It is proposed to take Nos. 1 and 4 on the Order Paper. The House will adjourn at 10.30 p.m.
Order of Business.
Will the adjournment be taken to-day?
No. 4 is the adjournment motion.
Might I ask the Vice-President whether the Government, before the Dáil adjourns, proposes to take some action with regard to ending the sanctions against Italy and ending the Trade Agreement with Spain——
That might be a matter for discussion on the adjournment. It is not on the Order Paper.
I should like to know now if the Government does not propose——
It may not be discussed now.
Lest misunderstanding might subsequently arise, it might be well to have a clear understanding between us on such agreements as have been arrived at in regard to the adjournment. As we understand it, the Opposition and the Government Party are prepared to adjourn to-night, and afford the Minister answering for the Government three-quarters of an hour or a full hour if he so desires it in which to reply, it being clearly understood that if at 9.30 other Deputies in the House desire to partake in the debate both the Opposition and the Government are prepared to carry on the debate to-morrow morning, but no member of the Opposition Party will offer himself to speak after 9.30 unless Deputies in other parts of the House desire to do so.
It will be seen that Deputy Dillon is making the arrangements——
I am only stating what I know to be the agreement, so that the Vice-President may know what the agreement is.
Now that Deputy Dillon is making the arrangements, will he say at what time it is proposed to take the adjournment motion?
What exactly is the arrangement? Does it mean that other Deputies are going to be crushed out until 9.30?
No.
Would Deputy Dillon explain what arrangements he has made?
All that Deputy Dillon has said is that no member of the Opposition Party will speak after 9.30.
If other Deputies, outside of the Government and the chief Opposition Parties are crushed out until 9.30——
They are not.
——then, even if we decide to go on there may not be a House to go on.
Nobody is bound to listen to everything Deputy Belton wants to say.
Deputy Belton wants to tell the Minister for Finance something that he wants to know, and Deputy Belton is here on the votes of the people.
The misguided people.
For this time and for the next time, and he hopes to meet the Minister in the same constituency too. The arrangement, as I understand from Deputy Dillon——
The Vice-President has the arrangement of business. I asked him a question.
If Independent or Labour members want to speak after 9.30 it is agreed by both the Government and Opposition Parties that this debate will continue to-morrow morning?
I do not know anything about the Government agreeing. Our agreement is that we are willing to give the Minister, so far as we are concerned, a full hour to reply at 9.30. After 9.30 to-night no member of our Party intends to intervene in the debate. We cannot as yet-I admit it may be only a short time—control the Government.
I am not in a position to anticipate how long it will take the Opposition to carry on their obstruction in regard to the Land Bill, but members of this Party are not going to take any part in that. I do not know at the moment——
The word "obstruction" should not be used.
Hear! hear!
How long is that discussion going to take? The Land Bill is down here for consideration——
On a point of order——
I am not going to give way to Deputy Dillon.
On a point of order the Deputy must give way.
On a point of order, is Deputy Davin entitled to use the word "obstruction" in the context in which he has just now employed it? If not, will the Chair ask him to withdraw it?
Deputy Davin is not entitled to use the word "obstruction" in reference to the forthcoming debate on the Land Bill. The use of the word is a reflection on the Chair. The Deputy should withdraw the term.
I am not an expert in the use of the English language, but I thought I was using a word which I myself understood in relation to what I have been listening to here for several days. However, if it is considered to be a reflection on the Chair I certainly do withdraw it. I do not know, unless Deputy Dillon enlightens me, how long his party is going to continue to take part in the discussion on the Fifth Stage of the Land Bill, and, therefore, I do not know at the moment how long has been allotted for the adjournment debate. Perhaps Deputy Dillon, who appears to be in control of the business of the House, will give us some further information on the matter. Members of this Party do intend to take part in the adjournment debate, and we want the necessary facilities to enable us to do so.
Deputy Professor O'Sullivan generously concedes to the remainder of the House absolutely no time at all, because he suggests that none of the chief Opposition speakers will take part in the debate after 9.30.
It does not devolve on Deputy O'Sullivan to call on Deputies rising to intervene in the debate.
I quite see that, but I am at one with Deputy Davin in seeking information. I want to know what is the position of independent Deputies who had no hand, act, or part in making those arrangements. Deputy Dillon graciously concedes us less than an hour, that is to say he gives the President one hour to reply, and in his generosity he may grant us perhaps a half hour.
