The next item on the Orders of the Day is a Bill introduced by a Private Member. The procedure we intend to adopt is to put down the First Stage of Private Members' business in this way, at the beginning of the Orders of the Day, if it is not opposed. If such Bills are opposed the debate, if there be debate, will take place in the time allotted by the Standing Orders for Private Members' business. I would like to ask is this Bill being opposed?
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS. - TOWN TENANTS BILL, 1926.—FIRST STAGE.
To this extent: that I cannot give any earlier time for the Second Reading before two months hence. To that extent only do I oppose it.
If the Bill was given a First Reading it could be printed and circulated, and could be put down for Second Reading during the time allotted to Private Members— not in Government time. The President need not give Government time then.
I am afraid I would have to move the adjournment for this reason, that I would not be in a position to deal with it for two months.
Are we to understand from what the President has said that it is the intention of the Government to take up Private Members' time during the next two months?
As far as a Bill such as this is concerned, yes. I expect that it is intended that the Government should deal with this as a Private Members' Bill. This Bill is one that has been under consideration, or rather has been the subject matter of consideration, by the Minister for Justice for some time past. I do not anticipate that the Minister will be able to deal with it within two months. To that extent the Government will have to oppose taking up the time of the House on this particular Bill.
Do I understand from the President's remarks that he opposes the First Reading of the Bill now?
I have not said so.
The question was put from the Chair, and I would like to know the reply.
The First Reading is not being opposed.
I ask the leave of the Dáil to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to improve the position of tenants of certain houses, shops arid other buildings in Saorstát Eireann.
At this stage I do not intend to occupy the time of the House, as I am not strictly entitled to go into details regarding this measure. The object of the Bill is to remedy existing and glaring grievances that tenants in towns and villages in the Saorstát are now suffering under. I trust that the basis upon which these remedies will be dealt with will appeal to Deputies, generally, as a fair and equitable one, as between landlords and tenants. I look forward, confidently, to the measure receiving support from all quarters of the House. I do not know whether I am entitled, at this stage, to say anything about the date of the Second Reading.
No, until the First Reading is approved.
Very well. I have no more to say upon the subject-matter of the Bill, except that it is well known and present in the minds of Deputies in this House. I trust the measure I am proposing will be considered as a fair, just and moderate means of bringing about reform much and badly needed in many quarters.
Question—"That leave be given to introduce the Bill"—put and agreed to.
What is Deputy Redmond's suggestion with regard to the Second Stage?
On the matter of the Second Stage I understood the President to say he would not be prepared to give Private Members' time for the discussion of this Bill. Well, I understood that Private Members' time was their own time and not in the hands of any party, Government or otherwise, in this House, and that when Private Bills or other measures are proposed, or motions made by Private Members, they should come up for consideration in due course of order on occasions allotted to Private Members. Of course the President may, with the assistance of his majority in this House, be able to take up the whole of the time of Private Members for the next two months. But I say, with all respect and seriousness, that although he may be entitled to do that, which is a very far-fetched thing to do, he is not entitled, whether as leader of the Government or anything else, to discriminate between one Private Member and another in the matter of what business shall be taken in Private Members' time. I would like, therefore, to know from the President what are his intentions in this matter?
The ordinary procedure is this: The Bill has now been introduced; it will be printed and circulated, and a date must be fixed for Second Reading. In order that the matter will come properly before the House, it would be correct, I think, for Deputy Redmond to name a date. It is the practice, when a Deputy introduces a Bill and the introduction has been passed by the House, that a motion is put for the purpose of making an order fixing the date of Second Reading. Then we can hear what the point is. Private Members' time, of course, belongs to Private Members, with the proviso, under the Standing Orders, that at the beginning of the day in which Private Members would ordinarily have time a Minister may move to take the whole time of that particular day. To put this matter in order, will Deputy Redmond suggest a date for the Second Reading?
In accordance with the ruling of the Chair, I suggest this day week.
