It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 2 and 6; then the Estimates—Votes 29 to 37, 50 to 53, with which it may be agreed to take No. 4, a formal motion in relation to sugar imports, and 39 to 46. Questions will be taken at 3 o'clock. It is proposed to adjourn until Tuesday at 3 p.m.
Order of Business.
I should like to know, on the Order of Business, when it is proposed to give time for No. 3, the motion in my name and that of Deputy Fagan.
I informed the Deputy yesterday that we proposed to give time for it on Tuesday.
I am asking for time for it to-day on the grounds that it is a matter of some urgency inasmuch as it calls in question the conduct of the Ceann Comhairle. It is further a motion of urgency in that I am now satisfied that the Taoiseach has caused the Official Report of Dáil Éireann to be amended by the insertion of words in the printed version which were never spoken and which the notetaker never took, designed to pervert the meaning of——
Obviously, the Deputy cannot discuss that beyond asking for time.
We can discuss the Order for the Adjournment, can we not? The Tánaiste has moved that we adjourn this evening until next Tuesday, as distinguished from the date laid down in Standing Orders, namely, Friday morning, and unless that motion is adopted by the House I understand we are required to meet on to-morrow morning. Inasmuch as that motion has been moved, we may debate and divide upon it and I propose to debate that motion. I am urging the House to reject that motion on the grounds that time has not been provided for a motion which calls in question the denial by the Chair of Deputies' rights to address the House and the action of the Taoiseach in sending for the official report of our proceedings and causing to be inserted therein words which were never spoken in this House, which the notetaker never recorded, and which are therefore inserted in the report for the purpose of prejudicing the discussion of the Taoiseach's scandalous conduct in this House on the 4th July. The words inserted by the Taoiseach appear in column 832 of the Official Report. The notetaker's version——
Obviously, this is not in order now. That will arise at a later stage on Deputy Dillon's motion and can be discussed in full. It does not come up now for discussion. What comes up now is whether the House should adjourn until Tuesday.
I am urging that the House should not adjourn, because it is a matter of urgency that we should discuss at the earliest possible moment the action of the Leader of the House, the Head of the Government——
I have asked the Deputy to desist from discussing that. The merits of that may not be discussed on this occasion. The Deputy can discuss that at a later stage on the motion to which he referred, but not now. The motion before the House is whether we should adjourn to the date mentioned by the Tánaiste or not.
Can I state the reasons why I think the House should not adjourn?
The Deputy cannot anticipate the subject matter of a motion that is before the House.
The subject matter before the House on that motion is the conduct of the Ceann Comhairle. The matter I want to raise now as one of urgency is the conduct of the Taoiseach, a very different cup of tea. The Ceann Comhairle is the presiding officer of the House; the Taoiseach is the Head of the Government. I am alleging that the Taoiseach has secured the introduction into the Official Report of Dáil Éireann of words that were never spoken in Dáil Éireann and I want to tell the House what these words were.
How can this be relevant?
It is not relevant. I have told Deputy Dillon that it is not relevant. The question to be discussed now is whether we should adjourn or not, nothing more.
I am objecting to the Adjournment.
You are going to say it again.
No Minister for Justice or any other warrior in the Fianna Fáil Party is going to shout me down. I am going to debate now whether we adjourn or whether we do not adjourn and if the Minister for Justice does not like that he can lump it as far as I am concerned and I am going to discuss it as long as I care to discuss it.
Whether the Chair likes or not.
Under the Standing Orders of this House. The Minister for Justice does not like that but he must lump it.
The matter before the House is whether the House adjourns.
Whether the House adjourns to-night until Friday morning or until Tuesday afternoon and I am opposing the proposal that we adjourn until Tuesday afternoon. I should have thought, Sir, that I am entitled to state the reason why I oppose it.
What the Deputy proposes to raise is a matter of privilege. This is not the way to raise that.