You will have to come in in the morning!
As one of those who intend to take part in this debate, I want to know where we stand in connection with it. If the arrangement is that the House is to adjourn at 10.30, it only gives the President an hour in which to reply. Where do the rest of us come in? I should like to have that point cleared up, because I do not want to be in the position during the evening of being ruled out of order by the Chair—whose rulings I always respect—and told that I cannot speak after 9.30.
Now, perhaps the Vice-President will tell us what the situation really is.
We have asked a question.
I have already said that the motion for the adjournment would be taken as soon as the discussion on the Fifth Stage of the Land Bill was concluded, and that, if there were a vote to be taken, it would be taken at 10.30.
What was the Vice-President's last remark?
That if a vote is to be taken on the question of the adjournment it will be taken at 10.30.
Is the Vice-President ruling out the possibility of continuing to-morrow?
Yes.
He is ruling that out?
Yes.
Well, I object to that.
Surely, Sir, the Vice-President, or the President, if not the Vice-President, gave an undertaking a few days ago in this House that the adjournment debate would be allowed to proceed without interruption so long as the House desired to debate the adjournment—is not that so?
Yes, that is so.
Very well, then. How does the Vice-President reconcile that undertaking with the statement he has just made that he will move the closure at 10.30? There was a clear undertaking to the Deputies of this House that we would be allowed to have unrestricted discussion until every Deputy had said what he wanted to say, and surely the Vice-President is not going back on that undertaking now?
I really think that, to use plain language, all this talk about the debate on the adjournment is codology, and nothing more. The Deputy knows that he has nobody in the House to carry on the discussion, even if it should go on till to-morrow. Is not that a fact?
It is not a fact, and it is a very improper remark for the Vice-President to make.
It is a fact, and as a matter of fact Deputy Dillon himself said something like that yesterday, when he said that if he had his members in the House he would have challenged a division on a certain question. Is it not, in plain language, codology, then, to have so much talk about this debate on the adjournment?
It is not, and again I say that that is a very improper observation for the Vice-President to make.
I said yesterday to the House that if there were any indication from the House that the House wanted a prolonged discussion on the adjournment, they could have it. I have had no indication of any kind that there was any desire for a prolonged debate on the adjournment.
You have it now.
I have not got it even now.
Well, look!
I do not know what the Deputy means.
I am sure the Vice-President will grasp the position so far as this Party is concerned. We are quite willing to stop after 9.30, but I am sure the Vice-President will also grasp the position that, if the Labour Party and the Independents insist on taking part in the debate, we certainly have no control whatsoever over them, and that, in view of the promise he gave, they should be allowed to take their part and the debate allowed to continue later, if necessary. I am not making the plea for our Party's sake, but from the point of view of the business of the House, and I think the Vice-President ought really to consent to the point of view of the Labour Party or the Independents, supposing that it met with the views of the House to go on until midnight.
As I say, there has not been any indication from the House—even from Deputy Dillon—but if there is any indication from the House as a whole of a desire to sit to-morrow, we shall sit all day to-morrow, if necessary.
Hear, hear!
But I have not got that indication.
Is not this the first opportunity that anybody had of giving such an indication?
Well, it is the first opportunity that I have had.
Deputy MacDermot does not represent the House.
No.
He represents a very small Party, if I may say so.
The Vice-President implied that everybody had had an opportunity of giving an indication. Of course, if those who are not members of the big Parties are ruled out from giving an indication, there is nothing more to say.
Can we take it that the Vice-President will not object if other Deputies want to continue on?
If, later on, it should appear that Deputies want to have the opportunity of speaking, yes.
Very good.
Would the Vice-President agree not to move the closure until midnight?
The Vice-President is not saying that.
From what I know of the feelings of members generally, I think it would suit their convenience more not to meet to-morrow. That is my opinion. I may be wrong in that, but that is what I think. If it would suit the convenience of Deputies better to sit until midnight to-night, I am quite prepared to ask the Ceann Comhairle to agree to that.
Does that meet with the agreement of all Parties?
All we are asking for is time for Deputies here to take part in the debate.
That is all right, but it is a different matter if Deputy Davin himself wants to talk from 10 o'clock till midnight.
If midnight is acceptable to all Parties, we are quite prepared to agree.