Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 9 Jul 1935

Vol. 58 No. 1

Allocation of Time Motion.—Business of the Dáil.

General Mulcahy

I wish to raise a question as to whether Motion No. 8 is in order. It appears on the Order Paper for to-day, Tuesday, and was circulated, as far as I know, not earlier than 5.40 p.m. on Saturday evening. I am submitting that it is not in order to ask the House to discuss and to decide the Motion to-day. Standing Order 25 says:

All motions, to be put on the Order Paper for any day, shall be in writing, signed by a Deputy, 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 Deputy, 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 may be made on shorter notice.

A motion relating to discussion was on the Order Paper for Wednesday, 20th June, 1928, when this question was discussed, and when I submit a precedent was established. In column 1035 of the Parliamentary Debates, of that date, the Ceann Comhairle said:—

"Standing Order 25 says:—‘All motions to be put on the Order Paper for any day shall reach the Clerk not later than 11 a.m. on the fourth preceding day.'"

He said "That was Saturday in this case." So that the fourth preceding day of that Wednesday in the opinion of the Ceann Comhairle on June 20, 1928, was Saturday, and the actual motion had been already submitted in draft on Friday and submitted in final form on Saturday. The present Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, then Deputy Boland, in column 1036, said: "the motion was late too," and the Ceann Comhairle replied:—

"No, the motion was not late; it was strictly in time. It was received before 11 o'clock on Saturday, and was circulated on Saturday."

After some discussion about an amendment, in column 1038, the present Minister for Finance, then Deputy MacEntee said:—

"Tuesday was the first preceding day. Monday was the second; Sunday was a dies non, and does not count, and Saturday was the third preceding day, so that the motion, in order to be in order and to be permitted to be discussed here in accordance with the ruling which you have given relative to the amendments to that motion, should have been handed in before 11 a.m. on Friday.”

Subsequently the Ceann Comhairle said in column 1046:

"The situation appears to me to be that if the Standing Order may be construed quite properly to include Sunday, which is a point to be decided in any event, the common practice which has been followed has proved to be for the convenience of Deputies, and it is that motions for Wednesday are circulated on Saturday, and that amendments are accepted up to Tuesday evening. I propose to allow the motion now to be discussed on that basis."

I submit that the ruling given then was that Sunday does not count, that it is a dies non, and I am making no submission contrary to that. I am submitting that this being Tuesday, yesterday (Monday) was the first preceding day; Sunday, the second; Saturday, the third; and Friday, the fourth. The motion in order to be finally discussed should have been handed in before 11 o'clock on Friday. Not having been handed in and circulated, it is not now in order for discussion.

Professor O'Sullivan

Before you rule, Sir, may I submit that if the Standing Order gives you power to accept this motion at shorter notice than that normally prescribed, you should not exercise that discretion in favour of the Government at the present moment. I am assuming that this motion was not circulated in the ordinary sense, but was handed round on Saturday to the few Deputies who happened to be in the House after it rose. Most of the Deputies only got it yesterday morning, and therefore assume that this motion was not handed in before 11 o'clock on Friday, and, in the normal way, would not be in order for discussion to-day. The only question that arises, I submit, is as to whether you should exercise your discretion. I submit that there is no reason why you should do so, or abrogate the ordinary procedure in this matter. I understand that on Friday morning a number of matters were declared to be urgent. I am not aware that this was one of them. This was a subsequent discovery of the Government. If there has been any loss of time in seeking legislation, from the Dáil or from the Oireachtas, the fault is altogether with the Government. There is no necessity therefore of further interfering with the ordinary rules of the House, by this exercise of discretion against ordinary procedure, if you so chose to exercise that discretionary power that lies in you. There were a certain number of things mentioned on Friday morning as being urgent, although we found out since that some of them were not quite so urgent. As far as I recollect, this was not one of the things mentioned. I do not even know what is the necessity for this. I should have something further to say about the precise form of the motion if there is to be any opportunity afforded to us of discussing the question of urgency and if it is not to be merely the plea of the Government that it is because they are the majority that the motion must be accepted. That is the only claim they have put forward during the past few days for imposing their will on the House—not because they are a Government, responsible to the House and to the people, but because they are a majority. Before there is a further encroachment on the ordinary rules of the House, I submit, Sir, that you should not exercise your discretion in favour of allowing this motion to-day.

