I wonder if I might ask a question, Sir, arising out of your refusal to allow me raise the matter of the Observer on the Adjournment. I understand that this has to take place before the Order of Business is decided.
Order of Business.
Do I understand the Senator is not accepting the ruling of the Chair in that matter?
I want to ask a point of explanation in the wording of your rejection—a point that is not clear to me.
If the Senator desires to raise the matter of which he gave me notice, I think it would be only fair to the House that I should acquaint the House of the matter and of the ruling which I have made, so that the House will be in possession of the facts.
I received notice in writing from Senator Sheehy Skeffington stating that, on the motion for the Adjournment of the House tonight, he proposed to raise the question of:—
"The circumstances surrounding the non-circulation in the Irish Republic of the Observer of Sunday 1st April and the Government's failure to make an early and frank public statement on the matter.”
I replied to the notice as follows:—
"I have considered your notice for to-morrow's Adjournment regarding the non-distribution in the State of the Observer on Sunday, 1st April, 1956, and have made inquiries from the Ministers whose Departments may have been thought to have been implicated. As a result, I have ascertained that no action was taken to prevent the distribution of this paper by or on the authority of any Minister. In these circumstances I must rule that ministerial responsibility is not in issue and therefore the matter is not suitable to be raised in this manner. Neither can your corollary—that the Government ought to be censured for non-publication of the facts—import into the case an element of Government responsibility where none existed.”
The question I wish to ask arises out of the sentence in your letter which says:—
"As a result, I have ascertained that no action was taken to prevent the distribution of this paper by or on the authority of any Minister."
Would the Cathaoirleach say whether any such action was taken without the authority of the Minister by one of the Minister's officials—not "by or on" the Minister's authority, but, nevertheless, by one of his officials, acting without his authority?
I inquired from the Ministers concerned whether or not the Government, or they, as the Ministers concerned, had taken any action, and I have communicated the result of my personal inquiry to the Senator, and now to the House.
I am suggesting that all the possibilities have not been covered. The statement by you in your letter to me is that nobody took action with the authority or on the authority of the Minister but I am suggesting that somebody took action without authority.
May I say that no unauthorised action was taken by any Government servant in this matter? No action of any kind was taken by any servant or agent of any Minister or of the Government.
May I ask on what authority Senator Hayes makes that statement?
I make it on my own authority as Leader of the House and on behalf of the Government.
The Senator must observe that the notice which he gave to me stated:—
"The circumstances surrounding the non-circulation in the Irish Republic of the Observer of Sunday, 1st April, and the Government's failure to make an early and frank public statement in the matter.”
That was what he presented to me. In my capacity as Cathaoirleach, I had to determine whether or not this was a matter which I would regard as in order under the particular Standing Order. I investigated from the Ministers concerned what the position was. I communicate my ruling now to the Senator.
Arising out of what Senator Hayes has said, I understand that he is replying to a suggestion in my third alternative, that an officer acting without authorisation stopped these papers.
This matter is not now under discussion. I permitted the Senator to raise a point. I considered the possibility that there was something not quite clear in the ruling I had given the Senator and on which the Senator might want further elucidation. I have permitted the Senator to raise the point and the matter is not now open to discussion. If the Senator desires to have a discussion on this, he understands quite well that there is an orderly way of so doing, and he can have that provided for him.
I accept the Chair's ruling, and I wish, under Standing Order 25, formally to move the Adjournment on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the failure of the Minister for Finance to ascertain the true facts regarding the hold-up of the Observer on April 1st by an officer or officers of the Customs and Excise Branch of the Revenue Commissioners, and/or having ascertained them to allay the widespread public concern by issuing a frank and early public statement.
I do not propose at this stage to accept that notice. I am not satisfied that this is a matter of urgent public importance. Further, I am not satisfied that the Senator is providing me with sufficient evidence to feel that any officer committed the breach which the Senator alleged has been committed. That is my ruling on this point.
On a point of order, may I refer to sub-section (2) of Section 25 which indicates that if there is the support in the Seanad of five Senators for the consideration of this as a matter of urgency, it shall be considered on the Adjournment?
The Senator recognises that I must be satisfied first. He refers to the sub-section under which "the Cathaoirleach shall, thereupon, if he considers the motion to be one contemplated by the Standing Order...." I do not consider the motion to be one contemplated by the Standing Order. On that point, I have given my ruling. I do not intend at this stage to permit the Senator to pursue the matter further.
The Chair has said that it is not satisfied——
The Senator must not argue with the Chair.
Does the Chair ask me to produce sufficient evidence?
The Senator must not argue with the Chair. I am not satisfied, and I have stated that I am not satisfied, that this is a matter of urgent public importance, or one contemplated under this Standing Order. I have given that ruling and the Senator must accept it.
It is proposed to take Items Nos. 1 and 2 and then take the motions in my name which concern the Department of Industry and Commerce. These motions are numbered 10 to 15 inclusive. It is then intended to take No. 3, the Road Transport Bill, and the Tánaiste will be present. Then No. 6, the Tea (Importation and Distribution) Bill and then Nos. 4 and 5, the two Restrictive Trade Practices Bills. It is proposed to take Item No. 7. It is not proposed to take Nos. 8 or 9—The Irish Nationality and Citizenship Bill and the Seeds and Fertilisers Supply Bill. Accordingly, it is proposed to take Items Nos. 1 and 2, Items Nos. 10 to 15 and then Items Nos. 3, 6, 4, 5 and 7.
There has been no reference to Items Nos. 16 and 17, which are also on the agenda.
They will be taken, if they are reached.