It is proposed to take Nos. 3, 4, 6, and in No. 6, Votes 46 and 47 (resumed), and No. 7 (resumed). Private Members' Business, No. 12 (resumed), will be taken from 7 to 8.30 p.m.
Order of Business.
I move: That the Dáil be adjourned on a specific and important matter of public interest requiring urgent consideration, namely, the telecommunications dispute.
I would draw your attention to the fact that the very first precedent for the granting of permission for such an adjournment was on 11 September 1922 in relation to a Post Office strike, which seems highly relevant to what we are now proposing to discuss.
The same decision must apply as has applied in relation to yesterday's request to raise the matter. It has already been raised and it has not arisen suddenly. It has already been discussed and the Chair is precluded from permitting it.
I would point out that there has not been discussion; there has been a statement on which you curtailed discussion on the grounds that there should not be discussion on a statement in reply to a Private Notice Question. We have not had any opportunity to discuss it.
I would point out to the Deputy that it was raised on the adjournment two weeks ago.
Since the matter was raised the situation has changed.
I am not in a position to say so.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The whole country is in a position to say so.
In those circumstances I would ask that Standing Orders be suspended upon motion made without notice as this is a case of urgent necessity. It cannot be contended that Standing Orders should not be suspended because the matter has been discussed. I presume that argument will not be attempted, otherwise the whole purpose of suspending Standing Orders would be vitiated.
Standing Orders may not be suspended without notice.
Standing Order No. 139 (2) states:
Provided that in cases of urgent necessity, of which the Ceann Comhairle shall be the judge, any Standing Order or Orders may be suspended upon motion made without notice. If such motion be opposed the Ceann Comhairle shall permit an explanatory statement from the member who moves it and a statement from a member who opposes it before he puts the question thereon.
It is under Standing Order No. 139 (2) that I am moving this.
Standing Order No. 139 (1) states:
Any Standing Order or Orders of the Dáil may be suspended or modified in effect for the day's sitting, and for a particular purpose, upon motion made after notice.
That means four days. Standing Order No. 139 (2) would be subject to the same ruling that I have already made. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges have discussed this and defined what "urgent necessity" is.
You will recall your ruling out of order the Ferenka debate and the disastrous consequences of that.
That is not in order. It does not arise. We are not entitled to have a discussion on this question.
On a point of order, what consideration is given by you as to what is a matter of urgent necessity? I observe that you are to be the judge of this. Surely natural justice would dictate that the mover of this motion would be entitled——
If the Deputy would resume his seat, I was about to discuss a matter which came before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and the definition as laid down in their report on the reform of Dáil procedure. It is defined as a matter likely to develop significantly before the Dáil will in practice have the opportunity of discussing it.
(Cavan-Monaghan): On a point of order——
This matter has been going on and has not arisen suddenly. It has already been discussed. If you wish to break with that precedent, you will be breaking a precedent to which all my predecessors have adhered.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I wish to make a submission on a point of order. My submission is that the whole question relates to whether this is a matter of urgent public necessity. I cannot think of anything more urgent than the fact that the entire business of the country is being brought to a halt and this process is accelerating. If the Chair seriously considered the matter he could not possibly rule as he has ruled.
It is not a question of the Chair seriously considering the matter.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Of course it is. The Chair is the judge of whether this is a matter of urgent necessity.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in the first case where this procedure was employed in 1922, it was the Minister for Home Affairs, Kevin O'Higgins, who felt that the matter should be discussed and who, in fact, supported the proposal to suspend Standing Orders and seconded the motion repudiating the statement issued by himself in order to secure discussion. In those days Governments believed that matters should be discussed in the Dáil. I would ask the Taoiseach whether he would be willing to follow the example given by the Minister for Home Affairs in relation to the Post Office strike of that day and to second my proposal so that we can move on to discuss this matter of urgent necessity because if the House agrees I presume it can be discussed.
The Leader of the Opposition might have had the courtesy to tell me in advance that he was raising this. He did not do so.
Is not the effect of your ruling——
We cannot have a discussion on this matter.
