Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 1 Sep 1961

Vol. 191 No. 16

Electricity (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1961. - Allocation of Time: Motion

I am advised by you, a Cheann Comhairle, that a motion of this kind is desirable under the Rules of Order of the House and, on that understanding, I move:

"That the business of the Dáil at its sitting on Friday, 1st September, 1961, shall be proceeded with as follows, namely, in the case of the Electricity (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1961, the proceedings on the five Stages thereof and on the Money Resolution in Committee on Finance and on Report in connection therewith, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at 5 p.m. on Friday, 1st September, 1961, by putting from the Chair forthwith and in due order the Questions necessary to bring them to a conclusion: Provided that after the said hour on the said day a Question shall not be put from the Chair on any amendment (save an amendment set down by the Government, and the question on such amendment shall be in the form, That the amendment be made), nor upon any motion other than a motion necessary to bring the proceedings forthwith to a conclusion and then only when moved by the Government."

May I say that, in so far as this motion contemplates bringing to a conclusion the business in the Dáil at 5 p.m., I am quite agreeable to changing that hour to any hour the House may consider suitable. I have requested the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad to convene the Seanad at 5 p.m. but I am sure the members of the Seanad would oblige us by adjourning to a later hour if there was any desire to protract the proceedings of the Dáil beyond 5 p.m. On the understanding that this motion is necessary, and indicating my willingness now to insert any hour to which the House is agreeable, I move it.

We have no particular reservation in respect of the hour of 5 p.m., though, of course, we may be happy to extend the hour if the view is generally held that it should be extended. I should like to direct the attention of the Taoiseach to one item in the proposed notice of motion which provides that no amendment other than an amendment submitted by the Government may be put to the House after 5 p.m. If, having secured the legislation sought, the Taoiseach were prepared to requisition the Ceann Comhairle to summon the Dáil at an early future date, if responsible elements in the House desired amendments other than Government amendments to be considered, we would accept that arrangement.

Suppose an amendment were put down and the general debate carried us to 5 p.m., as specified here, this amendment could not be considered if it originated from this side of the House, from any source other than the Government. We should like an assurance from the Taoiseach that, should that situation eventuate, he would be prepared to requisition a further meeting of the House to consider an amending Bill to the Bill the House will deal with today in order that amendments which had not been disposed of today could be discussed at leisure after the essential legislation was made available to the Government.

I have no difficulty at all in giving the Leader of the Opposition that assurance.

I do not know what is operating in the Taoiseach's mind in regard to the time limit. As far as we are concerned, we do not want any time limit at all. Does this provision necessarily mean that no amendments will be accepted?

No. This motion is in the standard form used on some previous occasions. My understanding of the provision is that it is to ensure that any amendment arising out of the course of the debate which appeared to be generally acceptable can be moved, notwithstanding the limitation on the time. The purpose is to facilitate the House and to ensure that this measure will be amended, should that situation arise, in accordance with the wish of the House.

But this motion permits us to conclude at 5 p.m., in any case?

We could not agree to that.

I support Deputy Corish. I think it would be absolutely outrageous to ask the House to accept the closure of this debate at 5 p.m. in a matter of such paramount importance.

Would the Deputy speak a little louder? We cannot hear what the Deputy is saying.

That is a matter of opinion. We are being asked now to limit discussion on legislation, on a Bill the contents of which we do not yet know. If we are to have any limitation on discussion, we should at least know the provisions of the Bill upon which that limitation is being put. I suggest that the Taoiseach should either allow us to see the Bill and consider it or else have no limit on the time for discussing the Bill. We are in the dark in this matter and I do not think we should be asked to agree to something about which we have absolutely no information.

May I put a point of view? We are to finish this discussion at 6 p.m. this evening.

There are 147 Deputies in this House. If there are a few lengthy speeches, what happens? Not more than a dozen people may participate in this debate on a piece of legislation which, I anticipate, will try to set a new historical precedent so far as freedom of action on the part of trade unions is concerned. It is a bit thick, to say the least of it, to try to get all that over in a matter of six hours, with a full House. I understand a request was submitted to the Taoiseach by the Labour Party that he should consent to an adjournment after the Second Reading speech so that Deputies might see the Bill and consider it. Deputies have not yet seen the Bill. If we have an adjournment after the Taoiseach's speech—I presume it will be a comprehensive one—and yet finish the Bill by five o'clock, then this looks to me like panic legislation. I do not think the Taoiseach should press for a five o'clock closure. Nothing will happen today. If necessary, we can carry on tomorrow.

