Deputy Lemass, very properly, has given me notice of a question which he proposes to ask under Standing Order 29.
Request for Judicial Tribunal.
It is requested that leave be granted to move the Adjournment of the Dáil for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., to request the Government, prior to the Adjournment of the Dáil, to establish a judicial tribunal to investigate the allegations made by the Minister for Agriculture in the Dáil on December 14th and 15th against the Beet Growers' Association and members thereof, and against Deputy Martin Corry in the matter of the sale and purchase of dried factory lime produced at Tuam Sugar Factory.
I do not think the subject proposed by Deputy Lemass is one contemplated by Standing Order 29 in the matter of urgency. Urgency in that connection is always interpreted as such a condition that delay might prevent any action being taken later. That does not arise in this case. No irremediable damage will be done in that regard. Having regard also to the action I indicated to the House, that it was my intention to refer to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges certain charges affecting Deputy Corry, I am confirmed in my opinion that the question of urgency cannot attach to this proposal, and, consequently, I cannot accede to the request.
Might I put two considerations to the Ceann Comhairle? The first is that Deputy Corry and other persons affected by these allegations have no remedy outside the Dáil. Secondly the Dáil is about to adjourn for a period of two months so that the remedy here must necessarily be delayed and that it is unjust to leave Deputy Corry and the others concerned in the position in which these allegations have been made and cannot be refuted for that period. Am I correct in assuming that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges will be concerned with the conduct of the Minister for Agriculture and will not be in a position to carry out any investigation of the allegations or make any report to the Dáil thereon?
May I inquire——
The Chair is concerned more about the insinuations or charges made against Deputy Corry than against a body such as the Beet Growers' Association. Further action is not prohibited by delay in that case and it is my intention to meet the Committee on Procedure and Privileges this afternoon to consider action as regards Deputy Corry and what it is proposed to do.
May I ask the Chair what is this attempt at raising a fog around the public record——
Deputy Lemass rose.
I want to ask a question.
On the matter of referring to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, I have not accepted Deputy Lemass' proposal. It is, therefore, not open for discussion.
I simply want to ask a question.
It is not open to discussion—or any reference to it.
If Deputy Lemass is allowed to raise a matter here, surely I am entitled to require from the Chair some clarification of what has been here mentioned, on which the Chair has expressed an opinion?
Surely I am entitled to ask what have you expressed your opinion on? Is it the vague, rambling——
I will not hear the Minister further.
What did you express your opinion on?
I have said I will not hear the Minister further.
What precisely has been referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges?
God only knows, I do not.
Against whom was the charge made?
The charge was made against Deputy Corry.
By the Minister?
Yes.
And his refusal to withdraw?
Yes.
This is at least the second time Deputy Lemass was allowed to speak.
He was allowed to put his question.
Following on your decision.
And I am not allowed to ask a question.
Deputy Lemass was allowed to put his question. He put a submission to me as to why I would not so rule.
I was not permitted to put a question.
It is all a bit of grand-stand play on the part of the Deputy.
The statements made by the Minister were malicious and false statements.
He is one of the most uncharitable Ministers in the House.
He got into office through his allegations.
There must be some order. I want no allegations or insinuations made that this is a grand-stand performance on the part of the Chair. The Chair is now concerned solely with attacks or insinuations made against members of the House, no matter on what side of the House they may be.
The Chair must not have heard me. I said clearly and specifically that it was grand-stand play on the part of Deputy Lemass.
Very well, I accept that. I did not hear that part of the Minister's statement.
The conduct of one Minister opposite is simply disgraceful, and it brings the whole Dáil into disrepute. It is about time that the people on the opposite benches put that man out of office.
That is the purpose of all this.
There will be a lot of support for that on that side of the House.
Will the Deputy and the Minister allow the Chair to address the House?