Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 24 Jun 1924

Vol. 7 No. 29

QUESTION OF PROCEDURE.

May I ask the President if he can give the Dáil some information respecting his proposal for business for this week, particularly as to when he proposes to take the Estimates, and what Estimates, and whether they are to be taken in the order in which they appear on the Orders of the Day?

Yes, it is proposed to take the Order Paper in the order in which it is set down. In the event of not finishing Item 11 to-day, it is proposed to take it as the first business to-morrow. In the programme I have set out I hope to be able to afford four hours for the Estimates on to-morrow, two hours on Thursday, and three hours on Friday. That is in anticipation of some of the measures that are down for those days being non-contentious, as I believe they are. I find that in my statement on Friday I stated that it was intended to introduce eight Bills. That statement was made out on the day previous, but four Bills were introduced on Friday, so that there remained only four to be introduced then.

I have been disappointed in not having had the President's statement circulated, as it was not quite so easy to follow a written statement. I, for one, rather anticipated the circulation of that statement to the Deputies. Will the Minister say what is his proposal regarding the motion which is in fact a motion of censure on the Government, which stands in the name of Deputy Milroy, and whether he proposes to shelve the motion of censure, or to allow it to be taken, and also whether it is intended to deal with the other motion on the Order Paper in private Deputies' time on to-morrow?

I propose to take the whole of the Deputies' time through the remainder of this session. In connection with Deputy Milroy's motion which, I think, he innocently stated was not in the nature of a motion of condemnation, I propose to give time for its consideration to-morrow. I would at any time allow time for the discussion of a motion of want of confidence. In that connection I think the three motions down for to-morrow will go by the board. But if a motion were put down as a motion of want of confidence, I would undertake to give time for that to be discussed—a moderate number of them.

Perhaps the President will be more explicit. Does the President mean that the three motions in my name go by the board.

I take it that they are motions in the name of a private Deputy, but I do not interpret them as being motions of want of confidence. If a motion is tabled as being a motion of want of confidence, I will undertake to give time for its discussion.

That raises the matter of the report of the Army Inquiry Committee, which was to be further considered. I believe that the raising of the matter last Wednesday did not fulfil the President's intention to set aside a day, or part of a day, for the consideration of it. Is the matter to be considered again, and may we be told if any of these matters raised by Deputy Mulcahy in the three resolutions he has put before us are to come up in their present form, or in any other form before the Dáil? The report itself, the adequate consideration it, and the dealing with it generally, should take precedence of any motions of that kind.

I do not think it is necessary to afford time for considering the report, unless a motion be tabled in connection with it. I would be prepared to give consideration to the matter when such a motion would be tabled.

If the President is of opinion that the motions standing in my name are not motions of want of confidence, I am prepared to make them more explicit. I do feel that the action of the Executive Council with regard to those three officers, and their subsequent inaction after the Army Inquiry Committee report was submitted, are matters that very gravely affect our confidence in the Executive Council.

I propose to give time for any motion of want of confidence.

In the event of a motion for want of confidence being put down, will the President give it priority over other business? Such a motion should not be put down and discussed at a late hour in a tired House.

I will consider that.

Will I have the assistance of any draftsman I want in making my motion plainly to show that it is a motion of want of confidence?

The General is entitled to that.

Perhaps if Deputy Mulcahy consulted with the Clerk he might be able to give him some assistance. The position about private members' business is that Deputy Milroy's motion and the amendment will arise in private members' time to-morrow.

Agreed.

Barr
Roinn