The House must take my word for it that the legislation is necessary. The national interest would be gravely prejudiced if we were to delay dealing with these proposals. With regard to five o'clock, six o'clock, or seven o'clock, I have no particular view at all on that, but, having regard to the view I hold in relation to the situation, I must press the House to give some arrangement which will ensure that the action contemplated will, in fact, be taken today.

We do not as yet know whether this Bill is the responsibility of the Taoiseach or of the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

I will move it.

Would it not be better if we heard the Taoiseach's statement before we determine these issues?

The proposal I make is that we dispose of this Bill in the terms of the Order. The Taoiseach has said that he does not propose to stand firmly on five o'clock; a later hour can be arranged. I understood the Taoiseach to give me an undertaking that if any responsible element feels there are matters in this Bill which require amendment or deletion, the Taoiseach will requisition a further meeting of the House in the immediate future to consider these proposals, at which stage every aspect of this legislation can be debated at length and in detail. All that I understand is sought today is that a decision in general principle be taken to place certain powers in the hands of the Government without any limitation on this House's power to call them all in question again at the earliest possible date and, if necessary, to move that they be withdrawn from the Government by appropriate amendment.

On that undertaking, as I understand has been given me by the Taoiseach, I think that is a reasonable arrangement in the circumstances in which we find ourselves and with a full sense of responsibility and recognising grave matters may arise, we are prepared to support that arrangement. We do so on the understanding that this House will have full and ample opportunity of discussing every aspect of this Bill and, if need be, seeking to enact amending legislation to withdraw from the Government any power they may have received today. On that undertaking, we are prepared to dispose of this business today at a later hour than 5 p.m. if the House thinks that is desirable, but, in my judgment, the important thing is the clear understanding that the House can meet again and discuss this legislation in detail without a limit of time and with complete freedom to withdraw from the Government any power they may have received under the Bill today.

The Labour Party do not subscribe to that attitude. What, in effect, the Taoiseach wants is a Bill to be passed by the Dáil today and the Seanad this evening which will have the force of law as soon as it is signed by the President. His offer after that is that if any member of the House thinks that that Act of Parliament should be amended, he is prepared to reconvene the Dáil. The attitude of the Labour Party is that if there are any amendments to be moved to the proposals now to be introduced, they must be introduced while the proposals are under discussion.

It has been conceded by both the Government and the Opposition Parties that unlimited time will be made available on subsequent stages, if that is needed.

For discussion of amendments.

No; there is no amendment.

My proposal is quite clear, that the business should be disposed of and that the House, if necessary, should sit again in the immediate future to discuss amending legislation proposed by any responsible section of the House designed to withdraw from the Government any powers they may have received today, which amendments can be debated at length and determined by the House in its own time, and that there should be no delay in arranging for that debate in those circumstances.

That does not meet Deputy Norton's objection to the fact that 5 p.m. places a limitation on Second Reading speeches. There are Deputies who may wish to make speeches which, in deference to other Deputies, they may have to curtail in order to allow each Deputy to have his say. Would it be possible for the Taoiseach to open the debate, to let the debate continue until 5 o'clock or any hour he sees fit and at that stage to decide whether the debate should be concluded? Then Deputies would know what the legislation was and the Taoiseach would know how the debate was going.

I am quite prepared to meet any reasonable request that comes from any side of the House. However, in view of the character of the situation the House has been called to deal with, it is necessary we should reach a decision today. The nature of the proposals which I have to make to the Dáil will not, I think, lead to the situation which Deputy Dillon contemplates but if such a situation should arise, I am prepared to meet any request that is made from any responsible Party in the House. I suggest the House should agree with this motion. If subsequently during the day it should appear that further time for the discussion of the legislation which will be put before the House could reasonably be asked, subject to the completion of the business of the House today, we can by agreement modify the motion at that stage.

Would the Taoiseach consider making a Second Reading speech of a persuasive character in the hope that it might create a climate affecting both sides whereby it might be possible to settle this dispute amicably without recourse to the extraordinary powers which I understand the Government are seeking in this Bill? That objective might be attained if the Taoiseach were to make a Second Reading speech today; if in the meantime no settlement is arrived at, the House could sit again next week. There is not now so much difference between both sides and the statement by the Taoiseach might very well help to create a situation leading to a settlement. I do not think the Taoiseach ought to denigrate his persuasive powers to such an extent as to insist on this Bill, if a very much less drastic method of dealing with the situation would achieve the same effect.