I have to oppose any earlier date than the 19th of January for the reasons I have given. A measure such as this was introduced some time ago and was beaten on Second Reading. A measure was introduced by the Minister for Justice some time this year dealing with the same subject, to some extent, and now we have a third measure introduced on the same subject. I am not in a position to deal with the Bill, nor is the Department concerned, at an earlier date than the 19th of January.
Deputy Redmond moves: "That the Second Reading be taken on the 24th of November," and the President moves an amendment "To delete the words `twenty-fourth of November' and substitute instead thereof the words `nineteenth of January.' "
It astonishes me to hear the President take this course. Quite apart from the grave discourtesy to Private Members of the House, to say that a Bill which has had a First Reading and which is entitled to be considered on the Second Reading, should be postponed by a motion is in effect a refusal to receive the Bill. The President says two months instead of six which is the practice in other places for moving the rejection of a Bill.
It is a very early date after resumption.
Surely we can discuss the principle of the Bill after the decision of the House that it is desirable that the Bill should be circulated.
The Bill is not circulated yet.
No, and it will have to get a Second Reading before it will be considered in Committee. Surely it is due to any Private Member who takes advantage of his rights, according to the Standing Orders, to introduce a Private Bill, that he should have the opportunity for a Second Reading discussion once sanction is given for the Bill to be printed. If that is to be denied, then I take it to be a challenge to the House to refuse any facilities to Government measures as far as they can. I think that is entirely unfair to Private Members, quite part from the question that it is known by the public statement of Ministers that the proposition contained in the Bill has been receiving consideration. To say that it cannot now be considered on the Minister's part for another two months is to say that it has taken a longer time for them to consider this matter than it takes them to consider many more important and involved questions. We had it from the Minister for Finance recently that this matter was under the consideration of the Ministry, and I presume they know their minds on the principle. We ought to know whether it is the intention of the Government to allow a Bill of this nature to have a Second Reading discussion, at the ordinary time that would be taken by Private Members, once it has got a First Reading. I think it is very necessary that every Deputy should stand for the rights of Private Deputies and support the proposition that next Wednesday be the date fixed for the Second Reading of this Bill.
I should like also to express the opinion that I disapprove of the attitude of the President and the tactics of the Government in this matter. This is not the only occasion on which the Government have tried to appropriate Private Members' time. They have done so on several occasions before. We had the Public Safety Bill yesterday and notice of its Second Reading for to-day, but this Bill, which is absolutely necessary to help thousands of citizens in the Saorstát, is to be denied facilities because we are told the Government have not had time to consider it. I think it is more or less an insult to Private Members of this House when they introduce Private Bills to be told that they cannot have a Second Reading for two months. Surely if the speeches that the Government have been making throughout the country are to be regarded as indications of their views towards the town tenants it is opportune to allow this Bill to come up for Second Reading on Wednesday next. They should do their best to facilitate this Bill becoming law. Members of all parties—Cumann na nGaedheal, Independents, Labour Party or Farmers—should support the promoters of this Bill and vote against the Government's attitude.
I do not know whether I am entitled to speak again.
Yes. The Deputy can speak upon the amendment to make the date of the Second Reading the nineteenth of January.
With your permission, therefore, sir, I desire to say I fail to understand the attitude of mind of the President when a Bill proposed by a Private Member is introduced, is allowed to pass its First Stage, and then he should propose an amendment providing that the Second Stage shall not be taken for two months. Does that mean that all Private Members' business is to be held over for two months or not? If it does mean that all Private Members' business is to be taken away—all the privileges enjoyed by Private Members for discussing motions, Bills or proposals made or brought forward—in the next two months, then we know where we are. That is one method of doing it. I do not think it is altogether a straight method. If it does not mean that, and if it means that only one Private Member is to be deprived of his right of introducing a Bill because that Bill does not happen to be one of which the President approves—he does not know what is in the Bill yet—and because it is a Bill the subject of which is not altogether favourable or pleasant for the Government—and because of that, that Private Member is to be penalised and is to be swamped by the Government majority in this House from exercising his right as a Private Member of the Dáil—then I say it is time the public knew about it, and it is time that we gave up the farce of having any discussion here at all or having time allotted to anyone but the Government to say anything or do anything on the part of the State.
