I presume it was agreed last night that the division on the motion moved yesterday by Deputy Cosgrave will be taken at 4.30.
Order of Business.
There was more than that in the agreement. I understood my friends were to be allowed to take part in the debate, that Deputy O'Hanlon and Deputy O'Donovan would do so, and that I was to have an opportunity of replying.
There was no arrangement except that on this side we would facilitate the other side with one hour. It was agreed that the division would be taken at 4.30 and no objection was taken.
I understood that I was to get time to reply.
Certainly.
Was not that the whole purpose?
Certainly, but I might remind Deputy Cosgrave that he said he would only take ten minutes.
That is another question. After making allowance for the time occupied by others.
One hour and ten minutes now.
Mr. Hayes
There has been some reference to the practice of the Dáil and as this is a very important matter it might be well to know what has been followed here. When a motion is put down by the Leader of the Opposition, or by a person sitting on the Front Opposition Bench, and when the Government allows time, as has taken place very frequently in the last ten years, I want to suggest that the invariable practice has been, when a day has been given for a motion, that the mover gets from 10 o'clock or a few minutes after 10 p.m. to reply. I want to state that there has been no exception to that rule. It was suggested that there was an exception. It was suggested that, in some cases, where a Deputy moved a motion because Cumann na nGaedheal was in office he did not get an opportunity of replying.
In every case where a motion of this kind was moved and a day allotted by the Government, the Deputy moving the motion was allowed to conclude as from 10 o'clock. That was your own idea yesterday, sir, I think. What happened was that that Deputy got up without opposition at 10 o'clock, and if there was a certain difficulty it was solved in not less than five minutes. But in no case was a Deputy given less than that time to conclude. The important point is that that practice should not be broken now. The Minister for Finance broke it yesterday by bringing the debate forward to to-day. I submit that the Deputy should get a half an hour to reply. If he does not need it, that is another question, but the practice is there.
The understanding which I had was that those who did not get time to speak last night would get the opportunity to do so to-day. The Minister for Finance declared that he was going to speak out this motion until 10.30. If he continues to-day and speaks it out until 4.30, neither myself nor the other Deputies here who represent the farmers of the country will get an opportunity of speaking on this very important motion, nor will the proposer of the motion get an opportunity. In the course of the last hour or two of the debate last night, with all due respect to you, sir, and to the Deputy-Chairman, a great amount of irrelevancies were allowed to be introduced into this debate. I would like to point out also that if the Minister for Finance is determined to do to-day what he intended to do yesterday, and that is to talk out this debate by introducing outside questions, it is unfair to the members of the House who do not belong to either of the big Parties not to allow them an opportunity of speaking on this motion.
I suggest that the Deputy's remarks are not in order.
The debate is being closured and I and members associated with me were not consulted about this.
The Deputy is now eating up time which could be devoted to the motion.
My only desire is that the Chair will not allow other members to eat up the time of the House by talking about matters outside the motion.
Mr. Hayes
Is it not the practice, which has never been departed from, that when the Government has agreed to take, in Government time, a motion such as this, the mover of the motion has always got half an hour in which to conclude? Has that been the practice? And if it has been the practice, is it going to be followed to-day? I think that it is very important.
The practice has been that the mover of a motion such as this got sufficient time in which to conclude. Whether Deputies so concerned always got half an hour I cannot state.
Mr. Hayes
Well, very near it.
As it has been suggested by Deputy O'Hanlon that several Deputies wish to intervene in this debate, I would remind him that this motion was taken in Government time, and that if Deputy Cosgrave had been allowed to conclude at 10 p.m. last night Deputies who now desire to intervene would not have had any opportunity of doing so. The aim of the Chair is to distribute the debate equitably among all parties, but it lies with the House, and not with the Chair, to see to it that Deputy Cosgrave gets in at, say, 4 o'clock to-day.
I am not concerned with Deputy Cosgrave at all, but with the people who are mostly affected by this matter.
Who are they— journalists?
Mr. Hayes
The Minister for Finance prevented the debate from concluding last night. Is the Government agreeable that, when Deputy Cosgrave is allowed to rise, he should get the usual time to conclude the debate which has always been allowed? This debate is taking place to-day because the Minister for Finance did not allow the pre-arranged plan to be carried out. If the mover of the motion does not get adequate time to reply, I consider it is very unfair.
One hour will be given from 3.30 to 4.30 and the House will give as much time out of that to Deputy Cosgrave as is necessary.
Mr. Hayes
That answer does not carry us anywhere. The Vice-President knows that the Chair has no power in this matter to say to Deputy Cosgrave to conclude this debate. It cannot be done. The Chair has no power to do that. The Chair has power to suggest that it ought to be done, but if the Vice-President so chooses he can keep Deputy Cosgrave from replying to this debate, and if he should do so he is doing something very grave when he refuses to put the weight of the House on the side of the mover of the motion. The Vice-President should agree that when Deputy Cosgrave rises he may have as much time as he likes but not more than half an hour.
It is wasting the time of the House.
Mr. Hayes
No, sir.
A Chinn Comhairle, you were a witness to the arrangement that was made here across the floor of the House last night. I do not want to depart from that arrangement in one iota. I understand that by that arrangement one hour should be given. Deputy Cosgrave said that he would not take more than ten minutes probably.
How much does the Deputy agree to take for it?
None, if you wish. That is, outside whatever time the Minister for Finance requires to conclude. The Deputy asked for half an hour first of all last evening, and I said we would give him an hour.
Excuse me, I said an hour.
You first said half an hour.
Is it not reprehensible that a Minister of State should adopt obstructionist tactics?
On a point of order, what is the machinery by which it is proposed to conclude this debate in half an hour?
The Government has absolute control of Government time and is entitled to fix an hour for conclusion of this debate. I was present last night when an agreement was arrived at that the debate should conclude at 4.30.
Yes, in certain conditions. The Government may say that but that does not mean that the debate will conclude at that time.
Mr. Hayes
Was it not only a suggestion that the debate should conclude?
I submit that the privileges of this House are being let down if we are to be blandly informed that an agreement was made, by which the debate would be finished at such and such an hour, between the Fianna Fáil Party and the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. If the Government want to put on the closure, let them do that.
I am very reluctant to move the closure, but I made the offer, which was accepted by the others last night.
If it was agreed to last night, it was on the understanding that the Minister for Finance would have finished last night.