Vol. 279 No. 8
I move:
That the Order for the Second Stage of the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Bill, 1974, be discharged and that the House give leave for the Bill to be withdrawn.
If this is agreed it is proposed to reintroduce the Bill tomorrow in the Seanad and to circulate it.
On a point of order, arising out of what the Minister has said, it would appear that item No. 30 as on the Order Paper is not an order to discharge the Bill but is the motion for the Second Stage, in other words, that the Bill be now read a Second Time.
What the Minister has moved is a motion for an order of discharge. No notice of this has been given, as is required by Standing Order No. 28, which provides that four days' notice or, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, shorter notice, be given, but that in both cases the notice shall be in writing. The index to Standing Orders, at page 135, sets out a number of cases where no written notice of a motion is necessary but this instance is not included. If I may, I shall go through these briefly. They relate to such matters as the election of a Ceann Comhairle, the first meeting of the Dáil subsequent to a general election, the appointment of a Member to act temporarily as Ceann Comhairle, a motion to sit late, a motion to suspend a sitting, a motion to suspend a Member, a motion to discharge an order suspending a Member, closure of debate, to exclude visitors and the Press, to take Private Members' Time on a Tuesday or Wednesday——
Is this necessary?
I am indicating the motions in respect of which it appears that notice does not require to be given in writing.
In this instance no notice is necessary and there are many precedents for it.
I would submit that, under Standing Order No. 28, notice is necessary but that, with your permission, notice shorter than four days may be given. The reason I am raising this is that Members of this House might wish to have an amendment put to the motion which has been moved and we are entitled to two days' notice to enable us to table an amendment. We are all in favour of the withdrawal of this Bill from the Dáil provided it is not being reintroduced in any other House. We have no wish to oppose the motion for the Bill's withdrawal if that is to be the end of it but at least we wish to put an amendment to the motion if it is proposed, as appears to be the case, to reintroduce the Bill in the Seanad.
Because we have received no notice in writing, as required by the relative Standing Order, we are not in a position to put down the amendment. Therefore I ask that, in accordance with Standing Orders, you request the Minister to put the motion on the Order Paper so that the matter could be dealt with next week and that the House would have the opportunity of considering whether it wishes to put down an amendment.
It is a question of whether the matter is to be opposed today.
It is difficult to oppose a motion which we have never seen in writing and the first of which we heard was when the Minister moved it verbally. Standing Orders allow two days for the tabling of amendments to motions. The view of this party is that we would be anxious to table an amendment which would be agreeable to the withdrawal of this Bill from the Dáil but which would oppose its reintroduction in the Seanad. We would wish to have the opportunity of tabling an amendment to that effect and to have the matter discussed. It is a motion that can be passed only by the House. We regard the Bill as being of considerable importance. We were glad to see that it was proposed to withdraw it from the Dáil but we are not happy for a number of reasons which I shall not go into now that it is proposed to reintroduce it in the Seanad.
I would draw your attention again, Sir, to the fact that Item No. 30 on the Order Paper which was called on the Order of Business is the motion for the Second Stage of the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Bill, 1974 and that that motion would be to the effect that the Bill be now read a Second Time. A different motion has been proposed by the Minister for Justice. This should have been put in writing. We would like an opportunity of tabling an amendment to the motion.
The Deputy would be in order in moving an amendment now but he must appreciate that a motion to bind the other House in any way would not be in order.
We would not seek to bind the Seanad but should we agree to the Bill's withdrawal—and we would do that gladly—it would be on the assurance that it would not be reintroduced in another House.
Am I to take it that the motion in the name of the Minister for Justice for the discharge of the Order is agreed?
On a point of order, apart from the matter raised by Deputy O'Malley, it seems that under Standing Orders the only way in which this motion could be dealt with now is with your permission. Can the Chair say whether he consented, as provided in the Standing Orders, to the introduction of this motion at this time without notice?
The Chair has always allowed such motions to be considered at short notice.
Must there not be a special reason for bringing in such a motion at such short notice?
There are many precedents for this.
It is only on matters of urgent public importance or some such thing attaching to a motion that would require it being introduced without the normal procedure of giving four days' notice. I should like to know if there is any urgency in regard to this matter, if the Government see any reason for this sudden introduction of a motion without the due notice which would enable us to bring in an amendment?
The Government consider this to be a Bill of extreme importance and because of the crowded timetable in this House it appeared that there might be some undue delay before it could be debated and put through all its Stages. In view of the fact that there would be more time available in the other House the Government felt that because of that and the importance of the Bill the other House was a more appropriate forum for its Second Stage.
May we take it from what the Minister has said that he would not see any great objection to introducing the motion he has put forward next week?
I am in the hands of the Chair as to the proper procedure for moving a motion to discharge. I understand that there is ample precedent for doing it in the way in which it is proposed today.
I submit that since Standing Orders specifically provide for notice, and also for short notice with the consent of the Chair, what is envisaged is, apparently, that in the normal way notice would be given but to meet emergency situations it can be dealt with at the discretion of the Chair. What we do not understand on this side of the House is the urgency or the emergency situation that requires this to be done without giving the notice specified in Standing Orders.
On a point of order, in relation to the precedents which the Chair indicated, were not all those precedents arising from a transfer by agreement?
I am not aware of transfers.
Would the Chair get advice on that matter?
As far as the Government are concerned this is an urgent and important Bill and to put it back even one week at this stage could prejudice its passage and delay its passage unduly. We are anxious that it would become law and the speediest way that can be done is by commencing it in the Seanad. It is for that reason that the motion is moved today and because we are conscious of its urgency and anxious to have it processed.
On a point of order, is the Chair ruling that the motion is in order?
The procedure is quite in order. It is a normal procedure.
If such is the ruling of the Chair we are firmly opposing the motion. The Minister has said that this is a matter of extreme urgency and that, apparently, even a delay of one week is something that the Minister cannot contemplate. To put it in its historical context this question of extra-territorial jurisdiction was mentioned in the Sunningdale Agreement and in the communiqué that issued from that agreement in December, 1973. Subsequently the Law Commission was established and they reported in April, 1974. The next we heard of any moves in this direction in this House was when the Bill was introduced on 28th November, 1974, almost 12 months after the Sunningdale Agreement. On that occasion the Second Stage was ordered for the sitting of this House on 12th December, 1974. The Minister now tells us that the matter is of such pressing urgency that even a further postponement of a week cannot be contemplated, but the facts speak for themselves.
Obviously, it is not just a question of pressing urgency in time that has activated the Minister or the Government to introduce this at this stage. It is the last surviving remnant of the Sunningdale Agreement but we are not opposing it on that basis though it was part of a package which no longer exists. We are opposing it because this Bill has very far-reaching consequences and many provisions which we regard as unworkable and, possibly, unconstitutional. To introduce legislation which goes to the very jurisdiction of the State other than in the Dáil is showing a lack of understaning, awareness and appreciation of the role of this House and of the directly elected representatives who constitute the membership of this House. It also shows a lack of awareness of the extent of the provisions and the consequences of the provisions proposed in this Bill.
Lest there be any misunderstanding and lest anyone endeavours to suggest that Fianna Fáil are attempting to do anything other than to deal with people who are guilty of crimes of violence I should like to make it clear that we have very firm proposals to be put forward as an alternative to this legislation. They are firm and workable proposals. We are very concerned for the peace and security of all of this island and for that reason we propose in view of the fact that this Bill is unworkable for many reasons that the only effective way of achieving the result the Government presumably have in mind would be an all-Ireland court with jurisdiction to deal with the offences throughout the whole of the island and authority and control over the police forces concerned. The only guarantee of fundamental rights in any situation is——
I accept that the motion for the discharge of the Order of the Second Stage of this Bill is now being formally opposed but I must advise the House that if a debate is to ensue the debate must be confined to the merits of the proposed move, the withdrawal of the Bill from this House and its introduction in the Seanad. That is the subject matter and I cannot allow a debate on the merits or demerits of the Bill.
