29th October, and Deputy Norton moved that the House should reassemble on 1st October, a fortnight hence. The Taoiseach got up and explained the reason the House was not called on 3rd September and I asked your permission, Sir, to reply briefly to the Taoiseach's statement. I intended also to move the amendment which Deputy Norton had moved in your absence.
I have got no confirmation of the statement that Deputy Norton did so move, though he did suggest a meeting every fortnight.
If it is not an amendment, I said that I intended to move it as an amendment. In reply to the Taoiseach, I want to say that, on 20th August, the Labour Party met here and considered the reports they had received as to the fuel position especially and the growing danger there was of the fuel position being left in a very chaotic state. They had also before them the position with regard to unemployment and the numbers of men who were fleeing across to Britain, and they had further before them various questions which had been raised in their different constituencies to which they had no opportunity of getting a reply. I had one matter particularly with regard to Irish Shipping Limited, on which I tried to elicit information to-day. Bearing all these facts in mind and remembering the promise of the Tánaiste on the adjournment, they decided to ask for a meeting of the Dáil on 3rd September, in all good faith. There was nobody more astonished than I when I read the Taoiseach's refusal to call that meeting. The position in the country is changing so rapidly from day to day, it is worsening so rapidly from day to day, that it is necessary for this House to meet at least once a fortnight, and the Labour Party did decide to request that the House should meet, at the very latest, on 1st October. With your permission, I want to put that amendment to the new motion by the Taoiseach.
There is no motion from the Taoiseach: There is a motion from the Tánaiste.
I do not know where I am. The Taoiseach moved originally and it is to his motion that I am putting the amendment—that the House meet on 1st October in order to discuss the position and to try to arrange that fuel and supplies generally will be available to the people, and especially to the people in the cities. I do not wish to elaborate on that amendment which I now move.
I desire to move an amendment, a copy of which I have handed to you, Sir, and I recommend that amendment to Dáil Eireann on these grounds. The Government is entitled to demand that it will be given adequate time to prepare a schedule of the business which it proposes to lay before Dáil Eireann, and that was a request to which I was prepared to agree, until my confidence in their discretion was completely shattered by an incident which took place since we last met here. The Taoiseach, at an early stage in the present emergency which affects the world, summoned all Parties to him and told them of his grave anxiety as to the state of the country. Without going into the confidential communications which he then made to the Leaders of the various Parties on that date, he satisfied us all that there was a grave emergency, that there was a situation of very great danger and that it was a situation in which we would be entitled to go out to our people and say: "Whatever your political convictions may be, whatever you think of the Government in office at present, one thing is certain: every citizen should place his services, without reservation, at the disposal of the legitimate Government of the country to do whatever job he is given, however difficult, in the defence and protection of the country which is our common heritage."
As I have said, hundreds of young fellows came to me and said: "Does that advice mean, Mr. Dillon, that you expect us to give up our jobs and to go into the Army? We are earning £3, £4, or £4 10s. a week and it means having 2/- a day," and I said to them: "It is an advice which no man cares to give to his neighbour, but if you ask me directly if I mean that, I am obliged to reply that I do. It is a very material sacrifice, I know, and it is a sacrifice which only public-spirited men would undertake, but it is undoubtedly the right thing to do," and I know fellows who gave up permanent jobs, with the prospect of advancement, and who went into the Army and who are to-day receiving 2/- a day for the extremely arduous and difficult work that Army life entails for the average civilian, not to speak of the perils of which we have had so terrible an instance in the course of the last 24 hours. It has not only been a matter for these boys of giving up their normal livelihood, of undertaking tedious and difficult work, but of actually putting their lives in daily jeopardy, without any of the glory of battle and simply in the ordinary course of duty, which carries with it no accolade or admiration whatever. But the fact that there was no praise, that there was no enthusiasm for these arduous duties, in no way mitigated the tragedy of the deaths of some of the finest young men in this country in the course of their duties yesterday. Compare that with a Minister, who is a member of the supreme Executive of this State, charged with immense responsibility——
On a point of order, might I say that a matter of this kind which Deputy Dillon regards as of importance ought not to be brought in and discussed as a side wind, but ought to be discussed, if the Deputy thinks it of such importance, on a definite motion. I suggest that he is not in order now.
I have pointed out to the Deputy already that, even in support of his amendment, it is not legitimate to introduce the matter with which he is now dealing. It should be done by express motion on due notice.
I am making the case——
It is not permissible. It is not relevant. If the Deputy desires to arraign the Government, or the Minister concerned, it must be done by express motion, not in this off-hand manner.
I am not arraigning any Minister. I am arraigning gentlemen who have shed the raiment of Minister.
That is the Executive Council.
I am arraigning the Executive Council for permitting that to take place.
Which may not be done so casually.
I am putting forward——
It is not in order.
Surely I am entitled to make a submission?
The Deputy thrice made that submission which the Chair has not accepted. The Deputy is endeavouring to get away, in spite of the ruling of the Chair, on various pretexts. He is out of order.
I am not entitled then to assign reasons why I feel that the Dáil should meet on that date?
Quite, but not that reason.
Why? I submit with great respect that I am entitled to say that I do not trust the Executive Council to carry out executive functions without the vigilance of Dáil Eireann, and to assign a reason.
I suggest with respect that a motion of that importance, in the Deputy's judgment, and the arguments he has to support it, should be put down on the Order Paper and debated, not as a sideline but as a motion of which full notice would be given, and to which time would be allotted.
