It is proposed to take the business as on the Order Paper—The Dairy Produce Bill, the Old Age Pensions Bill and Estimates for Public Services. I propose that business be not interrupted at 9 o'clock.
Order of Business.
Do I understand the Vice-President to move that public business be not interrupted at 9 o'clock? Are we to take it that the Government propose to take up Private Members' time to-day? If that is proposed I would like the Vice-President to give us some justification for the proposal.
The House is aware that this is a very short Parliamentary week. We are not meeting to-morrow, we are not meeting on Friday and there is very urgent business.
Last week and the week before I raised no objection whatever, because we were dealing with urgent business—the Budget. I made no claim whatever to Private Members' time. To-day there is no Government business on the Order Paper which is of more importance than my motion, I submit.
The Old Age Pensions Bill is more important than the Deputy's motion.
For the moment I am addressing myself, through the Chair, to the Vice-President, and I am sure that he will be able to answer any questions I put forward without assistance from Deputy Briscoe. I submit that if the Government propose to take Private Members' time to-day, in ordinary courtesy, I might have been informed. That is the usual procedure.
I am sorry if the Deputy was not informed of the Government's intention. I understand that is the procedure and it should have been followed. I do not think, however, that this is the first time that happened; when we were on the Opposition Benches our Deputies were not informed. Of course that does not take away from the mistake that has been made. There has been very considerable time taken up already by the discussion on the Financial Motion. That has delayed to a certain extent, perhaps vitally so, the business that we hoped to get through. I think it is not unreasonable, in view of the short Parliamentary week, that we should ask that public business be not interrupted this evening.
I would like to know if I could have an undertaking from the Vice-President that my motion will be taken on Wednesday next. Unless it is disposed of one way or another by the House it is ridiculous to have it on the Order Paper, in view of the fact that it is one calling for immediate action to be taken. I am not anxious to delay the House, but I would be satisfied if I could have an undertaking from the Vice-President that the motion would be taken on Wednesday.
Without knowing what business will be down for discussion next week, I am afraid I could not give the undertaking asked for.
Would the Vice-President state, with a view to clarifying the mind of the House on the matter, how much time has been lost this week in relation to public business?
An hour and a half.
That is not public business.
It is.
As regards public business, what have we been deprived of this week in the way of hours?
From twelve to two on Friday last.
I have put a question to the Vice-President. I did not know the Deputy had been elected yet.
I hope the Deputy understands the answer.
Can the Vice-President say whether any time will be available for private members next week?
I cannot say, but I hope there will.
Would it not be proper to leave over for determination the point about the taking of private members' time until the Vice-President is in a position to tell the House what time will be available for private members' business next week?
I think it has always been the practice during this session, in which a large amount of financial business has to be disposed of, for private members' time to be appropriated for Government purposes. I am sure Deputy McGilligan will remember that has been the practice.
As far as I can get my memory back that is not a fact, but whether it is or not it is not the reason alleged by the Vice-President to-day for taking private members' time.
I specifically mentioned the amount of time given for the discussion of financial matters.
I have no objection whatever to private members' time being taken during the consideration of the Budget or other urgent financial business. I went to Deputy Gerald Boland myself the week the Budget was to be introduced and said that I was not going to claim private members' time. It would be unreasonable to do so.
I admit Deputy Morrissey did that. It was an oversight on my part that I did not approach him about this. I understand the Opposition do not intend to facilitate us in any way? When we were in opposition we never demurred about giving private members' time when important financial business was on. As regards Deputy Morrissey's motion, it has already been well discussed and an indication has been given that the principle of it has been accepted by the Government. In view of that, there is very little reason why time should not be given for the disposal of the very important business to be done before the Dáil rises in July.
Deputy Morrissey's motion is not the only one that is waiting. There is a bread line, a queue of motions, waiting.
Ordered: That Public Business be not interrupted at nine o'clock.