Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 11 Mar 1926

Vol. 14 No. 15

DEPUTY O'MARA'S MOTION.

I would like to ask whether the question put to the President by Deputy James O'Mara has been disposed of?

I understood the agreement was that the House would adjourn this evening until the 23rd March. In that case Deputy O'Mara's motion would be put down for consideration on the 24th March, during Private Deputies' time, if it were confined to Private Deputies' time.

If I am allowed to bring forward the motion on the 24th, I am quite satisfied.

In view of the fact that there will be only one-and-a-half hours available on the 24th, and that this is a motion upon which many Deputies will be almost certain to speak, will the President consider the advisability of allocating some of the Government time, if necessary?

The Government business will be the consideration of a Vote on Account, and the Central Fund Bill. As I understand it, the motion is very little different from the Estimates.

I agree with the President, to a certain extent, that very much the same speeches can be made on the motion and on the Vote on Account and the Central Fund Bill; but he might inoculate himself against speeches on the Central Fund Bill by allowing full discussion on Deputy O'Mara's motion.

One might as well read the "Independent."

There is very little time left between the 23rd and the 31st March, yet in that period Bills have to pass through two Houses?

In the circumstances time should not be wasted in holidays.

Does the President refuse to give me a day on which I can move my motion?

I do not know that I should go to any great length to point out to Deputy O'Mara that the Central Fund Bill is a matter of very great importance. Whatever economies may be effected in the national expenditure, I am sure Deputy O'Mara will admit that the necessary services of the State must be carried on. Unless that Bill is disposed of during the week before the 1st April, the Minister for Finance cannot issue a penny in payment; he must have authority. I leave it to the judgment of the House whether one item is more important than the other. In my view the Central Fund Bill is the more important matter. Whoever would occupy my office, he could have no other answer to make.

I recognise it is of great importance to the Ministry to get money from the House. I also recognise it is of great importance to the House to keep control over expenditure. There are other matters that require to be discussed on the Vote on Account. My motion is a very definite one, and I want to get an expression from the House upon it. There is no necessity for the House to adjourn to-morrow and I think my motion could be discussed to-morrow.

Does the President consider it right to discourage the new-found zeal of the Deputy?

The House could re-assemble on the 22nd March for the consideration of this motion, if it so desires. I am prepared to leave it an open question.

I am not satisfied that there is any reason for not meeting to-morrow. There is no assurance that the business on the Orders of the Day will be disposed of to-day. I think we ought to meet to-morrow, especially in view of the proposal that Deputy O'Mara is putting forward for consideration. In his motion he is going to prove that the whole surplus income of the people above the mere subsistence level is absorbed by the present taxation. If the Deputy can prove that it will make a great difference to the attitude of other Deputies with regard to taxation and future estimates.

I handed in an amendment to this motion. Apparently it has not yet been circulated amongst Deputies. I suggest that this motion is likely to give rise to very considerable discussion. It is a matter of first-class importance to the country. I have not been influenced in the slightest degree by newspaper stunts in regard to taxation and economy. I suggest the President should allocate a day next week for the consideration of this matter. Why not March 18th, the day after St. Patrick's Day?

Or the day before?

I do not think one and a half hours on the 23rd March would be sufficient; the discussion could not be finished in that period.

Let us hear the Deputy's amendment.

I want all the week from the 23rd March for Government business, with the exception of whatever time is allotted for Private Business. If additional time is needed, I am prepared to leave it to the House to ask for that extra time.

I think there is something in Deputy Heffernan's suggestion that we should meet next week.

If the House meets on the 23rd March it will have to take up the Vote on Account and subsequently a Central Fund Bill which will have to be put through all its stages more rapidly than an ordinary Bill. A discussion on the Vote on Account would be almost exactly the same as a discussion on Deputy O'Mara's motion. There are two questions and on each of these questions the same debate arises. You could get the whole debate on either of them by passing one without debate. If Deputy O'Mara's motion were carried unanimously without debate, then the debate would arise on the Vote on Account; if the Vote on Account were carried without debate, sufficient time would then be available for a debate on Deputy O'Mara's motion.

What about my amendment, which may not be carried unanimously?

If the Vote on Account were agreed Deputy Heffernan's amendment to this motion would be discussed in due course, that is if it is a proper amendment relative to the motion it will come up for discussion in due course on the motion.

It could not be discussed on the Vote on Account.

I will read Deputy Heffernan's amendment; it is:—

To delete all words after the word "that" where it first occurs and insert in their place the following words:—

"In view of the depressed condition of the agricultural industry and its reactions on trade and commerce with resultant unemployment, the Dáil is of opinion that a reduction in national expenditure is essential, and is of opinion that the most expeditious and effective means of bringing this about is by the appointment of a committee of independent experts to examine into departmental expenditure and organisation, with a view to making recommendations which, when carried out, will result in more economical administration and consequent reduction in expenditure."