When this was put on the Dáil Order Paper, because of our concern about this matter, we went to the trouble within the committee of our party to study this Bill in great detail and put forward what we regarded as being positive and responsible amendments to this Bill. If this motion goes through we will be deprived of that opportunity and the State deprived of the responsibility of our approach. The country will suffer if our proposals are not presented here which is the directly elected Assembly of this State. If we are not entitled to do that we have reached a sad state. This Bill goes to the jurisdiction of the institutions of the State. The Government, when 12 months have elapsed, inform the House that this is a matter of urgency and expect us to agree to their high-handed action.
We want to see human rights and human life, in particular, being protected and it is because we believe that this Bill cannot do that and that our proposals would ensure that it can be done properly and effectively by a proper court structure and proper supervision over the police that we oppose this motion. We are particularly concerned to guarantee fundamental human rights and there is evidence to suggest they are not being guaranteed or protected as much as they might be.
I should like to ask the Deputy to set the headline for the debate as to whether the Bill should be withdrawn from this House and transferred to the Seanad. That is the subject matter.
The Minister has said that this is being introduced in the Seanad to save time but in view of the facts I have given, the Minister is introducing this not to save time but to save face. This Bill would have to come back to this House anyway——
What is the Deputy worried about then?
We are worried about your attempts at concealment and your attempts to sell out to the British. That is what we are worried about and I will not be so mealy-mouthed about saying it as some people.
The Minister for Justice rose.
The Minister appreciates that unless Deputy O'Kennedy is giving way to him now he has the right to reply. I take it that the Minister is not availing of that right now.
I rise on a point of order. Deputy O'Kennedy's statement is going to the merits of the Bill and has nothing whatever to do with the motion before the House.
The Chair has ruled on that.
On a point of order, might I ask the Minister to tell us how and in what way the withdrawing of this Bill from this House and its introduction in the Seanad would in any way expedite its ultimate enactment by the Oireachtas? If the Minister could tell us that, we might begin to see what this is all about.
The reason, as I said, is that the business for this House is heavy. There is a lot of business awaiting discussion at various stages and it is extremely difficult to fit in this Bill, because of its importance and its far-reaching implications to which Deputy O'Kennedy has referred, and have it debated and completed within a reasonable time. It would then have to go to the other House and it seemed to me that the common-sense approach was to go first to the Upper House where time is available and have it processed in the Upper House and that it should then come back here, in the hope that by that time some of the log jam here would have been cleared and we could get it dealt with expeditiously. There is nothing more sinister in it than that. It is a matter of common sense.
On a further point of order, surely the Minister can see the illogicality of his approach to this matter since it must ultimately be enacted——
That does not seem to be a point of order but rather a question. The Deputy will be afforded his opportunity to contribute to the debate. There is a motion.
May I then ask what is the debate to be about? On what will the debate take place?
The debate will be confined to the withdrawal of the Bill from this House and its introduction in the Seanad.
May I then ask in what manner it is possible for a Deputy coming in here today to know that item No. 30 is not the item under discussion but that it is the withdrawal of that item?
It must be clear to the Deputy that the substantive policy involved may not be discussed. There may not be a Second Reading discussion of the Bill now.
I am not asking for a Second Reading discussion. I want to see the goddam Bill thrown out of the House because it should never have been introduced. This idea of common jurisdiction with a lot of thugs operating law on the other side of the Border—this is what we want to apply here. Just look at the things that have happened in the last couple of months and you will know what is going on——
On a point of order, since we are now debating a motion which has been verbally moved by the Minister, could I inquire if we can have a copy in writing so that we can consider an amendment? We are discussing the motion, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 28, to the effect that such a motion must be in writing. Could we now have a copy of the motion and we will put in an amendment?
On a point of order, I submit to you, with all respect, that there is no motion effectively before the House at all.
If there is no motion before the House, we can have no debate on the matter. If we are having a debate, could we have the motion we are debating? Standing Order No. 28 is explicit and I am sure that you, Sir, have read it since I drew your attention to it. It sets out that these motions must be in writing and on pages 132 and 133 of the index there is set out a list of the motions which need not be in writing and of which notice is not required. A motion to discharge a Bill is not one of them. Therefore, because it is not in this list of motions, if the Minister wants to move it, he will have to put it in writing. It is up to the Chair then to agree or not to agree whether he can do this on less than four days' notice, but we have not reached that stage yet as we have not got the motion in writing. If we had, we may well put forward an amendment. Can I have an answer from the Chair or other appropriate person as to whether or not we have the motion in writing and whether or not it has been or will be distributed to Members.
The position as far as the Chair is concerned is that the order for the discharge of the Bill is opposed and a debate is ensuing. The motion is that the order for the Second Stage be discharged and the Bill withdrawn.
While I do not disagree with the Chair's summary that the proposal to withdraw the Bill is being opposed, I put it to the Chair that there is no effective motion before the House to withdraw it.
May I refer to Standing Order No. 28 which reads:
All motions to be put on the Order paper for any day, shall be in writing, signed by a member and shall reach the Clerk not later than 11 a.m. on the fourth preceding day. Any amendments to such motions shall be in writing, signed by a member, and shall reach the Clerk not later than 11 a.m. on the second preceding day: Provided that, by permission of the Ceann Comhairle, motions and amendments may be made on shorter notice.
You will notice that the proviso at the end does not say that they may not be in writing and pages 132 and 133 set out nine, ten or more motions which need not be in writing and of which notice need not be given. This motion by the Minister was not in writing and no notice has been given of it. It is a motion to discharge the order for Second Stage and it is not included in that list, and I am respectfully pointing out to the Chair that the procedure now being adopted is not in accordance with Standing Orders and that until a written motion is put down and circulated, the procedure cannot be in order.
I assure the Deputy that the procedure is quite in order. This is not a motion—to be put on the Order Paper—it is purely a procedural motion.
It is a matter of more Government mismanagement.
Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Mr. Kelly) rose.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary making a point of order or a statement?
I understood that you, Sir, had ruled that this motion was properly before the House. Otherwise Deputy O'Kennedy could not have spoken as I heard him speak for almost ten minutes on the merits of the Bill.
Not on the merits of the Bill but on the merits of taking it here.
We are following the precedent laid down no later than three weeks ago when the Wildlife Bill was withdrawn without written notice. Secondly, although I realise that no particular point was made of it, it is not correct to say, as Deputy O'Malley said when the discussion opened, that the first they heard of this was at 4 o'clock this afternoon, because I did tell the Opposition Whip at the earliest moment I was able to reach him——
When?
About 24 hours ago. I told him that we intended to move today to have this Bill withdrawn from the House for the purpose of introducing it in the Seanad. To pretend it has been sprung on them is not fair.
May I submit to the Chair——
I have allowed the Deputy to rise on a number of occasions on alleged points of order. I now want to allow the Deputy in possession to proceed.
On a point of order, in view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, and for his recollection I would have the greatest regard, does he seriously expect the House and the Chair to accept that a happening three weeks ago which is not similar creates a precedent for this unusual situation today? In the other case, it was a matter of agreement but it is being regarded as a precedent for what is being done today. Does he seriously expect this House and the Chair to accept that a happening three weeks ago which was not similar creates a precedent for this unusual situation here today? The thing is daft; three weeks ago, one happening, by agreement, and it is regarded now as a precedent for what is being done here today.
In that connection, might I say that if the Parliamentary Secretary is implying that a Bill dealing with wildlife, which was withdrawn from this House by agreement, establishes a precedent for taking a similar step in relation to a Bill of this nature which goes to the very heart of jurisdiction of our institutions, of our courts, then I think, perhaps, it is a measure of how little the Government appreciate the significance of what it is they are endeavouring to do here today.
A Cheann Comhairle, it is implicit in what Deputy O'Kennedy is saying that the Seanad is somehow an unworthy forum. Judging by the standard of this debate so far, it would appear that the Seanad must be a far better one.
