Vol. 102 No. 4
On the 2nd inst., I addressed the following question to the Minister for Justice:—
"To ask the Minister for Justice if he is aware that the holding of public collections for secular objects in the immediate vicinity of churches on Sundays and holydays is objectionable; and if he will take steps to prohibit such collections."
There is no member of the Government present.
The Deputy deserves a lot of respect.
Order!
The question is addressed to the Minister for Justice who is not present. I demand that he should be present. I must start off by protesting very emphatically against the failure of the Minister for Justice to be present in the House, to reply to a question which was raised in regard to his Department. Last week the Minister gave the following reply to my question:—
"I have not received any complaints regarding such collections and I do not propose to take any action."
By way of a supplementary question I asked:—
"Is the Minister aware that the holding of a public collection for a political purpose outside a chapel gate imposes on citizens attending Divine Service the ordeal of publicly declaring their political views and that the imposition of such an ordeal is an obstacle to the free exercise of religion?"
Mr. Boland replied, "All I can say is that it is a very old custom." Now, we all know there are a lot of very old customs in this country and some of those customs have a long history behind them; they are, however, none the less objectionable. The Minister for Justice, if he were here, would admit that the bumping-off of an occasional policeman was an old custom in this country when this country was engaged in a resistance movement and in a struggle for independence. Yet, no one will say that is an old custom which should be continued in this independent State.
The holding of public collections at church gates, thereby obstructing the people in the exercise of their religion —and they have a perfectly moral and legal right to practise their religion— is a custom which should, in my opinion, cease. Our Constitution, which is phrased in such high-falutin language, guarantees that in the matter of religion the State shall respect and honour religion. In Article 44 it also guarantees freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion to every citizen of this State.
I think one can reasonably assert that the holding of collections at church gates, by a well-organised political party, does constitute an obstruction to the free exercise by the citizens of this country of the religion they profess. I hold that such collections are definitely objectionable and that an end should be put to them immediately.
Here, again, I want to protest very strongly against the continued absence of the Minister for Justice from the House. I think that, if it was not possible for the Minister himself to be present here to-night, at least some representative of the Government should be present when a matter of this kind is being raised.
On a point of order, Sir, as a protest against——
Deputy Cogan is in possession.
I move the adjournment of the House, Sir.
Is it not possible, on a point of order, Sir, to raise the question of moving the adjournment of the House as a protest against the continued absence of any person.
It is, but it is not necessary for the Chair to accept it.
But it may be moved.
It may be moved, but it is not accepted.
The Chair is not accepting it?
It is the practice that members of the Ministerial group should be here.
A point has been raised here to-night and the Chair has given its ruling.
This is not the first time this has happened.
That may be.
This motion was held over in order to facilitate the Government and, in those circumstances, I suggest the Chair should accept the motion to adjourn the House as a protest. I would ask the Chair to accept that motion.
On a point of order, perhaps the Chair may recollect that on an occasion when the Taoiseach was speaking in the House recently on his own Estimate he had not completed his speech at 10 o'clock. He said that, rather than protract the debate into the next day, he would forgo saying what he intended to say whereupon Deputy Cogan rose and notified the Taoiseach that if he, the Taoiseach, had anything to add to what he had already said, he, Deputy Cogan, would be prepared to postpone this matter to a date suitable to the Minister for Justice. That, Deputy Cogan has done, and the Minister for Justice and his colleagues have now absented themselves from the House. In those circumstances, Sir, would you not consider a motion for adjournment?
I am not accepting a motion. Deputy Cogan is in possession.
I have protested against the absence of the Minister. I find it very difficult to understand his attitude in so absenting himself when a matter of this kind is being raised. This matter concerns the fundamental rights of Deputies. Here, we are now in the position of having the members of the Government deliberately absenting themselves from the House. If this is permitted then the rights of Deputies to raise matters on the Adjournment will be frustrated and will, to a great extent, be destroyed.
And the Chair accepts that as a viewpoint.
The Chair accepts nothing as a viewpoint.
I suggest the Chair is accepting that as a view.
Deputy Cogan is in possession.
On another point of order, I want to raise this matter in another way. I do suggest that the House is entitled to have itself adjourned as a protest against what has happened. I suggest that the inevitable consequence of the Chair's not accepting such a motion is that the Chair is definitely bringing about the the very thing against which Deputy Cogan has protested, namely, the rendering futile of one of the ways in which Parliamentary discussion is carried on by the bringing of a motion on the Adjournment. It has always been the practice, with a few bad tempered examples to the contrary, for the appropriate Minister to attend when a matter is raised on the Adjournment. The Chair, in the teeth of the arguments advanced here and knowing the circumstances to-night, accepts by his own ruling a position which will nullify and vitiate the rights of Deputies to raise matters in Private Members' time.
The Chair is doing nothing except refusing the motion to adjourn the House.
And that refusal has that consequence.
As a protest against the absence of the Minister, which renders my position in raising this matter now quite futile and which will render the action of any other Deputy in raising a matter on the Adjournment futile, if this precedent is followed, I must withdraw from the House.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.20 p.m. until 3 o'clock on Thursday the 11th July, 1946.