Appoint a dictator.
If there was a dictator appointed it would be above board—we would know where we were. But here we have a proposal which, in effect, may be in the first place a method to prevent all Private Members from having any Private Members' discussion, or, in the second place, may be to deprive one Private Member of exercising his rights as a Private Member. I say that the President cannot get away from either of these alternatives, and I further say that if those are the alternatives it is a course which any leader of any democratic Government in any country in the world should be ashamed of.
In view of some of the statements made by Deputy Redmond, I think it is only right that I should, at least, get an opportunity of explaining that the exaggerated statements he has made are not in the least benefiting his case. There is a great difference between the Dáil and a platform outside; one may exaggerate there if one wishes. The position with regard to this matter is quite simple. The Minister who has charge of this question of rent restriction and so on, which concerns town tenants, is in London. He has been in London for a month—I am sure Deputy Redmond knows that. It may be with Deputy Redmond's displeasure he is there, but he is there.
How long will he be there?
I cannot say— certainly for a week. I intimated to Deputy Redmond, when I was saying that I had no objection to the First Reading, that it would depend on the date of the Second Reading. Accommodation is a thing that has been given to everybody in this House, in spite of what Deputy Redmond has said. Everybody tries to meet everybody else. Was Deputy Redmond trying to meet me when he said a week from now, while the Minister dealing with this matter is in London?
If I might interrupt the President, before I mentioned any date at all the President stated categorically that he would not take it before two months.
Certainly not this day week. If I was to do what, the Deputy would like me to do, to beat it, I could do it. I am not playacting about this matter. There may be people who wish to see me in that position. I want to treat it seriously; I can treat it seriously in two months. I do not know whether we will be sitting here on the 17th December, a month hence. When the Minister for Justice returns, considerable arrears of work and business will have to be dealt with. The Deputy knows that, and knowing that I could not possibly take it, he put it down for a week hence, for one purpose only— in order to make the exaggerated speech he has made. We have not adopted those methods in dealing with the business here; we have endeavoured in every way possible to meet Deputies. As I have said, the Deputy has already brought in one Bill dealing with this subject in this Session and it has been beaten. The Minister for Justice brought in another Bill, which does not run out for two years, dealing with rent restriction. The subject is not as urgent as other Government measures and business we have to deal with, and I do not think it is unreasonable to mention in respect to this matter that I will not be in a position to deal with it until we return after the Recess.
I regret that the President has taken up this attitude on this matter, because it is a very important matter to a very large number of citizens. I cannot see the point of the President's argument about a Bill being introduced early in 1924 and being defeated, and I cannot see the point in his argument about the Rent Restriction Act passed in June last. It was the passage of that very Act that made it so necessary that a Town Tenants Bill should be introduced, because there is no security, and there will be no security, for the town tenants when that Act becomes fully operative, and the President knows that.
I did not hear what the Deputy said, but if he means that the Rent Restriction Act does not give security after 1929——
After 1929 it removes security.
There are two years of secured time. I am asking for two months as against two years.
I am not trying to make any unfair points. The point I am making in connection with the Rent Restriction Act is that it was the passage of that Act, together with the statement made by the Minister for Justice on the Second Reading, that the Government was satisfied that the time had arrived when rent restrictions were no longer necessary, which has created uneasiness in the minds of town tenants and made it necessary to have this Town Tenants Bill discussed. I may further say that the Government themselves gave a promise two years ago that they were considering the question of introducing a Town Tenants Bill. The President may recollect——
If my recollection is correct, we did the same about the Army Pensions Bill.
I hope for the sake of the town tenants and of the Government that the Government are a little more serious about the Town Tenants Bill than about the Army Pensions Bill.