Chair.
Order, please.
Control the proceedings of the House, a Cheann Comhairle.
If I am allowed.
The Chair is letting the Minister away with this sort of tactic. It is most unfair.
It has been very obvious from the manner in which the Government have attempted to put down this motion that, in fact, it has been done in great haste for some reason best known and known only to the Government. We on this side of the House can have our own opinions as to why that is so. If the Minister is seriously trying to suggest to us here that a Bill which was, in fact, introduced in November is now a matter of such pressing urgency that not even a further week can elapse, then, of course, that just cannot be accepted, is not a fact and certainly does not commend the Minister's honesty or integrity in the manner in which he has presented it now. We are concerned for the responsibility we have, as the directly elected representatives of the people of this State, to ensure that we shall be the first people to express views on legislation of this nature which cuts into the very heart of our jurisdiction.
Let it not be suggested by anyone that Fianna Fáil have not been consistent because when it did come to taking steps we did so alone without very much assistance from the present components of the Government. Therefore, there can be no interpretation of that nature and I want to make that very clear. Our approach to this Bill, when it is introduced—as I hope it will be if the Minister now has second thoughts— in the first instance, in this House of the Oireachtas will prove that to be the case. Of course, it is a delicate time. We know it is a delicate time. It always has been a delicate time in this country over the past number of years, in the North of Ireland particularly. We are particularly concerned that nothing that would be done or said in either House of the Oireachtas would do anything other than heal wounds and promote peace. We would have wanted the opportunity to do just that in co-operation with positive institutions which will guarantee not just that people be punished for committing offences—and, of course that must be done—but also, and even more important, that people be protected in their fundamental human rights. That is what this Bill will not do. Our alternatives will do so.
Surely the Minister must recognise that if he is spokesman for his Government in this House, the least we would be entitled to is that our spokesman concerned in this would have the same right to express our view in this House as the Minister will have when he goes to the Seanad, if that is his wish. If the Minister wishes to do that, they have the votes on that side to try to do so. But let them know that in trying to do so, or in succeeding they are doing a disservice to the House, to the security of the State and indeed, to the very thing they may be pretending to implement, peace and order throughout the whole of this island. We firmly oppose this step. If they want to withdraw this motion, we are in favour of it or withdraw this Bill but not on the conditions the Minister announced subsequently of re-introducing it in the Seanad.
Mr. B. Desmond rose.
Before Deputy Desmond commences, Deputy O'Malley did ask earlier if we could have a copy of the motion so that we could consider whether we wished to put in an amendment. Are we going to receive such a copy?
Nobody seems to know.
Are we being refused a copy, Sir?
For your information, a Cheann Comhairle, if we had a copy we could actually submit an amendment.
While it is not usual in a matter of this kind, copies ought to be made available.
Hear, hear.
I am very happy to see that after a long struggle Standing Order No. 28 has been complied with and I congratulate the Chair on seeing that that has been done after 35 minutes.
Deputy O'Malley, lest the Deputy might misrepresent the Chair—I presume he does not intend to do so—the Standing Order which Deputy O'Malley quoted refers to motions to be put on the Order Paper required to be in writing. This is not a motion to be put on the Order Paper. I want to make that quite clear.
It cannot be. The Order Paper was printed last night, Sir.
This is a subsidiary motion to a matter already on the Order Paper.
On a further point of order, Sir, may I inquire whether a motion of this type is capable of amendment?
On a point of order, as indicated, this is now a subsidiary motion. I understood the Ceann Comhairle had already indicated that there was no motion. It is either a motion or it is not. If it is a subsidiary it is still a motion.
It became a motion.
And must be tabled.
Mr. B. Desmond rose.
Deputy Desmond.
Of course, there is the proviso in Standing Order No. 28:
Provided that, by permission of the Ceann Comhairle, motions and amendments may be made on shorter notice.
For that reason I would respectfully have to disagree with the Chair's observation that Standing Order No. 28 refers only to motions that go on the Order Paper the day before.
The Chair is conforming to the normal procedure.
There is nothing normal about it.
I will provide copies of this motion in a matter of minutes if the Opposition are serious in thinking that it would make any difference.
A copy has now arrived which reads:
That the Order for the Second Stage be discharged and that the Bill be withdrawn.
—(Minister for Justice.)
Is that what is before the Chair?
I do not think there is anything before the Chair at present. That is what is before me but I could lend back the Chair his copy.
I think this sneering at the Chair ought to be dropped.
On a point of order, might I suggest that, perhaps, the best way of making some headway would be for the House to adjourn for a very short period until this matter is considered?
The debate is in train as far as the Chair is concerned.
A debate on what?
"That the Order for the Second Stage be discharged and that the Bill be withdrawn."
The whole point that has already been conceded by the Chair is that, in fact, the procedure has not been followed even in the way he regards as normal.
Hear, hear.
The Deputy is clearly misrepresenting the Chair.
I am not, a Cheann Comhairle; far from it.
If that is the only motion before you and if the Minister says that is the extent of his intention, that he does not intend to introduce it in the Seanad—in other words, that it be withdrawn—we are very happy to see the end of this piece of legislation in any House of the Oireachtas. But if the Minister intends to reintroduce it in the Seanad—and I gather from what he says that he does so intend—then, of course, we must oppose it.
It is not in the motion.
Of course, this House cannot bar the Government in what it introduces in the Seanad or not.
Jackboots.
Does the Minister intend to introduce it in the Seanad?
With due respect to Deputy O'Kennedy he has made about 25 different contributions.
That is not true.
On this particular issue I wish the Opposition would make up their minds on what precisely they want.
On the one hand, the Opposition wish to see this Bill discharged.
Order, please.
The Deputy who sought to get in here so long finds it so unwieldy, having got in, he wants it changed to his own benefit.
On the one hand, the Opposition want to see this Bill discharged. It nows seems, as was quite evident earlier on, that there is no great opposition on the part of the Fianna Fáil Party to that course of action.
Of course, nobody believes the Deputy any more.
Would Deputy Gene Fitzgerald please desist from interrupting?
At long last after 40 minutes we have come to the magnificent understanding on the part of the Opposition that they are in agreement with a particular motion and we are profoundly——
What motion?
We only got it a few minutes ago.
Will the Deputy read the motion?
If the Fianna Fáil Party wish to oppose the motion, it is quite evident that they have one course of action open to them, and that is——
The motion is the motion I moved.
May I finish my contribution?
May I advise the House again of the motion? The motion is "That the Order for the Second Stage be discharged and that the Bill be withdrawn". Members will appreciate that there is no reference here to the Seanad at all.
The Minister did make reference to it.
If the Opposition would cease interrupting, I should like to make a point I wished to make earlier. The motion was introduced——
May I have some order, a Cheann Comhairle?
The motion was introduced by the Minister for Justice. I understood the Minister to very clearly indicate, as an aside—at the end of having introduced the motion—that it was his intention, and he merely made it by way of public announcement, not as part of the motion, to have the Bill introduced in the Seanad. Therefore, I am amazed that somebody who professes to have an erudite knowledge of Standing Orders and who was chairman of an informal Committee on Dáil procedure, namely, Deputy O'Malley, should rise to debate this matter and decide that, since his party did not particularly like the Bill, it should be opposed.
He had a very simple remedy. I see no reason why they cannot agree to this motion. They have discovered after 40 minutes of debate on the motion that they cannot oppose it. If they wanted to oppose it they could vote against it and make themselves look more stupid than they have been in the past 40 minutes. Looking around, there seems to be a gap of about 30 or 40 Deputies over there which would account for their prolonging this debate unduly. The Minister is quite within his rights in proposing that the Bill be discharged and it is open to him to exercise his discretion to move it to the Seanad. The Opposition are trying to have it both ways.
