I propose to take the business as on the Order Paper, with this alteration, that No. 7 will come before No. 6. I propose to move, when the Dáil is rising to-day, that we adjourn until Wednesday, 15th February, 1928.
LEWIN (GALWAY) ESTATE. - THE CHRISTMAS ADJOURNMENT.
When is the adjournment to be raised?
The usual procedure is that when the Dáil is adjourning for a lengthy period notice is given and the motion for the adjournment is moved after Questions, so that the motion may be debated and, if necessary, amendments may be moved.
Do I understand that the President has moved the adjournment now?
No.
The motion is: "That the Dáil, at its rising to-day, do adjourn until Wednesday, 15th February, 1928."
When will that be discussed?
Now.
I take it that the proposal to adjourn has been made.
Yes.
We are opposed to an adjournment such as has been suggested. First of all, as long as the Public Safety Act supersedes the Constitution we are going to oppose an adjournment over any extended period. Our next reason for opposing this adjournment is on account of the sum of £150,000 that has been allocated for the relief of unemployment. Everybody who spoke on that subject admitted that that was quite inadequate, and it was accepted, I think, from every side of the House that it should be regarded only as a first instalment. The period when unemployment tells most severely is during these winter months, and I think we would not be fulfilling our duty if we adjourned over one of the most critical periods for the poor people of the country. A Committee has been set up to consider schemes for the relief of unemployment. We expected that as unemployment is nothing new, and as some members of the Committee, the Labour members particularly, have been considering this question, they would be able readily to bring in some propositions for immediate relief of unemployment that would meet with the approval of the House. Therefore, we think it most unfair that the House should adjourn over a period of practically three months without considering that matter.
Again, there is the question of agricultural credits. We are not at all satisfied with the Act dealing with that matter. We are very anxious to be here to see what steps are to be taken in connection with these credits. They are very important for the farming community, and as the farming community is suffering so much at the present time we are anxious to see in what manner these credits are going to be given, and we think it is unfair that we should be away and that we should have no opportunity of criticising the manner in which they may be given. There is also the question of tariffs. We have indicated by putting down a motion that we are not satisfied, not with the individual members of the Tariff Commission, but mainly with the fact that the members of the Commission are only part-time, and we have indicated that we think that the Commission ought to be broadened, and certainly that the members of the Commission ought to give their whole attention to the work. One of the methods of relieving unemployment is to help on and foster as quickly as possible our own industries, and we think it most unfair that three months should be allowed to pass without having some reports from the Commission on the question of new tariffs.
There is also the question of the Local Government Bill that has passed through its stages here and that has to be sent to the Seanad. If that is not passed before January, I suppose the old Act will remain in operation and elections will be held in January, while if the Seanad chooses to insert any amendments I expect the Bill will have to come back here. Then there are other matters, such as the great delay in dealing with the Gaeltacht Report and with the Fisheries Conference, and there are a number of other subjects which we would wish to bring forward here, such as the question of the prisoners. We have put down a motion that an inquiry should be held into the detention of certain prisoners. We think that all these questions ought not to be shelved for three months. We have been sitting on an average only three days a week, and we have not been sitting very long. Our case is that we could very well sit on for another fortnight or three weeks, and that an adjournment for a month over Christmas is the maximum that ought to be asked by the Executive.
It will be well known to Deputies that the work of this House is not the only work the Government has, and that, as a matter of fact, if this House were sitting continuously throughout the year, three-fourths of its time would be wasted. It is necessary that business should be prepared, that Bills should be considered and put into decent form before they are brought forward here. The consideration that they can be given here is no substitute for the type of consideration they must get before introduction. There is also the question of the Estimates and the question of Departmental business and administration. All these require time. We are now at the period of the year when Estimates are being prepared and when the energies of Ministers and of the officials will be specially taxed if the preparation of the Estimates is to be properly done. This is a time that a reasonable adjournment is necessary, in any year. It is particularly necessary in the present year, because of the disturbance and upset to business that was caused by there being two general elections and other events which took up a great deal of time. We have now a great deal more work thrown on the departments by reason of the extended question list. Deputies do not realise how great an amount of work long question lists like those on the Orders of the Day involve. That work puts a very severe strain on the staffs of the departments, at this particular time of the year. So that the time of the House will be saved by a reasonable adjournment. Matters that are being discussed and that are proposed for discussion are important, but we would not be doing good for the country if we merely carried on a discussion of these motions and not pay sufficient attention to the preparation of Bills now in hands or the Estimates. The Public Safety Act does not substitute the Constitution. It amends the Constitution in certain respects. I need not go over that matter.