Is not the effect of your ruling that the country could be at war and you would not let us discuss it unless the six months had elapsed.
(Interruptions.)
(Cavan-Monaghan): Where are the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and the Minister for Labour who are doing nothing?
(Interruptions.)
A Deputy
Your ruling is a farce.
It is not proper to describe the ruling of the Chair as a farce. Will the Deputy please resume his seat?
The question is being made irrelevant while the country is being brought to a standstill.
I want to say in relation to the standing order which Deputy FitzGerald has quoted, which is the only one in relation to hundreds of other cases supporting my ruling now which may be quoted, that the ruling which he quoted is one where the Minister agreed and acquiesced with the Opposition. That is something over which the Chair has no responsibility.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Where is the Minister?
That is not my business.
(Interruptions.)
I do not consult the Minister.
You are making this the issue. You are making an assumption about someone on the far side of the House which you are not entitled to make and who does not take the trouble to come in here.
In view of the Taoiseach's indication that his position might have been different if he had notice, I am willing to postpone the matter until tomorrow morning to enable the Taoiseach to consider the matter as he has indicated his willingness to do so.
All I said was that Deputy FitzGerald might have had the courtesy to tell me this morning that he was going to raise it. He did not do so.
I will raise it tomorrow morning.
In view of the fact that since this matter was last discussed the situation has deteriorated very considerably and of the consequences to business and commerce in the country and also because several hundred men are now involved, being either locked out or on strike, would the Taoiseach, in the interests of all concerned, give favourable consideration to giving Government time to allow the House to discuss this matter?
I think it has been established practice that discussing strikes of this nature or of any other nature in the House tends to confuse the issue and in fact never leads to a solution. I do not believe that discussion here of delicate issues that obtain on this——
(Interruptions.)
Would Deputy L'Estrange hold his silence for another couple of weeks?
The Taoiseach did not say that when he was in Opposition.
I am trying to talk calmly. If the Deputies opposite want to make a political affray of this they can do so.
The Minister for Labour did not believe that when he was in Opposition.
May I speak? It is well-established practice that strikes of a delicate nature, as this is, are not discussed in the House because it is established belief that discussions in the House are not conductive towards a settlement.
(Cavan-Monaghan): That would be all right if the Government were doing something about it but they are not doing anything about it.
Order. Will Deputy Fitzpatrick please resume his seat.
I am trying to answer in a calm and reasonable way. If the Deputies want to make a Roman holiday of this thing they are entitled to do so. I want to say that the Government as a whole, the individual Ministers, the Minister particularly responsible and I have been concerned about it. We are actively concerned about it. I need say no more than that.
The Government are locking out workers.
Deputy Mitchell is new to the House.
Will the Taoiseach deny what the High Court judge said last week?
The Taoiseach will be permitted to speak.
The Deputy is new to the House and it is a courtesy usually extended to the Taoiseach of the day that he is listened to in silence when he is making a serious speech. I am trying to answer the questions constructively. I have said as much as I can say at the moment.
While I would normally accept the view expressed by the Taoiseach that it may not in most cases be in the interests of the parties concerned to discuss a strike situation in the House, the fact that the Minister is directly involved, the fact that those people—I personally know some of the people involved—have been suspended after being manipulated into a position by the Department and they had no alternative——
We cannot have a discussion on this.
I would prefer that the Deputy would not discuss the merits of this case now because it is not conducive to a solution.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Where is the Minister?
Deputy Fitzpatrick, as of now, does not know what the Minister is doing. I would prefer that he would hold his silence.
Neither does the country.
Comment has been made on the Minister's absence. The Minister is not present at all times in the House. I want to say that we got no notice whatever that this matter was being raised in the manner it has been done.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Where is the Minister for Labour?
I am going on to No. 3 on the Order Paper.
Where is the Minister for Finance?
Is there any possibility of the Minister making a statement to the House and giving the responsible spokesmen an opportunity of replying in the House? I would point out to the Taoiseach that that was followed on many occasions in the last Dáil and there is no reason why it should not be done here.
A statement will be made when it is appropriate and when it is conducive to a settlement.