I understand. Sir, that the Whips have not yet come to an agreement and whether or not it will be possible at this stage for them to do so I do not know.
Business of Dáil.
That is not quite correct.
Anything I say is right.
This is a statement of fact. The position was that the Taoiseach through you. Sir, requested the Whips to meet to see if it would be possible to arrive at an agreement whereby we would have a discussion on the internment proposal tomorrow and we could not arrive at agreement because the only way in which they were prepared to have that discussion was if we would curtail our opposition to the Prices and Incomes Bill. That meeting was definitely concluded. With regard to what business we will discuss next week, or tomorrow, that has not yet concluded. What the Taoiseach referred to has concluded. It is regrettable that the Taoiseach, as Leader of the Government, will have to bear a very large measure of responsibility for whatever repercussions——
This is not in order.
——ensue because of the Taoiseach's refusal to give us an opportunity here to discuss this matter as public representatives. As you are probably aware. Sir, I tendered a motion——
The Deputy may not refer to the motion and he may not read the motion. The Deputy should obey Standing Orders.
I have made the point.
Could the Chair tell the House if any instructions were conveyed to him by the Taoiseach with regard to his ruling on this matter?
There was no instruction from any part of the House. I ruled in accordance with Standing Order 29 and I would ask the Deputy to read the Standing Order.
Then why did you say it was for the Taoiseach to decide if there would be a debate?
That is the responsibility of the Government. The Chair has no responsibility in the matter.
What exactly is the position now in regard to business? Deputy Cluskey has explained what happened and the Taoiseach said no agreement has been reached. Could we be told what exactly will happen now?
The information I got was that the Whips had adjourned and had agreed to resume at 2.15 p.m. On resumption at 2.15 p.m. they would discuss the proposition that there would be a debate tomorrow on the Government's statement last Friday, that we would have two 12-hour sessions next week in which all the outstanding legislative business would be concluded, and then we could have an Adjournment Debate on Thursday and Friday of next week to conclude business before Christmas. I understood that proposition would be discussed at 2.15 p.m. I understand now from the Government Chief Whip that no agreement was reached. That is the position.
May I make one point? Before the House decided this morning on this procedure of the Whips discussing the matter and referring it to the Taoiseach for his approval, surely we made it very clear it would be impossible for us to agree that all Stages of a certain Bill would be taken in a certain time?
Of course.
I think the House has been deceived because when we discussed this this morning the Taoiseach was apparently prepared to agree there could be no alternative other than insisting on everything being done by a certain time and now he comes back with exactly what he proposed at half-past ten this morning.
The position now appears to be that both Fine Gael and Labour have taken up a position from which they will not retreat.
It is the Taoiseach who is doing that.
The Taoiseach must agree that neither the Fine Gael Party nor the Labour Party agree to internment without trial.
It is the Taoiseach who should be interned.
Is it not both improper and unfair to put to the Opposition the proposition that they must curtail a debate that otherwise would not be curtailed in order to discuss the internment issue? We accept that if we take up time on this issue then the Taoiseach should be given the same amount of time so that the debate will not be curtailed, but that does not satisfy him. What he is seeking is not only that we will curtail the debate in time but give an additional guarantee that we will include the debate on a certain measure. Will he not get his Whip to discuss with the other Whips an arrangement under which extra time will be given to the debate on the Prices and Incomes Bill without our having to agree to something to which we cannot agree and the Taoiseach knows we cannot agree to it?
I can order extra time for Government business any time I want. There is no concession there from any of the parties opposite.
What is the problem then? The Taoiseach is trying to stop a debate on internment.
There is no problem. The fact is, and it is in the Bill, the Prices and Incomes Bill to be effective must be put through both the Dáil and the Seanad before the end of the year.
Deputies
No, no.
It is retrospective.
It must be in operation on 1st January. It is necessary to bring it into operation on 1st January because of the danger of inflation and of prices rising without any curb whatever. If that statement on last Friday had never been made we would have gone to the other parties in any event to seek an arrangement to conclude all the legislative business before the Christmas Recess. That is something which is always done at this time of the year. Let us have less of this concession. Their suggestion of an extra few hours is no concession so far as I am concerned. The legislation is necessary.
If this internment issue had not been announced the Taoiseach's request to the Opposition in regard to their opposition to the Prices and Incomes Bill would never have been made. The Taoiseach is now using the internment threat to achieve what he wants.
I repudiate that entirely.
He is using the internment threat to get the Prices and Incomes Bill through without opposition.
I am not threatening anybody.
The Taoiseach is using it as a threat in this House to get the Prices and Incomes Bill through.
It has always been the practice for the Opposition to cooperate with the Government when essential legislation is before the House.
Not if we are opposed to the legislation.
I was a Party Whip for years and I know, and so does the Taoiseach, that again and again business declared by the Government to be vitally important before the end of the session could not be concluded in the session. The same situation arises now: this may not be concluded. Would the Taoiseach tell me where in any of the speeches made by the Minister, or by any Fianna Fáil Deputy, or in the Bill is there a reference to 1st January?