That is not a fair statement—the Deputy knows we were serious.
If the Government do deal with the town tenants question, two years will have elapsed from the time they started to deal with it until they get a First Reading for the Bill—if they are going to introduce a Bill—just as happened in the case of the Army Pensions Bill. There may be some point in the question of the absence of the Minister for Justice. I may be prepared to concede that it would be, perhaps, necessary to have the Minister for Justice here, but on the Second Reading we will not be dealing with details, only with the principle of the Bill. I, therefore, submit, with all respect to the Minister for Justice, that the President is as well qualified to deal with the question of town tenants as any other member of the Government. Perhaps the President knows a good deal more about the problem than any other Minister. I do not see any reason why the Second Reading could not be taken, as the President could deal with it himself. I submit, further, that the question is as much one for the President to deal with as it is for the Minister for Justice.
I have not his Department.
The President will get the same information. I would urge the President not to deal with the matter in this way.
There is a lot of difference between knowledge of a subject and its solution.
The President has not in his reply answered a very pertinent question put to him by Deputy Redmond, as to whether or not it is the intention of the Government during the remainder of this portion of the session to take Private Members' time. If that is not the intention, then will the President indicate to the House whether he is to be the censor of the kind of business that Private Members are to bring forward during the time set aside for Private Members?
There is no necessity for exaggeration at all.
The President, when he comes to reply, will, I hope, give some indication as to what the attitude of the Ministry is on the rights of Private Members. The President, in the beginning of the discussion, when opposing the Second Reading Stage being taken before the 19th January, said it was a Departmental matter. Therefore, I suggest, and I think Deputy Morrissey was right in making the same suggestion, that if it is purely a Departmental matter, it is not so much a question for the Minister for Justice himself as for the officials of his Department, who would, I take it, be instructed to investigate the terms of the Bill. The real point, however, is this, that the President, no more than any other member of the House, has not, I am sure, seen a copy of the measure. That being so, he is not, I take it, in a position to determine whether it is a matter of policy or detailed administration that is affected. If the Government intends, as it may be taken they do from the President's statement, to take all Private Members' time between this and the 19th of January, I think it was the business of the President yesterday to move a motion on those lines. I would be surprised, however, to hear from the President that there is sufficient business to occupy the House for five days a week between now and the 19th of January. If there is not, then why should the Government take up the time of Private Members—time that might be usefully occupied in dealing with a measure of this kind.
This thing has really got far beyond the bounds of proper discussion on the amendment the President has down. There has been no question, and there is no question, of an attempt upon the time ordinarily allotted to Private Members. There has been the very definite statement made by the President that if Deputy Redmond intends to avail himself of his rights in putting this thing down, it may possibly be the President's duty to do all he can to mass his forces in order to ensure Deputy Redmond defat upon this measure.
Why defeat?
I have said it may be necessary and that is all. This question that Deputy Redmond is interested in is a question that a great many other people are interested in. It is a question that has been under consideration, and details have been gone into. These details have carried the Departments concerned much further than ever was thought. I do not agree with the well-known complex which Deputy Davin has, that officials do everything in Departments.
The President said so.
The President said that this Bill could not be proceeded with at the present moment, and he gave his reasons for it—that the Minister concerned with measures of a like kind coming from Government sources was in London.
The President said at the beginning that the Departmental work of the Minister for Justice was in arrears. I take it that this is purely a matter of going into the administrative effects of the measure.
