I beg, sir, with your permission, to intervene for a moment before we take the next item. I find that we could adjourn to-morrow for a fortnight, granted that the Minister for Justice would get some facilities in connection with the Land Bill. That has been more or less agreed to, but it would be necessary for him to get accommodation to-morrow for the Committee, Report and Final Stages of the measure, and if that could be agreed on we could adjourn for a fortnight. I mention it now to give Deputies an opportunity of considering the matter in time so that they could raise any objections this evening or to-morrow. I understand that there is a request from some Deputies that the School Attendance Bill should not be taken to-morrow, and I presume that when we are about to adjourn to-night we will be able to hear what the general view is as to whether we should adjourn from to-night, or sit to-morrow and finish the Land Bill.
PRIVATE BUSINESS. - BUSINESS OF THE DAIL.
I would have a very strong objection to any further postponement of the School Attendance Bill if it were possible to get the Committee Stage concluded before this proposed adjournment. The President knows that there have been very long delays, some of them unavoidable, some of them otherwise, with regard to this Bill. It is three years late. There have been no such delays in connection with any other Bill. Between the Committee Stage and the Report Stage it may be necessary to have a delay of, say, a week or ten days. If it is put off for another fortnight it will be well into April, into the Easter Recess, before we get it through, and I see no reason why it could not be got through this evening or to-morrow. I do not think that there is any very important business on for to-morrow, with the exception of the Bill mentioned by the President, and I suggest that an attempt should be made to finish the Committee Stage of the School Attendance Bill before the adjournment spoken of by the President.
While I am equally anxious with Deputy O'Connell that this Bill should be taken at the earliest moment, I would suggest that the most important amendments come on at the early stages, that is, they will probably come on to-morrow.
They will come on to-night.
Well, it would be very late to-night, if we reach them to-night, but even so we could not finish the discussion. We will have, as we always have on a Friday, a thin House when this important matter is being discussed. Furthermore, if we adjourn to-morrow afternoon for a fortnight we will have an interregnum in the middle of a Bill. I suggest that we should leave the Bill over, let it be the first item on the Order Paper immediately after the adjournment, and then let it be dealt with continuously. But to have a break of a fortnight and to have the most important amendments in connection with the Bill settled in a thin House to-morrow would be exceedingly undesirable.
I agree. I think it would be undesirable to have a discussion starting to-night, probably broken off in the middle of an important part, and taken up to-morrow, when there will be comparatively few here, with the main debate split up into two, three or four sessions. I think that that would be very unfortunate after waiting so long for the Bill.
I am of the opinion of my colleague, Deputy Thrift. I would like to have this taken continuously, but I do not see how it could possibly be finished to-morrow. There will be a long debate on certain points. If there was a chance of clearing it off this week I would agree with Deputy O'Connell. We have waited a long time for the Bill, but there are serious objections to having a break in the Committee Stage.
I am not very clear as to what is in the minds of Deputies regarding the Committee Stage of the Bill. It did not seem to me that there were likely to be very long discussions on the Committee Stage, judging by the appearance of the amendments.
There are forty-nine amendments.
Yes, but three or four of them are consequential upon others.
Some of them are most contentious.
If Deputies have made up their minds that there is going to be a good deal of contention, then that argument holds.
I took it for granted that one particular thing would be most contentious.
Then I must suggest the necessity for meeting next week. That is the conclusion I would draw from the views that Deputies have expressed, that we should meet next week, and if there is no other business it is obvious that we would go right through with this Bill, not that we should delay for a fortnight. That is an obvious conclusion from the arguments. Then I take it we shall be having the Estimates, not the Supplementary Estimates, within the next two or three weeks, and that will give the House plenty to discuss, I think. But I think the obvious conclusion to be drawn from this discussion is that we should meet next week.