General Mulcahy

If I thought, Sir, that you were considering whether or not to accept the motion, I would put a question under Standing Order 25. If it is a question of your discretion, there is a further submission that I should like to make to you, Sir.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy had better make his point now.

General Mulcahy

Very good, Sir. The purpose of this motion is to enable the Imposition of Duties (Confirmation of Orders) Bill, 1935, to be disposed of to-day. The Bill proposes to confirm four Orders. When an Order is issued I imagine it is issued under the Emergency Imposition of Duties Act. Under sub-section 2 of that Act that Order has to be confirmed by being embodied in legislation within eight months after the making of the Order. The first of these Orders in the Bill deals with an increase in the rate of Excise duty on pig carcases. That Order was made on the 30th November last, seven months ago. Personally, I fail to see what the urgency is that that matter should be disposed of to-day without any chance of reasonable discussion. The second Order deals with a Customs duty on ink. That Order was issued on the 4th January, 1935, six months ago. I do not know how the urgency now arises or, if the matter was in any way urgent, why the House was not given an opportunity of discussing it earlier. The third Order deals with the Customs duty on cutlery. That Order was issued on the 15th February, 1935. The Government have until the 15th October next to confirm that Order. The duty is in force at the present moment; it is continuing and will continue in force without any interference until the 15th October, and the Government have until then to introduce the necessary legislation dealing with that. The fourth Order deals with the Excise duty on tyres. That Order was issued on the 12th April, 1935. The Government have until the 12th December this year to get the necessary measure passed through the Dáil that will confirm that Order if they wish to confirm it. I submit that, as regards reference Nos. 1 and 2, the Government themselves have been responsible for any urgency that arises now, and the least thing that should be allowed is a reasonable time for discussion. With regard to the other two: in the one case the Government have until the 15th October, and in the other case they have until the 12th December, and I am completely at a loss to understand what is the reason for the urgency in connection with this Customs duty on cutlery and the Excise duty on tyres on this particular date, the 9th July.

Professor O'Sullivan

I should like to submit further, Sir, that, on the question of exercising such discretion as you have, you should also take into account the extremely drastic powers of the original Act of 1932. In fact, one of the considerations put forward at that time was that there would be consideration by the Dáil of anything done under that Act. I submit, Sir, that this particular motion, that has been submitted, does not give any such opportunity for consideration. Further, I should like to draw attention to the circumstances and to the, at that time, unique Closure Motion that was adopted. I think you yourself, Sir, indicated at the time that the particular kind of motion by which these things were passed on that particular occasion was without precedent. That was on the principal Act which this Act now seeks to implement. I submit, Sir, that all these considerations are very relevant to the consideration why this motion should not be allowed to be taken to-day.

An Ceann Comhairle

This is a motion which is quite in order, and which seeks to enable the House to come to a decision as to whether or not a certain thing should be done on Tuesday, July 9th. The precedent referred to by Deputy Risteárd Ua Maolchatha differs from this motion in at least one important point, namely, that it dealt with a question of hours, but did not specify the business for any day.

If the terms of this motion and the question of notice are at variance, one or other must prevail. Their relative importance has to be weighed. The Chair stands on the principle of allowing the House to come to a decision on the matter contained in the motion. I have accordingly exercised the right conferred on the Chair by Standing Order 25 and accepted the motion.

This decision is not based on any plea or consideration of urgency. In reply to the further submission made by Deputy J.M. O'Sullivan as to the drastic character of the governing Act, I have only to state that the Chair does not consider the merits of legislation.

Professor O'Sullivan

I suggest, Sir, with all respect, that amendments have always been in a different category from substantive motions. Secondly, I suggest that, very often you, Sir, have fixed a certain day— sometimes even Monday—for accepting amendments, but I submit that that is largely because the Government insist in going on with the business on a Tuesday, knowing that if that was insisted upon, there would be no possibility of submitting amendments. I take it, Sir, that you rule that, so far as motions deciding the business of the House are concerned, practically no notice at all is necessary. I am not questioning your ruling, Sir. I only want to know whether or not that is really the force of your ruling, because I want to understand it.

