I move:—"That until the adjournment for the Summer Recess the Dáil sit later than 9 p.m. on Tuesdays, and that the Order for the adjournment be taken not later than 10.20 p.m. on those days."
Public Business—Sittings of Dáil.
Could we have some indication of the pressure of business which renders this motion necessary?
As the Deputy is aware I think, it has been indicated already to the Opposition that we propose to adjourn on 8th July. The deputation going to Ottawa would require to leave on that date in order to have sufficient time in advance to make preparations.
From this date until 8th July there are only five parliamentary weeks, if we exclude the Eucharistic Congress week. This period of time is further shortened by the fact that Wednesday, 29th June, is a Church holiday, and it is not proposed that the Dáil should sit on that day. In that time, besides the Bills that are already before the Dáil, namely the Dairy Produce Bill, the Old Age Pensions Bill, the Dublin and Blessington Steam Tramway Bill, the Finance Bill, the Appropriation Bill and the Detained Animals (Compensation) Bill, there are a number of heavy Bills in course of preparation, such as the Housing Bill, the Flour Industry Control Bill, a Price Fixing Bill and a New Companies Bill. These are fairly heavy Bills, and for the discussion of them a considerable amount of time will be required. Altogether, I have before me a list of eighteen Bills. For instance, the Finance Bill, the Appropriation Bill, the Diseases of Animals Bill and the Eucharistic Congress Bill will be introduced shortly, while the preparation of the other Bills is rapidly proceeding.
I think in these circumstances it is reasonable to ask the House to sit four days a week. It is also proposed to appropriate for Government business Private Deputies' time for the remainder of the Session from to-morrow. I was asked by Deputy Morrissey to give time for the conclusion of the particular motion that appears on the Order Paper in his name. We propose to give half an hour for that to-morrow, and I think that will be sufficient to enable the Deputy to close on his motion.
Half an hour will be quite sufficient for me, but there may be other members of the House who desire to speak on the motion. I do not know.
Is there any reason why the House should not continue to sit on after the departure of the deputation for Ottawa?
There is. It is proposed to send on that deputation at least two Ministers who will be in charge of some of the heaviest part of the legislative programme that I have given.
Surely there are other arrangements which can be made to have the House carry on in the absence of these people?
We considered that, and on the whole it is considered best that the Dáil should adjourn on 8th July.
Are we to take it, then, that it is intended to put through this House, at any rate, four Bills which have not yet been introduced into this House?
Which are on the point of being introduced?
Four Bills dealing with housing, flour industry control, one about price fixing, and another about the control of companies?
Yes.
These are four major measures not yet introduced, which we are told are the heavy part of the legislative programme. When are they likely to be printed?
The Finance Bill the Appropriation Bill, the Diseases of Animals Bill, and the Eucharistic Congress Bill will be introduced almost immediately. The other Bills are in various stages of preparation. They may be introduced next week or the week after.
In reference to this motion that has been put down, the only reason given for it is that there is pressure of business, but the pressure of business appears to be such that there seems to be no great prospect of getting even this House to conclude the various stages of these measures before 8th July. In those circumstances, I think further consideration should be given to the proposal to have such pairing arrangements made as to enable those who have to attend the Ottawa Conference, for whatever purpose their attendance there may be desired, to leave in good time. Personally, I would be very willing, and I would even ask the House to facilitate the departure of those who are going to it to leave at least by 8th July so that they may be in time for the necessary and ordinary opening proposals which always mark these conferences. But if that proposal is said to be undesirable, that is to say, if it is thought to be undesirable that they should leave in time for that particular proposal, of course a particular delaying motion can be put down, and it would meet with the ordinary tactics which the President follows on such occasions. Otherwise, there does not seem to be any great reason whatever for believing that the programme of business outlined can be got through even by meeting four days a week and sitting until 10.30 on three nights.
It seems to me that a final decision on this motion might be postponed until such date as we have these heavy Bills, as they have been described, put before us. I refer again to the Housing Proposals Bill, the Flour Industry Control Bill, a price fixing Bill, and a Bill dealing with new companies. Quite clearly it is impossible at this stage to say whether, even granted the time necessary, if it be decided to adjourn on 8th July, it would be possible to have these Bills put through all their stages by that date. In that event, there is no reason whatever for sitting on this extra day a week and to such a late hour. If these measures have got to be postponed they can be taken at an early stage in the Autumn Session.
Might I suggest that if the reason for not continuing to sit after the departure of the deputation for Ottawa is the danger of the Government being put into a minority on some question or other, it would be easy to make pairing arrangements excusing the absence of certain members of the Opposition to avoid that possibility?
The Deputy would like to go to the Continent.
Might I point out that there has been nothing published to indicate that any other Parliament which is sending a deputation to Ottawa is going to close down?