I am not raising any matter of privilege now. I am desiring to inform the House that there is a matter which appears to me to be of urgent importance, which calls for debate, which calls for ventilation in this House and which it is the duty of this House to discuss and consider at the earliest possible moment. There is no reason whatever why this House should refuse to sit to-morrow morning, if it wants to sit to-morrow morning. If time were provided for the discussion of the matters arising out of No. 3 on the Order Paper this evening, the necessity to sit to-morrow morning would not arise. There is within the scheduled programme laid down for the various Estimates two hours available this evening for the discussion of other business provided we give the remaining hour due to the Department of Justice on Tuesday. The Government, for their own reasons, and I understand them, because they are naturally reluctant to have this matter discussed, categorically refused to provide two hours this evening and announced that they are going to take Justice for one hour this evening and then we will see what happens to the remaining hour.
I want to recall the memory of the House to this fact, that in 1930, Deputy Fahy, as he then was, moved a motion in identical terms or virtually identical terms with Motion No. 3 on the Order Paper to-day. In 1935, Deputy John Marcus O'Sullivan moved such a motion and the present Minister for Justice, Deputy Boland, rose in his place on behalf of the Government and said that Deputy John Marcus O'Sullivan's failure to debate this motion at the earliest possible moment was in itself evidence that it was not a bona fide motion, that if he had meant what his motion said, Deputy John Marcus O'Sullivan would have pressed for a discussion at the earliest possible moment and the fact that he did not showed that it was a spurious motion not seriously intended. The same Minister to-day is most active and aggressive in claiming that Motion No. 3 on the Order Paper should not be discussed and need not be discussed. Why? Why is he so actively aggressive? —because he does not want the Taoiseach's trick discussed in this House. But it will be discussed.
The Deputy is endeavouring to discuss the motion.
He is trying to pick a row, as far as I can see.
The Deputy will confine himself to reasons why this House should not adjourn, and nothing more. He will not proceed to discuss the motion on the Order Paper, or anything that may be considered relevant to it, by a side-wind.
Sixteen years ago the Minister for Justice, Deputy Boland, objected strenuously to Deputy John Marcus O'Sullivan not pressing on with a motion of this kind. I am asking the House to speculate why did Deputy Boland, the Minister for Justice, clamour for prompt discussion 16 years ago and why does he clamour for delay to-day. There must be a reason for that, and the reason is that he does not want to face the motion.
The Deputy is saying all over again what I warned him he could not say. I warned him on that.
I cannot argue as to why it is to be delayed?
The Chair is the judge of whether it is relevant or not, Deputy Dillon. I warn the Deputy he cannot pursue that line.
On a point of order. As a Deputy of this House, is not Deputy Dillon entitled to give me reasons as to whether I should vote for an adjournment or vote against it? How am I to gauge the worth of his argument unless he is permitted to make it?
The arguments that are made must be relevant to the issue before the House.
And the issue before the House is the Adjournment.
And repeated four times.
The would-be Lord Mayor of Cork——
Do not mind that.
——should not be sharpening his capacity for presiding over the Cork Corporation when he never got to that stage.
If he was prepared to descend to your low tactics he would be there, but he was not.
We split Fianna Fáil in Cork and we will split it elsewhere, with the help of God. I am not concerned with the fragmentation of the Fianna Fáil Party in Cork, Dublin or Limerick. I am concerned with the Adjournment of Dáil Éireann in Leinster House.
I hope the Deputy will confine himself to that.
That is what I am trying to do, in spite of the would-be Lord Mayor of Cork.
Maybe. We will all die, too.
Mr. Lynch
As a result of the strengthening of our ranks in Cork by the recent action.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Lynch, is sailing into the battle, so Deputy McGrath can have hopes that his faltering step will be sustained. If the Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party would keep quiet, I could elaborate the theme of why we should not adjourn this evening to 3 o'clock on Tuesday.
Mr. Lynch
Carry on.
