Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 24 May 1973

Vol. 265 No. 13

Committee on Finance. - Adjournment of Dáil: Motion.

The Taoiseach

I move:

That the Dáil adjourns until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 5th June, 1973.

As I mentioned yesterday when announcing the Order of Business and in reply to a question by the Leader of the Opposition, the procedure has been that in each of the contested Presidential Elections, of which there have been three prior to this, the position has been as follows. In 1945, on the occasion of the first contested Presidential Election, polling was on 17th June and the Dáil adjourned on Tuesday, 29th May until Wednesday, 20th June. That was a three-weeks' adjournment, which was very long. In 1959 polling was on 17th June and the Dáil adjourned on 11th June until 23rd June. In 1966 polling was on 1st June and the Dáil adjourned on 28th May until 7th June.

On this occasion we are proposing to follow the precedents that have been established. On the two last occasions, adjournments were for a week and on the other occasion it was for three weeks. It so happened that on each of the last three occasions Fianna Fáil were in Government and as far as I can discover there was no question of demurring to the adjournment proposals by anybody. They appear to have been accepted without protracted debates. There was a slight reference made to it in 1959 but as far as I can ascertain from the Official Report there was no discussion on the other two occasions. This year the Presidential Election takes place in a year when there was also a general election and I might say the Government were not responsible for that decision.

It has been suggested by the Opposition that there is a backlog of business. I would point out that that is usual in any year in which there is a general election and this year is no exception. It has been customary for the Dáil to adjourn for varying periods after general elections. This year there was the normal fortnight's adjournment and then a slightly extended Easter recess. All of this is relatively normal. I think it is correct to say that since the Government were elected they have got through a lot of business, some of it in the House, and much more business by reason of Government decisions. However, this is hardly the occasion to deal at length with the matters that have been carried out by the Government.

The suggestion that the Dáil should meet for a day next week, adjourn for polling day and come back on Thursday is hardly reasonable. It is true that there is a recommendation from the Committee on Dáil Reform that the Dáil would consider meeting on Church holidays but the Committee recommendations, or a number of them, have not been implemented, with one exception. It is recognised that Deputies as well as everybody else are expected to vote in their own constituencies and it is hardly reasonable to expect them to return to their constituencies on Tuesday night, after the Dáil adjourns, for the purpose of voting on Wednesday, and then to return on Thursday.

In place of the normal sitting days, it is proposed to sit on the Tuesday of the following week. That is the day after the bank holiday. The practice has been not to sit on days following bank holidays. On this occasion, to make up for the lost time, it is suggested that the House would sit on the Tuesday.

Allowing for the fact that subject to agreement on the despatch of business longer sittings can be arranged on other days, it is reasonable to accept that precedents which are well established in this matter would be followed on this occasion. On the occasion of one Presidential Election the adjournment was for three weeks in the middle of the period immediately preceding the summer recess and that was done without demur as far as the Dáil Debates would indicate.

Members of the House are naturally anxious to get through as much business as possible and this depends on co-operation from all sides. It is our intention to sit extra time to make up for this. It is a reasonable proposal, in line with precedent, that we should adjourn now until 5th June. I do not wish to reiterate what has been done but on a number of counts the Government have been energetically pursuing the implementation of their policy, to such an extent that one newspaper suggested we may be going too fast. A lot of Government work has to be done outside as well as inside the Dáil.

I might point out that the precedents I have mentioned were initiated by Fianna Fáil Governments without any demur from the Opposition. There are still a number of Deputies here who were in the House in 1966, in 1959 and, indeed, in 1945. I think this is a reasonable proposal which should be accepted.

Mr. J. Lynch

I asked the question yesterday which days of next week it was proposed to sit. I did so because I was genuinely concerned that there had been so few sitting days of the Dáil since the change of Government and, indeed, since the Christmas recess that there has been public comment about it. In suggesting that we should not sit next week, the Taoiseach cited precedents in 1966, 1959 and 1945, but when he wants to make up for any time lost because of this adjournment he is prepared to abandon precedent and bring the House together on the day after a bank holiday. I submit that we cannot be bound by precedent at every hand's turn. Times are changing and circumstances have changed considerably. This was reflected in the insistent demands of the Opposition in the last Dáil for more frequent and longer sittings. There was some justification for those demands. Changing times have meant an increasing volume of work falling on the Government and, as a result, on the Opposition, and there is much more need for more work in this Chamber.