With regard to the £150,000, certainly that cannot be expended before the 15th of February. People who have experience of the expenditure of money in any sort of an economic way know that from the time the money becomes available there always elapses a certain amount of time before the actual schemes on which it is to be expended can be decided on. Even when schemes are decided on, there is some little lapse of time before the money is required for them, and although something more than £150,000 may be expended before the end of the financial year, there is no chance of more than £150,000 being required between this and the 15th of February. The same thing applies with regard to the Committee to consider the relief of unemployment. If the Committee recommends immediately some smaller schemes, we have means of carrying them out. If it recommends major schemes, even although it should within a fortnight be able to recommend some major schemes, it is extremely unlikely that a major scheme could be actually undertaken before the 15th of February. If it is a scheme that involves large sums of money, it will have to receive consideration, and, even if approved of, some preparation and preliminary investigation has to take place. There are staffs at the disposal of the Government, apart from the grant of funds which can be engaged immediately on the examination of any scheme that may be submitted and in making preliminary preparation. No delay will be caused in the carrying out of any scheme recommended by the Committee on Unemployment because of an adjournment until the 15th of February.
With regard to agricultural credit, what is proposed is to set up an Agricultural Credit Corporation. There will be no immediate work for the House in connection with agricultural credits. As soon as the National Loan has been issued and money is available so that the Government may contribute its part and issue the prospectus of the Agricultural Credit Corporation, money will become available and the directors will proceed to get on with the work of the Corporation. There would not be anything for the Dáil to do in that connection for some time. The people who are going to administer the Act, the directors, will have to settle down to their work. When the Dáil could usefully intervene would be after some period when it was seen how the directors were dealing with it, or if Deputies thought they were not dealing with the question satisfactorily. Nothing would arise for the Dáil to do immediately.
There are at present two big applications under consideration by the Tariff Commission. One is an application for a tariff on flour, the other is an application for a tariff on woollens. In neither of these two cases has all the evidence that is to be considered by the Tariff Commission been received by them. I have inquired if there is any likelihood before, say, the last day of January, that a report will be received in connection with either of these matters, and I am informed there is not. If it were received later than the last day of January, or even as late as that, no delay would be caused by an adjournment until the 15th of February.
With regard to the prisoners and other matters, they have waited and they have been allowed to wait a long time.
A DEPUTY
Too long.
Let those who feel that the matter has been delayed too long blame themselves. That is no case for taking up the view that the Dáil must sit continuously, that the Dáil is doing its best work by sitting continuously, and that a reasonable adjournment should not be given for the purpose of allowing the preparation of work for the Dáil, and of allowing suitable attention to be given by Ministers to the work of administration. Instead of saving time or doing better work by sitting continuously, the tendency would be for the Dáil to consider all sorts of general matters, to consider them perhaps in an inconclusive way instead of dealing with business that would be better prepared and be much more effective. I am quite clear on this, that the work on the Estimates requires to be done in the interval of a fairly long adjournment, and that the House would not be doing a thing that is in the best interests of the country if an adjournment which would enable Ministers and the administrative staff to concentrate on this work were not agreed to.