I should like to appeal to the Taoiseach to withdraw this motion and by that means obviate any further discussion here and set aside any irregularities. The Government could arrange to have it put on the Order Paper for next week, circulate it in the meantime in order that we may submit appropriate amendments. There is a naïve approach to this. We are told it is none of our business what legislation the other House may take. We welcome the withdrawal of this Bill from the Order Paper provided it is not reintroduced in the other House.
Stop posturing.
We are told that it is not the duty of this House to dictate what legislation the Seanad may or may not take, and, therefore, we may be precluded from submitting the amendments we would like to submit. In all the circumstances, I think the correct thing to do would be to adjourn this until next week, have it put on the Order Paper, circulate the motion, which I am convinced should, under Standing Orders, be circulated anyhow. Even though it is introduced at short notice here, it still should be in writing and circulated. I suggest in all sincerity that this matter should be adjourned until next week.
Might I, at this stage, say a few words?
On a point of order. Is the Minister purporting to conclude at this stage?
I might as well make my contribution at this stage.
I presume the Minister recognises he cannot conclude at this stage.
As far as the Chair is concerned the debate is under way and the Minister may intervene by way of submitting information, raising a query.
Could we have a motion put explicitly before us so that we shall know what we are talking about?
I shall repeat the motion I moved. It was a simple motion: "That the order for the Second Stage of the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Bill, 1974, be discharged and that the Bill be withdrawn."
On a point of order. The copy which was sent over to this side of the House is: "That the order for the Second Stage be discharged and that the Bill be withdrawn." That is not the motion which the Minister for Justice now says was moved.
I think this is reducing the matter to a farce.
The motion is quite simple and the Opposition, every last one of them, is well aware exactly what the motion is. The second point is that the Opposition want to run a mile from this Bill.
That is not true.
There have been at least three or four requests from the other side to the Government to withdraw this Bill in toto and give an undertaking not to reintroduce it. The Government are not prepared to give any such undertaking and are not prepared to withdraw this Bill from the Oireachtas. The Opposition know that it was pointless to make that request. They know that well, because Deputy O'Kennedy went on to talk about the consequences of not proceeding with it in this House but taking the initiative in the other House. There were two things implicit in what he said, one was that the debate in the other House would be in some way less efficient, deep or less worthwhile, and I consider that to be a reflection on the other House——
——particularly having regard to the standard of debate on this simple procedural matter.
You indicated, Sir, that the Minister would be entitled to intervene now to raise queries——
Or give some information to the House.
He has been doing neither. He has been commenting on what I have been saying. If he wishes to conclude he may do so, but he has neither been conveying information nor raising queries. The Minister has a right to conclude, but it is not his right to intervene and to conclude.
The Deputy is behaving like a child.
A request was made from this side of the House that this matter be adjourned for a week and put on the Order Paper next week. Would the Minister indicate his attitude to that?
I am opposed to that request and my attitude is that the debate can take place on this motion.
On a point of order. Could we put this debate in order by asking the Minister to do the normal thing, that is, formally move the motion before the House? Then we would know what he was talking about and nobody would interrupt him.
He did it three times.
No. Let him formally move the actual motion before the House. The Minister would thereby set the scope of the debate. Is that not a simple thing to ask?
I could not agree more, and that is what I did, a Cheann Comhairle. When you called Item No. 30, I moved the motion and the debate then opened. Deputy O'Malley talked about putting down an amendment that would seek to tie the hands of the Government as to what it would or would not introduce in another House, which, of course, was quite out of order. There was then a suggestion that I might withdraw the Bill altogether, and I have indicated that that is not the Government's intention. It was further suggested that I might postpone the debate on this motion for a week, and I have indicated I cannot agree to that suggestion either. Deputy O'Kennedy, who spoke at some length on the matter, criticised the motion on the grounds that it would in some way inhibit the debate on this very important measure. I am answering that criticism, because it implied that the other House would be a less worthy forum in which to commence this debate. I do not accept that, and this afternoon's proceedings prove my point. The other point he made was that the matter was so important that it should be debated in this House. It will be debated in this House and has to be debated here. It might be an advantage that it would come back to this House having been teased out and analysed in the other House. I take his point that this is the House where Members are elected by the people, but if it so happens that the amount of legislation being processed has so cluttered up the timetable of the House that it is not possible to get in this important Bill, then it is only common sense that it would be brought to the other House where there is time, and that it would come back here in due course. There is financial business before this House which has to be completed before a certain date. The Opposition do not want this Bill and are trying to use this procedural debate to get it withdrawn. The Bill will not be withdrawn, and I cannot agree to postpone this motion. It is a simple motion. An amendment to it would be quite daft because this House cannot bind the Government to what they introduce in the Seanad. It is a matter for the Opposition. If they want to oppose it they can do so.
Mr. Wilson has cracked the whip.
Nonsense.
I think that here we have a very serious constitutional matter. Here is an example of a resort to legal and procedural devices to defeat the proper and frank discussion, in the first instance, in this House of a matter of vital public importance. Incidentally, to suggest it was on a par with the Wildlife Protection Bill, as the Parliamentary Secretary suggested, is either a confession of a complete lack of realisation by the Dáil and the Government of the importance of what is involved in this, both constitutionally for us here, nationally for the country and for the minority in Northern Ireland, or else it is a despicable and a panic device to complete something that some people would prefer did not see the full light of day. I will answer Deputy Desmond first. Yes, we wanted this Bill out because we thought it was not the right Bill for this purpose and Deputy O'Kennedy has explained our attitude but we do not want it out as a result of a procedural device to facilitate political maneouvre on a matter of such vital importance. For that reason this motion is, in the first instance, objectionable and suspect. It is cleverly worded and I am surprised at the Minister, who is lawyer, walking into the trap. It was only because of Deputy O'Malley's tenacity that the Seanad was brought in at the end. If the Minister had not brought in the question of the Seanad I would be out of order in referring to it and I would simply have to accept that the Bill was being withdrawn.
I am entitled to ask this question, since the Minister has referred to the matter. What possible merit is there in taking the Bill out of this House, bringing it to the Seanad and bringing it back here? Where will time be saved? Can we not sit an extra day? I see time being filled in with Planning Bills and other Bills that are not of the same importance.
The Deputies can answer me if they like.
Order, please.
The substantive matter of the Bill now proposed to be withdrawn is of such fundamental national importance that it is entitled to precedence in this House and a priority in our consideration. There is not only a question of national importance but a question of national solidarity. There is no other issue I can think of at the moment, taxation, finance, or anything else, important as they are, that could split this country from top to bottom as this Bill could.
The Deputy would be a good judge of that.
I am and there are others who are. Perhaps it is a good thing to reflect on past experience. This is a matter of vital importance and the approach of this Minister, in particular, the very Minister, who, when he was in Opposition, took a particular view, if all the reports are right, on the famous night when this party were in Government passing a Bill to deal with these problems, is a very suspect maneouvre. He introduced a Bill in November which has been lying there since then. It is well known that we want it withdrawn because we have other proposals. Deputy O'Kennedy explained the attitude of this party. This Bill has been there since then, so why the sudden urgency? Who is pushing the matter? These are questions to which the House is entitled to have answers, quite apart from the fact that the Minister will be free to say what he likes in the Seanad without having to face the Opposition in this House.
What about Senator Lenihan and Senator Eoin Ryan?
That is a totally different matter. Let the Parliamentary Secretary keep to the wildlife.
Let the Deputies opposite wait until Jack comes back.
Deputy de Valera without interruption.
This is not a question of political polemics. There are deep constitutional matters involved in this. I will not go beyond what I said. I deliberately used the words "sell out to the British" across the floor of the House because that is what people will be thinking.
More propaganda.
The Minister, by his actions here today, is making the maintenance of solidarity and the solid national front to deal with the problems of violence, which I deplore as much as the Minister, and condemn as much as he does——
The Deputy could fool us.
——at the same time we should have regard to the facts. On 26th June last in a debate in the House I went into that matter and I was taken to task for it. However, I would like those people who took me to task then to read what I said. In summary, I repeat what I said then. It is not a question of solution of argument or of what we think. Facts and history work themselves out and one must have regard to facts and realities whether we like them or not.
