It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos 1, 2, 5 and in 5, Votes 62, 16, 24 and 27, and then Nos 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. It is proposed to interrupt business at 1.30 to take Nos. 9, 10 and 11, if not already reached, and, when completed, to resume the order. Questions will be taken at 3 p.m.
Order of Business.
Does the Minister mean Nos. 1 to 5 or Nos. 1, 2 and 5?
Nos. 1 and 2 and 5. With regard to future sittings, the Vote on Account will be taken on Wednesday next and it will be necessary to have the Central Fund Bill in the Seanad the following week. We had contemplated that we might meet on Tuesday next week, but I gather there is some feeling that the notice is not long enough to justify that arrangement. I want to say, therefore, that it may be necessary to sit later than usual on Thursday to try to complete that section of business. In the following week, the week in which the bank holiday occurs, the Dáil will meet for only two days, but in order that the same situation may not arise again, I think I should say that from then on, we must contemplate three-day meetings each week.
Did I understand the Tánaiste to say that the Vote on Account must be passed next week? If so, the Tánaiste may take it that this side of the House will not consider two or even three days next week sufficient to discuss the Vote on Account.
Public business must be done and the Vote must be passed within the financial year. If it is necessary, we shall have to sit late on Thursday, and if we do not finish, perhaps on Friday.
There is no possibility of that being sufficient time to discuss the Vote on Account. The House must have adequate time to discuss a matter as important as this.
Surely if that is the case, there is not any objection to the House meeting on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday next?
No.
Except the one thing, that it is impossible to discuss the Vote on Account on Tuesday when we shall not get the Book of Estimates until so late.
When will the Book of Estimates be available?
This week-end or on Monday morning. The Vote on Account does not involve discussion of the details of the Estimates and it must be recognised by the House that the financial consequences to the whole community of not getting the Vote on Account passed before the end of the year could be very serious.
We would like to see the form of Utopia we are to have in the Book of Estimates before we discuss the Vote on Account.
May I submit that it has been the normal practice of the House to have two weeks allotted for the Vote on Account, if so requested by the Opposition. It would be quite impossible to discuss the Vote on Account adequately on Tuesday when we get the Book of Estimates only on Monday. When we agreed to discuss the Vote on Account on Wednesday, it was represented to us that we were getting the Book of Estimates on Saturday. Apparently that has now been changed——
That may be possible even yet.
I think the Minister for Finance will agree that it was on the basis of getting the Book of Estimates on Saturday that we were to discuss the Vote on Account on Wednesday. The House should take the Vote on Account on Wednesday and Thursday, and, if necessary, for part of Friday of next week and meet on the following Tuesday and Wednesday to finish the Vote on Account and the Central Fund Bill. If necessary, it could go to the Seanad on Wednesday night so that the Seanad could take it up on the following day, Thursday.
There is certainly no desire to limit the scope of the discussion in the Dáil, but Deputies will appreciate that the Seanad will require two days for the Central Fund Bill in the following week, if they are to be given reasonable time.
There are two weeks still to go before the end of March.
But there is a constitutional requirement that the Seanad should get three weeks' notice. I presume that they will not insist on that.
That constitutional requirement may be there but there have been motions for short signature on Central Fund Bills for a great many years. It would be most undesirable that discussion in the Dáil on the Vote on Account should be in any way hampered.
The Tánaiste mentioned the public interest, No. (1), and the constitutional provision, No. (2), and the necessary time for the Seanad to discuss matters in the normal way. I do not know if I understand it properly and I should like the Tánaiste to say is he telling the Dáil now that he requires the Vote on Account passed through the House next week?
He started on that and came back from it.
I just want to be quite clear on that because, if that is so, then we have been completely deceived with regard to the Government's approach in the matter all along.
May I interrupt the Deputy? The fact that the Vote on Account would be taken on 12th March was announced in the House a month ago.
Yes.
Certainly, I had no reason to think that that was not regarded as a suitable arrangement by all Deputies. So far as the Government is concerned, the essential thing is that the Central Fund Bill should be passed and become law before the end of the financial year.
I am asking a very clear question now and the House is entitled to an answer. Is it the Government's proposal that the House will be required to pass the Vote on Account next week?
The House will be required to deal with the Vote on Account and the Central Fund Bill to enable it to get to the Seanad in the following week. There are various ways in which that can be done. We can meet on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of next week. We can meet, as I suggest, on Wednesday and late on Thursday, adjourning at some hour later than 5.30, and we can meet on Friday. I doubt if the suggestion to meet on the Tuesday following the bank holiday will commend itself to Deputies.
Why not?
So far as we are concerned, we would have no objection but some Deputies would find difficulty in travelling.
The Tánaiste has got a little mixed in his dates. The Central Fund Bill, we all agree, must be law before the 31st March in order that the machinery of Government can carry on. It is not normal practice in the Seanad to take more than one week on the Central Fund Bill. There is the week commencing 24th March. In that week the Seanad would have Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, if necessary, to deal with the Central Fund Bill, with the usual motion for early signature, to sign before the following Monday. That means that the Central Fund Bill need not leave the Dáil until either Thursday, 20th March or Friday, 21st March. This is a Money Bill. If there are three weeks for the discussion of a Money Bill, I suggest that it is reasonable that two of those weeks should be in the Dáil and one in the Seanad rather than the way the Tánaiste is suggesting, one in the Dáil and two in the Seanad.
It would be necessary to ensure that the Seanad are likely to approve of that arrangement. I think courtesy to them is also involved in this. The Dáil can have ample time to discuss the Vote on Account and the Central Fund Bill. It is only a question of arranging the appropriation of that time in a manner most convenient to Deputies.
Will the Tánaiste now agree that the first suggestion was a try on?
No. I am giving notice now that we contemplate meeting after 5.30 on Thursday.
For what purpose?
To give plenty of time for discussion.
The Opposition want time.
Certainly, that is the most unsatisfactory method of providing the time. May I inquire further from the Minister for Finance about the Book of Estimates? Is it really suggested now that it will not be available until Monday?
I am almost certain that it will be out on Saturday. To be on the safe side, I said it will be ready for Deputies on Monday morning at the latest.
I submit that Deputies are entitled to be convenienced in regard to what business the House will do. When the Tánaiste says that he gives warning that the Dáil will sit later than five o'clock on Thursday, I ask, for the purpose of what business?
The Vote on Account will be the main item for discussion and I should think that the great majority of Deputies would prefer to sit late on Thursday than to meet on Friday.
I am one of the people who think that rural Deputies are the first to be considered. They have to travel up from the country. If they have to stay here late on Thursday they cannot go home on Thursday night and remain over until Friday. It is just as convenient for them to sit until two o'clock on Friday so that they can catch afternoon trains, if they have to be here anyway. The Tánaiste and everybody else knows that the idea of sitting from 10.30 a.m. to 10.30 p.m. means that not everybody is in a humour properly to conduct public business.
When it is one debate continuing through the whole day, I do not know that there is any great problem in that regard. Very few Deputies feel obliged to sit through the whole of the debate.
It never works.
This is a matter for which we can make arrangements so long as it is accepted that the business must be completed within the financial year. That I understand to be the case. I do not think that meeting on Tuesday of the following week would be practicable. I understand that there is difficulty in arranging for printing to be done for the Dáil when a bank holiday comes before the day the Dáil would meet.
Meet on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of that week.
When does the Tánaiste propose to take item No. 12—Control of Manufactures Bill, 1957?
I think, subject to the debate on the Vote on Account, the week after next.