We propose to take Items Nos. 1, 10 and 7 on the Order Paper in that order to-day, and then the Vote on Account.
BUSINESS OF DÁIL.
Arising out of that, since we are going to discuss No. 10 on the Order Paper, will it not be necessary to have an opportunity of considering the Report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges which relates to this matter? I understood that it was with the idea of helping the Dáil that the matter was referred to the Committee, and if the Report of the Committee is to be helpful to the Dáil ought we not to have an opportunity of considering it in a formal way? The terms of reference of the Committee are that such and such matters be referred for inquiry and report to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. We have now the report and I submit that before taking No. 10 on the Order Paper we ought to consider the report of the Committee which relates to this matter.
It is not impossible to understand the report even if one reads it quickly.
The point is this: the Committee was asked to report to the Dáil. The Dáil still has the option of accepting or rejecting that report, and I think that before we proceed to No. 10 on the Order Paper we ought to be given the option of accepting or rejecting this report—of hearing the case for and against the report—and there is a very strong case against it.
Let us hear it— I suppose we are bound to hear it.
I can only let you hear it with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, but I am perfectly willing.
The Deputy's suggestion is that there should be a formal motion moved and brought to a conclusion with regard to the report of the Committee before the proceedings on the motion and amendment on the Order Paper (No. 10) are continued. What kind of motion does the Deputy contemplate should be moved with regard to the report of the Committee?
In the ordinary form—that the Dáil agrees with the report of the Committee or disagrees with it. I take it the motion which would be moved from the Government Benches would be, that the Dáil agree with the Report. It is up to us to give reasons why it should not.
If that motion were moved and carried in either form it would still leave No. 10 on the Order Paper to be decided.
Yes, but then we would be in a position, I submit, to take this Report for what it is worth. It might after discussion be worth very little.
We would be in no better position. A decision of the House accepting or rejecting the Report would not be coercive in regard to the decision the House would make upon No. 10—the motion and the amendment on the Order Paper. If the Deputy is desirous of discussing the Report, it appears to me that the Report is relevant to the debate on the motion and the amendment and may be discussed. The proceedings on the motion and the amendment were interrupted for the reference of certain matters to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and the Committee has now reported. The Report of the Committee and the minutes of evidence are in the hands of Deputies, and it seems to me they are quite relevant to a debate on the motion and the amendment. Therefore, a discussion of the Report is in order— that is what the Deputy is asking me— on the debate which will be resumed on Deputy de Valera's amendment to the motion in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President.
I submit that is not so. The Report concerns itself entirely with a matter of fact. In the motion a question of law as well as a question of fact is involved. The Committee's findings in regard to the fact may be wrong or may be right, but it will not affect the question of law. At any rate, I submit what we have to consider first is, whether the Committee's findings on this matter of fact are correct or not. When we have found that, then at least we will have one feature of No. 10 on the Order Paper clarified. If the Dáil were to reject this Report, as I feel that it will do as soon as it has an opportunity of hearing how this Report was arrived at, without hearing witnesses——
The Deputy must keep to the point of procedure first.
If the Dáil rejects this Report and decides that, in fact, it has not been founded upon evidence which would be legally conclusive, then the action of the Dáil will be made very much easier in regard to No. 10, and we will be able to proceed with much greater security.
As one who was not a member of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, and who has already spoken on the motion, and consequently would not be in order in speaking again, I should like to have an opportunity of saying something on the Report which has been circulated, but apparently I would not be in order in doing so. In order to enable Deputies similarly situated to discuss the Report, will it not be possible to enable the debate upon the motion and the amendment to start afresh?
This matter was referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges for the purpose of having a certain matter clarified. If permission is refused to discuss this Report, then we are to take it that the Report is automatically accepted by the House. That to my mind is unfair. We should first of all ascertain whether this matter, which we referred to the Committee, has been clarified to the satisfaction of Deputies, and that can only be done by a discussion on a motion in reference to the Report.
I shall only answer the question which have been put to me from the point of view of order. Deputy MacEntee began his statement by saying, "That is not so." I am not quite clear as to what is not so. It certainly is the case that Deputies who desire to speak on the motion or the amendment may refer to the Report. There is no doubt about that. Deputy Lemass raises a different point, which is, that Deputies who have already spoken on the motion will not have an opportunity to speak again. That is so. I am not in a position to remedy that. What actually is on the Order Paper is No. 10. It is not in my power to prevent No. 10 coming on. If it does come on, it will be in order for Deputies who have the right to speak to refer to the Report of the Committee. That is the position of the Chair in the matter. If a motion were on the Paper dealing with the Report, that motion would also be in order. but I could not compel that motion to be taken now, for example, even if it were on the Paper.