More propaganda.
The Deputy is a master of propaganda.
It is not propaganda. It is the truth. If the Minister is under pressure it would have been much better if he came in here and told us frankly why he was and then he would get co-operation instead of bringing about the situation he has brought about. Therefore, without elaborating and keeping within the rules of order, on the question of the actual issue involved, the suggestion that this Bill is on a par with the Wildlife Bill is ludicrous but it does serve the purpose of a comparison of the actual importance of the matter that is before us, the importance for the State here, the importance for law and order, the importance for continuity, the importance for our relations with the North, the importance for the whole country, the importance for the Unionists in the North.
You have blistered everyone bar the million that are in the way and that is Fianna Fáil all over. Ireland stops at the Border for Fianna fáil, and always did.
The Parliamentary Secretary has not a clue.
Deputy de Valera should tell that to the editor of his newspaper. He writes enough about violence and in favour of it.
These things may hurt and they hurt me too.
Deputy de Valera without interruption.
I do not want to labour this point—on this motion it would be improper to go into details— beyond emphasising as strongly as I can the intrinsic importance of the subject matter, the disservice the Minister is doing in even provoking this debate here when he could very easily have dealt with the matter. There has been a Bill on the stocks since November. Then he comes in with what has all the appearance of a dirty trick. It has that appearance. I am sure the Minister does not intend that. If the Minister had courage and came in here and said straight out what the problem and the urgency is I am sure he would get the co-operation of the whole House with possibly one exception.
Passing from that vital point, I object to this motion. I am not going to fall for Deputy Desmond's slickness here. There is a distinction. Yes, we do want the Bill withdrawn but we do not want it formally withdrawn here as a device to slip through somewhere else and to get it round the corner.
The Deputy is playing politics.
The Deputy is and let us face what the Deputy is saying. We want the Bill withdrawn, yes, and to get down to realities but we do not want that same Bill withdrawn here and then brought around by the back door after you have all the rest of it and then coming in here after the commitments. We have had enough of that kind of procedure with the Finance Act. We have had the Minister for Finance bringing in a whole financial revolution in little steps, getting it through in steps before one knows what the next step is and committing us all along the way with something that we should have seen in totality, as I pointed out last night. Here is another device to make a joke of the House.
I am on the second leg. My first objection is on the grounds of national importance. My second objection is on the grounds of the wrecking of constitutional procedure and the further reduction of the Parliament of the people to the role of a rubber stamp and an electoral college. This House is now and I am afraid has long since been reduced to the stage of being merely an electoral college for a Government and then it is asked to rubber stamp everything that that Government brings in until that Government go out again. Here is another milestone in that deterioration. Here is the primary House, the directly representative House of the people and a matter of public importance is being filched away from it and is going around the other way. It is only another part of the same process, the same dismantlement of the democratic process that is going on here.
On another Bill I talked about doctrinaire socialism and socialist principles. This is another step of this doctrinaire approach which will not stop at that. The word "socialism" will quickly turn to another "ism" before it is finished. I am very serious and very concerned that this is just another move in the nature of the dismantlement of the democratic process.
I am putting these two important points before the House, not wishing to delay the House further on the motion. Having said essentially what is to be said on it, I would like even at this late stage to make an appeal to the Taoiseach, an appeal which Deputy Joe Brennan has already made. Can we not learn from our history? Can we not learn from the experience of democracy in our House? Can we not learn from all it has cost to set up a real democracy here and a real Parliament? Can the Minister for Justice not face the House? Can he not come in and stand there, not sit around at the side, and say to us, "This is our problem"? Can he not do that and can he not let the House then decide? Can he not let the process work?
It is in Article 15 of the Constitution. That is where you will find it.
We will get the Parliamentary Secretary a 12-bore for the wildlife. What I am trying to say here——
The Deputy is embarrassing the party.
I do not care whom I am embarrassing. The people must know. Muzzling this Parliament is one of the devices to prevent the people knowing. As long as I am in the Parliament I will try to see that that does not happen. That is what is involved. If the Parliamentary Secretary would allow me to talk in a more contemplative fashion, as I would like to, and not stimulate me to reply to him in his own idiom, we would get a little bit further. I do want to appeal to the Taoiseach. We understand the Government's problem.
You do?
An awful lot has gone in, and nobody knows better than the Taoiseach what has gone in to build up a Parliament here and to make it effective. In the last analysis, the Government that destroys the power and the support of the Parliament is isolating itself and putting itself in other power. It is depriving itself of support. It is not protecting itself. The Minister who tries to evade the House is not protecting himself. He is laying himself at the mercy of other forces and other influences. It is here where his strength should be and here where every Minister who is worthy of his office will find his strength. I have been a long time in this House now and when it came to a really serious issue——
We could not depend on your co-operation.
—— on those matters, although there were strong differences of opinion I do not think any Minister whether he was on that side or on this side can complain that the support he got from the House at the end was not effective support and that that support was not given. I see this as another sinister step in the dismantling of the democratic process, to the detriment of the people we represent. This is a move which will deprive them of information and ultimately a move which will deprive the Government of the support they should have. Whether this motion is or is not passed, this whole incident here today is a misfortune for which the Minister must take full responsibility.
He will complain. He will blame us. He will blame the Opposition. He is a clever lawyer. He will have all the answers. Let him reflect that in the last analysis he and nobody else is to blame. I regret it. It is bad nationally and it is bad for the House that all this should happen here today. I am disturbed personally that I have had to speak as I have had to speak. Following on the constitutional aspect apart from the national aspect, this highlights more than ever the need for this House to think about itself. Deputy Desmond is the author of a complaint about the Dáil and its procedures. It is a very interesting document.
I have more respect for it than the Editor of your newspaper has.
I would ask Deputy Desmond to consider how far the failings of this House are due to the evasion of the democratic process by those in power, how far they are due to professionalism in politics, and how far they are due to dogmatic approaches whether from the socialistic or any other point of view. What is being done today is, in essence, the type of thing Deputy Desmond complained about, the type of thing which is making democracy ineffective and taking business away from this House. In other words, the representatives of the people will be prejudiced. They will not be deprived because it will come back here anyway.
What is the Deputy complaining about then?
How many acts are done in between? There are devices. A lot can be done.
Such as?
The Deputy can give the answers. He is an expert on them. We want to warn against these devices. This motion is in many ways a dangerous precedent and a most regrettable manoeuvre. It would be futile to ask the Minister to withdraw it. The Minister should remember that what damage has now been done— and damage has been done—is his fault and solely his fault. Facing us and the country frankly and putting everything straight before the people, instead of this backdoor method, would have saved everybody embarrassment and would have prevented the scene we have had in the House today.
What about the £100,000?
The first thing I should like to observe in this debate, if debate we can call it, is that I am still rather doubtful whether there is any motion before the House. In fact, I wonder whether the House is properly in session at all. Since some such operation is proceeding as if there is a debate and, therefore, presumably some sort of motion is before the House which would originally have been introduced by the Minister when he was called on Item No. 30—of course, if he reneges on this I will accept his word—I clearly understood him to stand up and say, if not in actual words then in words understood by me to convey, that he wished to withdraw the Bill for the purpose of bringing it to the Seanad, and he went on further——
On a point of order, what I said was that if the motion were to be agreed it was my intention to introduce the Bill in the Seanad tomorrow and to circulate it. I indicated that on a point of information for the House.
My hearing must not only be bad but also my capacity to understand what has been said must be even worse. I should like to point out to the Chair on a point of order that, if this is the fact—and I accept that it is the fact—the Minister has now said that there was a proposal on being called on Item No. 30 that if there was agreement to the withdrawal of the Bill he would proceed to do so and would introduce it in the Seanad. There has not been agreement and, therefore, what he originally proposed cannot possibly be before the House, and has not been requested to be put before the House even by the Minister himself. Is this so or is it not, a Cheann Comhairle? This is a point on which I should like clarification. The Minister now asserts that on being called on Item No. 30 he indicated and proposed that if he got agreement on the withdrawal of the Bill he would proceed to do so and introduce it in the Seanad. He has not got agreement and, therefore, what is this about? Could I have something from the Ceann Comhairle on this because I am totally at sea in this matter at the moment?
