It is proposed to take business as on the Order Paper Nos. 1 to 6 inclusive, omitting No. 2. It is hoped to finish the business on the Order Paper to-day. If No. 5 is disposed of by 10.30 p.m. the Dáil will adjourn until Wednesday next.
Order of Business.
Is it possible for us to be informed when the Offences Against the State Bill, 1939, will be circulated? I understand the Treason Bill, 1939, will repeal the Treason Bill of 1925, and that some of the effects of the Treason Bill, 1925, not being embodied in the Treason Bill, 1939, will be embodied in the Offences Against the State Bill, 1939. It would be more convenient for the House if they could see both Bills together and compare their contents.
The two Bills are not directly connected. It is true that some of the offences in the 1925 Act, those directly dealing with treason or offences ancillary to treason are in this Bill, and that some of the offences in the 1925 Act will be incorporated in the other Bill. The intention is that the two Bills should get through the Final Stages practically together. This Bill, however, can be taken altogether on its own. As regards time. I think there has been some drafting difficulty in regard to the other Bill, but I expect we will have it, probably, early next week. The intention is that the two Bills will come up for final discussion one after the other.
The final discussion is less important than discussion on the Second Reading, when the principles of the Bill are under review. Could the Taoiseach not agree to postpone the Treason Bill until the House could see the Offences Against the State Bill, to see into what category the various offences are being sorted, and to be able to know precisely how much of the Treason Bill of 1925 is being repealed, only for the purpose of being incorporated in the new Offences Against the State Bill?
I think all Deputies will realise that this Bill could stand by itself, and apart altogether from the other Bill. There is no reason why it should not. However, when I come to talk about it I will refer to that.
Surely the Taoiseach has learned from other Parties in the House that while that is his view, we feel there are some technical points which can only be properly corrected when the two Bills are before us, and there cannot be any serious objection to postponing discussion of this Bill until the other one is before the House. I mean to say, that some of the very objectionable points that might present themselves to us in this Bill would fall to the ground, if it would appear that there were provisions in the other Bill to meet the kind of cases we apprehend might, unfortunately, arise in connection with it. Is there any urgency for this Bill?
I think it will make for clarity in the discussion, and will expedite business generally, if we take this Bill separately. There is no reason that I can see why it should not be taken separately.
I take it there are certain offences, which can be dealt with under certain sections of the 1925 Act, which could not be dealt with at all except under this Bill, and that certain offences, which are now punishable by a comparatively small sentence, will be only punishable by death when this Bill becomes law.
That is not so.
That is my view.
Deputies can deal with the Second Reading of this Bill as they would deal with any other Bill. They can find fault with it on the ground of what it does or does not contain. You might as well say that we have to have a complete code in any particular matter before we discuss a certain Bill. This Bill can stand by itself; it is complete in itself. It deals with treason and offences immediately ancillary to treason, and can be dealt with by the House exactly as any other Bill. Otherwise there would be a question of holding up legislation of various kinds. Every Deputy on the Second Reading can deal with this Bill in the usual way, with the principle of what is or is not in it.
When the Taoiseach finds that it is a question of a request from two Parties to postpone this Bill until we see the other Bill, surely that is not a request that should be turned down in a capricious fashion. There is no urgency for this Bill, and there is no evidence of the existence of treason.
The Deputy can make that statement when dealing with the Bill.
Why not postpone the discussion until we see the other Bill?
The Government has the ordering of business, and in that ordering we deemed it right to bring this Bill forward, and get it to a certain stage. We can go on with the other Bill when it is ready.