It is proposed to take business in the following order:— Nos. 2, 3, 5—Votes 44 and 27—7, 8, 9, and 10, and, if time permits, Votes 54 and 52.
Order of Business.
Would the Minister give the House an indication of the date on which he hopes to introduce the Budget?
I hope to introduce the Budget on this day fortnight, 7th May.
Will the House sit next week?
Yes.
Public Business not to be interrupted at nine o'clock.
The House is not making an order that Public Business be not interrupted at nine o'clock?
It is not proposed to give Private Deputies' Time to-night.
It is not proposed to give it?
That is the position.
Do I understand that the Vice-President is putting a proposal before the House that Private Members' Time be not given to-night?
That is right.
I would ask the Vice-President has he given any consideration to the first notice of motion that is on the Order Paper, under Private Deputies' Business, with regard to the wholesale and retail price charged for coal in Dublin? I should like to ask the Vice-President whether he realises the urgency and importance of dealing with that motion expeditiously?
It is not usual at this time of the year, when financial business is under consideration, for Private Members' Time to be given, unless the matter is of very special urgency.
Does the Vice-President understand how vital and urgent this matter of coal prices in Dublin is?
Well, it is usual to raise that with the Whips in the ordinary way. It has not been raised, as far as I am aware.
If the Government wants to take Private Members' Time here to-day, I submit that it was up to the Government Whip to approach us and to say that the Government, for some particular reason, wished to take Private Members' Time to-day. We would then have been able to show that there is no business on the Order Paper to-day as urgent or as important as the immediate consideration of this question, because there is not only the question of price, and the question of the hardship that people in Dublin are undergoing, but there is a very vital principle involved which may affect the whole question of prices control.
Why did not the Deputy take the motion on 4th April, when he had the chance-when he was offered it?
When?
On the 4th April.
When?
The Deputy knows what I am talking about.
Will the Minister say what he is talking about, because——
The Deputy knows that this motion is ineffective, and he wants to make a speech about it. He was offered an effective motion, and he would not take it.
The Minister suggests it is ineffective because he will not have it.
Because it is illegal. He was offered a legal motion and he would not take it.
What does the Minister mean by "illegal"?
The committee could not function without an amendment of the law.
Does the Minister deny that it was agreed to leave out anything that might be illegal?
The Deputy would not agree to what was proposed.
I do not want to have the House confused by the prevarications of the Minister.
The Deputy is doing everything to confuse the House.
There is a motion here which, I suggest, a very short discussion can emphasise the importance of, and a very short discussion can dispose of, if it is properly faced up to.
I could dispose of the motion in one sentence.
Am I to understand from the Vice-President that he insists on the Government appropriating Private Members' Time to-day?
I understand that is the Minister's proposal.
What flutter is the Tánaiste in?
I should like to know from the Vice-President if he is insisting on his motion?
The Tánaiste insists that we do not give time to-night for Private Deputies' Business, not the Vice-President.
I desire to oppose the Government's proposal in this connection. I quite understand that I cannot discuss the merits of the question now, but I should like to mention, in connection with the manner in which coal prices in the City of Dublin have been approved in certain circumstances recently and then fixed at a higher price by the Minister, that a very considerable amount of hardship has been caused to the poorer classes of coal purchasers in the city and, indeed, to every class of coal purchaser.
I submit that the Deputy is now discussing the merits of the motion and is not telling the truth about it.
I am not discussing the merits of the motion; I am merely indicating what the motion deals with. If the Minister was prepared to face the matter reasonably and sensibly and had not something that he wanted to hide by his blustering and misrepresentation, he would allow the position to be stated simply and would not be afraid of discussing it.
Does the Deputy wish to put this question to a vote?
Yes, for the reason that, in my opinion, there is nothing more important on the Order Paper, and I think it is a scandal, in view of the coal position in Dublin City, that the Government deny private members the time that should be made available to them to have this matter discussed.
I have no objection at all to a discussion of the motion at any time that can be arranged, but Deputy Mulcahy knows quite well that this motion could not be made effective and that the committee proposed could not function without an amendment of the law. The Deputy has been offered a committee which could function, a committee which could investigate the present prices of coal in Dublin. I made that offer to him before the Dáil adjourned for the Easter recess. If he had agreed to that we could have got the necessary procedure adopted in a few minutes, but he did not agree.
By way of explanation, the Minister sent me a written statement to the effect that he was not prepared to agree to my motion, that the law prevented him submitting certain papers and documents to any such committee, but that he was prepared to set up a committee of the House to inquire into the prices of coal now being charged in Dublin, the word "now" being printed in block letters and underlined and "now" meaning a particular date in the middle of April.
The price being charged at any time.
No. I redrafted the motion, leaving out the reference to papers and documents and anything that required confidential information. I redrafted the motion so that it would read that the House would set up a committee of Deputies to inquire into the prices charged for coal in Dublin and Dun Laoghaire since 1st January, 1941. I restricted the inquiry to the period from 1st January, 1941. That was the period in respect to which a price for coal was approved by the Minister and in respect to which also the date occurred when the Minister increased the price to 63/- The Minister refused that motion and offered something that would not include an investigation into his fixing of the price.
If the Deputy merely wants to inquire into my past activities, I am not going to facilitate him. My Department and I are much too busy to submit to inquisitions into past activities. But if the Deputy wants to relieve public anxiety about coal prices now, I am prepared to facilitate him.
Why not have an investigation covering the period from 1st January?
I am concerned more with the present and the future. If Deputy Mulcahy is concerned over the interests of the coal consumers in Dublin, I am prepared to facilitate him; if he merely wants to have an inquiry into the working of my Department, he can go to Hong-Kong for all I care.