Perhaps I might repeat it for the benefit of the Chair. As I now understand it, the situation as further clarified by the Minister is that on being called on Item No. 30 by the Chair he indicated to the House that he wished with agreement to withdraw the Bill and that he would introduce it in the Seanad. He did not get agreement.
On a point of order, I should like to make the matter perfectly clear. I moved the motion that the order for the Second Stage be discharged and that I would be given leave to withdraw the Bill. By way of explanation and for clarification for the House I then said that, if that were agreed, I proposed to introduce the Bill in the Seanad tomorrow and to circulate it.
A Cheann Comhairle, I am sorry to be taking up your time but the Minister has now again utterly confused the situation. He has now contradicted what he gave as a correction a few short minutes ago. What are we on if we cannot take what the correction was? It has now been further corrected. Are we back to where I started which is that the Minister wishes to withdraw the Bill so that he can reintroduce it in the Seanad.
Nothing has been corrected. I have repeated for at least the fourth or the fifth time the motion I moved when you, Sir, called Item No. 30 at 4 o'clock.
If that is so my recollection is quite correct, that is, that it would be discharged and the Minister would reintroduce it in the Seanad. That is what we are supposedly debating here at the moment. I submit absolutely and completely and vehemently that there is no motion before the House at the moment and that this is totally and absolutely contrary to Standing Orders and to procedure and precedent established over the years. Our continuing to take up the time of Parliament on whether or not the matter is proper, and whether it should or should not be discharged is totally at variance with Standing Orders and procedure and precedent established over many years. We are put into this dilemna: we are now being obliged to discuss something which is not and should not be before us and is not properly before us.
What has been said from the Fianna Fáil benches has been most welcome to me in that we now have from the Opposition, which is larger than any other party in the House, a clear indication that, despite any conclusion that may have existed in or around the time of the Sunningdale Agreement and the first public emergence of this proposed type of cross-Border legislation and cross-Border law enforcement, Fianna Fáil, the Opposition in this House and by far the largest party in the country, commanding by far the greatest percentage of voters and allegiance, are now four square against this for many reasons many of which they are not entitled to give in full detail here today because of this queer situation in which we find ourselves. We do not know whether we are in order or out of order, whether there is a motion before us or whether there is not. If there is a motion before us we do not know what exactly the motion is. The Minister has given three different versions of what he himself allegedly said at the commencement of these proceedings this afternoon.
I am delighted that the largest party in the House have now clearly on the constitutional, the national and in the interests of the minority of the Six Counties come out four square against the concept that was peddled during the Sunningdale Agreement which is culminating now in this type of Bill, which the House is now asked to discharge so that it can be brought in by the back door and all the attendant propaganda and the Government majority used to try to brainwash our people into an acceptance of something they in their right minds would totally reject, something that would cause them to revolt physically and wipe out any Government which would try to perpetrate this trick on them. Constitutionally the individual has no standing whatsoever as we have found recently. Whether it be a matter of public importance or individual personal importance there is no right under our Constitution as operated by our Supreme Court and our High Court to guard the individual. I instance the case that Kevin Boland took in the public interest, for which he has been hammered into the ground.
The Deputy is moving away from the motion now. The Deputy must keep to the motion.
The dilemma is what is the motion. Where is the motion? What is it about? Who can say what it is? There is no copy of a motion before us. There is nothing to which we can pin ourselves and when we ask we are given further explanations, for which I thank the Minister, but, unfortunately, his further explanations tend only to further confuse the utter confusion that started here at four o'clock this afternoon.
The motion is: "That the Order for the Second Stage be discharged and that the Bill be withdrawn."
That is not what is before the House. It was rather what was tendered to the House by the Minister in the first instance and he cannot now mend his fences by merely after hearing the objections of the Fianna Fáil Party spokesman to the procedure, avoiding the most objectionable part of it, which was the reference to its reintroduction in the Seanad, and that he did at five minutes past four. Let there be nobody under any illusions about it.
I say constitutionally we can write that off as far as the individual is concerned and I am delighted that the biggest party in this House opposes this, instancing the lack of constitutionality that lies within the proposed legislation because the individual has no right. He is blackguarded out of that right by punitive costs levied on him, designed to deter any individual, no matter how he may feel about any matter, from going to the courts to try to safeguard his interests or the interests of the community as a whole.
A party of the dimensions of the Opposition cannot be ignored and cannot be deterred and I, therefore, welcome on the constitutional submissions by the spokesmen for the Opposition their views in this matter because it is not with impunity that the Government can now proceed here in this House or in the Seanad with any measure of a nature such as that which they intend to bring in here for reasons best known to the Minister and the Government. It is now being backtracked and shoved in through the back door. Nationally, it would be a disaster if this particular legislation should ever see its way on to the Statute Book.
We are discussing only the motion before the House.
Certainly, and I am merely following what has been pointed out since we started here at approximately two minutes past four. The national, constitutional minority interests in the Six Counties have all been talked about already and what has been said is on the official record so I do not think I am going outside the bounds in referring to things that have already been discussed without any indication from the Chair that the points raised were out of order. I say that with no disrespect to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle but merely in explanation of my point of view and I am putting my view on the record in furtherance of the point of view in relation to this matter already expressed by other speakers. That is why I say it would be a national disaster should we have this legislation in any form, whether it starts here or comes in through the back door via the Seanad, propagandised to the extent of brainwashing the public into an acceptance of it, confusing them to such a degree that they may be ready to accept something they would never contemplate in their sane senses, irrespective of what Government might be in office. I say a "national disaster" for the simple reason that the introduction of this kind of legislation, recognising a cross-Border operation in which we would have the RUC, totally discredited as they have been, and so accepted and branded down the years since 1969, becoming prime witnesses. The British Army in regard to whose role in the Six Counties even those most charitably disposed to the British occupation cannot accept——
The debate is confined to the merits of the motion before the House.
We do not have any terms of a motion.
The motion is: "That the Order for the Second Stage be discharged and that the Bill be withdrawn."
That is not what the Minister said when he stood up here at four o'clock.
The addition the Minister made in respect of the proceedings in the Seanad is something over which this House has no jurisdiction. The motion is as I have outlined it and nothing more. What happens in the Seanad is the business of the Seanad.
With all due respect, we are being muzzled here by the Minister for Justice, no doubt guided by his Government, to get this House——
I must insist on the Deputy confining his remarks to the motion before the House.
I do not mind what the Ceann Comhairle insists on. What I am insisting on is what is on the record of this House. At two minutes past four it was that this Order be discharged so that the Bill might be introduced in the Seanad.
Another cover up.
I have already explained to Deputy Blaney that the motion I moved was for the discharge of the Second Stage of the Bill and I went on to say, for the information of the House, that if it were agreed it was my intention to introduce the Bill in the Seanad. That reference was by way of explanation as to what would happen to the Bill. I think this matter has gone on far too long and I propose that the question be put.
Jackboot.
On a point of clarification, might I ask the Minister a question? The Minister is saying, as he has said a few times to Deputy Blaney, that if this motion were agreed it would be his intention to introduce it in the Seanad. May we take it from that that if the motion is not agreed it is not his intention to introduce it in the Seanad? He may take it from us that we will not agree the motion. In those circumstances may we take it that he will not introduce it in the Seanad?
Deputy O'Kennedy is making a ridiculous play on words. He knows it is a formula that if the motion goes through this House it will be introduced in the Seanad.
Is the Minister relying on a formula and is he suggesting seriously that he came here assuming we would agree on the motion?
This situation has been farcical since it began at 4 o'clock.