The Vice-President

Is it right, Sir, for the Deputy to discuss the ruling of the Chair?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy got the permission of the Chair to make a further submission. The Chair has ruled and that ruling covers this case only; that is, that, weighing the relative importance of the question of notice and of a motion asking the House to decide what business it would do on a specified date, the Chair has exercised the privilege conferred by Standing Order No. 25, and has accepted the motion.

General Mulcahy

Again, Sir, in connection with the question of accepting amendments to the motion, to which you referred, I should like to ask your permission to move an amendment the nature of which, if I have your permission, I will indicate now. It was inconceivable to me that this order, not giving the three days' notice, would be accepted. I did not put in an amendment in connection with it, because I did not think it was possible that that would be done in view of the nature of the Bill. The Bill is a two clause Bill with a schedule, and there are four items in the schedule. The motion says in paragraph (2):

The Committee Stage of the Bill shall be proceeded with immediately upon the conclusion of the Second Stage and the Question necessary to bring to a conclusion the proceedings in Committee on the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, and shall be decided without amendment or debate.

I wish for permission to move an amendment which will delete that part of the section which prevents amendment or debate on the Committee Stage, for the reason that there are four items here—a duty on pig carcases, on ink, cutlery and tyres—and unless an amendment is accepted deleting one or other of these the House is constrained to do in respect of pig carcases what it does in respect of ink, what it does in respect of cutlery, and what it does in respect of tyres. The motion is so framed as to completely prevent the House from making use of any intelligence that it may have in dealing in a discriminative way between cutlery and ink or between tyres and pig carcases. I should like to read the amendment which I wish to move:—

In Section 2 to delete the words "and the Questions necessary to bring to a conclusion the proceedings in Committee on the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, and shall be decided without amendment or debate" and in Section 4, after the word "Question" to insert the words "or Questions."

I desire to move that amendment, not because I object in any lesser way to the forcing of this motion by reason of the ruling that has been given, but because the House will be forced to an absolutely unintelligent and silly action if the actual terms of the motion are passed without that amendment.

An Ceann Comhairle

I think the Chair met Deputies very fairly in agreeing to accept amendments for the Order Paper up to 5 o'clock yesterday afternoon, and even up to 11 o'clock this morning, if handed in to the office. Beyond that the Chair is not prepared to go.

Mr. Morrissey

On a point of order, when the Chair accepts a motion such as this the Chair must have regard to the rights of the minority, and the Chair should not accept any motion which, in the opinion of the Chair, infringes on the nights of the minority.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not discuss the ruling of the Chair. The Chair has accepted the motion.

Mr. Morrissey

On the question of the amendment, I am trying to lessen the blow, so to speak.

General Mulcahy

Do I understand that the motion is not being moved?

Professor O'Sullivan

May I ask when was the intimation of the Chair conveyed to all the Deputies of this House that amendments were in order up to 11 o'clock this morning?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair does not like explaining in the House matters arranged outside the House.

Professor O'Sullivan

Personally, I do not remember having heard it. I hear it now for the first time.

General Mulcahy

I was aware that amendments would be accepted up to printing time yesterday, but I was not in any way going to prejudice what I I thought a reasonable outlook on the matter by moving an amendment.

Mr. Morrissey

May I state that it was only at 1 o'clock to-day that many members coming up from the country got those motions for the first time. The first intimation we got about the matter was in the papers yesterday evening.

Professor O'Sullivan

In reference to Deputy Mulcahy's point about amendments being possible, I should say it is quite likely that though one or two may have heard that intimation the bulk of the members did not hear it. Personally, I did not. I hear it now for the first time even though I am a member of a Committee of the Party. Many members are not in that position, and quite obviously have not heard it.

Mr. Cosgrave

I should like to direct attention to one point in regard to this motion. The essence of the motion is to conduct certain business by a certain hour. That, in substance, is all that concerns the decision of the House. In this particular case, when an amendment is not now accepted to a motion which is technically a day late, a number of the members of the House—and perhaps the House itself—are prejudiced by it. Members may possibly agree with three of those items and disagree with the fourth, and they are afforded no opportunity of having that point of view stressed. The objection is not to conducting business in a specified time; the objection is to the form in which we are forced to conduct that business—which is quite a different thing.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair has accepted the motion. If the implications suggested by the leader of the Opposition are in the motion, that is for the House to decide. I am not prepared to accept amendments now.