It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 4, 11 and 7. Public business will not be interrupted to take PrivateDeputies' business. The Dáil, on adjourning to-day, will adjourn until Tuesday, October 20th.
Order of Business.
Is it not possible to include No. 9 in the business? The Minister will agree that it is desirable that we should dispose of No. 9. It was added to the business provisionally ordered for to-day. So far as this Party is concerned, we have indicated already that we are quite prepared to co-operate in any reasonable arrangement to deal with No. 9. The delay in dealing with the matter becomes all the more objectionable when one considers the terms of the Government's letter of 25th January, 1952, now more than a year and a half ago.
If I might intervene on that particular point, I do not want to be taken as raising the controversial matter that Deputy Sweetman has just mentioned—a matter which was in fact fully considered by the Select Committee—but I would suggest to the Tánaiste that he should order No. 9. It may be possible to have the Bill as introduced, together with its ministerial amendments, dealt with to-day and there could perhaps be general agreement that the other amendments should stay over until we get an opportunity of considering the particular matters in greater detail after next October. If the Minister will agree to order it, it may be possible to deal with it before the Dáil adjourns.
The Minister for Justice informs me that he has been told quite a number of important questions will be raised during the Committee Stage discussion, questions affecting the jurisdiction of the courts and so forth, upon which he would not wish to take a decision without giving the proposals very full consideration. There is, therefore, no prospect of getting the Bill passed, as suggested, without having these matters raised.
I appreciate the difficulty with which the Minister isfaced. The matters involved are important but if the House would agree to defer the amendments that have been put down and pass the Bill as introduced by the Minister, with the deletion of Section 12 and the addition of the ministerial amendments now circulated, I think we could deal with the Bill. In that way we would be able to dispose of the Bill.
Agreement to defer the amendments was not unanimous.
Is it not a fact that the only amendments in question are the amendments put down by a Deputy of the Minister's own Party? Let us be quite clear that it is a member of the Minister's own Party who objects to the Bill going through in the manner indicated here on the last occasion.
There is more than one member involved.
There is only one member's name on the Order Paper. Even in a protracted Committee Stage debate in October it would be undesirable, as Deputy Costello indicated on behalf of our Party, to deal with many of the problems that exist in the way an ordinary Committee Stage debate would necessitate. It would be far better if there was reconsideration of those problems outside of this House first of all, so to speak, and in the meanwhile the other matters can be disposed of, particularly since the Minister indicated at the close of the Second Reading that he was prepared to delete Section 12 which deprived a prisoner of the right to elect to go to the Central Criminal Court.
The Deputy will understand that Deputies irrespective of the Party to which they belong, may feel that they have here a Courts of Justice Bill which gives an opportunity for making the changes they think desirable. If they let the chance pass it may not occur again very quickly. Consequently they feel the chance should not be allowed to pass without pressing their points.
This is a democratic Party.
Adjournment ordered accordingly.