Sit down, Minister.
Deputy O'Kennedy, the Chair is on his feet. Therefore, Members standing will resume their seats.
Will the Ceann Comhairle insist on the Minister abiding by his undertaking, an undertaking that he now wishes to get out of?
Will the Deputy please resume his seat?
Who instructed the Ceann Comhairle after he left the House?
No one instructs the Ceann Comhairle.
The Minister says now that his words were a formula.
Order.
This is farcical. I moved a motion for the discharge of this Bill——
Is this a point of order?
Yes. I am trying to clear up the confusion, deliberate or otherwise, that has been created.
Is the Minister rising on a point of order?
Yes. I moved a motion for the discharge of the Second Stage and by way of courtesy to the House I indicated what would happen when the order was discharged.
The Chair is calling for order.
I said that if the discharge were agreed the Bill would be moved in the other House and that if it were not agreed, the Bill would still be moved in the other House.
By his interjection the Minister has bogged himself down further in the confusion that he has tended to create since he introduced this motion at 4 o'clock. As has been said already by another speaker, any loss of time or prestige that results from the Minister's mishandling of the situation—and I doubt that this was deliberate on his part but arose merely from lack of experience in the House —is of his own making. Having put his foot in it, he tried to mend the situation but then put his other foot in it and is so bogged down now that he does not know whether he is coming or going. What he has endeavoured to do was wrong from the start. It is not in accordance with the tradition or procedure of this House and, certainly, is contrary to Standing Order No. 28.
Where are we going in regard to this matter? This whole situation arises on a matter that will be ranted and raved about by the Minister and his supporters as further evidence of this Government's concern for law and order although their very exercise in this House is a total negation of the very roots of where law and order should come from, namely, this Parliament of the people. This Government ignore what does not suit them and when they find the going heavy, they change the wording so as to conform with something that might have been. They circulate this motion by way of note of which not even the Ceann Comhairle has a copy, much less the Members. As a matter of courtesy, we are entitled to a copy of the motion so that we might contribute to the debate. This is a disastrous effort in the working of democracy in the House. The Chair must realise that he, for as long as he remains in that position, and those who come after him, will look on this day as a black day——
There were blacker days.
There are 120,000 unemployed.
There is £100,000 missing and nobody can account for it.
——in so far as the control of the Chair in matters of this House is concerned.
On a point of order, I understood the Minister to move that the question be now put and that, therefore, the question must be put.
Am I to take it that the Minister moved earlier that the question be put?
Is the Chair under orders?
This is a guillotine.
In all fairness, is it in order for the Minister, at the commencement of a contribution from a Member of this House and after less than an hour-and-a-half having been devoted to this very important matter, important not only from the point of view of its content but of procedure, without giving any pretext of there being fair play in the House, have the temerity to rise and ask the Chair to closure the motion?
In respect of the motion that the question be put I am refusing the claim at present.
For the moment?
Yes.
For how long?
That is a matter for the Chair to decide.
This is an example of the liberal Government.
Despite the diversion tactics at which some Members of the Government are adept, namely, of creating a situation, worsening it and then blaming it on somebody else so as to get the Chair on their side to do their bidding, I wish to say these few words lest the Government may move more quickly than we might anticipate in an effort to bring to a closure this situation which, for them, is embarrassing. From a national point of view, if this matter is introduced and put on our Statute Books there will be at hand an immediate and clear recipe which will bring about that which has been avoided on this side of the Border for the past six years and out of which there will be no path, namely, the violence with all its resultant difficulties, hardship and sacrifice that is being experienced in the Six Counties.
I ask the Government whether that is one of the purposes of trying to enact this Bill. Are they desirous of extending the problems and the difficulties to this part of the country so that there may be justified on their part concerted action outside that which, clandestinely, they are doing now— trying to have their little say and to sell out to the British as is their wont and as has been their practice during many years past? Do we want a situation created by way of the Seanad in which some weeks from now there will be before us a proposal which may, after a couple hours of debate, be closured and pushed through? This is conceivable. Indeed, the ground for this may well have been laid by the Minister and by other Members of the Government who have been making the case that because of pressure of business in this House, the matter should go to the Seanad. It must come back here when it is bound to take up as much, if not more time, than it would take now. If there is to be a shortcut in the time devoted to this debate in this House, it can only be at the expense of the right of Members to contribute adequately to the various debates that such a measure might entail.
Can we have an undertaking that there will be no closure if this device of going round by the back door so as to come back here again is used? Will we get an undertaking that there will be no curtailment on debate ultimately? If there is such an undertaking how can there be a justification advanced by the Minister for Justice that it will save time? Time cannot be saved in that way. I challenge the Government as to what this device is being used for? What is the purpose and motive underlying withdrawing this matter which up to now has not been urgent in any degree? Far from it, it has been lying on the Order Paper for weeks and was in the air for a year but now we find that there are not even days to spare to go through the proper procedure of written notice.
What are the Government up to? Why is this happening? Who is putting the finger on the Government and for what purpose is the finger being put on? Are the British Government telling our Government what to do as I assert they told the Fianna Fáil Government what to do in 1970? It is because of my knowledge of what happened then and the British Government's role that I suspect and fear that the real purpose and motive behind the urgency now, and the backdoor methods of enacting this, is because the British Government have the thumb on this Government.
As they had on Fianna Fáil.
Are we ever to get away from the time when the British, whether on this side of the Border or the occupied side of the Border, are going to call the tune behind the scenes and let somebody else take the rap for it. Is that what is in question now? If it is then, as Deputy de Valera has indicated, the Minister would do better service to his Government and his country to say that he wants to take the legislation through the Houses of the Oireachtas because he is under pressure from the British Government to do it. If he did that there would be some merit in getting on with it even by those who oppose it but there is no merit in the arguments advanced by the Minister. They are so lacking in conviction that they would be laughable were it not for the fact that they concern a very serious matter.
Can we envisage a situation where we are going to have the SAS as witnesses in our courts on this side of the Border or the RUC, SIB or British army personnel in their various forms? Can we envisage them telling some of our chief superintendents that so-and-so is a member of the IRA in the Six Counties and then our chief superintendent informing the court that he believes that person is a member of the IRA with the result that he is sent "up the river" for a year? Are we mad? Are we stark raving mad to contemplate anything as daft as this? Are we so mad that we are now going to allow it to be brought in and propagandised through the big majority of the Government in the Seanad? The two Houses of the Oireachtas are complementary and the Seanad has always been looked upon and justified in regard to its continuing existence as being the place where a second thought and a second look can be taken at legislation before it is returned to this House for further consideration and due deliberation, but on the second time round.
This has been said on many occasions but in this case one of the most dangerous and important pieces of proposed legislation already on our Order Paper is being taken off and introduced in the Seanad. This is a crazy and a dangerous situation and one for which we have received no explanation that stands up for a second. Can we consider the impact that the passage of any such legislation, no matter which form it takes, can have? We should think back to the most recent indication of how abhorrent any such legislation would be to our people. We all read about Lord McDermott's recent verdict which was to the effect that the British army can do no wrong, not even murder. Apparently they can do no wrong even if they take a man out of his house, move him to a field and shoot him in front of his father. Are we prepared to have that?
The Deputy is getting away from the motion before the House.
What about Fox?
You people should ask yourselves, "what about Fox"? If the Deputy went to Monaghan and asked that question he would get his answer. The Deputy should not be throwing that red herring across my path.
"That the order for the Second Stage be discharged and that the Bill be withdrawn", is the motion before the House.
This Bill is an abhorrent proposed piece of legislation. The indication given by the Minister was that it was being discharged from this House so that it could be speeded up in the other House. That is dangerous and it is an appalling instance of the Government being influenced and dictated to by some power outside this House. This House is being blatantly ignored. Its Standing Orders, procedures and precedents are being ignored in the manner in which it is proposed to do this bidding of the foreign power whose bidding we have been doing for far too long.
