It is proposed to take the business as on the Order Paper — No. 2 to No. 7, inclusive. If the business, as arranged, is completed, motions in the names of Private Deputies will then be taken.
Order of Business.
As listed on the Order Paper?
Yes.
I should like to call attention to what the members of the Labour Party consider very unfair treatment at the hands of the Government. About a fortnight ago we submitted a motion urging the establishment of an economic council and, having regard to the vital importance of the motion, we assumed that the Government would be willing to make available Government time for its discussion and that no effort would be made to restrict the discussion to the short period of three hours. I have been informed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach that the most the Government will allow for the discussion of this vital matter is a maximum period of three hours.
May I submit to the Tánaiste that this is a motion which goes to the very root of the economic policy that is being pursued by the Government? We are faced with a dislocation of industry, and that has been emphasised by the question on the Order Paper to-day. We see the unemployment problem becoming worse from week to week, and there is apparently no plan for dealing with the situation. I suggest the Government ought to provide us with an opportunity of discussing this motion in Government time. This motion is of sufficient importance to require a whole day's discussion, particularly in view of the amendment which has been submitted. It is not as if Ministers were fatigued by having undergone any long legislative trial.
May I put this consideration to the Tánaiste, that last year the House sat only 49 days; in the last four months of 1939 it sat only 20 days, and, so far, this year it has sat only five days? In the face of that legislative inactivity, is there any reason why we cannot get a day for the discussion of a motion of such importance as this one, to which the chief Opposition Party has thought it desirable, in its own wisdom, to submit an amendment? So far as this motion is concerned, a period of three hours for discussion would be totally inadequate. The least the Government ought to do is to allow a day. They have plenty of co-operation from Opposition Parties and, in the circumstances, I think they should accede to a very reasonable request.
I should like to appeal to the Government to provide ample time for the discussion of this motion. It is not only an important motion but it is also a very urgent one. The unemployment situation is growing more serious from day to day because of the dislocation of business arising out of war conditions. With all respect to the motions that precede this one on the Order Paper, I submit that this is much more urgent. If the Government cannot provide ample time for its discussion to-day, why not leave it over until to-morrow? A period of three hours is really very short, particularly when the Minister for Industry and Commerce is the Minister who will have to intervene in the debate. That means there will be only two hours available for Deputies — if we have even two hours.
What about the time the Deputy is now taking?
I think it is a very reasonable request that Deputy Norton makes. Pressure of Government business cannot now be argued because there is no such pressure. I think it is a reasonable suggestion that at least one day should be given for the discussion of this motion and the amendment.
Mr. Byrne
I wish to support the appeal for a full day's discussion of this motion. The five or ten minutes I shall take will deal largely with the unemployment problem in Dublin. At least a day should be given for the discussion of the motion.
I fully agree with the leader of the Labour Party that the arrangement made by the Government for the discussion of this motion is rather disappointing. The amendment that has been submitted in my name, and in the name of Deputy McGilligan, seems to point more to the importance and significance of the motion tabled by members of the Labour Party rather than to sidetrack the discussion along any particular lines. We have all been waiting for the Government to take us into their confidence with regard to the plans they have been making to deal with the growing unemployment situation, a situation that will inevitably develop and become more serious. That has been emphasised particularly in the development of the petrol situation, and the position has been made more serious by the statement made yesterday by the Minister for Industry and Commerce with regard to the general trend of supplies and shipping. I think the Government should let us know when they propose to make a statement on the general unemployment situation.
What objection is there to the taking of Deputy Norton's motion as an opportunity of letting the Government hear what the various Parties have to say on the matter, and then letting the House into their confidence with regard to the actual position in the country? Our idea in putting down the amendment is that, before giving any consideration to the lines on which an economic council should be set up, we would like to know what the Government are doing in connection with this matter. We could then best decide whether it would be necessary to supplement the Government machinery or to replace it by some other machinery.
I should like to point out that in this House only two weeks ago, and previous to that on several occasions, the Taoiseach gave an undertaking that this House would be convened to discuss any matter of importance at the request of any group of Deputies in this House. The members of this group feel that there is a good deal of hesitancy on the part of the Government in meeting the members of the House as often as we think they should, in the existing circumstances.