I have been rather staggered by the suggestion that the Minister for External Affairs himself is not going to the Ottawa Conference. The general belief and impression throughout the country is that this Conference is of some importance. It has been mentioned extensively even in that section of the Press which owes its allegiance to the Government or is managed by some——
I would like to know, a Chinn Comhairle, if this speech is in order?
I must say that I am personally very much surprised to learn that while Ministers names have been mentioned here that the President of the Executive Council, who is himself the Minister for External Affairs, is not going.
Again, on a point of order?
Does the Deputy realise that the question before the House is that the Dáil should meet on Tuesdays: not who shall go to Ottawa?
Precisely, but there is another question involved in the arrangement about meeting on Tuesdays. It is with a view to allowing the House to adjourn on the 8th July and "for that purpose," to use the phraseology of the Government, to have the business concluded here to enable a delegation or deputation from the Government to go to Ottawa. What I was going to suggest is that considerable business falls to the lot of particular Ministers, and that that business might, and could be expedited and passed through the House, and the remaining business, which could be dealt with by those Ministers who stay at home, can be then taken up after the 8th July, if it were necessary. When representations were made to us by the Parliamentary Secretary that there was a desire to sit until the 8th July because, as he put it, they could not take the risk of staying on, with some of the reserves on the Canadian front, it was put to him that we would accommodate them, and he said that he was astonished that such courtesy should be extended by the Opposition, that it raised a new question and altered the situation and that he would have to consider it.
Is it in order for a member of the House to repeat what purported to be a private conversation?
That is a matter for the member's own judgment.
And his courtesy.
The matter would not have been mentioned if the President had not mentioned himself that it had been indicated to us that a delegation or deputation was about to proceed to the Canadian front, and we, accordingly, made a counter suggestion, and he, having broken the confidence of the Parliamentary Secretary in this instance, I believed that I was entitled to follow his example in my own case.
This proposal is based on the ground that certain Ministers are going to Ottawa on the 8th July. Surely, in ordinary honesty to this country, these Ministers should not go to Ottawa, and every indication we have from statements in the House of Commons seems to be directed exactly to that point.
The deputy cannot discuss Ottawa now.
The proposal that we sit on Tuesdays is justified on the ground that there is national business to be done by Ministers going to Ottawa, but every indication to every intelligent man, is, that there is no business for Ministers to do in Ottawa. The only business that could be done would be to provide for special arrangements with Great Britain. Our business with the other Dominions is not such as would justify wasting the fare going there. The indication from Great Britain is that there is no arrangement going to be made and no agreement come to, between this country and Great Britain at Ottawa and consequently it is merely an attempt to mislead the people of this country by all this talk about Ottawa, and as there is no reason for any Minister going there, I do not see why this proposal is put before us.
Might I ask a question?
The Deputy has already spoken on this question. The House is not in Committee.
I beg your pardon. I am not familiar with the rules.
I think the country generally would wish an assurance from the President, that the delegation from this country will go to Ottawa, without any danger of being shown the order of the boot when they arrive.
That does not arise on the President's motion.
I would like to ask the President, in connection with the Finance Bill, when he anticipates that we may have the Finance Bill dealing with the Budget resolutions before us, and does he anticipate that it will reach the Committee Stage earlier than, say, the week after the Eucharistic Congress?
As to the last question, my information is that it is being drafted and that we will certainly have it in about a fortnight.
Might I ask if the President understands that that would mean that we would hardly be dealing with the Second Reading not to mention the Committee Stage, before, say, the 22nd June, and that under his proposal, there would hardly be time, between that date and the 8th July, to have dealt with the Finance Bill itself.
Practically every matter that will appear in the Finance Bill will already have been discussed at great length, will it not?
Not at all. You do not know what is ahead of you.
After all the alterations, amendments, changes and repeals?
We have barely looked at it yet.
There has been no point made against this proposal, because, in the past, we have had to sit up at nights to get a certain amount of Governmental work through. We are not asking the House to sit up at nights, but we are asking Deputies to come to the House for an extra day which is provided for in the Standing Orders. Originally, it was anticipated that the Dáil would sit on four days a week. The former administration, with its majority, cut down the time to three days and we are only proposing to restore what was the original intention, clearly shown in Standing Orders, of working four days a week. Every one of these Bills, which I have described as fairly heavy, are urgent Bills. The Flour Industry (Control) Bill, the Price Fixing Bill and the new Companies Bill are bills that are made urgent in view of the general tariff policy of the Government. The Housing Bill is also urgent. I have a list, here, which will be communicated to the Opposition, of 18 Bills which we hope to put through, in addition to the Estimates. I might say, in regard to the Estimates, that they have been prepared altogether by the Opposition and, therefore, the delays that might occur through a body that did not examine them in detail before, having to criticise them, ought not to be expected on this occasion.
Question put and agreed to.