It will be a bad day when I want leave from Deputy Lynch of Cork to carry on in this House. I put down bigger men than he and down he will go too if he thinks fit to usurp the functions of the Ceann Comhairle. If he has aspired to the glories of Parliamentary Secretaryship, he should not delude himself that he is the Ceann Comhairle.
The Deputy will confine himself to the motion for the Adjournment.
Yes. If the Chair perhaps would address those who are interrupting from those benches, I would be better able to do so.
Mr. Lynch
Are we supposed to sit down while you insult us?
The Parliamentary Secretary should not interrupt Deputy Dillon. He will have an opportunity of making any statements he wishes.
He will not say "peewee" because the face would be ate off him if he did.
Deputy Dillon's recent experience ought to teach him to keep out of Cork.
The Lord Mayor is functioning again. Now it is time for Deputy Lynch to sound off again.
You got your answer in Cork.
Deputy McGrath should allow Deputy Dillon to proceed, as far as he is relevant.
May I respectfully submit, Sir, that is the first time I ever heard disorder corrected by asking the interrupter to stop interrupting me so as to allow me to proceed in as far as I am relevant?
I did not mean that. As far as the Deputy is relevant, I intend to allow him to proceed.
The Taoiseach has now arrived, and arrived in good time. I am glad that he should have an opportunity of hearing that I am opposing the Adjournment. I regard the printed record of the proceedings of this House as sacrosanct. I understand that, while it is the universal custom of every parliamentary assembly to allow a Deputy to make any formal amendments of his observations, no alteration of substance may be made in the Official Report. I am opposing any delay in an opportunity for discussing a scandalous alteration of that character made by the leader of this House, the Taoiseach. I am told by the Tánaiste that the Government will not provide time to-day, and I am told that he has his myrmidons here to vote in support of the Adjournment to deny me the opportunity of discussing my motion to-day. I deplore this abuse of parliamentary procedure. I deplore the disgusting reaction of the salaried ranks of Parliamentary Secretaries who are mustered here to clamour for the denial of my rights.
The Deputy is surely travelling far beyond the reason why the House should or should not adjourn at 5 o'clock this evening until next Tuesday. There is a limit to the patience of the Chair in respect of irrelevancy.
Am I not entitled to deplore the attitude of the Government in using their mustered numbers here to force on an Independent Deputy an adjournment which denies him the opportunity of discussing a matter of urgency?
Whatever way the Deputy proposes to describe the members of the Government Party is a matter of concern for himself, but he has not advanced any sufficient reason as to why the House should or should not adjourn this evening until Tuesday next.
I am going to advance a whole series of reasons as to why we should not adjourn. I do not think we should adjourn when there is business to be done. The Government has succeeded under a guillotine motion which was presented to the House with the approbation of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in order to facilitate the Government in getting its business disposed of by the 19th July. I represent the Independent Deputies on that Committee on Procedure and Privileges, and on their behalf I agreed to sponsor that guillotine motion, jointly with the other members of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, in order to facilitate the Government, on the assumption——
I strongly object to Deputy Dillon's statement that he represents the Independent Deputies on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
Deputy Cogan is one of Fianna Fáil's "busted flush," of four Woolworth diamonds and one bleeding heart. He is not an Independent Deputy.
That does not arise at all. An Order was made by the House on the recommendation of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
And not on the recommendation of a "busted flush."
A windbag.
I would sooner be that than a Woolworth diamond or a bleeding heart. We had hoped to get from the Government reciprocation of the manifest desire of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to help them in disposing of their work. I do not think the Government's attitude to-day represents such reciprocation, and I think it is the duty of anyone who is solicitous for the rights of Deputies to resist the Government's cavalier declaration that because Motion No. 3 stands in the names of two Independent Deputies it can be brushed aside. Now, Sir, it may be of interest to know this fact, that it was canvassed amongst the Whips that if the main Opposition Parties did not support Motion No. 3 the Government would not give any time at all for its discussion.
What happened between the Whips with respect to any particular motion is surely not relevant.