Mr. Coughlan

The backlog was caused by the ineptitude of the Fianna Fáil Government. That is why we are now bogged down with work.

Mr. J. Lynch

If the Deputy will allow me to continue. He should take himself elsewhere and he might enjoy himself better.

It was a cause of a certain degree of insistence that the thought was given to longer sittings. A committee of the House met and reported on reform of Dáil procedure. One suggestion was that the House ought to abandon the idea of not sitting on Church holydays. If that report had been adopted it would mean that we would have had extra sitting days in the year.

In pointing to the need for avoiding going into recess next week I would refer to a motion which was introduced yesterday by the Minister for Foreign Affairs relating to the adoption by this House of EEC regulations. If for no other reason there is that fact that more business is falling on this House. There may be a good case for a greater resort to the Committee of Procedure in time to come but at the moment far more business is falling on this House.

The fact remains that, no matter who called a general election, one was held this year. It was held in close proximity to the Presidential Election. No general election was held in any of the years referred to by the Taoiseach, 1945, 1959 or 1966. The same considerations did not apply then as apply now. Even if we look at those periods we find that in 1945 there was a three-week adjournment and on the other two occasions there was only one week. This is indicative of the fact that the tempo of the business of the House increased in the meantime. Less time was made available for the Presidential Election recess in the elections of 1959 and 1966.

It is a fact that this is only the 13th sitting day since the new Dáil assembled and, therefore, since the Christmas recess. The Taoiseach pointed out that the Government have been doing much of their business with expedition. That is nothing new because much of that work is an overflow of work left by the last Government.

(Interruptions.)

A Deputy

Left on the shelf.

Mr. J. Lynch

I wonder why do the Deputies opposite, when they hear something that they do not like, just yack-yack-yack. If they listen for a moment I will demonstrate. Several Bills were introduced here and they were dealt with expeditiously because we had already sponsored them.

Mr. Coughlan

Internment, offences against the state——

Mr. J. Lynch

The Estimates under discussion are going reasonably expeditiously as well. Therefore, the Government cannot claim all the credit for the fact that Government business is now being done expeditiously. Apart altogether from the fact that some of the business was a carryover, there is a tradition that an outgoing Government are not as insistent or persistent in their opposition to Government measures after a change.

The point was made yesterday that the Government had much legislation to bring before the Dáil and to have passed. We have had the experience in recent years of Estimates being passed en bloc. Hundreds of millions of pounds were voted without any debate because the summer recess was approaching. We are now deliberately losing sitting days next week.

Let me not deny, and I am not going to talk with my tongue in my cheek, that there is a Presidential Election next week. It is the Government's business to do the business of this House and to maintain a House. Therefore it would be of some advantage to us to have the House sitting in that we do not need all our Deputies here. The Government would have to have a reasonable number of Deputies here. This is politics and I am not pretending that I am talking from the purely altruistic point of view. I am talking sincerely now when I say that we are abandoning useful sitting days in order to ensure that Government Deputies will be available for the presidential work and to take whatever advantages there are in having their Deputies free.

I think it is wrong, at this time, that we should have to follow the precedents mentioned by the Taoiseach. Times have changed and the volume of work being done by this House has increased considerably. Even though it may be suggested that the Government would offer extra sitting days I take the Taoiseach's own remarks when he said that the Government have to do their own work outside of this House. This is a point that we made frequently when demands were being made for extra sittings. Members of the Government are now aware that normally there are two Government meetings each week and this occupies the time of the Government. For this reason we will be restricted in the number of sitting days that will be available between now and the end of the present term. I am opposing this adjournment.

Mr. Coughlan

I am wondering where are Deputies Haughey and Blaney? It would be interesting to see which side they would take in a debate of this kind.

The Taoiseach

The Leader of the Opposition has said that when the Dáil resumes on 5th June discussions should be arranged between the Whips. I would be glad to arrange a timetable to ensure that we have adequate time to consider the business. The best use could be made of this time by arranging such a timetable. Precedents are not obligatory in this matter but I put the facts as clearly as possible. It would be unrealistic to imagine that much business could be got through next week with so many of the Deputies occupied elsewhere.

The fact that a different Government was in power on the three previous occasions and that it was those Governments that established the precedents does not alter matters. On this occasion we are in Government and it is only reasonable to operate on the same basis. With co-operation from the Opposition I will arrange a timetable which will effectively complete the business as quickly as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

The Dáil adjourned at 4.50 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 5th June, 1973.