Before we go into the ordinary business I would like to say that there is one item we expected to hear a statement about to-day, and that is the report on the Shannon Scheme. We were told we would have it to-day, but I do not see anything about it on the Orders of the Day.
SHANNON POWER SCHEME.
That is a matter to be settled by the Vice-President.
The business will be taken in the order on the Paper, with this exception, that between items 5 and 6 the Minister for Industry and Commerce will make a statement on the Shannon Scheme. It will be necessary to sit late with an adjournment from 2 to 3, and probably the most convenient time for the Minister to make his statement would be on the re-assembly at 3 o'clock.
Before we proceed with the Orders of the Day, I am assuming that there will be an adjournment to-day until the end of January or the beginning of February. Would I be justified in asking for an assurance from the Vice-President that on the resumption of the new session we should have some indication of the measures that the Government intend to deal with during the session. I hope that a circular or a statement will be issued to Deputies of the business of the session and that Bills will be taken in such a way as not to be rushed through the House as they have been rushed during the past two sessions of the Dáil.
Can the Minister give the House any information as to the proposal put forward a week or two ago as to the close of a session. Has the Minister decided that this session shall continue for the life of the Parliament or is it to be brought to a close at any time and, if so, when?
It is not proposed to end formally this session to-day. I am aware of the point that is in the Deputy's mind. The session of last year, for instance, lapped over into this year, and we think, as a matter of convenience, it is advisable simply to allow the present session to run on into next year. We do not take the view that the particular Article of the Constitution— I have not got the reference by me at the moment—obliges us to begin and end a session of the Dáil within a particular year. We rather take the construction that the spirit and intention of it is merely to ensure that the Dáil shall sit at least once within every twelve months.
Apart from the Constitutional point, does it not appear to the Minister clear that for departmental convenience and especially the convenience in respect of finance, there should be the close of the session and the beginning of a new session.
I see a certain amount of force in this. I merely confine myself to saying that this session will not end to-day. It will run over to next year, and in the meantime we will have more time to look into the general question as to how sessions are to be allocated, and even to naming dates within a year. Some one can go more fully into that with the Deputy on the re-assembly.
Can we have an assurance from the Minister that we will have some sort of a statement on resumption of the measures to be dealt with during the session and the manner in which they will be brought forward.
Yes, I agree with the Deputy that it would be the proper thing. When we resume after the Recess a statement may be made indicating the legislation that will be brought forward and the order in which it will be taken and so on. No amount of statements at the beginning of a session or at the beginning of a sitting of that kind will be able to ensure that coming towards the end there will not be a certain pressure of work and necessity for extra sittings. I think that is the universal experience in every Parliament. I do not agree with the Deputy that there has been, during this present session, any abnormal pressure and I rather object to the suggestion that legislation has been rushed through in a hasty and ill-considered way. Probably the rush and the pressure here is very much less than is the case in other Parliaments.
Will the Minister realise that it will be important from the point of view of the Ministry that shortly after the resumption of next session there should be a statement of the intention of the Ministry if only for electoral purposes.
Quite so.
An order is required that the Dáil should sit later than 4 o'clock to transact the business on the Order Paper. It is intended to suspend the sitting from 2 to 3 and the Minister for Industry and Commerce will make a statement on the resumption.
I should like a statement as to my position with regard to items Nos. 6 and 7. I understood that item 6 had disappeared.
Deputy Lyons had concluded his reply on the matter which concluded the debate. He asked permission of the House to withdraw his motion but a Deputy objecting the permission to withdraw was not given. The motion appeared on to-day's Order Papers only for the purpose of being put to the House.
I do not propose to put it to the House as it has occupied sufficient time in the House already.
At what time normally will item 7 be taken, or in what time will it be taken owing to the peculiar circumstances that have arisen?
Normally it should be taken at 2. To-day we have an adjournment from 2 to 3, and I do not know when it will be taken. If it is to be taken it should be taken at an agreed hour. What does Deputy Gorey say?
Deputy White is not present.
I want to know why the notice of motion in Deputy Johnson's name has been placed on the Order Paper before the motion of Deputy White, when Deputy White handed in his motion eight days before Deputy Johnson.
Deputy Johnson's motion appears in the Order Paper where it does, because it bears on public business and because the Vice-President, acting for the President, can state the order in which motions to be taken in Government time are to appear on the Order Paper. He has consented to this motion appearing here.
I think it is unfair to Deputy White.
That is a different question.