I ask permission at this juncture to move that if necessary the Dáil should sit later than 2 p.m. and that the order for adjournment be taken not later than midnight.
Public Business. - Motion for Late Sitting.
As an alternative to that, would the President consider taking Private Members' time to-day?
Private Members' time might not be sufficient.
We do not agree to the motion. We were told that the House has to get rid of this Bill and that is the sole reason. May I say that I have been informed that the Minister for Finance wants to get away next week? May I ask if that is the reason?
That is a most unfair suggestion. It is quite true that the Minister for Finance has been advised that he must take a holiday. He broke down last year and he broke down this year again in the same way, but the urgency arises because, as I pointed out, under Section 7, sub-section (5) of the Bill, deductions will have to be made from 1st April and I want before I enforce the deductions to have the principle accepted that in the present circumstances economies in the salaries of public servants must be enforced.
I am afraid I cannot accept the second portion of the Minister's statement. I regret that the Minister's health is not up to standard and any representation in that respect would have received as much consideration as was deemed desirable. In other words, the Minister would have been facilitated by all sections of the House if a representation of that sort had been put forward. Apart from that, the House will never expect to get from the Minister more service than his physique is capable of giving. The House has convenienced Ministers very much more since this new Ministry came into office than it did during previous years. Ministers often sat from 3 o'clock until 10 o'clock dealing with Bills prior to this Government taking office.
The point I want to put is this: the question of principle does not arise at all here. The Bill has been introduced and any Deputy or any person in the public service knows that there is a majority in the Party opposite to pass any Bill here, to amend the Constitution, to make any arrangements or changes the Minister desires to bring about. The question of the principle of the proposals does not concern the case at all. The principle is already adopted whether or not there is a vote of the House taken. The House sat for three days this week and it is going to sit on Tuesday. Members who live in Donegal and places of that description will go home to-morrow morning, arriving late that night, and they will have to start out again on Monday morning to get here in time for Tuesday's meeting. That is unreasonable. The Minister has taken 40 minutes to explain the Bill already. The House is now asked to sit late to convenience a Ministry who were late in producing this Bill, a Bill which everybody knew for the last 12 months was going to be brought forward, and it is asked to rush it through within 24 hours.
May I point out that it is the details, as has been pointed out by the Minister, that require close consideration. There is no reason why any question the Opposition desire to raise cannot be raised on any section of the Bill. My view of the matter is this. The Minister is particularly anxious that the principle should be passed. I agree that we have sufficient members in this Party to pass it, but that is not the point. The point is whether the principles of the Bill are to receive formal sanction by the Dáil. There is no question of curtailing any discussion whatever. As everybody knows, the discussion on each of the particular items will give an opportunity for such criticism as might be necessary. I doubt if any member of the House would say that this is not the time that such economies as can be effected, in the general manner suggested, should be effected. I think this is a Bill which the Minister had every reason to feel that the House would deal with on Second Reading in the manner which he suggested himself.
With regard to the Minister's health, he has not put that forward himself as any special reason why this Bill should be pushed forward to-day. I am informed that the Parliamentary Secretary, when talking to the Whips, did indicate that it would be an advantage if the Minister were enabled to deal with the general principles of the Bill before he would have to go away. Personally, I should like to have that done, but we did not put forward that as a reason why the Bill should be taken to-day. It was mentioned casually in conversation with the Whips, so that the opposite side were aware of the fact. The Minister's point is that he is anxious to have approval of the principle of this Bill before any cuts he proposes proceed to run.
With regard to what was said to the Whips, it was only late last night, when we had found out that the Minister for Industry and Commerce was going to be engaged this morning, that the Government Whip was approached as to what business would be on, and that we learned that this Bill would be on.
I understood that information was conveyed to you about 2 o'clock yesterday.
Nonsense.
That is my information.
I should like to know to whom it was conveyed. I think it is very unfair to the House that, if this is Government policy over which the President and the other Minister stand, the Minister for Finance, who can plead ill-health, and has to get away, should be interposed between this House and the discussion of this measure. I submit that the reason the Minister for Finance is asked to discuss this Bill is that there is not another Minister, knowing what his Department has done, and being in full health to listen to what this House can say to him, is prepared to stand over this measure. The Minister for Finance can stand over it as the steel-minded financier, but there is not another Minister, having sat down and worked out the problems they worked at with their officials during the past 12 months, seeing what these officials do and appreciating the difficulties they found themselves in in reconciling their speeches at the cross-roads with the co-operation and return they got from civil servants, could comfortably get up here and make a case for what has been put in this Bill.
The Minister for Finance has not explained the Bill; the Minister for Finance has read the Bill. We were able to do that pretty well ourselves. We were able to read even between the lines here and there. The Minister has not told us what the reason is for this Bill or how much he hopes to save by it.
Give him time; everything in due course.
The Minister for Finance is putting all that on the long finger. He takes the Bill as if this were a primary school and reads out the different sections.
May I say that I interrupted the Minister to move this motion?
Yes—in the middle of a very difficult sentence.
The Minister had not concluded his speech.
Nor his sentence, which was very interesting.
Would the President now say if this communication which he believes was made at one o'clock yesterday was, in fact, made to the Whips of Parties in this House?
Two o'clock, I said.
I was looking for Deputy Mulcahy yesterday and I found that he was away at a conference of his own Party. I got in touch with him as soon as I could last night.
Might I again put forward the suggestion that Private Members' time should be taken on the understanding that the Bill is allowed to go through at the end of Private Members' time.
Is Deputy MacDermot running away from his own motion? Does he propose to forfeit Private Members' time?
We are prepared to do that. Our interest is to get the Second Reading of this Bill concluded to-day. The question of Private Members' time is a matter for themselves. We do not wish to intrude to take away Private Members' time more than is necessary. If those who have motions down for Private Members' time are prepared to forfeit their right, we will be glad to accommodate them.
If Private Members' business is not taken to-day, can we get the time next week?
I am not sure, because a certain amount of Government business has to be got through next week.
The answer is "no."
It looks like it.
I do not agree that the principle is as simple as the President represents or that the main idea is to discuss three or four segregations of reductions in salaries. If the main principle were economy, it would be accepted, but the main principle is not economy but economy subject to certain limitations. That is what we object to. It is clear from the Minister's own statement in introducing it that the Committee he set up to examine this question—the jury he appointed to give a decision on it—rejected the case for the prosecution.
No.
Is the meaning of the President's motion that this House is only going to get 11½ hours to decide the principle and the amount of the reduction of the standard of living in this country? That is really what this motion amounts to.
The proposal is definitely what I said—that the Dáil sit on until midnight if necessary.
And take a decision?
Yes.
The pistol is held to our heads and we must take a decision on the reduction of the standard of living in this country. That is what this Bill amounts to.
You will find some difficulty in proving that.
The Bill in itself proves that but there is not sense enough on the other side to understand it.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 39.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carty, Frank.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Curran, Richard.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Doherty, Joseph.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finlay, John.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William Rice.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- O'Briain, Donnchadha.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Dowd, Patrick.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
Níl
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Corish, Richard.
- Good, John.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McGuire, James Ivan.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Davitt, Robert Emmet.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Dolan, James Nicholas.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Nally, Martin.
- Norton, William.
- O'Connor, Batt.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Reilly, John Joseph.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Reidy, James.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Thrift, William Edward.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Traynor; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.