A Chinn Chomhairle, in accordance with the notice I gave you I should like to ask your permission to move a motion for the adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order No. 27 on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the suffering caused particularly amongst the poorer classes of the population by the shortage of bread supplies or their inequitable distribution under the restrictions imposed from the 23rd February.
Order of Business.
This motion appears to be one contemplated by Standing Order No. 27. Would the Deputies who support the request, please rise in their places?
Deputies rose.
Leave is given, and, in the absence of other arrangements, the motion will be taken in accordance with the Standing Order. The Standing Order fixes 9 o'clock. That will be 8 o'clock under the temporary Standing Order.
On that point I endeavoured to get an arrangement with the Minister for Supplies, through the Whip, so that the matter would be taken early. In the course of supplementary answers, dealing with some of these matters to-day, the Minister intimated that he did not see any necessity for taking this discussion before 8 o'clock to-night. I would ask the Minister to realise that this question of the rationing of bread is a difficult matter, and that he wants the co-operation of everyone in the country in connection with it. Therefore, I think he must also realise that the proposals and action required in the matter are certainly, to say the least of it, not thoroughly understood. There are two things necessary, first, that we here and the country—both from the Minister and through ourselves—would understand what is required; and, in the second place, that he would understand from the various parts of the House here—and every part of the country, from Donegal and Kerry up to Dublin is affected—what the situation in the country has been during the past week or ten days, as a result of the suddenness and the lack of plan and instructions that would help people to restrict the use of bread supplies in a reasonable kind of way.
I suggest now that, by leaving the opening of this discussion until 8 o'clock to-night, while we will have an opportunity to hear him, he will have no opportunity to hear what has happened in the country. It is very necessary that he should understand that. It is necessary to try to fix responsibility somewhere or other for the failure that has taken place in this case, so that it may be remedied all the quicker and so that occasions of a similar nature may be avoided in future.
I understand that the time at which this motion is to be discussed is fixed by Standing Order. I accepted that and have made arrangements accordingly. I was notified by the Ceann Comhairle that he had received this motion, that he proposed to accept it, and that it would be discussed at eight o'clock, and I made arrangements accordingly.
The Standing Order fixes nine o'clock—which is now eight o'clock—or at such other earlier hour as may be agreed on by the Dáil. It is a matter for agreement. The Deputy is in order in asking for an earlier hour.
There were four questions down to-day on the subject of bread by four different Deputies. Naturally, these Deputies are interested in the discussion. If we are to have only an hour and a half for the discussion, that will be inadequate. Would the Minister consider making the starting hour of the discussion earlier than eight o'clock? There is nothing to be gained except misunderstanding by a short and inadequate discussion.
Would the Minister undertake to begin the discussion at six o'clock?
I am sorry, sir, but I have made certain arrangements which would make it impossible for me to be here at six o'clock. I was given to understand that the debate would start at eight o'clock.
The Ceann Comhairle did not fix eight o'clock. It is laid down in the Standing Order.
In view of the urgency of this matter, concerning not only Dublin, but the whole country, would the Minister agree to having this taken after questions to-morrow?
It cannot be taken to-morrow.
Why?
This is a motion for the adjournment of the House.
Mr. Morrissey
Surely this is of sufficient importance to warrant taking to-day and all day to-morrow?
The importance of the matter is not determined in that way.
Mr. Morrissey
It will have to be determined. There is no other matter that is half as important as this. Surely, if we are going to discuss how people are to get bread, there is nothing more important.
As a Deputy for Dublin City, I strongly protest against the limiting of the time for the discussion.
There should not be prolonged discussion on the matter. The Standing Order provides for a request for further time.
I understand that this would begin at eight o'clock and, I take it, it would finish at half-past nine. I wish to draw the attention of the Minister for Supplies to the fact that there are 15 Deputies representing the City of Dublin, and that not more than two or three of them would have an opportunity to take part in the discussion. A matter of such importance as this should not be glossed over in that way.
Mr. Byrne
I think that all the other business down on the agenda to-day should be adjourned in order to provide time from now onwards, so that we could devote the whole day to this. It is worthy of the time, so that the Deputies may draw the Minister's attention to the seriousness of the situation.
How long will the Minister take to make his own statement— out of the hour and a half?
I would like to make it clear that, on the 27th February, I wrote to the Minister for Supplies, on the same day as I wrote to you, Sir, and said:
"I enclose copies of questions, which will appear on the Order Paper for Wednesday, 4th March. I should like you to know that I propose, after questions on Wednesday, to ask the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, under Standing Order No. 27, to move a motion for the adjournment of the Dáil on a definite matter of urgent public importance."
Then I gave the motion. I endeavoured to make arrangements that the discussion would take place after questions. That letter itself should be sufficient for the Minister, and he should not have any misconception as to what it involved.