I think, Sir, the House is entitled to know that the Government's attitude in refusing time to-day for the discussion of the motion is part of their general attitude to this motion, founded on the fact that it is proposed and seconded by two Independent Deputies. Surely, I am entitled to make the case that the least Deputy in this House, the most insignificant Deputy in this House, is entitled to the same respect for his constitutional rights as a Deputy of this House as is the most powerful Party in this House.
There is no need to make that case.
Why? I am making it. I am saying that an attempt is being made to deny their rights to two Independent Deputies. I assert that if this motion were down in the name of the main Opposition Party, or of the Labour Party, there would be no question of refusing time this week for its discussion. I am asserting that it is the design and purpose of the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach, by brushing it aside until next week, to create in the public mind the idea that inasmuch as this is a motion made by an aggrieved Party it is by the grace of the Government that we allow them time to talk about it at all, and that it will be done just as well next week. I will take nothing by favour from Fianna Fáil or from its "busted flush." I want nothing from them by grace or by concession, but I will take from them what I am entitled to have, whether they like it or not. It is in their power, a power rottenly acquired and soon to be lost, to take from him what any Deputy is entitled to enjoy, but only temporarily. I will get it back. They will not take it from me without the people knowing what they would like to do if they were fit. Fianna Fáil, which constitutes the present Government with its ludicrous "busted flush," loves to denigrate and insult those who are not intimidated by its corrupt and shameless political machine. They cannot corrupt me; they cannot intimidate me, but they would like——
This seems to be far removed from the reason as to why the House should or should not adjourn.
Is not the attempt to postpone the discussion of this motion from this week to next week a clear effort on the part of the Government to suggest that it is not of any particular importance, and that it can be discussed at any time as well as now? I am respectfully submitting to the Ceann Comhairle that any breach of the privileges of any Deputy, however insignificant he may be, matters more than all the tripe that Fianna Fáil proposes to contribute to the proceedings of this House during the next week. The privileges of one Deputy constitute the whole foundation of freedom in this country. The hogwash of Fianna Fáil for the next week is the propaganda of a bankrupt and split political Party. I set the privilege of any Deputy of this House a thousand times before the halting, fumbling floundering of Fianna Fáil and its "busted flush". I am asking for nothing but my rights and I am not asking them from the Fianna Fáil Party. I am asking them from Dáil Éireann. I ask nothing of Fianna Fáil and I take no benefaction they offer, but I am asking of Dáil Éireann my rights as an individual Deputy. I may not be able to get them to-day because the "busted flush" and its proprietor are here in force, but the Irish people are outside and, if I cannot get my rights in our own Parliament to-day, the day will come when I can get them and I hope that when power returns to those who sit on this side of the House again, the "busted flush" and its proprietor will learn that their minority rights then will be more solicitously respected than a minority's right to-day is respected by the contemptible "busted flush" and its proprietor in Dáil Éireann.
May I submit that Deputy Dillon has come into the House to-day to reduce the proceedings of this deliberative Assembly to ridicule? At a time when an agreement had been reached between the various Parties to ensure that the business of this House would be expeditiously got through within the next week, Deputy Dillon comes in to waste as much time as he possibly can in regard to what appears to me a mere personal matter between himself and the Chair. No Deputy has so often over a long period of years deliberately trampled upon the rules of order, deliberately brought this House into disrepute, deliberately attacked persons and slandered persons in this House.
The Deputy is now trying to discuss a motion that is on the Paper. He may not do that. The only matter he can discuss is whether or not this House, on its rising to-day, should adjourn until 3 o'clock next Tuesday. That is the only matter relevant to this discussion.
It is a Woolworth diamond scintillation.
I suggest that this House should adjourn until next Tuesday in accordance with the agreement entered into by Deputy Dillon as representing portion of what was the inter-Party but is now the outer-Party Opposition. That agreement was entered into by Deputy Dillon that we should meet next Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday to transact the business as arranged. I think that Deputy Dillon is demanding more rights than any Deputy has ever looked for in this House. He thinks he is a specially privileged person with a right to slander people here and to ignore the decisions of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. He has not even asked that this matter, as reflecting on the Chair, should be brought before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
The Deputy is going back to a discussion on that motion, which is entirely irrelevant on this occasion.