Deputies may be certain the Government would not have called the Dáil today if they were not convinced this was a very grave situation and that delay would be highly detrimental to the national interest. Deputies should not misunderstand the nature of the crisis the country is facing.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 91; Níl, 12.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Barrett, Stephen D.
  • Barry, Richard.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Blaney, Neil T.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Kevin.
  • Booth, Lionel.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breen, Dan.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Burke, James.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Calleary, Phelim A.
  • Carty, Michael.
  • Childers, Erskine.
  • Clohessy, Patrick.
  • Coburn, George.
  • Collins, James J.
  • Coogan, Fintan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Costello, Declan D.
  • Costello, J.A.
  • Cotter, Edward.
  • Crotty, Patrick J.
  • Cummins, Patrick J.
  • Cunningham, Liam.
  • Davern, Mick.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Maurice E.
  • Donegan, Batt.
  • Dooley, Patrick.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, William.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Donnell, Patrick.
  • O'Higgins, Michael J.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick.
  • O'Toole, James.
  • Egan, Kieran P.
  • Egan, Nicholas.
  • Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Fanning, John.
  • Faulkner, Padraig.
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Galvin, John.
  • Geoghegan, John.
  • Gilbride, Eugene.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Haughey, Charles.
  • Healy, Augustine A.
  • Hillery, Patrick J.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Hogan, Bridget.
  • Johnston, Henry M.
  • Jones, Denis F.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Kenny, Henry.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kitt, Michael F.
  • Lemass, Noel T.
  • Lemass, Seán.
  • Loughman, Frank.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • Lynch, Jack.
  • Lynch, Thaddeus.
  • MacCarthy, Seán.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • Maher, Peadar.
  • Manley, Timothy.
  • Medlar, Martin.
  • Millar, Anthony G.
  • Moher, John W.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
  • Rooney, Eamonn.
  • Russell, George E.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sweetman, Gerard.
  • Teehan, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Wycherley, Florence.

Níl

  • Browne, Noel C.
  • Carroll, James.
  • Casey, Seán.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Donnellan, Michael.
  • Everett, James.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • Larkin, Denis.
  • McQuillan, John.
  • Norton, William.
  • Sherwin, Frank.
  • Tully, John.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman; Níl, Deputies Casey and Larkin.
Question declared carried.

I think I am correct in saying that the Taoiseach made it clear that if in the course of the day, it appeared desirable to extend the hour of 5 o'clock, the Whips could meet and a proposal to that end would be generally acceptable.

Perhaps it might be a good idea if the Whips were to meet anyway at 2 p.m. or 3 p.m.

Leave to introduce granted?

Before the Taoiseach moves for leave to introduce the Bill would he consider an adjournment of the Dáil for one hour after his Second Reading speech so that Deputies will have an opportunity of reading the Bill, in the first place, and secondly, of considering his statement? He will appreciate that all Deputies have not yet had an opportunity of seeing the Bill and do not know what the proposals are. In all fairness, despite the fact that the Taoiseach says that it is a matter of urgency, Deputies should be given at least an hour to consider the proposals in the Bill.

I certainly would not find it possible to argue against a reasonable suggestion for an interval between the Second Reading and the Committee Stage of the Bill. Normally, I gather, the people who cater for our material requirements here do not like to see the Dáil adjourning in the middle of the day because it means everybody is seeking a meal of some sort at the same time but if a midday adjournment could be combined with Deputy Corish's suggestion, I would not be opposed to it.

What I suggest is not an adjournment after the Second Reading debate but after the Bill has been circulated and the Taoiseach has made his Second Reading speech. I do not think we should be concerned about the convenience of the staff of the House, in view of what the Taoiseach said in regard to this being tantamount to a national emergency. I appreciate what is in his mind but everybody should be prepared to take the rough with the smooth.

I would support the suggestion made by the Leader of the Labour Party. Nobody has seen the text of the Bill except the Leader of the Labour Party and myself, through the courtesy of the Taoiseach. Other Deputies have not seen it and I think it is a reasonable proposal.

Would the Deputy require an hour?

Yes, an hour.

Half an hour.

Three-quarters.

This, I suggest, introduces the appropriate spirit into our deliberations and I think we should seal the proposal without further ado——

——without setting an example to other people——

On a point of order. I take it that it will be the right of any Deputy to move an amendment on the Second Stage of the Bill? We have not seen the Bill.

We are bound by the terms of the motion.

Certainly, but——

Surely I am entitled to move that this Bill will not be operative until next year?

Top
Share