I move:
That the Dáil sit later than 9 p.m. this evening, and that the Order for the adjournment be taken not later than 10.30 p.m.
PUBLIC BUSINESS. - LATE SITTING.
I am going to oppose this motion to-day. I agree with the point of view put up on another occasion by Deputy Cooper that in certain conditions it is reasonable to expect the Dáil to sit later than the ordinary time. We agreed to sit late on Tuesday and Wednesday; but the Liquor Bill has now been disposed of, so far as the Committee Stage is concerned, and I do not think it is justifiable to ask the Dáil to continue this effort of sitting until 10.30. There are a good many arguments against it. If the handling of the programme of business by the President puts us in the position of having to rush through measures here without giving them proper consideration, the President cannot expect Deputies to put up with a continuance of that without protest.
I came up from the country some weeks ago thinking that the Dáil was going to sit for more than one day, and other Deputies did likewise. Arrangements we made had to be broken, and we came up here to find practically no business. We went back again after causing all that expense to the country and to ourselves. We are expected now to sit seven hours a day and more. The work in the Dáil is not all the work Deputies have to do, and the President should have some consideration for Deputies in that respect. At the end of the session we will not be capable of giving proper consideration to our work. We do not want to put obstacles in the way of the Government, but the Government should give some consideration to the point of view I have put forward.
I take an entirely different view from that. I, and I believe I speak for many other Deputies, would much prefer to sit until 10.30 on three days a week rather than have to remain here for four or five days each week.
I desire to support the protest made by Deputy Baxter. This is not fair to Deputies. Some of us have been acting on a Committee since 10.30 this morning. Apparently, we are expected to work a 12-hour day. Some Deputies who do not take a very active part in the proceedings of the House may consider that to sit from 3 p.m. until 10.30 p.m. is not an undue strain, but for other Deputies who have correspondence to deal with, Committees of the Dáil to attend, and who have to study the different measures put down for consideration here, the strain is really excessive. It is enough to break down anyone, and I strongly protest against it.
There were many days in January and February when the Dáil could have met and disposed comfortably of a lot of business that we are now doing. We should not be expected to cram a whole lot of business into a few weeks. For some reason best known to themselves the Government did not summon the Dáil at a time when we could have dealt very comfortably with the business.
While I have considerable sympathy with the point of view expressed by Deputies Baxter and Connor Hogan, I desire to say that I would much prefer that we sit late to dispose of the business rather than adopt the plan of sitting on Monday afternoon. If I thought that by sitting late to-night, and even to-morrow, we would get out of Monday's sitting, I would prefer that we sit late. It would be more convenient to all Deputies, I am sure.
Will the President take to heart the fact that the majority of the Farmers' Party are so worn out by two late sittings that they have been unable to rouse themselves up to the present?
I desire to support Deputy O'Connell's point of view. I do not mind sitting late any night we are here, but I do object to sitting on Monday. I come from one of the most distant constituencies, and I think the President should remember that members of this Assembly have other public duties to perform on county councils, asylum boards, and bodies of that sort. They cannot very well neglect those things. Deputies who are here, and who also carry on work in the country, have big responsibilities, and are more useful Deputies than those who can afford to spend the whole week in Dublin doing practically nothing and working little more than three or four hours a day.
It is not with any very particular pleasure that I set out to regulate a programme which does not meet the convenience of Deputies. I ask those loudest in their protests to consider what their position in this House is and what sort of programme is left for the Government to make out. We have not used the closure; Deputies have got the fullest possible latitude to address themselves to all and every piece of business that is put before them. No indication is given to the Government at any time of the length of time Deputies wish to spend in the consideration of any measure, and the output from the draftsman's office has been very considerable during the last couple of months. We are faced now with having to get the Central Fund Bill through the Dáil in time to allow for reasonable consideration by the Seanad. That was stated here early this week. If Deputies are prepared to allow the Vote on Account and the Central Fund Bill to be disposed of in a shorter time than we have estimated for it, that solves the question.
What time would the President say?
I have arranged for Thursday, Friday, portion of Monday; I expect portion of Tuesday and, if necessary, portion of Wednesday. I cannot hurry the clock; I cannot expedite speeches. I expect the consideration of these matters takes place before Deputies enter the Dáil; it is not when they are speaking they are considering the question. It is impossible to regulate a programme such as has been asked without, at least, giving the Government some indication of what time will be required for speeches on the various Bills that are put before the Dáil.
It is in order to get the Central Fund Bill through the Dáil in time to allow of consideration of it by the Seanad before the 1st April, that I have asked for a late sitting. Many times it has been suggested to me by Deputies that they would prefer longer and fewer sittings—that that would meet their convenience of all, but I should like the Farmer Deputies to understand that other people work as well as they do, that we are in our offices very late and that we feel the strain of these late sittings just as much as they do. But it is the long speeches that impose the strain.
Deputy Hogan wants two hours for discussion of a matter which could be discussed in an hour to the satisfaction of most people. The programme I have set out I have not set out with any real pleasure. It is due to necessity, and until members of the various Parties give accommodation to the Government as regards time, I cannot put up a programme in any better order.
Might I suggest that the reason for the President's difficulty is that he proposes to rush through legislation, such as the Currency legislation, which is not asked for at present and which is not desirable?
Question!
I should like to deal with the two questions that the Deputy has just mentioned. First, as regards rush. What is the meaning of "rush"? It refers, I presume, to something done in a hurry. The Government has afforded opportunity for all the delays that the Deputy wishes and for all the ponderous speeches he wishes to make. We have never imposed the closure on him. Is that "rush"? Secondly, the Deputy says that nobody has asked for Currency legislation. The Deputy speaks for himself alone. I have never seen a single intimation in the newspapers or elsewhere, from the Deputy's constituency, which would warrant him in stating seriously that no Currency legislation is wanted.
Does the President read the newspapers?
Yes. The necessities of the case have demanded this legislation. Business men realise its necessity. In the second place, the vast majority of the people in this country asked for it, and need it, and are going to get it.
During the lifetime of the present Parliament?
Yes.
The President's speech has made it difficult to get general agreement on the question of the programme. I was going to suggest that if we have a discussion on the vote until 8.30 this evening and for two hours to-morrow, we might allow the Central Fund Bill, which raises no new matter, to pass without discussion. If that were done, it would not be necessary to meet on Monday. We could allow it to be taken as first business on Tuesday and to go through all its stages. That seems to me a fair compromise, by which both the wishes of the Private Members and the wishes of the Government might be reconciled.
It is not a matter that can be settled by discussion here. I would not like to ask for that promise from the Farmers' Party. I believe that matters will be raised on the Vote on Account which they will think it necessary to discuss and the arrangement proposed might be unfair to them.
We cannot decide as to Monday until we see what progress will be made with the business to-day.
Question put and declared carried.