I have been asked by my colleagues, who are interested in a question raised here more than once—the question of the House sitting on days of obligation, Catholic holidays—to raise it again. I do not know what procedure should be adopted to have the matter raised formally. There was a report circulated a week or so ago from the Committee on Procedure and Privileges announcing that the Committee had decided the practice heretofore adopted should not be altered, and, therefore, that we should continue to sit on those days of obligation, Catholic holidays. We are up against the question again. So far as this week is concerned a holiday will occur to-morrow. I do not know whether the report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges will be discussed now by leave of the Chair, or leave of the House, or whether I would be permitted to move now that the House adjourn until Friday morning next. According to the decision of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges we would have to meet as usual to-morrow. We would be glad to have your ruling, sir. as to whether I would be in order in moving the matter now, or whether we could discuss it on the report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
SITTINGS ON CHURCH HOLIDAYS.
The Deputy's statement raises two questions. One is whether the House should sit to-morrow, and the second is as to the method by which a decision of the House with regard to the general question of sittings of the House on holidays of obligation can be obtained. I will take the general question first. The matter of sittings was referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, and the report of the Committee was presented in dummy to the Dáil on the 11th October. On the 19th printed copies of the report were circulated to Deputies. The report is in favour of continuing the present practice. If a decision of the House is required on the recommendation contained in that report, I think the Deputy, or some other Deputy looking at the matter from the point of view of Deputy O'Kelly, would have to table a motion to the effect that the Dáil disagree with the Committee in its report, and that the House should not in future sit on holidays of obligation. That would be an ordinary motion by a private Deputy, which would arise for consideration in private Deputies' time. I think that is the only way a decision could be obtained on the general question.
With regard to sitting to-morrow, Deputy O'Kelly would not be in order in moving now that the Dáil should adjourn until Friday. The time allotted is Government time, and the Deputy would not be in order in offering any motion in regard to the adjournment of the House. On the question of an adjournment over to-morrow, a decision could not be reached to-day, and a decision on that question would not decide the general question. In regard to the general question, a motion would have to be tabled in order to obtain a decision.
On the motion for the adjournment, could an amendment be moved that the House do not sit to-morrow?
I am afraid not. The motion for the adjournment will be taken at 10.30 this evening, and the President need not move the motion until 10.30 p.m. A division cannot be taken after 10.30, so the position is that no amendment can be decided in that way. What it amounts to is that the prerogative regarding the adjournment of the House belongs to the Executive of the moment.
Having regard to the fact that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges did decide in a particular way only by a majority of six to five, I suggest that the question of bringing that question up for decision of the House should not be left to a private member by putting a motion at the end of a long list of motions. I suggest, having regard to the obvious difference of opinion in the Committee, that the Government should give the House facilities to raise that question. To do it in the way you suggest means that it cannot be raised, as the motion would be right down at the far end of a whole list of motions. Our experience of private members' motions is that they take a lot of time to be reached. In practice, the remedy you suggest is a denial of remedy. I suggest under those circumstances, without saying anything one way or another as to the merits of the decision, that having regard to the even difference of opinion in that Committee, the Government might very well facilitate the House in coming to an early decision.
I think this business should be considered in relation to the business which we are sent here to do.
We are not considering this business at the moment. The next holiday of obligation after to-morrow, regarding which the question will arise for decision, will, I think, be Ascension Thursday next year, and perhaps some arrangement could be made before then to have the matter formally considered.
I want to ask a question so far as expenditure is concerned——
That is a question as to the merits. The question I have been asked is how the matter can be raised.
Could we raise it immediately as a matter of urgent public importance?