On a point of order, since business changes at 6 o'clock I should like to repeat the motion I moved: "That the question be now put."
I have to accept the motion at this stage.
The question is: "That the question be now put."
On a point of order, I do not know what the Ceann Comhairle said.
Is it in order for a Member to move an amendment?
I have already intimated to the Deputy's colleagues that it is out of order. This House has no power to interfere in matters appertaining to the Seanad. A division has been called. I can hear no further points of order at this stage.
I should like to know what went on from the time I sat down and the Minister rose up to now. I did not hear a word the Minister said.
The question has been put and a division has been challenged.
If the proposal is that there should be a closure, what is the date of the closure?
I want to move publicly an amendment in the name of the Fianna Fáil Party to add to the terms of the motion, that the Second Stage be discharged and the Bill be withdrawn, the words "and not reintroduced in Seanad Éireann". I formally move that amendment.
That amendment is out of order and I have already informed the Deputy's colleagues of that.
On a point of order, what is it that the Chair has put before the House? I did not hear a word of what went on.
A division is now in progress and I can hear no further points of order.
A division about question be put.
That the question be put.
That what question be put? No question has been put. There is no point in the Chair making a mockery of the House. An absolute mockery is being made of this House. We do not know what the division is about and I wonder if the Chair knows. Did the Chair hear what the Minister had to say? I did not hear the Minister or the Chair and I do not know what is before the House. This is the end in so far as order and procedure in this House is concerned and the Chair is a party to the perpetration of the situation. This matter should and must be considered further and cannot be abrogated by the Chair or by the Minister saying they will have no more discussion. It is a scandal if this is the case and the Chair must be totally misled if he believes he is serving the interests of this House by behaving in the manner he has by giving way to a Government whose law and order precept is: "Do as we wish you to do and if you do not we will make you." That is what is being done and the Chair, wittingly or unwittingly, is a party to it and does not give us the opportunity of knowing what is going on.
We did not hear a word of what was going on but we are told now that the motion is being put. This is a scandalous travesty of the rights of Deputies and the Chair should tell the House why he condones that sort of operation and allows the Government to dictate to him on a matter as important as this, a matter which has a doubtful beginning and a doubtful origin. It is a motion which in all essence was never properly before the House. The Chair has not dealt with that. The Chair is blatantly ignoring the rights of the House and ignoring its role of referee in the middle to give fair play and, in fact, is helping the Government to perpetrate their will on this House by whatever device they choose to adopt, regardless of Standing Orders.
The Deputy is out of order.
This is the situation, a situation so intolerable that if that is the way the Chair wants it, I can warn the Chair and this House that so far as I am concerned, instead of being as I have been down the years a person who has never had to leave the House in a quarter of a century I will obstruct every item every hour of every day. I warn the Chair and I hope that Deputies over here will do likewise because of the treatment of Members of the Opposition here through the Chair. It is a disgrace and a scandal and something the House will regret, and not the least to regret it will be the man responsible for the order of this House, the Ceann Comhairle. The Chairman of this House is a lackey of the Minister as displayed here today and is doing no service to the House, to Parliament, to democracy or the preservation of order or procedure in the future. Give the Government their way and you will live to regret it and will have call to regret it from outside in the not very distant future—no fairness, no justice and no opportunity being given for fair debate in the House. I want the House to be fully alive to the fact that we are being blackguarded and straitjacketed by the order of the Chair, at the behest of the Minister and the Government, in a manner which was never contemplated, should not be tolerated, and which will have its repercussions so long as this Chairman and this Government remain in office which I hope in both cases may not be very long, even though the alternative might not be all that attractive either. The Chair on this issue does a disservice to the very essence of order and his role will go down in history as the beginning of the end of orderly procedure in the House.
The question is: That the question be now put.
As a matter of interest in regard to the procedure, I was outside the doors and I heard the bell ringing for a division. Was a division called?
Yes.
Who challenged a division?
Somebody on the Opposition side—Deputy O'Malley, I think.
There was no division challenged from this side. I was on my feet endeavouring to hand in an amendment to the motion. We did not challenge a division at that stage—nobody did.
The question is: That the question be put.
I have never known a division to be called by the Ceann Comhairle without putting the motion.
I put the question and it was challenged. Unless tellers are provided, I must declare the question carried.
The Chair would not give us an opportunity of knowing what was going on.
Do you propose to put the question?
The question has been put.
When Deputy Brennan rose, you were putting the question to the House——
I was telling him what had transpired.
You did not give the result.
If you put the question now——
I put the question that the question be now put. It was challenged and the division bells rang. A vote must now ensure and if tellers are not provided, I will declare the motion carried.
I understand you to say that you put the question that the question be now put and it was challenged and the division bells rang. It was not challenged from this side of the House.
It was.
The fact that the bells rang is no proof of anything.
Who challenged it?
Deputy O'Malley.
I wanted simply to clear that point. There is no reason why you should not put it now, but we certainly disagree with what you say, that it was properly put before.
It was put before.
I ask you to put it now.
The division will proceed. The question has been put.
I sat down at the request of the Chair, as is proper, when the Minister got up on a point of order. Subsequently Deputy O'Kennedy came up with a point of order and, before I knew where anything was, having given way to both of these, I find the question then being put. If that is the way the Chair wants to behave, the rest of us know how to behave towards the Chair in future. It is a scandalous travesty and an absolutely disgraceful performance.
In the interest of the order of the House, if the Chair would put the question now, we can express our opposition to it.
That is already done.
If the procedure of the House is to mean anything——
I will repeat it at the normal time, just before the vote takes place.
Can we have it on record that Deputy O'Malley, who allegedly challenged the division, was not even in the House?
He is not there now.
While he is here now, he is not in the arena and is not in it properly yet because he is behind the barrier. If you are not in the ring, you cannot fight. The Government and those people have the complex that they do not want to hear what I have to say and that is why this was stopped in the middle.
On a point of correction, to maintain some order in this House, though no division was challenged, we will now move as if it had been challenged.
It was not challenged.
I am now putting the original question.
Before you put the question, Sir——
I must put it immediately, Deputy O'Kennedy.
On a point of order, I think it is too late.
The House has decided——
We decided to interrupt business at 6 o'clock to conclude the Second Stage of the Land Bond Bill. That was agreed on the Order of Business. It is now eight minutes past six.
May I reply to the Deputy? The House has decided that the question be put, the Chair is putting the question, and Standing Orders provide for this.
The House agreed on the Order of Business that business be interrupted at 6 o'clock.
On a point of order, may I submit that the House has decided that the question be put, but has it decided that the motion be put, and that it cannot be put tomorrow despite the decision made in regard to the Order of Business?
There is nothing to preclude me from putting the question now, Deputy.
The Chair is not entitled to.
The question must now be put.
It is now after the time the House agreed to pass on to other business.
I must put the question: "That the Order for the Second Stage be discharged and that the Bill be withdrawn."
This is entirely without precedent and contrary to all the tenets of fair play in the House. The fact is that only two of a majority carried this and even they did not know what it was about. Otherwise they would not have voted the way they did.
On a point of order, we do not seem to be able to communicate here at all. The point of order is this: may I request you, at the end of these disgraceful proceedings we have had——
The point of order, Deputy.
This is ancillary, as the Minister for Justice would say, to the main issue I want to raise which is, will the Ceann Comhairle ensure that there is no revision or tampering of the record until it is published as to the proceedings since 4 p.m. this afternoon until 6.30 p.m.? I ask that seriously.
The debate will be issued in the normal way.
I want an assurance that no person other than the ordinary editorial staff are allowed to tamper with the record, particularly as to what the Minister for Justice said on his introduction when you called him at 4 o'clock.
If the Deputy is implying that I may seek to tamper with the record I reject that suggestion completely.
I do not care if the Minister resents it or not. I am asking the Chair's protection so that the Minister does not alter it.
I was consistent the whole afternoon with regard to the truth.
The Minister can like it or lump it.
Order.