It is no harm to remind the House of the manner in which one Deputy was slandered in his personal capacity by Deputy Dillon.
That does not arise on this motion. There is only one thing relevant—whether the House, on its rising this evening, should adjourn until next Tuesday or not.
The blushing gratitude of the Tánaiste for this help is most edifying to witness.
Deputy Dillon has had his innings and he ought to allow others to speak.
The Tánaiste so seldom blushes that we are entitled to mention it.
Deputy Dillon has come in here to waste the time of Deputies and I want to make my protest against it. I think it is despicable that in this House, which is elected by the people to transact important business on behalf of the nation, our time should be wasted while Deputy Dillon gives a performance apparently taken from the new film called The Quiet Man, to show us what a quiet man he is.
The Deputy should not travel beyond the motion.
Under Standing Orders, the Government has the responsibility of determining the order in which business is taken.
Is the Tánaiste proposing to conclude?
Yes.
No.
No other Deputy offered to speak.
On what?
On the motion.
What motion?
The motion for the Adjournment.
I am anxious to say a word now.
I called on the Tánaiste.
For goodness sake, do not let us——
You did not call on the Tánaiste to conclude.
Deputy Cafferky will not anticipate a decision of this House in respect of a motion before it.
With all due respect to your ruling——
The Deputy will resume his seat.
If you say so.
Deputy Cafferky said that I did not call on the Tánaiste to conclude, as I was supposed to have done on the previous day. That was clearly giving an indication that the House had decided in a certain way. I did not say that I called on the Tánaiste to conclude. I asked him if he was concluding, which is a different thing.
As the matter of your conduct is sub judice and will come before the House on Tuesday next, I do not intend to speak on it. What I wished to say is that you asked the Tánaiste if he was going to conclude. I understood that the Chair called on the Tánaiste to conclude.
The question raised this morning is whether we ought not to adjourn until this motion has been discussed and that it ought to be discussed to-day. The point has been raised that Deputy Dillon is wasting time, on the one hand, and upsetting an orderly arrangement arrived at by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, on the other. I do not know to what extent there was a formal decision by the Committee that we would not sit on Friday—I know it was understood—but I submit that, when our minds go back to what happened in the discussion on the election of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and what has gone on this morning, there are things much more important than even the waste of Deputies' time, and that we are concerned with the proper functioning of this House and the orderly discharge of its business.
I would put it to the Taoiseach that, looking back over the events of last Wednesday, the day upon which the election of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was discussed, and what we had here again this morning, the most satisfactory thing would be to accept the proposition put by Deputy Dillon, to understand the attitude of mind and the circumstances in which he is making a stand and asking for the discussion for which he has asked, and to have it straight away. I do not want to go into the merits of what happened on Wednesday, and I do not want to go into the merits of the other important matters Deputy Dillon has raised, but Deputy Dillon has raised very important matters with regard to the now printed report of what was supposed to have taken place on the discussion of the election of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and personally I should like to have a little more time to look into it. When members of this House find themselves in the position in which we all found ourselves on Wednesday last, when Deputy Dillon particularly, on behalf of himself and Deputy Fagan, took up the attitude they have taken, then I think it is a matter of concern on every side of the House that we do go out of our way, if necessary, to provide an opportunity for exorcising those feelings at the earliest possible moment, facing the facts that have to be put here and seeing whether we can regulate our conduct in the future in a more satisfactory way.
The Taoiseach was really largely responsible for everything that has happened and I would appeal to him to realise that and to realise his responsibility to assist everybody in the House, to help the ordinary regulation of business here and to respect the plea made by Deputy Dillon this morning.