No. The President referred to the absence of the Minister for Justice in London, and said that when he came back he would have certain arrears of Departmental matters to deal with. Deputy Davin's complex comes in here again. He evidently thinks that there cannot be any Departmental details that a Minister ever has to look after—that it is only the duty of officials to do that. There is going to be accommodation on this matter as far as possible, but let us wipe out of consideration all talk and all thought about the seizure of Private Members' time. There is no question of seizing Private Members' time; there is no question even of trying to deprive Deputy Redmond of time, but there is a very definite statement by the President that if Deputy Redmond comes forward with this Bill on this day week, then certainly in the interval, the Minister for Justice, who would ordinarily be the man to direct his Department to make an investigation of what Deputy Redmond's Bill contains, being in London, could not deal with the matter himself. Deputy Morrissey has spoken of the uneasiness and the absence of security. It is quite clear, I am sure, that a Town Tenants Bill, described in the way it is here, will include a great many other matters than what are in the Rent Restrictions Act. One obviously does not go as far as the other, but on the question of uneasiness or insecurity, has not the Rent Restrictions Act gone far to remove that uneasiness or feeling of insecurity? What has been asked for in the interval of two years? At least some definite security has been given, and there is asked remission of two months so that Deputy Redmond's Bill may be collated with whatever the Department's proposals are. An attempt is to be made to get not merely accommodation for discussion, but possibly accommodation on the measure itself, and that is really what has been asked for. I heard Deputy Johnson remark to his colleagues that it is only the principle that is dealt with on Second Reading, but, I ask, does the principle not depend upon the details? Have the details not to be considered before one can come to a conclusion upon the principle put forward in the Second Reading of a Bill?
It depends on what is in the Bill.
Can the Deputy imagine a Bill of the Town Tenants type where the decision on the principle of the Second Reading will not depend to a considerable extent upon the details? Now, taking that seriously, the details are all-important in this thing, and although there may be what we may call a Second Reading speech and what we may call the principle of the measure to be discussed, it is the details that will count, and it is on the details that the decision will be given. Deputy Redmond has already brought forward a Bill which has been beaten. I am not exactly sure how we stand with regard to the proposed Bill, but I understand there is a Standing Order which states that if a Bill is defeated it cannot be reintroduced——
I would like to ask the Minister whether he has seen this Bill of mine?
I have seen the title of this Bill.
But have you seen the Bill?
No.
Then why not wait and see?
I am simply indicating a difficulty. It may not be a serious difficulty and it may be one that can be met. I seem to remember, however, that there is a Standing Order which says that if a Bill is introduced and defeated it cannot be introduced again.
Who said this is the same Bill?
I have not even said that it is the same Bill.
Let us hear this argument.
A Bill introduced and defeated cannot be introduced in the same session again.
When did the session begin?
I do not know if anybody has yet decided what a session is, but as far as I have been able to see from various reports that have come to me, the position is something like this. I have seen a definition, I think, given as a sub-title to the Parliamentary Reports of the Official Debates. It refers to debates having taken place as between certain dates and some dates in July, 1926, and further there is a reference to the debates of a session which started in September, 1923, so that presumably we are still in the same session.
Then the Allotments Bill is out of order.
That may be a point for the Deputy to raise afterwards, when he can get a decision from the Ceann Comhairle.
On a point of order, may I ask whether the Minister has a right to question the Order introducing a Bill which he has not seen and which nobody in this House has seen yet except the proposer?
A Bill the First Reading of which he himself has supported.
My vote for the First Reading of the measure would not validate something which might afterwards be ruled as invalid. I gather now that the Bill is definitely in order. Deputy Morrissey I think it was who spoke of the absence of the Minister for Justice. He said that the President was quite as well qualified to deal with this measure as anybody else and that he was better qualified than the Minister for Justice. To that the President made reply—I do not know how far the Deputy understood the implication of his statement—that he has not a Department to look after it, and that he is not going to give instructions to the Department of the Minister for Justice in the absence of that Minister.
Did not the President introduce the Housing Act of 1926 even though he had no Department?
May I say that while I may not be mentally so agile as the Minister I perfectly understand the implications of what the President has said?