I am concerned with the robbery that took place in February, March and April, largely as a result of the action of the Minister.
The Deputy appears to me to be more concerned with political manoeuvring than with the interests of the coal consumers.
Deputies can well understand why I regard this as an important matter and why I am objecting to the Government attempting to deprive us of Private Members' Time.
Surely the House may discuss the propriety of the Government withdrawing from us what is our guaranteed right? They have made no case at all. We are not asking for Government time. We are merely asking that the Government should not take from Private Deputies the time that is usually allocated to them. The attitude taken up by the Government is that if we want a discussion of the kind we think necessary in Private Deputies' Time, we can go to Hong Kong, for we will not get it. Let us pause for a moment to consider the position. There is growing up in this country a feeling that Deputies are wasting their time in Dáil Eireann and, so far as members of the Labour Party, the Opposition and the Independents are concerned, for the next six months if we go on a public platform we will be told that peaceful representations in Parliament elicit nothing better than to be told that we can go to Hong Kong.
Deputy Mulcahy got a fair offer.
If that conviction is carried to the minds of people who are labouring under great distress, they will find means to guarantee that they will not be sent to Hong Kong. It will take the combined efforts of all of us, Opposition, Labour, Independent and Government, to persuade our people to maintain discipline, to stick to the ranks, and struggle through the adversity that we will have to face in the next six months, and the only hope we have of prevailing upon them to do that is to reassure them that the humblest representative they have in Dáil Eireann will be listened to with respect, and that his legitimate representations will be dealt with fairly, even generously, by the Executive of the day. If the representatives of the people are going to be told in Dáil Eireann that they can go to Hong Kong when they ask for information about the acute sufferings of their constituents——
That is a gross misrepresentation.
——in respect of coal supplies in this city, then I warn you that, to my grief and horror, these people suffering in Gloucester Street and the back streets of the city through want of coal will take steps to ensure that neither they nor their representatives will be sent to Hong Kong.
The Deputy is utterly dishonest.
If the Government cannot give Private Deputies' Time for the discussion of the actual motion drafted as we want it drafted—we are the people who are asking for the information, and the Government should not claim to draft our motion for us; they have a right to speak to our motion and to show, if they can, that it was a bad motion—will the Government agree to do so before we adjourn on Friday? Let us show that we are anxious to get constructive work done. I think the Government ought to give Private Deputies' time to-night, or if not, will they undertake to give Government time before the adjournment on Friday?
We may. I think Deputy Dillon's remarks, with all respect, and Deputy Mulcahy's remarks, are "cod" and "blather". I think they know what was done in previous years. They know, as well as I do, or as well as any other Deputy, that at this time of the year it was usual, and was accepted by everyone, not to give Private Deputies' time on Wednesday.
That was introduced by the last Government.
Has it been customary in the middle of a period of acute crisis, when people are hard hit, to give a whole day to the discussion of amendments to the Constitution?
We have given several days to the discussion of Private Deputies' business. Whole days were given when asked, and the Order Paper was cleared of Private Deputies' motions. We were looking out for Private Deputies' motions, and they were there in abundance. There has been no attempt by the Government to restrict Private Deputies' time.
Give us time.
We are not anxious to restrict Private Deputies' time, but at this time of the year, as financial matters have to be considered, it has been usual not to give Private Deputies' time except for something very special or urgent. If there is something special or urgent that any member of the Front Bench Opposition, or of the Labour Party, wishes dealt with, they should instruct the Whips to get in touch with our Whip.
That has been done.
It has not been done. No word was passed to our Whip.
Nonsense.
That is my information. If Deputy Mulcahy is so tremendously interested in this question —and I believe he is seriously interested in it—he did not go to the trouble of getting in touch with our Whip at any time.
The Minister is talking nonsense.
That is my information. If that had been done, it would have been arranged and if it could not be done to-day it could be done for to-morrow or the next day. I am told that no effort was made to get time.
Will time be given before Friday?
Certainly. Why could not this have been done in the ordinary way without all the "blather" we had?
As to the rights of Private Deputies, may I say that Private Deputies' time was only taken by this Government and by their predecessors after the introduction of the Budget—not before?
That is quite incorrect.
As regards matters of urgency, such as coal and petrol, motions were put down that they were of special urgency and there have been discussions between the Whips and the Minister for Supplies with regard to their general importance. There was no intimation from the Government that they were going to take Private Deputies' time to-day for financial business. The least we could expect from the Government was an intimation that they were going to take Private Deputies' time.
The least that might have been done would be to ring up the Whip.
It is not for me to do that.
Would the Tánaiste state whether and when time will be given?
We will fix it up in a few minutes.
Time to be given?
To-morrow, at the usual hour.
Item 10 on the Order Paper—Shops (Conditions of Employment) (Amendment) Bill, 1941, is down for Second Reading to-day. Will the Minister for Industry and Commerce agree to take it to-morrow if there is not a likelihood of its being reached to-day?
I prefer to take it to-day if that is convenient to the Deputy. I take it that he is not objecting to taking it to-day.
I would much prefer to take it to-morrow.
May I put it this way: If the Bill is reached to-day let us take it. After all we have to get through a certain amount of business to-day.
The case I am making to the Minister is that it would be more convenient for us to take it to-morrow.
But if there is time available to-day?
We could go on with the Estimates.
I agree.
Agreed to take the Bill to-morrow.
When the House has discussed Estimate 27 — Widows and Orphans Pensions—in what order will the other Estimates be taken?
Estimates 44, 27, 54 and 52. Items 7, 8 and 9 will be taken after the first two Estimates, and when they are concluded, Estimates 54 and 52 will be taken.