Before the Tánaiste rises, I would like to agree with Deputy Mulcahy and other Deputies who urge that the motion in Deputy Dillon's name be discussed to-day and that time be provided. There is no need for a rush to adjourn the business of this House. It is only a newly-elected Dáil, hardly sitting a month, and here we are rushing and curtailing business. A few days ago, I was deprived of my right to speak on an important Estimate, that for the Department of Agriculture. The curtailing of these Estimates to two hours, as the Dáil is going to retire for the next three months, is a disgrace.
That was an order of the Dáil. We cannot reopen it, surely.
I think there should be no rush and ample time should be given for discussion of the motion. It is very necessary that Deputies' rights be protected and I think the motion should be discussed, so that everyone can say what he wishes to say.
I am perfectly satisfied that Deputy Dillon is within his right in putting down this motion and asking for time to have it debated. I was present here on the last occasion when this whole matter arose and I want to say that, as one Deputy, I was not by any means satisfied with the way the thing was dealt with. If it were my case, I would have adopted the very same course as Deputy Dillon adopted on this occasion. I feel that time should be allowed, and allowed now, to have this whole matter dealt with. People throughout the whole of this State are talking about this incident and they feel that Deputy Dillon would be the last man to disobey the Chair.
The Deputy is entering into the realms of discussion on the motion now. What we are discussing is whether the Dáil should adjourn or not.
I am opposed to an adjournment, but I feel that Deputy Dillon is within his rights and I support him wholeheartedly.
The Tánaiste to conclude.
Under Standing Orders, the Government has the responsibility of deciding the order in which business will be taken in the House. For the remainder of the session, the Government has the advantage of securing the unanimous consent of all Parties, through their representatives on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, for the regulation of business. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges decided that the Dáil should not meet on Fridays. As a corollary of that decision, it was agreed that we should meet from 10.30 until 5 on Thursdays. There is no foundation for the suggestion that, in reaching that agreement, the committee was solely concerned to facilitate the Government. The Government certainly did not use any pressure to secure that agreement, which represented, so far as we know, the desire of all Deputies, as expressed through their representatives.
It is, of course, open to a Deputy to move that the Dáil should meet on Friday. We do not think that is necessary. If that motion comes to a vote, we will vote against it, but if the House wants to meet on Friday we will accept its decision. I want it to be understood, however, that that does not mean that this Motion No. 3 on the Order Paper will be taken to-morrow. It was agreed at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges that time for the motion would be allowed before the end of the session. We are prepared to allow Government time for its discussion on Tuesday and we think that is a reasonable arrangement.
Would the Tánaiste indicate why it is not permitted this afternoon?
There is a multitude of reasons. We think that the proper ordering of public business, the convenience of Deputies who have been led to believe that business would be taken in a particular order, is more important than Deputy Dillon's desire to exploit his nuisance value here.
That is a nice definition of a motion regarding privilege.
We do not propose to alter the order in which public business is to be taken.
The Tánaiste has given a definition of a motion on privilege.
There is no question of privilege. It is a motion as to whether we should meet on to-morrow or not. Personally, I think the Deputy will be in better form on Tuesday—it is nearer the full.
Nearer what?
The full of the moon.
A Deputy
That is very nice.
With regard to the suggestion that the Official Report of the Debates has been improperly interfered with, I understand that that is a matter for you, Sir. These reports are in your charge and I am quite certain that you would not permit anything improper or irregular to occur. As the suggestion has been made, I have no doubt you will look into the matter.
The Taoiseach inserted words.
The position, as far as the Government is concerned, is that we have adopted the Order of Business which has been agreed, so far as we know, unanimously by all Parties. We propose to adhere to it. If the Dáil wants to meet to-morrow, it can so decide. We will vote against the proposal that we should meet tomorrow—in accordance with the agreement made with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. If the decision is otherwise, then the Dáil will meet— not, however, to take Motion No. 3.
The motion is:—
That the Dáil on rising this evening do adjourn until Tuesday afternoon at 3 o'clock.
Motion put and declared carried.