While there is a good deal to be said for Deputy de Valera's point of view, I want to remind the Deputy when he says that we have been here only a short time, and that we have been sitting only three days a week, that some of us have been here for the last five and a half years, and that, except for the time spent on the two elections, we have been sitting in this House almost continuously since this time twelve months. The motions on the Order Paper are very important, and the business put down for the consideration of the House is also important, but none of the matters which Deputy de Valera has mentioned is of more importance now than it was any time during the past five years, and if they could wait for five years——
That argument is stale now.
It may be stale, but nevertheless it is true. So far as the motion which stands in my name is concerned, it is a matter in which our Party are deeply interested, and we would be anxious that that motion would be taken in time, but it is quite clear to us that, even if the motion were taken to-day, and if the Government were to accept it, or if they were foolish enough not to accept it and be defeated, effect could not be given to it until April next, when the Budget would be introduced. We are just as anxious about having the Tariff Commission recast as anybody else in this House, and we have an amendment down to Deputy Lemass's motion which gives our view of what the Tariff Commission and its powers should be. It is the view to which we gave expression when the Tariff Commission was being set up, and I would like to see that amendment carried as soon as possible, but the Tariff Commission is engaged in considering tariffs on two of the most important industries in the country and, even if this motion were to be passed, changes could not be made, in my opinion, before the Dáil reassembles. There is only one question which I would like to have answered by the President, and I am sure he will forgive me asking it in view of our previous experience—that is, that he is not going to take advantage of the long adjournment to spring another election.
I am not physically able to do it.
I think the President will remember what happened on the last occasion when he sprang a general election, and he will probably profit by that experience. So far as we are concerned, we feel that the real work of Deputies is not done in the House, and some of us want to do some work in our constituencies, as many of us have not been able to go to our constituencies and get in touch with our constituents, particularly this year, on account of the two elections. During the elections, of course, we did get in touch with them. With regard to the Unemployment Committee which was referred to by Deputy de Valera, I take it that this committee has now settled down to work, and that this House has no further control over it until it presents its report. From that point of view, it does not matter whether the House is sitting or not. It seems to me that if that committee presents schemes, and the House approves of them, these schemes will be proceeded with, but, if not, the Government will have to answer to the House as to why they did not proceed with them. Taking everything into consideration, and bearing in mind the fact that many Deputies have been sitting here almost continuously during the last twelve months, and that certain work must be done in the constituencies, I think the House is entitled to an adjournment, but it is a question afterwards whether the time suggested by the President is too long.
I am very sorry to notice that long association with this House has sapped the vitality of the Labour Party.
It is not the first time you noticed that. We heard you saying that before.
I am not going to deal with that now. The invertebrate attitude which the Labour Party are showing in this matter is one which will astonish most of their supporters in the country. As regards the argument of the Minister for Finance, whatever strength is in his argument, that time is required for the preparation of Bills and Estimates, it does not justify the adjournment of this House before the business on the Order Paper has been dealt with. I wonder, indeed, whether his explanation provides the real reason, or whether the Government are afraid of the business on the Order Paper, and, taking advantage of the laziness of Deputies and of the Labour Party, are running away from it. Members may laugh at that statement, but that is what the country will believe. There is no justification for the adjournment of the business of this House over the most critical period of the year for three months. None has been advanced here. If the machinery of the Government moves as slowly as, apparently, the machinery of the Tariff Commission moves, it is time that action was taken by us to speed up that machinery, and pour a little oil into it, or else get another Government. There is also the matter of the National Loan. Are we to understand that this loan is going to be floated without the House being given any information as to the debt to be contracted in its name, or the price to be paid?
None until it is done.
Then we will be presented with a fait accompli?
Absolutely.
That is a very strong argument in support of the suggestion put forward by Deputy Corry the other evening, that the Dáil should be abolished and that the Government should take over the country and run it as Commissioners without democratic representation.
Deputy Lemass expressed amazement and surprise, and stated that the vitality of the Labour Party had been sapped by their long experience in this House, but, while Deputy Lemass and some of his friends were galavanting round the country, the members of our Party were sometimes doing the donkey-work which should have been done by members of the Fianna Fáil Party.