As far as I can see, if we are to have the Committee Stage of this Bill in continuous sittings, the only thing we can do is to adjourn the whole Committee Stage until we meet again. Otherwise, if we start to discuss it now we either have to rush it and attempt to finish it, or break off to-morrow and postpone the consideration of it for a couple of weeks further. As Deputies know, it is impossible to forecast how long the Committee Stage of a Bill may take. What appears to be a very minor amendment may develop a very long debate. We had to-day a very long debate on certain things that looked very unimportant, and still some Deputies thought fit to talk on them at very great length. I am inclined to think we have only two alternatives—adjourn the Committee Stage until we meet again in a week or two, or do what Deputy Johnson says, continue sitting next week and finish the Committee Stage of the Bill, starting to-night.
I certainly think that we should not proceed with the discussion of the amendments in the absence of the Farmers' Party. That being so, it is useless to commence to-night, go on to-morrow, and possibly break off in the middle of the Committee Stage. I do not see any objection whatever to Deputy Johnson's proposal that we should meet next week. I do not see why we should not.
I do not see that anything has been said against carrying on the discussion on the first amendment to-night, going on to-morrow, and, if we are going to meet for two or three days, continue next week in the ordinary course. Then when the Committee Stage is finished, let the adjournment take place.
I would strongly protest against taking any of the important amendments to-morrow. Our experience is that Friday is a day of poor attendance in the House, and to take one of the most important clauses in the Bill, at such a period, is exceedingly inadvisable. I would stress the need, even if we were to meet next week, to leave the Bill over until next week, and let us go through with it continuously. It would be extremely unwise to start on a portion of it to-night and take the most important portion of it to-morrow, in the conditions that we know prevail in the House on a Friday.
There is no Deputy who is more anxious that the Bill should become law than I am, but I absolutely agree with Deputy Good and the other Deputies who have spoken as to the undesirability of starting the Committee Stage to-night and breaking off in the consideration of it. There is no use in people saying that they would not lose interest in it. I think it would be exceedingly undesirable to commence the Committee Stage now. We should leave it over.
I would like to ask what business can we take to-morrow if we do not take the School Attendance Bill? Deputy Good objects to taking that in a small House. Are we to take the Land Bill, which raises a great constitutional issue, in a small House? Are we to take the Estimates and vote away sums amounting to half a million in a small House? The logical conclusion to the Deputy's argument is that we should not sit on Friday at all.
Or on any other day that we have a small House.
took the Chair.
I only mentioned that on the adjournment to-night I would make this statement in regard to adjourning for a fortnight, conditional on getting the order made for Wednesday on the Land Bill discharged and the Committee and final stages taken to-morrow. I was informed the School Attendance Bill had been under consideration by some Deputies who wished that the Committee Stage would not be taken to-morrow. I mentioned that to the House, but that view does not appear to have been unanimously accepted. I asked leave of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to make that statement.
What is the point at issue?
Whether the School Attendance Bill is to be taken now or postponed for a fortnight.
Is there any objection to taking it to-day and to-morrow and then postponing it?
Mr. O'CONNELL
There is.
The second amendment raises a specific and a large point which, as far as the continuity is concerned, can easily be disposed of first. Then the details could be taken later. That is merely on the question of continuity.
My point is that a division may be taken, say, on to-morrow on these most important amendments, the most important items in the Bill, when a great many Deputies will not be here.
This matter will come up on the motion for the adjournment and we can discuss the question then. In the meantime we will be able to get each others point of view.
If there is going to be a long adjournment I would like that as much notice as possible should be given and that a decision should be arrived at earlier than the last moment, when the House is adjourning. Assuming that the discussion on the adjournment is postponed now the next thing that will come on is the School Attendance Bill.
I think it is well to state here that the proposal for a long adjournment seems to be dependent on taking the Land Bill to-morrow. I think it is a very undesirable course if it could be avoided, because undoubtedly it is a very important Bill, and while the Dáil is the body that has to decide, there should be a fair opportunity given to the public, to whom the matters affected have been quite strange. They have not been apprised of them, and I think it at least necessary that an opportunity should be given to that public to become acquainted with the Bill and the issues raised. On that alone I think it is desirable that there should be a meeting next week, and that combined with the need of discussing the School Attendance Bill seems to compel us to the conclusion that we ought not to adjourn for a fortnight to-morrow.
The matter can be reconsidered to-morrow.