It is proposed to take business as on the Order Paper, Nos. 4, 5—Votes 30, 69 and 46—and 6, No. 2 to be taken in its appropriate place.
Order of Business.
Until when is it proposed to adjourn?
There is one specific item, Vote 69—Office of the Minister for Supplies—which is urgent. If that item in particular were completed to-day, it would be proposed not to meet next week, but if that business were not concluded, we should have to meet next week.
Why can we not meet to-morrow morning?
I understand that Deputies from different sides of the House intimated that it would not be convenient.
Surely it would be more convenient to meet to-morrow morning than to meet next week?
There is no guarantee that, even if we did meet, we would finish this business to-morrow.
Could the question not be left over for discussion between the Whips as to whether, if it were necessary to provide time for Ministers to reply, it would not be better to let him reply in the morning, and let Deputies go home to-morrow?
Leave it open for the present.
I do not want to suggest that we are not quite prepared to return, if it is necessary, to carry on the business of the House, but would it not be better to meet to-morrow?
There is no use in making bites of cherries. I think the House ought to decide in what way it is going to conduct its business. We got an Estimate on Supplies yesterday, a very big Estimate, and we are asked to discuss it to-day. I do not think that anybody trying to act as the single representative of the opinion of a Party can say what is likely to be the kind of discussion that will take place on the Estimate. There is a very substantial amount of money for salaries involved and a very considerable amount in respect of bread, and I think the House ought to make up its mind now, if it does not conclude this to-day, whether it is going to sit to-morrow or next week to do so. The House has a responsibility in the matter and ought to face it, particularly in view of the fact that the House is trying to meet the difficulties in respect of transport which various parts of the country are up against, and I think it is only the House as a whole can face that matter.
If the House sits to-morrow, there are Deputies who will not be able to get home.
I withdraw my objection entirely.
Deputy Mulcahy has given notice on behalf of Deputy McGilligan of that Deputy's intention to raise the subject matter of question No. 9 on the Adjournment to-night.
The censorship does not apply here.
That, so far as I am aware, is rather an innovation. In all my experience of this House, I have never heard a Deputy give notice on behalf of another Deputy of that Deputy's intention to raise a matter on the Adjournment.
The censorship does not apply here.
I understood that the principle upon which we proceeded in this matter was that a Deputy present in the House, having put down a question and being dissatisfied with the answer, might give notice of intention to raise the matter on the Adjournment. In this case, the Deputy responsible for the question has not been here, and we do not know whether he is dissatisfied with the answer or not, except on the assumption that, no matter how reasonable a reply Deputy McGilligan received, he still would not be satisfied.
Deputy Mulcahy could have raised the matter on his own initiative.
But he did not do that.
Nevertheless, he is entitled to raise it on the Adjournment.
He did not do that.
I submit that it would be quite in order for me to raise the matter on the Adjournment, whether I was satisfied or dissatisfied with the answer, and further that it is quite in order for a Deputy to intimate, through a representative of his Party if he himself is not able to be present at the moment, that the matter will be raised by him.
Assuming the Deputy's consent?
Yes, Sir, his request.