May I just put my point again? Since this motion and amendment were discussed something has happened. The Committee has met and submitted a report on a question of fact relating to the motion and amendment, and a number of us feel that the procedure adopted by the Committee in order to arrive at its conclusion was not correct and we would like to voice our views upon that subject. Apparently we will not be allowed to do so. Therefore, I think equity would be served and the interests of the Dáil would be served by permitting Deputies who have already spoken upon the amendment to speak again, even if they are compelled to confine their remarks to the matter of the report.
May I remind you, A Chinn Comhairle, that when discussing this very point you said that it would be a matter that could be decided by the House. What did you then mean?
What was to be decided by the House?
On the question as to whether Deputies could speak again upon this matter, I raised that point twice in the Committee and you said that it was a matter for the House to decide.
I have no recollection of that.
Am I to understand that a Committee of the House is to be put on trial or is it the intention to talk the House to death?
The point I urge is this: Certain Deputies have spoken on the motion and the amendment. In order to satisfy some of the points that were put up, two questions were referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Now I have no objection whatever to having a pretty elaborate discussion on the Report of the Committee, but I do object to having it both ways in a matter of this kind. If the only object is delay, I am against giving any facilities in this connection, absolutely, and I am satisfied that no case is made for having this delay. If there be a case for anything else, I certainly should like to hear it, but I have not heard it.
The case is this: A committee met to decide whether Mr. James Larkin, who was the candidate for Dublin North, was the same person as an individual who had been declared to be bankrupt. They did not consult James Larkin. They did not consult his proposer or seconder or call as witnesses any of the persons whose names were on his nomination paper. We think that instead of going the round-about way they did to arrive at a conclusion, they should have gone straight to the very people who could have given the information. The fact that they did not do so is a grave reflection on the Committee.
It is a grave reflection on the members of the party opposite, who were members of the Committee, who did not put that point of view correctly and at the proper time. We cannot remedy all their infirmities.
It is quite certain that Mr. James Larkin would recognise the court?
That has nothing to do with us.
The President states that a Committee was set up to investigate certain points raised by Deputies who spoke previously. Are these Deputies now to be refused an opportunity of giving their views as to whether the report really represents the points that were raised or not?
May I put it as clearly and as easily as I can so that the Deputy can understand. Certain points were raised here. In order to afford further facilities for the exploration of these points we sent this matter to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Deputies who have already spoken have said all they can say upon that point. We cannot afford—we do not live long enough—to have the same thing gone over from morning to night, week after week, and year after year.
The Deputies who made these points which the Committee have to consider are now to be denied an opportunity of stating whether the report represents the views they put forward.
Having found that those Deputies would not hear any side other than their own side of the case——
There is no use in wrangling over this matter. The question of order involved is a very simple one. There is a motion on the paper in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President. It may be taken now or at any other time fixed by the President in the time prescribed by the Standing Orders for Government business. When that motion is being discussed it will be subject to the ordinary rules of Order. If a Deputy wants to make a second speech he can do so only by the leave of the Chair and by the leave of the House. Some questions have been addressed to the Chair which it would not be proper for the Chair to solve. If it is desired to have a discussion on the report of the Committee, that could be done on a motion which could be tabled, but the motion could not be taken in Government time without the consent of the President. Perhaps it therefore means that so far as this motion is concerned the matter could not be satisfactorily discussed in time. A comparatively small number of Deputies have spoken, and a good many retain the right to speak when the debate is resumed, and I certainly see no objection to allowing the mover of the amendment, who is Leader of the Opposition, to make a second statement in the light of the Committee's report. But I would be rather unfavourable, if I may say so, to the proposal that the eleven Deputies who have already spoken should be allowed to make a second statement. If I were asked for a suggestion, it would be that a second statement might be made by the mover of the amendment, who is Leader of the Opposition, and who has already spoken, the Leader of the Labour Party, who has already spoken, and a Minister, for the purpose of putting the points of view of groups of people known to exist. The contention of the Deputy that the right would exist on the resumption of the debate for all who had spoken to speak again would be rather an unusual procedure. I would prefer the course I have suggested.
Then I am quite satisfied.
I have no objection.
Will Deputy MacEntee be allowed to speak again?
He has not already spoken.
The Minister for Agriculture spoke too much on one occasion in which he said his party were responsible for a certain incident.