Before the House decides to proceed with this Bill, I should like to make a statement which might be regarded as something in the nature of a personal statement. Since this Bill was introduced, statements have appeared in the Press—I think that one was issued by the Bureau of Information—to the effect that the Government proposes to legislate in this matter, and to embody the principle of appeal in such legislation. That being so, I do not feel that any purpose will be served by proceeding with this Bill now, and having a debate, which might be a very lengthy debate, on the subject. Therefore, with the permission of the House, I ask leave to withdraw the Bill pending the introduction of the proposed legislation. I may bring it in again if I see fit, when I see the form which the Government legislation will take.
Censorship of Publications (Amendment) Bill, 1944—Second Stage.
Are we to understand that the Senator is withdrawing the Bill unconditionally?
I withdraw it unconditionally.
It is the same either way.
The motion is: "That leave be given to withdraw the Bill."
May we take advantage of the presence of the Minister to inquire if it is his intention to introduce a Bill dealing with this matter?
I submit that that has nothing to do with the question before us.
As the Senator has withdrawn his Bill unconditionally, I submit, with all respect, that it is not permissible to question the Minister as to whether or not he will do this thing or that thing. That would be to make the unconditional withdrawal a conditional withdrawal, and would be quite irregular.
I submit that the Minister should be permitted to make a statement in reply to Senator Foran if he so desires.
It is for the House to give leave to withdraw the Bill and the motion is: "That leave be given to withdraw the Bill." Discussion on that motion must be restricted to the immediate question.
I am completely in favour of the motion that leave be given to withdraw the Bill but, as a member of the Seanad, without regard to my views on censorship or any other matter, I dislike anything which would prevent a Minister from making a statement if the Seanad desires him to make it. I am not saying that the Seanad does want the Minister to make such a statement, but I think that Senator Foran was perfectly entitled to ask the question which he has asked. It seems to me, with all possible respect to you, A Chathaoirligh, that, if the Minister is willing to make a statement, it need not necessarily lead to a debate. I think that we are perfectly entitled to have a statement from the Minister to the effect that he proposes to bring in legislation of a particular character. I do not think that any such statement would necessarily lead to a debate, which is, perhaps, what some Senators fear. I think that talk about the Bill being withdrawn conditionally or unconditionally has no meaning. The Bill is withdrawn—full stop.
If Senator Keane's withdrawal of the Bill is unconditional, how is the House to continue the discussion of the Bill? I submit that what the Minister is now being invited to do is to make a speech of the type which he would make on First Reading. That, I submit, is completely out of order.
Surely we are allowed to have some belief in the ingenuity of any given Minister. Like Euclid, we are entitled to believe that any given Minister of any given Party will have a given amount of ingenuity and that he need not make a Second Reading speech——
I referred to a First Reading speech.
He need make neither a First Reading nor a Second Reading speech of the Dáil type when he announces to this House on a particular matter that he has in mind certain legislative proposals to which he will give definite form later. I merely want to assert for this House the right to hear whatever a Minister wants to say to it, if the House so desires, at any particular time.
There is no objection to the Minister answering the question put by Senator Foran, but the Minister cannot be allowed to enter into any details in connection with any proposed measure which is not before the House. All I can permit the Minister to do is to answer the question put to him.
If the House thinks it necessary that the Minister should make a statement, it should be understood that there will be no debate whatever on that statement.
No debate of a controversial character will be permitted on the motion now before the House.
The Minister need only confirm or deny the suggestion that he proposes to introduce legislation.
I am in the hands of the Seanad. If the Seanad so desires, I am prepared to make a short statement.
The Minister may make a statement to the effect that it is his intention to introduce such a measure as has been mentioned, but he may not go into any details in connection with it.
I do not want to seem to be difficult in this matter. I happen to be in opposition to the Minister but I am speaking as a member of this House and I submit that, for the general purposes of this House, we should not impose restrictions on ourselves. If the Minister chooses to give us information at this particular moment, I do not think that we ought to be the channel through which objection would be lodged to his giving us that information. I am speaking without regard to my views on the Minister's proposals. I may be entirely against them.
On a point of order, Senator Hayes is overlooking the fact that this is not simply a request to the Minister to make a statement. It is a request to the Minister to make a statement following on the statement made by Senator Sir John Keane that he understands the Bill is to embody such and such. I submit, Sir, that your ruling should be maintained and that it would be an act of disorder on the part of the Minister to make such a statement. To press him to be guilty of an act of disorder is not to be entertained.
I should hate to have the Minister for Justice disorderly, but nobody intends to offend against your ruling. What I submit, with the greatest possible respect, is that no rule should be made which would restrict our right to hear statements from Ministers. The statement to be made now has nothing whatever to do with Senator Sir John Keane's frame of mind when he withdrew the Bill. He withdrew the Bill——
He made a statement.
The Minister may now answer the question which has been put to him, but no details which might lead to controversy may be entered into.
Nobody is trying to prevent the Minister from making a speech or a statement if he so desires. Senator Hayes, evidently, wants to hear a statement from somebody on this side of the House.
I expected that the Second Reading of this Bill would be moved to-day. When the Bill was introduced, I appreciated that I should have to come here and give my views on it. As a matter of courtesy, I informed the Censorship Board that I intended to oppose the Bill and that, when I got an opportunity, I intended to bring in an amending Bill. The position, so far as I have seen it since I became Minister for Justice, has been most unsatisfactory. I do not think that it is right that the Minister should be the person who bans a publication. That is my personal view. I have always banned books with reluctance, for the simple reason that I felt that I should have read any book that I banned——
The Minister is now going too far.
Then I am in an embarrassing position. I do intend to bring in a Bill dealing with this matter.
On a point of order——
Senators:
Order!
I am raising a point of order. I support the ruling of the Chair.
I am in the hands of the Chair and I stop as soon as I am told.
Will the Minister inform Senator Foran if it is his intention to introduce legislation to deal with censorship?
It is.
That finishes the matter.
What will be the business for next week?
If the Finance Bill is passed in the Dáil this week, this House will have it next week.
The Seanad adjourned at 3.30 p.m. sine die.