Would it be fair either to debate on the Vote on Account or on the motion of Deputy O'Mara to put the two together?

To take a debate on Deputy O'Mara's motion in conjunction with the discussion on the Vote on Account. After all we recognise that certain monies will be required, but from the fact that that is accepted by the Dáil it is not to be inferred that there is no reason for raising the question Deputy O'Mara has raised and for putting forward arguments in support of it. It cannot be said that you can have a discussion on both and that one must be put against the other. That is very likely what it will come about.

Perhaps it is always a mistake to attempt to explain. I am sorry if my attempt at explanation has been misunderstood. I did not suggest that Deputy O'Mara's motion and the motion for a Vote on Account should be taken together. I suggested that if the Vote on Account were passed, taken out of the way as it were, you would have a whole week for the discussion of Deputy O'Mara's motion.

There were certain Bills referred to the date on which we resume, so this would not be the only business to be discussed by the Dáil. I urge on the President that this matter has now been thrown open to public discussion. It will be the subject of animated discussion in the papers and most of the materials that will be used in the course of the discussion might be silenced if a debate on the subject took place here to-morrow. A good deal of wasted time and energy and ink would be saved if we could have a debate here to-morrow.

My motion raises a perfectly plain issue. On a Vote on Account anything could be spoken of and speeches could be made that have no reference to the motion on the paper and the Ceann Comhairle will not, under the rules of order, be able to stop speakers discussing practically anything. If the Government are willing to discuss this matter of economy, and I have no doubt they are willing to discuss it, and to take a plain and simple discussion on a straightforward vote as to how economy will be best effected, then the Government should not hesitate to give me an opportunity for the discussion of my motion. I have asked for that opportunity on Private Members' Day next week, but I should not hesitate to raise it if I was given the opportunity in Private Members' time to-morrow.

The question to be decided is the motion of the President, that the Dáil, at its rising to-day, shall adjourn until March 23rd or whether we meet to-morrow.

I urge it would be better to take this motion to-morrow or on the 18th and to get done with it. Deputy Corish does not agree with me, but we all know it has been done to death in the Press and a good deal has been spoken and written about this matter by people who do not believe it themselves. Now that action has been taken on the matter by a member of the Government Party, if the Government are not prepared to face the issue, they will only give people in the country who are anxious to make capital out of everything, a chance to say that they are not prepared to face it. The sooner the Dáil faces this the better and the sooner that everything is said on every side that can be said the better, and then I believe there will be a clearer air for the discussion of the estimates and the Vote on Account later on.

Would it not be much more reasonable if people were made to understand that if this matter wants discussion it ought to have been discussed a couple of months ago, and that it is unreasonable to bring discussions of this particular kind forward now, and that we should leave the ordinary routine to deal with matters of this nature? If there are points that would be raised by this motion with regard to expenditure is not the proper place to raise them on the Vote on Account or the accompanying Bill. I think it would be a much better way to clear the air to make people understand that we were accepting the President's motion with regard to the session for the reason that proper and systematic discussion, in an ordered way, will arise in the debate on the Vote on Account, and that if discussions are wanted on motions of this kind the time to take them is not when we are in the middle of a financial discussion, but two or three or four or six months before that.

I want to explain my point of view. I had it in mind for the past two or three months to put down a motion of this kind. I did not put down this motion because the economic stunt was being run to death in the Press and the natural inference would be that I was taking my headline from the papers. I quite recognise the newspapers are entitled to give a heading, still I think the good has been taken out of this very matter by the fact that it is over-discussed and over-emphasised. The Minister for Finance will be bringing forward his Budget next month and he might be influenced in the decision arrived at with regard to his Budget, by the discussions in the Dáil and the statements that would be made here in that discussion, and while I recognise it is a little late I think it is not too late, but I think a postponement of this matter to the 23rd would be putting it back too far and too close to the introduction of the Budget. I suggest the best way the Minister could meet us would be to have a discussion to-morrow. To-morrow would give us a good opportunity for the discussion for this motion and my amendment to the motion.

Does the Deputy consider that the 12th March is the proper date to start a discussion with a view to making the Minister for Finance change his whole outlook on the Budget?

I have suggested meeting on the 23rd March. I am fairly well satisfied, from what I have heard from members generally, that the attendance on Friday is not regarded as the best attendance during the week—that there is a disposition to get away on Friday. An understanding was arrived at during this week that there would be no business for Friday. This motion is down for Wednesday, 17th March. If Deputy O'Mara had come to me during the week and informed me that he was putting down this motion and if I had failed to explain to him that the Constitution and the Standing Orders prescribed certain dates for the presentation of estimates, that the presentation of estimates involved the consideration of them long before their presentation—that little short of the magician's wand could effect the purpose of this resolution— then we might have had this motion put down for to-morrow and notice given to members so that they would not make appointments elsewhere for to-morrow. That was not done. I am one of those who are utterly indifferent to ramps about things. There has been an economy ramp. There have been statements by members of local authorities who have not had, perhaps, the moral courage to stand up to their own difficulties in various places——

And by members of the Dáil, too.