The fact of the matter is that in so far as it is a Departmental measure and has any reactions on any Department, it is the Department of the Minister for Justice that is concerned. The Minister for Justice is in London on very important business, and from my knowledge of what is happening in London I do not see any possibility of his being here this day week. The President has asked for accommodation. He indicated to Deputy Captain Redmond that the bringing forward of a measure of this kind for discussion about this time was not a thing we would like. The Deputy, instead of looking for what accommodation he could get, proceeds to bring forward his measure. There has been a counter amendment by the President to postpone this matter for two months. If that is considered a very serious delay, if there is going to be anything done in two months' time which is going adversely to affect those who are intended to benefit under the Town Tenants Bill, then let that be put to us and time will be made available for discussion; but in fairness to the Department concerned, some consideration should be given to the fact that the Minister for Justice has been away from his Department and will not be back for some time. Even before the Minister went to London a considerable amount of his time had been taken up preparing for the Conference, and it is not fair to bring in a Bill having reactions on the Minister's Department at this time. If it is to be fought out, and we are to have this amendment pressed, it will only mean having a conflict here now which we will have to fight out again this day week, and which may not result any way beneficially to those Deputy Redmond wants to assist. It is only reasonable under the circumstances to ask for the postponement of a measure of this importance, and I will ask Deputy Captain Redmond to reconsider his proposal to have his measure brought forward for Second Reading this day week.
I share in a great measure the view of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I and the other members of the party on these benches take the position of onlookers in regard to this matter. We have been looking at the three different starters for the town tenants' stakes with a certain degree of amusement. We know that this is not a new matter. These parties have been working in the interests of the town tenants with a view to the coming election. We are not so much interested in this.
I should think so.
I mean we are not so much interested in getting votes here and there and making political capital out of the whole scramble. Here is a scramble between the three starters for the stakes to see which is going to get away from the tapes first, without any consideration for the people primarily interested in this question, that is, the town tenants themselves. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has said that not alone can there be accommodation as regards dates but in the matter itself, and I think that suggestion is entitled to very deep consideration by everybody concerned if they want to act in the best interests of the town tenants. I think we are animated with the motive of doing the best for them, and I think that will be done by agreeing to the suggestion that has been made. I can see the reasonableness of the Minister's attitude. The Minister most interested in this had his time taken up with other matters before he went to the Conference, which he is still attending, and his Department could not give the attention to this matter that it deserves. I think the two months' period may seem long, and perhaps an earlier date can be arranged. I appeal not to have the proposal that the Second Reading of this measure should be taken this day week pressed to a division. I think this day week is an unreasonable date, and this day two months also unreasonable.
Unlike Deputy Gorey, I think the Government are very unreasonable in this matter. I think it is very unreasonable for the Minister to suggest that Private Members' rights should be taken from them, and that is what he is asking.
No.
That is my view-point. I consider that Deputy Captain Redmond has a perfect right to have the Second Reading this day week. In order to remove the impression that has certainly been created in this matter I think the Government should at least see that the Bill will have its Second Reading on this day week, or possibly this day fortnight, and there would be the possibility of better accommodation by the Government and the House on the whole. When the Government see the measure they could, if they so desire, move the adjournment of the Second Reading to a later date. Deputy Captain Redmond could, I think, be induced to have a Second Reading this day fortnight. That is reasonable, but I suggest it is unreasonable for the Minister to postpone it to what I consider to be an indiscriminate date. I listened to Deputy Gorey talking about the amusement with which he heard the people who had spoken on this Bill. He said that the matter was of no interest as far as he was concerned.
I said nothing of the sort. I said the matter of getting votes has no interest for us.
Read the Official Report. That is how it appears to me. If the town tenants had looked on the Land League with the same amusement as the Deputy tells us he looks on this the farmers would not be as well off as they are to-day.
I said nothing of the sort.
I am sure we will have this matter of the farmers and the town tenants threshed out on the Second Reading.
I think so. The Deputy may tell the truth even then.
Deputy Gorey may have spoken the truth unconsciously.
