I desire to ask if the President would furnish Deputies with the legislative programme for the coming year or for that part of it which will take us up to the summer adjournment. I would also like to know from him the approximate order in which Bills will be introduced.
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMME.
That is a matter on which I desire to make a short statement. Apart from the business on the Order Paper, there are the Budget, the Finance Bill, the Appropriation Bill and the Estimates. It is proposed to take the Budget to-morrow evening and to move to sit late on to-morrow evening and on Thursday evening and to finish on Friday. It is also intended to introduce a Jurors Bill, an Amending Land Bill, a Broadcasting Bill, an Army Wounds Pensions (Amendment) Bill, and a Rent Restrictions Bill. That, as far as I know, is the complete legislative programme. There may be other measures introduced, but we would not propose to finish them. I would propose to take the Estimates on Tuesday next and would suggest, for the consideration of the Dáil, that we sit late on three nights a week, at least, in order that the adjournment may take place a little earlier than has been possible up to this. As regards the Order Paper for to-day, it is proposed to take the items on it in the order in which they are set out.
With regard to the statement made by the President as to the Bills which it is proposed to introduce during the coming session, may I ask him if we are to take it from his statement that it is not the intention of the Government to introduce any Bill to deal with the increasing amount of unemployment that there is in the country either by way of an Unemployment Insurance Bill or an extension of the present Act?
It is not intended to introduce any Bill to extend unemployment insurance.
Is the President aware—if the President is not aware of it I am sure the Minister for Industry and Commerce must be—that the number of people entitled to draw unemployment benefit is being considerably reduced? They have exhausted their right to benefit with the result that the number of unemployed people who are not in a position to provide either themselves or their families with food is being considerably increased. In view of that, are we to take it that the attitude of the Government in respect to these people is that they must either exist on air, or go on the rates, and that, as far as the Government is concerned, they are not prepared to make any provision for the relief of unemployment pending the time when we hope they will be in a position to provide them with employment?
I am not aware that the facts are as stated by the Deputy. The Deputy has now gone from the question of unemployment insurance to other reliefs. That is a different matter.
No, I am confining myself to that. Does the Minister for Industry and Commerce deny that the numbers who are entitled to draw unemployment benefit are being reduced day by day?
Yes, I deny that.
Would the Minister then say how they are continuing to receive benefit?
By getting work, and by getting their contributions increased.
Would the Minister say in what way the contributions of these people are being increased? Does the Minister mean to say that people who are not now eligible to draw benefit, people who exhausted their right to benefit, say a month ago, are being provided for?
I have already said, and still maintain, that the contention put up in this House and fostered by a certain section, that there is no work available, that once a man goes on to the unemployment insurance scheme that he must, therefore, remain on it, because there is no possible hope of his getting further contributions by reason of his getting work, is not the case.
Will the Minister say when anybody from this side of the House ever suggested that once a man goes on to the unemployment insurance that he had to remain on it.
Deputy Corish is not here, but Deputy Corish and myself had quite a long argument something less than a year ago on this very matter. The Deputy's contention was that as there was no work and no possible chance of getting work once the stamps were exhausted, a man had no chance of getting other stamps to his credit. That I deny, and that is what I am referring to.
That was not the inference that I drew from the Minister's statement.
Does the Minister deny, no matter how many stamps a man may have to his credit, that he is only entitled to the maximum 156 days in the year?
That is the fact, but I deny the implication, if there be the implication, that a man must be without either work or benefit for the half of the period.
Many of them are.
Oh, many of them are, yes.
Could the Minister say if it is proposed to take Item No. 10 on the Order Paper to-day? If it is not the intention to take it to-day, would the Minister say what date he has in mind for the taking of the Second Reading of this measure?
I desire to ask the President if he intends to introduce legislation to enable town tenants to get security of tenure in their homes, or legislation that would enable them to become the purchasers of their homes? About eight months ago I was told the Minister for Justice was setting up some sort of a committee to deal with the question, and that he would introduce legislation. At present a majority of the citizens of the Saorstát are suffering from rackrenting.
I understand arrangements have been made that item No. 10, Railways Bill, would not be taken to-day. That is, I believe, the beginning and the end of the arrangement. It is my intention to take it up as soon as possible.
In view of the President's statement with regard to business from to-day to the end of the week, are we to assume that it will not be taken until next week?
It might come on on Friday.
In private members' time?
I have no intention to encroach on private members' time, if there is private business on Friday, but there may be other time to take it.
I shall move to take private members' time to-morrow.
I wish to ask will the Rent Restrictions Bill be introduced sufficiently early to enable it to be passed before the present Act expires?
Yes. Is there any date Deputy Davin would like to suggest for item No. 10?
If the Minister would agree I should prefer Tuesday to Friday.
I presume what the Deputy wants is that it should not be taken on Friday.
As a matter of convenience to the House, members should know when it is coming on.
Will the President agree to withdraw it altogether as it is unnecessary?
I undertake to put it down for Tuesday.