It is proposed to take item No. 7—Votes 71 and 63—and then items No. 8 and No. 9. If Vote 71 is not completed at 6 o'clock Vote 63 will then be taken.
Order of Business.
When will item No.11 —Local Government (Remission of Rates) Bill—be taken?
When is it intended to resume Vote 71, if it is interrupted?
To-morrow.
Deputy Dockrell has asked a question about item No. 11.
I hope to circulate the Bill within a few days.
It is an undesirable practice to put down a Second Reading days before the Bill is circulated.
That only happens when some unforeseen difficulty arises.
It arises very often.
Will the Tánaiste say if and when he proposes to give Government time for the discussion of the motion in the name of Deputy O'Higgins and myself?
It is not proposed to give Government time for a discussion of that kind.
Does the Government not regard it as a matter of urgent public importance?
No.
When the Opposition adopt the unusual course of putting down a formal motion for the purpose of discussing a specific matter relating to the State forces and abstain from availing of the Departmental Estimate to discuss the matter because they thought it better to do so by a motion, even if the Government cannot accept the view that the Opposition are wise in pressing the matter, surely the Government have a clear obligation to acknowledge the right of the Opposition to raise the matter in this form and to vouchsafe time to dispose of it satisfactorily?
On a point of order. Do we propose to discuss it now?
The Deputy may ask a question about the motion, but may not make a speech.
It might appear that Private Members' time would afford an opportunity for this, but it is in the knowledge of Deputies, including the Tánaiste, that if the motion goes down in Private Members' time it might not be reached for nine months and the matter is one of urgent importance. Surely the Opposition are entitled to make some claim on the time of the House, more especially when the Tánaiste will be asking for Private Members' time for the remainder of the financial year in order to dispose of financial business?
I suggest that there were two opportunities in the last week or so of discussing this matter and that it was discussed to a certain extent during the last few days. There will be other opportunities in the very near future on the Estimates of discussing this matter. We start to-morrow with the Vote on Account, which will probably take a considerable amount of time, and I do not see any possibility of Government time being given for this motion for some time.
The purpose of the motion is not to ventilate the circumstances surrounding this. That is not our purpose. We understood the Government took the view that it was an undesirable course to canvass this matter widely and indiscriminately across the floor of the House. With that view we had a certain sympathy, and so we have put down a specific request that the whole of this matter should be removed from the arena of casual debate and referred to a committee. That is a simple net proposal. It is not our intention to make this debate an occasion for ventilating the whole situation or for a long acrimonious debate. We simply want to put the case for the necessity of an inquiry into the whole matter with a view to allaying any undesirable misapprehensions that may be abroad. Surely it is an extraordinary course on the part of the Government, not only to resist the motion, but to refuse to discuss it. We are trying to be reasonable in accordance with Parliamentary practice, and the Government ought to be the same. Will the Tánaiste take the matter into consideration again?
I do not think so. From what I have been told by those whose particular duty it is to examine matters of that kind, there is no likelihood that the Government will give Government time at present for a discussion of that motion. It must be remembered also that a number of courts martial are to be held in connection with the Magazine business. I do not know whether they are actually taking place, but if not, they will be held in the immediate future. It would not be a proper time, therefore, to have a discussion on this matter.
I put two questions down on this matter and you, Sir, ruled out of order the raising of the matter on the Adjournment on the ground that it was an arraignment of a Minister, or could be interpreted as such, and therefore would not elicit information. It was pointed out to me that the only way in which the matter could be adequately discussed was by a substantive motion. Accepting your ruling, I urged the putting down of a motion such as this in the belief that the Government would realise that it is a matter of urgent public importance and that they would facilitate the Opposition, and the other Deputies who are anxious to have the matter dealt with, by granting Government time for a motion of such urgent public importance.
If the Government are going to claim Private Deputies' time to dispose of the financial business for the remainder of the year, and possibly for part of next session, surely they ought to give the principal Opposition two or three hours of Government time in exchange for all the Private Deputies' time they will be asking for, for a specific matter which the official Opposition consider to be of grave importance. Surely a blank refusal to do that is to make Parliamentary procedure impossible.
There is one reason I mentioned, and it is a valid reason in my opinion, that there are in process of preparation, if they are not actually taking place, courts martial in connection with this matter.
We will meet the Minister on that. We do not want to rush the matter. If the Minister desires to communicate with the Opposition through the usual channels that certain courts martial are taking place in the next week or fortnight and that within the next fortnight or three weeks Government time will be forthcoming, that would be a reasonable representation. Might I put it to the Tánaiste that the matter should be reconsidered with that in mind?
If the Deputy wishes to have it arranged it can be discussed again by the Whips, but I think that at the present time, or in the immediate future there is no likelihood of time being given.
I propose to raise the matter again on the Order of Business at a later date when the Tánaiste will have had an opportunity of considering it.
Is it intended that time should be given to Private Deputies' business to-day?
No.
In the next breath after telling us that he will not give us three hours.
I explained to the chief Opposition Whip and to Deputy Norton that we intended to take Private Deputies' time to-night.
I am aware of that. Let us not trench on the Whip's function. I do not impugn his good faith at all. I desire to make an emphatic protest against the Government refusing the principal Opposition two or three hours of Government time and, in the next breath, saying that they intended to take Private Members' time. I am doing my best to get Parliamentary procedure carried on along normal lines, each side of the House getting a fair "do"; but the Minister knows that if we have to fight we will fight. It is much better for us all that we should not engage in contests of that kind; but the Tánaiste will find that the resources of civilisation are not exhausted if the Government try to be wholly unreasonable in matters of this sort.
Are you throwing down the gauntlet?
Do not mind the gauntlet.
I am always prepared to take it up.
Ordered: That Government Business be not interrupted at 9 p.m. for the taking of Private Deputies' Business.