Business will be taken as on the Order Paper beginning with No. 2.
Order of Business.
Can the Minister undertake that time will be provided for concluding the debate on the motion regarding the Unemployment Assistance (Second Employment Period) Order?
I am not in a position to do that. Perhaps the matter could be taken up through the ordinary channels.
With regard to the Order in which the Estimates will be taken, I should like to suggest to the Executive Council that, as a very vital session of the Assembly of the League of Nations seems likely to be held in a fortnight's time, the Dáil should have an opportunity of discussing the League of Nations Estimate, Vote No. 68, before then.
I shall have the suggestion brought to the notice of the President.
Are we to understand that discussion of the Insurance Bill will continue throughout the day or, as was indicated earlier, is the Vote for the Department of Justice to be taken up at 6 o'clock? The Government are now changing their minds with regard to business about three times a day. May I submit to the acting-leader of the Government Party that it is a travesty not to provide additional time to dispose of the motion to which Deputy Keyes has referred? The law provides that orders made under the Unemployment Assistance Act must be laid on the Table for consideration and that, if repealed by motion, they shall cease to operate. If the House is not to be given an opportunity of voting on these orders, then the law is being got round by that expedient. I submit that that is an abuse of the procedure of this House.
The Minister has suggested that the matter might be taken up through the usual channels.
Where the privileges of the House are concerned, I think the place for discussion is across the floor of the House.
The Dáil was given an opportunity to decide the matter if it so wished.
It was not. The order will cease to operate if the Dáil decides against it. Time was given for discussion of the order yesterday and, once a discussion on a matter like that is initiated, it should not be abandoned until it has been brought to a conclusion. Otherwise, this provision of the Unemployment Assistance Act will be avoided and the order will be allowed to operate, although a large number of members of this House may wish to have it annulled. Surely the Dáil is entitled to demand that a day be fixed when the matter will be finally disposed of.
I was informed that an Estimate would be taken at 6 o'clock to-day. Is that correct?
It may happen.
Am I to understand that the matter I raised is one that should be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges?
The Deputy could refer the question to that Committee.
In the event of our being unable to get satisfaction from the Government, I am not clear whether this is a matter for the Chair or for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
It is not a matter for the Chair. The allocation of time for any motion rests with the President. When this question was raised some years ago at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, a suggestion was made that 1½ hours should be afforded in which to come to a decision on such a motion.
Was that a maximum or minimum allowance?
As far as I recollect, there was no question of a maximum or minimum time.
May I submit to the Minister, through you, A Chinn Comhairle, that this order came into operation yesterday——
To-day.
Yesterday—the 3rd.
No, to-day the 4th.
The period is from the 3rd to the 27th, as the Minister will see if he refers to his own order. Apparently he does not know the dates. The Minister should, in fairness to the House, afford it an opportunity of coming to a decision on this matter as soon as possible.
The House was given that opportunity.
I do not like to raise a point as to anything that happened at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, but surely this matter did not appear on the agenda of the Committee.
No—the suggestion was definitely made at the Committee.
And it might as well have been made in a corridor.
A discussion took place there as to the desirability of an opportunity being afforded to obtain a decision on such motions. The agreement I have mentioned was then suggested. I am speaking from memory.
It may be a complete misunderstanding on my part but I thought your reference to this matter last night was to the effect that such a recommendation had been made to this House by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I was amazed to hear that.
So far as I recollect, what I stated was that the understanding was mentioned by the Chair in the House on the occasion of a previous similar motion coming up for debate.
There was no formal recommendation?
No; but a suggestion was made.
There was an understanding.
It was not an order.
There was an understanding by all Parties, through their representatives on the Committee, that, in order to give the House an opportunity of coming to a decision when an order of this kind was laid on the Table, the Government would give special time for its discussion as soon as possible and a decision would be taken within one hour or 1 ½ hours. Otherwise, the debate could be carried on for ever.
This was a casual and unpursued reference, and I doubt if any member of the Labour Party heard the suggestion or knew of it. I doubt if the mover of the motion or any member of his Party knew anything of the suggestion. So far as this Party was concerned, it was a casual and unpursued reference which might as well have been made in the Lobby as at the meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
There was nothing casual about it. It was regarded as very serious by the Government and they went out of their way to fall in with the recommendation made by the Committee.
It is a pity the Government do not take a better prospective as regards matters that are considered serious.
Is this the first time that a restriction of 1½ hours has been placed on the discussion of a motion of this kind?
There is no such restriction.
Is this the first time that the attempt has been made to impose such a restriction?
Deputy Norton said definitely last night that he knew nothing whatever about such an arrangement.
I take it that the correct procedure is to refer this matter back generally to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges for a definite ruling. We can direct that Committee's attention to the fact that, unless time is provided by the Government for discussion of such motions, the purpose of the Act can be avoided. We do not wish to embarrass you, A Chinn Comhairle, and probably the best thing to do is to refer the whole matter back to that Committee.
Again on the question of the Committee of Procedure and Privileges, the only thing that was ever discussed by that Committee was the general idea that there were times when it was important that a motion should be fully, completely and finally discussed. I think the time limit on such discussion was put, by a sort of general consensus of the Committee, at four hours, definitely securing a certain amount of time to the opener of the motion and to the Minister replying.
I am not in a position to give the exact terms of the arrangement suggested by the Committee of Procedure and Privileges. I am now informed, however, that this understanding about one and a half hours is on the minutes of the Committee. The question cannot be settled by this type of discussion.
And possibly these minutes are not yet signed.
This is an abuse of——
The Deputy is getting into controversial matters if he is talking about abuse.
During the time of the last Government motions of this kind were put on the Table and were left there for several years.
Some of them are there yet.
The last Government never gave any opportunity to decide——
Discussion of the actions of the last Government might lead to a debate. It is not in order.
The purport of Deputy Little's remarks was that in order to prevent that sort of thing arising there should be at least one and a half hours. That is quite a different thing to excluding all discussion except what can be packed into one and a half hours.