I would like to remove a few impressions that seem to have got abroad on this matter. From the speech of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and from the last utterance of the President, one would be inclined to gather that I had been approached and that it had been indicated to me that I might be asked to give some accommodation. I want to let it be known here and now that I was never approached, and that the only thing in the nature of an indication of anything as regards accommodation was a flat, categorical statement by the President that he would not have this measure taken for Second Reading before two months. Is that asking me for accommodation? If I had been asked by the President, in view of the fact that the Vice-President is in London—and he would have his sneer that I did not like him to be there, but I do not know how he thinks that, as I can assure him that the fact is very much to the contrary—to postpone the Second Reading of this Bill for a reasonable time. I can assure the President and the Minister I would have taken the matter in a very different spirit. But that was not the way it was put to me. On the contrary, it was stated here by the leader of the Government that this Bill would not have a Second Reading before two months, and it was only when the second speech was made by the President—I do not like exactly to make the allegation, but it did seem to me somewhat of a little arriére pensée— that he said: “The Vice-President will be in London, and of course that is the reason that the Bill must be postponed for two months.”
Let us come down to what the Government are asking now. It appears now, from their two spokesmen, that they have recognised the right of a Private Member to have a Second Reading for his Bill. I have no reason to demand that the Second Reading should be taken this day week. It was in deference to your own suggestion, sir, that I had named a day. I had not mentioned a date. It is the custom to name a date and I was asked to name a date in order to have a discussion take place. I named the next Private Members' day—this day week. I say that was a most usual and reasonable course for any Deputy to take. I named a date, but I am not by any means pinned to that date. I do take exception, very grave exception, to the attitude of mind and to the method by which the introduction of a measure by a Private Member has been met by the head of the Government. I do think it would be well to have the presence of the Minister for Justice, though at the same time I must agree with Deputy Morrissey that probably the President knows a great deal more about the position, the situation and the conditions of town tenants, as he should, being a Dublin man, than does the Minister for Justice, but the Minister for Justice is in control of that Department. I am only too anxious to give that Department every opportunity of considering this measure.
There is another matter on which I would like to enter a protest, and that is, the underlying assumption of knowledge on the part of Ministers of the contents of the Bill I am proposing. They have spoken about this Bill as if they knew what was in it. There has even been an attempt to suggest that it was not in order because it was the same Bill as was introduced before. How could they say that unless they knew what was in the Bill, and they do not know what is in the Bill? To take up the attitude of refusing to hear what is in the Bill and of postponing the Second Reading for such a length of time, I say is nothing but blind opposition to a proposal because it comes from a source of which they do not approve. I am asked to yield. I yield absolutely nothing in my right as a Private Member of this House to occupy the time of Private Members, in my own proper way, in my own time and in my own order. I yield nothing to the suggestion that I should forego that, but I am prepared, certainly, to accommodate the Minister for Justice. If I had been asked to do that originally we would not have had this discussion. I am prepared to meet him and his Department, and to give them ample time to consider this Bill, but, as Deputy Johnson and others have pointed out, the unfortunate feature about it is that they will not be able to consider this Bill properly until its Second Reading.
Surely on to-morrow, or on whatever day it is in our hands, we could consider it.
Well, they could consider it to-morrow. If the discussion on the Second Reading was allowed to take place, it would clear the air considerably. It would in no way interfere with the Department in the prosecution of the subject-matter of the Bill. It has been suggested by Deputy Corish that the Second Reading should take place, say, a fortnight hence. As I said before, I am not pinned to any date. I merely suggested this day week because it was the most natural and proper thing for anyone proposing a measure by way of a Private Member's Bill. I am perfectly willing to take this day fortnight, but I think, following up the suggestion that has also been made, that it would be better that the Second Reading should be taken, and then that the matter be considered by the Department and the Ministry, and, if possible, let there be accommodation upon it. I am only too anxious, as this is a Private Member's Bill, to do everything in my power to get the Government to adopt the Bill as their own. If they would be prepared to offer me any accommodation in future in that respect, I would be certainly prepared to offer them accommodation now. But I think two months is rather a long time, and I do think also that it is a bad precedent to have that when a Bill is introduced by a Private Member the Government should say: "We will not be able to deal with this. We must postpone it for a certain time." But in the circumstances, in the absence of the Minister for Justice, on the second consideration put forward by the President the second time he spoke, I certainly feel that I cannot resist the appeal to accommodate, but not to accommodate to the extent that has been asked of me, and I certainly think that the least the Government might do would be to allow the Second Reading to take place on this day fortnight, or before the Christmas Recess, if that will suit.
