It is proposed to take the business set out on the Order Paper, with the exception of Nos. 4 and 7—Old Age Pensions Bill and Finance Bill.
Order of Business.
Will the Vice-President reconsider the question of taking No. 5 —Control of Manufactures Bill—today? When this Bill was read a First Time last Wednesday, I asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce when it would be circulated. He told me he hoped it would be circulated on Friday; as a matter of fact it did not reach Deputies until Saturday. This is a Bill of very considerable importance, and I suggest it is rather soon to take the Second Reading to-day. Perhaps the Vice-President will delay it somewhat further in view of its importance?
I am afraid, owing to the urgency of the matter, that we shall have to ask the House to take the Second Reading to-day. There will be opportunities, naturally, on the Committee Stage to go into the Bill at greater length.
The Vice-President must be aware that it is utterly impossible to deal satisfactorily with this Bill on such short notice. It has been absolutely impossible to study it in the short time at our disposal.
So far as the question of urgency is concerned, I presume it is not proposed to complete the Bill this week, and no further stage will be taken this week. In the circumstances, I fail to see why the Second Reading should be rushed. Why not take it on Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday? It is a rather important matter, which, I think, would not suffer much by being postponed for a couple of days.
The principle of the Bill is easily understood, and it is on the principle of the Bill that discussion, if any, will take place to-day. There will be time between now and the Committee Stage for Deputies to go into the Bill in detail.
Might I point out to the Vice-President that this is a very complicated measure, a very complex measure, and a measure that will have very considerable reactions, and, consequently, it is a measure that ought to be inquired into very fully. There has been no opportunity for inquiry at all. We have had practically only one day. We received the Bill on Saturday, and, as the Vice-President knows, that is a short day, and an impossible time to take up a Bill of this kind. Consequently there was only yesterday to deal with it. That is not a sufficient time to consider a Bill of this kind and magnitude and importance.
It would appear to me from reading the measure that there are three principles in the Bill—(1) to ensure that the majority of the speculative portion of the capital should be in the hands of our nationals; (2) to insure for foreigners debenture interest on debenture stock, and (3) to give the Minister for Industry and Commerce absolute control in respect of the issue of licences. Which of the three is the principle of this Bill, I cannot say.
It is quite obvious from what the Deputy has said that he does not understand the Bill, and under those circumstances we might consider postponing discussion on it. However, in view of the state of the Parliamentary programme, it is not possible to do so. Those Deputies who have read the Bill will appreciate that it is not very difficult to understand the principle of it, and the details can be discussed in Committee. What the Bill is about can be discussed on Second Reading.
Is the Minister aware that several Deputies on this side have not seen the Bill at all?
That is not our fault.
I do not say it is, but it is a very important factor in connection with the discussion.
I should like to ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce what is the underlying principle in this Bill?
We will discuss that on the Second Reading.
That is a matter for debate on the Second Reading.
Might I suggest that, after we hear the Minister's statement to-day, the further consideration of the Bill could be postponed until Thursday or Friday.
It is not possible to agree to the Deputy's proposition. I think that if we can get the Second Reading of the Bill disposed of, an adequate interval will be provided before Committee Stage is taken, and I think that is all that Deputies could reasonably ask.
Might I point out that if the Second Reading of this Bill is postponed until to-morrow, it will not interfere with the disposal of the Second Reading this week. It is quite right, as the Minister said, that we can have the Second Reading, and be allowed adequate time before Committee Stage, but the Minister is surely aware of the fact that members may wish to deal with matters on the Second Reading which they would not be allowed to deal with on the Committee Stage as being outside the principle of the Bill as accepted.
It is necessary that the Finance Bill should be disposed of this week, and that the Finance No. 2 Bill should go through. If we are to adjourn on 8th July it is going to be very difficult to dispose of the business on the paper.
When might I ask is it desired to have the Committee Stage of this Bill now under discussion?
The week after next.
What is the objection to postponing the Second Stage, therefore, until to-morrow, provided the Committee Stage can be guaranteed for the day on which it is put down.
The Finance Bill has to be got through.
There are Estimates also on the paper, and let the Second Reading be postponed until after the Estimates.
The Finance No. 2 Bill and the Finance Bill have to be got through.
There are Estimates for this day's sitting which must also be got through. The Second Reading can be taken after those Estimates, and if they are not concluded, let the Bill be taken to-morrow.
When I put the Bill down for to-day, I undertook to circulate it on Friday.
No.
It did not reach us.
It went out on Friday, but did not reach Deputies, but, at the same time, we can usefully discuss it on Second Reading to-day, and, if an adequate interval is allowed before Committee Stage, Deputies will have an opportunity of going into every detail of it, and of putting down any amendments they care to put down.
We do put down amendments, but the Ministerial Benches are not able to deal with them when we do.
Why the urgency about the 8th July?
That question does not arise now.
It does arise, I respectfully submit. The 8th July has been mentioned as the date on which we should adjourn. Why is that date fixed?
The Chair holds that the question of rising on 8th July does not arise out of the consideration whether or not we should take the Second Reading of this Bill to-day.
I submit, sir, that it does.
I suggest that this Bill should get the same time as the Public Safety Bill got.
Just the same procedure.
Yes.