It is proposed to take the business in the following order:—1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 6, 10, 7, 11, 8; remaining stages of No. 4 if the House agrees, and No. 12.
Order of Business.
What about No. 13?
No. 5 has yet to be introduced and I understand there are two First Readings for which leave will be requested after No. 4.
We should like if the House would agree to complete No. 5.
Is Private Deputies' Business to be taken to-day?
It is proposed that public business be not interrupted at 9 o'clock. Our intention would be, if the business on the Order Paper be completed, to adjourn this evening for the Christmas Recess. If the business be not concluded of course we will not be meeting to-morrow but we would have to meet on Friday.
Two questions arise. First I have not heard what was said about No. 5. I want to know what hour the motion for the adjournment is being taken, and we are entitled to know, I presume, to what date we are going to adjourn.
I said if the House would agree we would like to complete No. 5. The time the motion for the adjournment would be moved would depend on the business. If the proceedings are completed at 9 o'clock we would move it then, or if they are completed at 6 o'clock we would move it then. It depends on the business.
It depends on a little more than that, I think.
I think the Deputy also asked me the date the House will adjourn to. We propose to resume on February 1st.
The usual procedure in connection with the adjournment is to give the hour for the moving of the motion. If the Vice-President and the Ministry think for a moment that they are going to come in here at 10.15 to-night and move the adjournment they are living in a fool's paradise.
We are quite willing to go on to Friday if the Deputy wishes. There might be an opportunity of completing the business to-night and if not we will do it on Friday.
This is rather an important matter and a certain precedent is involved. Can we take it that if the business indicated by the Vice-President concludes, say, at 10 o'clock to-night, we are going to have more than half an hour to debate the adjournment motion? Can we have that from the Vice-President? If the business indicated by the Vice-President is concluded by 10 o'clock to-night are we to take it that the Vice-President will move the adjournment till the 1st February?
Yes.
I want to protest against that and I hope in my protest I will have the assistance of the Labour Party.
I would like to make it quite clear that we do not wish to restrict the debate on the adjournment. If the House goes on until half-past nine or ten o'clock to-night, and if the House thinks there is not enough time to debate the adjournment motion then we will meet on Friday.
This ought not be the place to discuss a matter of this kind and that is a pretty well-known fact. If the Ministry arranged with its officials or secretaries or somebody else to approach the proper channel these things might not be discussed here, and it is little short of discourtesy to introduce this matter as it has been introduced here to-day without notice.
We have not your manners.
That is quite evident.
I want again to make the point that there is, I submit, in accordance with precedent, an obligation upon the Government so to arrange the business that a reasonable time will be allowed the House to discuss any matter they might think should be discussed on the motion for the adjournment. That always has been the practice, and I submit the Government should not depart from that practice. If the business indicated by the Vice-President collapses at 10 o'clock to-night he then moves the adjournment until the 1st February.
Might I suggest that it is quite easy to get an accommodation in this matter, and the Whips of the different Parties should meet and discuss the matter with a view to providing some minimum time to discuss the matters on the adjournment this evening or if necessary on Friday.
I would like to say that I had no indication any way whatever that the business was to conclude to-day. The agenda was rather long and I had no indication that it was going to conclude. That is why I did not approach the different Parties on the matter.
Is it intended to take No. 15 to-day?
Before we get away from the matter under discussion, can we have some indication as to what the position to-night will be?
I assume that will be arranged through the usual channels and that the Deputy will be informed later on.
A Deputy
I presume the House will be informed before half-past six.
I presume the House will be informed before they take the second matter—the reading of the Bill which has not yet been introduced.
Mr. Boland
We are prepared to meet next week if necessary.
I asked a question as to the disposal of No. 13 on the Order Paper.
No. 13 will not be taken.
What does that mean?
That it will appear on the Order Paper on 1st February, 1933.