I have a motion that the Second Reading be taken on the 24th November, and an amendment that the date be the 19th January. I will put the amendment first, if no agreement is reached or if the amendment is not withdrawn.
Does it not now stand in the position that the motion is in fact amended to the 1st December? I feel that I am empowered to make a change in the amendment. I do not know whether it would be regarded as any great approach to Deputy Redmond if I were to say the first day on the resumption after the Recess, but I would ask Deputy Redmond to consider the time. The Imperial Conference will not get back to its plenary sittings until the beginning of next week. It is doubtful if they will have finished by this day week. I do not believe that it is possible. They may go on the whole of next week. This new amendment would give the Minister for Justice about three days in which to be in touch with his Department on the matter. I would ask that it should be postponed further, considering the importance of the measure and the serious consideration that has to be given to it. There is then the intervention of the Christmas period. Two months may seem long out of the twelve months of the year, but when taken in relation to the business and the days that arc free from business it would not be too long a postponement. I would ask the Deputy to agree to the postponement, taking it definitely and clearly that there is no challenge to his right to the use of Private Members' time. I would therefore ask him to agree to a postponement until the first day after the Recess on which Private Members' business is possible.
I urge that this matter ought to be dealt with before the Recess. We probably will not be adjourning, assuming that there is business, until close upon the 18th or the 20th December. The 8th December would be three weeks from now and the 15th four weeks from now. If it is not possible to deal with a Bill of this kind in four weeks because of the absence of the Minister for Justice, I think that there are Ministers who could——
That is only one item, one of a great number.
That is so. I quite understand that. But the proposition really amounts to this, that nobody but Ministers should have the right to bring in Bills. That is the effect of it, because you may say that Departments are full up, that Ministers cannot deal with the matters that they have already in their charge, and that therefore a Private Member's Bill cannot be discussed. That is the logical end of that particular argument, and I think that the offer that is made by Deputy Redmond, that is to say, for a fortnight from now, might easily be amended, provided that the discussion is taken before the adjournment for the Christmas holidays.
I am quite prepared to accept Deputy Johnson's suggestion. I think that the matter might be dealt with before the Recess.
All I can say is that I was certainly in earnest in suggesting the Second Reading on the 19th January. I suggested it after careful consideration and in the light of all the circumstances. It is not alone on account of the Minister's absence, but for other reasons.
Will the President give us the other reasons?
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 49; Níl, 30.
Tá
- Earnán Altún.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Thomas Bolger.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus de Burca.
- John J. Cole.
- Máighread Ní Choileain Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- James Dwyer.
- Michael Egan.
- John Good.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- William Hewat.
- Patrick Leonard.
- Seosamh Mac a' Bhrighde.
- Donnchadh Mac Con Uladh.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Seán Mac Curtain.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- James Sproule Myles.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Risteárd O Conaill.
- Parthalán O Conchubhair.
- Conchubhar O Conghaile.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoich.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Andrew O'Shaughnessy.
- Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
- Seán Príomhdhall.
- Liam Thrift.
Níl
- Pádraig Baxter.
- Seán Buitléir.
- John Daly.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Seán de Faoite.
- David Hall.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Wm. Norton.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Tadhg O Donnabháin.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Micheál O Dubhghaill.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Donnchadh O Guaire.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Seán O Laidhin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Luimneach).
- William A. Redmond.
- Nicholas Wall.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Dolan and P. Doyle. Níl: Deputies J. Cosgrave and D. Morrissey.
Amendment declared carried.
Question—"That the Bill be read a Second Time on 19th January, 1927"—put and declared carried.