I had no misconception. I had inquiries directed to the Ceann Comhairle's office as to what was proposed and I was informed that the Ceann Comhairle proposed to accept the motion and that the discussion would take place at 8 o'clock.
What the Ceann Comhairle intimated has been misunderstood. The old Standing Order sets out 9 o'clock—which the Ceann Comhairle explained would be 8 o'clock under the emergency arrangement. The Standing Order also says: "At such earlier hour as may be fixed."
Deputy Morrissey rose.
Really, Deputies should not speak twice.
Mr. Morrissey
This is just a short speech. This matter is not a Party matter: it is of vital importance that adequate time should be given. How are we to expect the people of Dublin or of any part of the country to have any respect for the House, if we do not give time?
I must confess I am completely at a loss to understand why this cannot be taken on the Vote on Account, instead of on the Adjournment.
The Vote on Account is down for to-day.
On the Vote on Account we are asked to vote something like £13,000,000 or £14,000,000. It is a Parliamentary discussion on an expenditure of something like £40,000,000. If the House is to be bottled and choked on discussion of a matter like the Vote on Account, if that is implied by having this rushed bread emergency brought into the House to stop discussion on any other matter but that, then I think it is in keeping with the way in which the bread situation is being treated.
The answer is that the normal practice is for a member of the Opposition to give some intimation as to what it is proposed to discuss on the Vote on Account. As far as I know, no intimation of any kind has been given as to what the Opposition proposes to discuss on that Vote.
Mr. Morrissey
That is a red herring.
The first intimation that we got that the Vote on Account was to be discussed to-day was when inquiries were made as to Parliamentary business on Monday last.
Does not the fact still remain that the House could discuss this on the Vote on Account?
My sense in this particular matter dictated as long ago as the 27th February that there was an urgent matter to be discussed. The matter is still important. I have received letters from Donegal, Tipperary, Kerry and Galway regarding it. It is the Minister's responsibility.
And the discussion can take place.
We could settle this by taking the Vote on Account first and Deputy Mulcahy could then move the adjournment of the House.
Mr. Morrissey
Is there any reason why the Vote on Account should not be taken to-morrow?
This is not an unreasonable request. It is a thing that is bound to arise.
Is there any serious objection to having this discussed on the Vote on Account?
There is; it would get lost in it.
Not unless Deputies wish to lose it.
The Minister says he cannot be here.
Who heard me say that?
Yes, the Minister said that.
The Minister says he cannot be here to listen if we start earlier.
If it is going to be discussed on the Vote on Account, everything else will be discussed with it. It will be mixed up with tea, sugar, petrol and every other thing. The position is that I do not believe that the Minister for Supplies, whatever knowledge he may have from the Dublin Deputies, has the faintest idea of what has happened in the country since he made his broadcast on Friday week. If he knew everything, he would give the whole three days to this discussion.
A decision should be arrived at without further delay.
Again, I would ask the Minister to take the discussion at six o'clock this evening.
I will agree to take it at 7 o'clock.
That is not sufficient.
I think it is quite sufficient, having regard to the facilities given on the Vote on Account. If Deputies are merely concerned to ascertain the facts and make suggestions, it is quite sufficient. If they want to make it an all-in debate on Government policy generally then, of course, the right occasion is on the Vote on Account, not on a motion for the adjournment.
The discussion will begin at 7 o'clock. It has been the custom to give written notice to the Ceann Comhairle of the subject or subjects (rarely more than two) to be discussed on the Vote on Account. Such subjects should be ones involving major questions of policy or expenditure. The Votes are not itemised, and detailed discussion must be reserved until the Estimates are being discussed. Deputy Linehan's passing remark about some half a dozen matters as likely to arise was alarming. The Opposition Parties might give some intimation even now of the matters for debate.
Normally I think we also get more than 48 hours' notice of the taking of the Vote on Account.
The Chair is not responsible for that.
We never got any when we were the Opposition—not even 24 hours.
You were away for most of the day.
That was the courtesy extended to us. It is proposed to take business on the Order Paper in the following order: Nos. 7, 8, 9, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 10 and 12.
That is very optimistic.
Very; always optimistic. I understand that Deputy Flinn, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, desires to ask the House for leave to make a statement on turf.
When?
As soon as the two Bills have been introduced. That will be in a few minutes' time.
Prior to the Vote on Account?
Yes. It is understood there will be no discussion on that statement, there being no motion before the House.
May I put this point to you—will we not be permitted to ask the Parliamentary Secretary the type of supplementary questions which we would have been entitled to ask him if he had answered the questions at the normal time?
Within reason and at the discretion of the Chair.
Would not the Parliamentary Secretary make his statement during the Vote on Account, as the Minister suggested we might do in regard to bread?
It would be more relevant on the Estimate. Discussion should not be duplicated.