The Deputy's leader has already spoken, as also a Deputy from the front Opposition Bench. The House should not devote undue time or argument in deciding when the motion should be taken or what time should be allotted to it. The Deputy's intervention should be brief and relevant to the question at issue.
I am the seconder of the motion and if necessary we shall challenge the programme outlined by the Leader of the House regarding the Order of Business. I think I am entitled to do so under the regulations, if you, Sir, force me into that position.
The Government has by Standing Order the right to fix the Order of Business.
I am prepared to forgo the priority to which I am entitled for my motion which next appears on the Order Paper, in order to facilitate taking Deputy Norton's motion. I think that Deputy Cogan, whose motion comes next, is also prepared to give way to Deputy Norton's motion.
And Deputy Keyes and I are prepared to take a similar course in regard to our motion.
I do not at all agree with Deputy Norton that his motion deals with a matter of urgent and vital importance. The subject matter of the motion was discussed here at no inconsiderable length last year. It was discussed by members of the Labour Party and the views of the Government were given by the Taoiseach some time in the month of August.
Mr. Byrne
What about the hardships of the unemployed?
Order!
Mr. Byrne
Say "Order!" to the hungry people outside.
The Deputy has sufficient parliamentary experience to know that he should not interrupt, and must respect the Chair.
Mr. Byrne
I know the hardships endured by those outside too, Sir.
The position is that this House, not so many weeks ago, decided that a maximum of three hours should be devoted to each private motion. That was a Standing Order made unanimously in this House. The Government is not anxious to avoid any discussion on this matter but, as I say, it was discussed at considerable length as late as last autumn.
Mr. Morrissey
This matter was not discussed.
The setting up of an economic council was discussed.
And you did nothing since.
The Tánaiste is, I am sure, quite unconsciously, misinforming the House on this matter. There was no motion before the House on the question of an economic council. There was a reference to an economic council in a general discussion, but there was no net concentration on the necessity for an economic council.
There was concentration on it then, but there was no motion on the matter.
May I put it this way? The Dáil has sat for only 14 days in the last three months. Having regard to that leisurely programme, why cannot we have a day for the discussion of this motion?
I want to emphasise that I do not regard the motion as being as urgent or as important as Deputy Norton has said. I repeat what I already stated, that the Government on several occasions have stated that whenever the House demands time for discussion of an urgent matter we certainly shall give it.
Who is going to be the judge if a matter is important?
Is the Tánaiste to be the judge?
I am speaking for the judge.
Is it not a fact that the Taoiseach in private discussions with the leaders of the various Parties, and publicly, stated that he would summon the House at the request of any group of Deputies?
Certainly, but there is no need to summon the House. The House is in session.
Why then will you not give us time to discuss the motion?
We have offered the Deputy time but the Deputy said he is not satisfied.
The Tánaiste has referred to an agreement arrived at by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges under which it was decided that, in order to facilitate private members, discussion on a motion moved during Private Members' time should be confined to three hours. That was an agreement come to between private members of the House, that in order to give one another fair play, they would not require more than three hours for the discussion of any motion put down for Private Members' time. At the same time, the Government having so much Parliamentary time to spare, indicated that in order to clear off some of the Private Members' motions on the Order Paper, they were prepared to allocate so much of the time on Wednesday and Thursday as they did not require, for the discussion of these motions. I would ask the Tánaiste not to confuse the two matters or not to forget the undertaking that was given that the Government would assemble the House at the request of any Party. There is a serious problem referred to in the motion down in the names of Deputy Norton and Davin, and it is a situation of which the Government should really take cognisance and deal with. I would ask the Tánaiste whether his statement that he would reconsider the matter means that he is prepared, if the matter is put up as one of first class importance by the leader of the Labour Party or any other Party, to give a day to it.
I am prepared to reconsider the matter, and if the Deputy gets in touch with our Whips we shall fix a day at an early date to discuss the motion.