It was mentioned by me on the Second Stage.
16th October, 1970, is the date the Minister gave.
And I referred to the Bill expiring on 31st December.
Can the Taoiseach give the House an assurance that he will give extra time for the House to debate his internment measure?
I will give no assurance whatsoever unless I get a reasonable assurance from the Opposition about the Prices and Incomes Bill.
He wants us to surrender.
The situation would appear to be that, while the Taoiseach was very definite yesterday no time could be given and there could be no debate, he then suggested an effort should be made to get an arrangement through the Whips that we would not give effective and full opposition to another Bill, which is also undemocratic as far as we are concerned.
A horse dealer in Macroom would do better than that.
You are the greatest horse dealers in the country.
You are refusing a debate——
The Taoiseach offered a debate yesterday.
Deputies
No, no.
I said here openly yesterday that I was prepared to permit, during the course of an Adjournment Debate, a discussion on the Government's statement about internment— and it is on the record of the House.
Next week, you said.
I then offered a debate this week on certain conditions. I do not think these conditions are unreasonable.
Deputies
They are unreasonable.
It is complete blackmail.
(Interruptions.)
Why are the Government blackmailing us to get their Prices and Incomes Bill through?
Deputies
The jackboot.
If the Taoiseach was hoping to get the Prices and Incomes Bill through because the Labour Party would be so depleted, through people standing by their principles, he will be disappointed. The sacrifices of the Leader of the Labour Party and of three other Labour Deputies were not in vain. Thanks be to God, you have at last been exposed for what you are——
A Deputy
A Quisling.
——a dictator.
I am not going to accept insults that have been buried at me.
Accept the facts.
The facts.
Less of this hypocrisy.
I ask the Chair to ask them to withdraw.
We have no intention of being intimidated by you or your colonels.
I request that Deputy Cluskey be asked to withdraw the remark.
What remark?
You called me a Quisling dictator. I think that is an unparliamentary remark.
You are not dictating to the Chair openly now, are you?
Deputy Cluskey should withdraw the expression. It is unparliamentary.
Did you hear him?
He admitted he made it.
I did not use the word "Quisling".
Deputies
You did.
I did use the word "dictator".
If Deputy Cluskey withdraws the word "Quisling", I am happy about it.
I am glad the Taoiseach accepts "dictator".
Under Standing Order 29, I want to move the following motion :
That, in view of the Taoiseach's Dáil statement that he could not guarantee that measures of internment could not be taken between now and the resumption of the Dáil next week, the Dáil should discuss as a matter of urgency the Government's internment announcement.
The Chair has no notice of this. Notice should have been given at the commencement of the sitting, in accordance with the Standing Order. It is completely out of order.
Not only has notice been given but it has been circulated. It was handed in last night. I gave notice last night——
No notice has been given before the commencement of the sitting, in accordance with Standing Order——
It has even been circulated in stencilled form to the House.
I have not seen any motion.
Read the motion.
We must have some order. This is not a students' debating society.
I would point out to Deputy FitzGerald that even if the necessary notice had been given this should have been done at the commencement of business today.
I gave it in yesterday. I waited to do so this morning but, because of the way business went, and in view of the Taoiseach's suggestion about the meeting of the Whips——
Is the Deputy reading out a statement of a motion that is not before the House.
Deputies
Chair, Chair.
This is grossly disorderly.
It is in order. My motion reads: "That, in view of the Taoiseach's Dáil statement——"
It is not in order.
The Chair is the judge of order, not Deputy FitzGerald.
The Deputy did not give any notice——
I am now taking the first opportunity that has been available to me after the discussion between the Whips. It would be quite in order for me, on an urgent matter, to discuss——
The Deputy should have given notice prior to the sitting and made his application at the commencement of public business this morning. It is out of order to do so now.
I could not do so this morning because the matter was under discussion in another form. How could I raise it when the Whips were discussing it?
The Deputy will appreciate that he did not give notice in accordance with Standing Order 29 which also lays down that he rise in his place at the commencement of business and request leave to move——
Deputy FitzGerald should do his parliamentary homework.
Did the Ceann Comhairle get notice of that in advance?
Despite the fact that the General Office of the Dáil has circulated the motion in stencilled form?
This matter was not discussed by the Whips.
I know it was not. This is my whole point. May I explain?
The Deputy is completely out of order.
I gave notice of this——
Deputies
Chair, Chair.
Will Deputy FitzGerald please resume his seat?
Allow me to explain the position.
Explain the position.
(Interruptions.)
Evidently Deputy FitzGerald does not know what Standing Order 29 means.
I could not raise this matter this morning because of the disorder. I am taking the first opportunity to raise it after the conclusion of the discussion between the Whips.
If the Deputy could not raise the matter this morning, he certainly cannot raise it now. It would be out of order.
When can I raise