This is no side-wind.
Obviously it does not arise on this motion. To put down an amendment in order to raise that issue is simply an evasion, an effort to raise without notice a grave matter, at least a matter which the Deputy seems to deem grave.
I raise it——
The Deputy must finally understand it is definitely out of order.
I certainly am not going to challenge your ruling. Let me say this, that I put forward this amendment in the profound belief that there are grave reasons why the Government should not be allowed to carry out its executive functions divorced from the supervision of Dáil Eireann. I believe there are reasons which are not only a standing danger to the State but a standing danger to something even more than the fabric of the State, and that is the morale of our people, and their confidence in their representatives. I believe that the safety of the nation depends on the people's confidence in the purity and rectitude of the public men who represent them, and I submit that if anything should occur which causes our people seriously to doubt that such qualities reside in the legislators of this State, our people will lose confidence not only in a particular Government, but may begin to lose confidence in Parliamentary institutions as well.
It will not be your fault if they do not.
God give me patience or I will make an answer to that fellow that will shame him.
God give us patience, because we want a lot of it.
I submit that this House should meet at more frequent intervals than it has been meeting. I believe there is not a Deputy in this House who does not know in his heart why I believe that. I do not doubt that every citizen of this State knows it as well as I do.
Because you are in it.
That the consequences of that knowledge should fall on any Party will be a grievous experience for the members of that Party, but that the consequences of that knowledge should fall on the Parliamentary institutions of this State would be a catastrophe for Ireland.
The Deputy does not seem to give any definite reasons for his amendment.
His own Party repudiated him.
I am giving my views—
The Deputy is circumventing a ruling of the Chair.
I hope not.
That is apparently the interpretation put upon his speech by the House and certainly by the Chair.
By certain Deputies of the House. Far from desiring to disobey the ruling of the Chair, I am attempting to conform to it. My reasons are well known, and in my submission they are potent and even irresistible. In the interests of the institutions of this State I suggest to the Taoiseach that even at this eleventh hour he should change his mind and realise that the vigilance of this House is necessary to keep the Executive of this State straight, and that the sooner he avails of it the better it will be for all of us.
Deputy Dillon has stated that he has no confidence in the Government to look after the country. Since this crisis started Deputy Dillon has gone on very definite lines here. One of the reasons apparently why he has no confidence in this Government is because this Government has insisted that this country should produce food enough for our people. That is directly opposed to the policy of Deputy Dillon which is that we should grow no wheat but should try to get it in here. In that case we would have to pay the price that Deputy Dillon has in the back of his head for the food that we got—the price that he outlined here —but on that his own Party repudiated him here during the last session.
That is not relevant.
It is relevant to what Deputy Dillon was saying.
It is not relevant to the motion.
That is what is wrong with Deputy Dillon—that we here are insisting on the policy of this Government being carried out. Deputy Dillon's new policy, as outlined here to-night, is a policy of sabotage. He has failed to bring down the Government by direct means. His own Party repudiated him on that, but he is now endeavouring to bring it down by whispering, back-door muttered views. Deputy Dillon spoke of men who gave up jobs here, there and elsewhere. In 1917, 1918, 1919 and 1920 we had young men working down at Haulbowline who were earning £10 a week. Deputy Dillon was then an able-bodied young man. Those young men gave up their jobs and fought for this country. I wonder where was Deputy Dillon?
The Deputy must relate his remarks to the motion.
I am relating my remarks to the motion that the Dáil should not meet earlier than the date appointed. Those young men I have referred to were driven out of this country like mad dogs by a clique in 1923. If one were to look for them now he would have to go to America or elsewhere. Some might be found here, but whatever jobs they had they gave them up to serve their country. Deputy Dillon comes along to-day and talks about a few highly-paid gentlemen who gave up some little jobs they had. I object to any member of this House being allowed to sabotage, or to endeavour to pull down, this State—I do not care what name he bears—but that has been the attitude of Deputy Dillon here as long as I know him.
What is the Deputy's attitude to this motion?
My attitude to this motion is that I think we are meeting too often for the sabotage that Deputy Dillon is working here. If I had my way I would have the Dáil closed down during the duration, and let the talkers go and do their bit.
Now the cat is out of the bag.
They might find something better to do. Deputy Dillon should be able to find plenty to do in the country.
If the Deputy cannot be relevant he must resume his seat.
I see no reason why the Dáil should meet before the date appointed. While we have Deputy Dillon trying to work sabotage here, we have decent men in jail and a Judas out of it.
The motion is "that, on the completion of the business announced, the Dáil do adjourn until the 29th October, 1941." To that motion there is an amendment by Deputy Hurley and another by Deputy Dillon to delete "the 29th" and substitute therefor "the 1st day of October". I propose to put the question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Dáil divided:—Tá, 61; Níl, 41.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Fuller, Stephen.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Keane, John J.
- Kelly, James P.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Loughman, Francis.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCann, John.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Moran, Michael.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Mullen, Thomas.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Loghlen, Peter J.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Bennett, George C.
- Benson, Ernest E.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
- Coburn, James.
- Cole, John J.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John A.
- Curran, Richard.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Davin, William.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry A.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, John L.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hannigan, Joseph.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, James.
- Hurley, Jeremiah.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Nally, Martin.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donovan, Timothy J.
- O'Sullivan, John M.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Ryan, Jeremiah.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and Brady; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Keyes.
Question declared carried.