Might I ask whether this Bill could possibly relieve the Government of their just responsibility with regard to debts? I am instructed that it might be possible.
INDEMNITY BILL, 1923.
Motion made and question proposed: "That the Indemnity Bill, 1923, be read a second time."
It is not intended to wipe out any of our liabilities in regard to debts at all.
Any sort of civil action?
The Bill refers to civil actions which may be taken against, let us say, a military court or members of a military court or committee who carried out, not statutory duties, but duties which were imposed by a resolution of Dáil Eireann. Having discharged those duties it would be open, in the absence of this Bill, to any person who felt aggrieved, by reason of the decision of such a Court, to take a civil action for damages. It is not meant to interfere at all with debts; that is expressly preserved.
I hope so. I am quite satisfied.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Sub-section 3 covers the very proper point, if I may say so, that you call attention to. It says:—
This section shall not prevent the institution or prosecution of (a) any proceedings by or on behalf of the Government of Saorstát Eireann or any Minister or Department of that Government, or (b) any proceedings in respect of any alleged rights under, or breaches of, any contract, or (c) any civil proceedings founded on negligence in respect of damage to person or property.
Question put and agreed to.
I beg to move to suspend the Standing Orders to enable the further stages of the Bill to be taken.
I beg to second.
I object, as we have not had time to consider the Bill.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
You have no advantage over any other Senator.
No one has had any advantage about any of these Bills, and therefore I protest, not on my own behalf, but on behalf of the Seanad. We have had sufficient of this rush legislation. We saw the Ministry going into Court yesterday and being condemned by the whole Court.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think if you wanted to ventilate your grievance on the other matter you might have been here when the Seanad was dealing with it.
Have I not the right to speak now?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Certainly, but you are not in order in referring to what has been passed by the Seanad.
I am referring to what is happening now. I have a right to refer to what happened in the High Court yesterday with regard to hurried legislation. Legislation was hurried through the Seanad at a most unreasonable rate as you, Cathaoirleach, said yourself and the result was that the Bill was condemned very strongly by the whole Court. We are now rushing Bills that we have not seen or considered. I protest against the whole proceedings.
Question put and agreed to.