They say that Government expenditure must be reduced but they do not indicate in what direction we can reduce it. One way would be to stop education.

Are we discussing the motion now?

I am discussing the merits of the motion.

May I move it before the President discusses the merits of it?

I was going to say to Deputy O'Mara——

On a point of order, may I not move the motion before the President discusses it?

The Deputy should have moved it three months ago.

The Deputy should have moved it himself.

I was here; the Deputy was not.

Why did the Deputy not move it then?

I have no interest in the Deputy's motion.

The motion is that the Dáil on rising to-day stands adjourned until March 23rd, and the merits or demerits of Deputy O'Mara's motion do not arise. Since I cannot give Deputy O'Mara an opportunity of explaining the merits of the motion perhaps it would be better that the demerits of the motion should not be dilated upon.

I wanted to make plain what the idea was in not affording Government time for this motion. If the Dáil desires to meet any day next week to consider this motion I have no objection. I am a private member in that respect, and it is open to every Deputy to vote in any way he wishes with regard to that. It is a matter for Deputies, having regard to the fact that the Central Fund Bill will be before the Dáil the following week, whether the importance of this motion is such as to justify further expenditure in bringing Deputies here at a time when economy is the first consideration. (Deputies: "Hear, hear.")

The Government do not always consider that.

I think it necessary to say that I know nothing of any understanding about not meeting to-morrow or even next week. I do not know whether the President suggests that there was an understanding between Parties—

—or an understanding between the President and his own Party. There was no understanding that we should not meet to-morrow and there will be no additional expense on the State if we do meet to-morrow.

If this motion is not passed, does that mean that the Dáil will meet to-morrow or, if I wish, that the Dáil should meet to-morrow; is it in order for me to propose that it should meet for the purpose of discussing this motion?

If the Dáil meets to-morrow, can we discuss this motion?

If the Dáil meets to-morrow, Deputy O'Mara's motion will not be in order, because permission would be required to treat it as an urgent motion, and consent would be required to take it without proper notice. I told Deputy O'Mara yesterday that the motion was not handed in in time to be put down for Private Members' time to-morrow. Therefore, unless with the consent of the President, under the ordinary rules of the House Deputy O'Mara's motion could not come on to-morrow. The motion was handed in in its present form yesterday evening. I got an amendment this morning from Deputy Egan and another this afternoon from Deputy Heffernan. But the motion of Deputy O'Mara will not be in order, from the point of view of time, to-morrow, and would not be in order until Wednesday next, if the Dáil meets on that day.

Is it in order for 17th March?

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 49; Níl, 12.

  • Earnán de Blaghd.
  • Thomas Bolger.
  • Seán Buitléir.
  • Seoirse de Bhulbh.
  • Próinsias Bulfin.
  • Séamus de Burca.
  • John J. Cole.
  • John Conlan.
  • Sir James Craig.
  • Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
  • Uí Dhrisceóil.
  • Séamus Eabhróid.
  • Michael Egan.
  • Patrick J. Egan.
  • David Hall.
  • John Hennigan.
  • Connor Hogan.
  • Seosamh Mac a' Bhrighde.
  • Liam Mac Cosgair.
  • Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
  • Patrick McGilligan.
  • Risteárd Mac Liam.
  • Eoin Mac Néill.
  • Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
  • Liam Mac Sioghaird.
  • Martin M. Nally.
  • Tomás de Nógla.
  • John T. Nolan.
  • Michael K. Noonan.
  • Peadar O hAodha.
  • Mícheál O hAonghusa.
  • Ailfrid O Broin.
  • Seán O Bruadair.
  • Risteárd O Conaill.
  • Parthalán O Conchubhair.
  • Séamus O Dóláin.
  • Eamon O Dubhghaill.
  • Peadar O Dubhghaill.
  • Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
  • Aindriú O Láimhín.
  • Risteárd O Maolchatha.
  • Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
  • Séamus O Murchadha.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
  • Máirtín O Rodaigh.
  • Seán O Súilleabháin.
  • Caoimhghín O hUigín.
  • William A. Redmond.
  • Liam Thrift.

Níl

  • Pádraig Baxter.
  • Bryan R. Cooper.
  • Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
  • Séamus Mac Cosgair.
  • Tomás Mac Eoin.
  • William Norton.
  • Tomás O Conaill.
  • Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
  • Seán O Duinnín.
  • Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
  • James O'Mara.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (Luimneach).
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Dolan and Sears. Níl: Deputies O'Mara and Heffernan.
Question declared carried.
Top
Share