Donkey-work is a good word.
Yes, doing your donkey-work. Deputy de Valera talks about the recommendations of the Unemployment Committee, but by not challenging a division in this House on the motion for the setting up of that Committee he gave his authority to its setting up, and I dare say he will give the Committee, to whose names he has not taken exception so far as I know, a reasonable amount of time and a fair chance to bring in its recommendations. The members of the Labour Party have never shirked their work, and there is no necessity for the insinuations of Deputy Lemass. Deputy Lemass, I may say, appears to convey the impression to the public outside that the principal work of a public representative is confined to spouting here. There are many Deputies who regard their work in connection with departments and dealing with complaints from their constituencies of much more importance than continually spouting here. What is really put up to us is this—and speaking for myself, I am not going to give facilities in that direction—that we are asked by Deputy de Valera and his Party to review in a few weeks the history and the workings of this House for the last four or five years. I am not prepared to do that. Some of the things about which they complain would not have occurred if they were here during that time.
That is a different question.
It is a different question but it is a fact. I think, and I am sure there are many Deputies in the House who share the same view, that during the discussions here it is practically impossible for an active member of this House to do the real Parliamentary work which his constituents expect him to do. It is simply a question as to what would be a reasonable time for the adjournment that has been moved by the President. I think those of us in the Dáil, who for the past five or six years have been endeavouring according to the best of our ability to do the work of Parliament according to our lights, are entitled, especially after the two general elections, to some period of adjournment to enable us to do the more important work which falls to the lot of the elected representatives of the people.
We spent a good deal of time last week and the previous week discussing the pitiable conditions of the unemployed, and every Deputy considered it advisable to avail of the opportunities to give vent to his sympathy with them. As a result, we got a grant of £150,000, which I think is in the nature of a sop, and that is supposed to be sufficient to rid us of this problem, and we are to hear no more about it until the House reassembles next February. I am sorry to find that the Labour party has allied itself with the Government party in the attempt to have an adjournment for such a long period.
Sorry they did not follow you, I suppose.
For the information of the Deputies, I wish to say that I attended a meeting to-day of unemployed citizens of this city. There were about 2,000 people at that meeting, all genuine bona fide unemployed, who have signed the register to indicate their willingness to work and their desire for employment. That meeting passed the following resolution:
"That in view of the vast number of unemployed in the country, and having regard to the suffering misery and want of thousands of helpless women and children, we, the unemployed of Dublin, do hereby call on the representatives of the people composing the Free State Dáil to defer the postponement of the adjournment of that Assembly until ameliorative measures are introduced and adopted which will ensure against the prolonged sufferings of thousands of citizens of this country."
I wonder when the Cumann na nGaedheal and Labour Parties were going through the country a couple of months ago exploiting this question of unemployment and offering their sympathy, and some of them telling the people that it was only by their success in the election that unemployment would be solved, would they have dared to tell the unemployed that they would come in here and suggest an adjournment for three months while nothing definite had been done for these people? Would they have dared to have done that during the election campaign? I submit that the people responsible for this prolonged adjournment, if it is carried, are deliberately sowing the seeds of social revolution in this country. They are deliberately ignoring the honest and sincere claims of decent citizens. These people may not have much power behind them, but they are growing numerically stronger, day after day, and they are also growing more determined in their demand for justice. If that demand takes shape in any unconstitutional methods, the responsibility will be on the shoulders of those who vote for this adjournment to-day. I wonder have the Ministers and the Cumann na nGaedheal Party any conception of the sufferings which these people will have to undergo during the Christmas festivities which are coming near? The Ministers, no doubt, will not give one thought to the terrible sufferings of these people. It is only at election times that they consider it advisable to face them in public. Some of those Ministers and all the Dublin city and county Deputies were invited to that meeting to-day. None of them attended. If they had any conception of the sufferings these people are undergoing, I am sure they would not bolt and bar the doors of this Assembly and refuse to allow us the opportunity of ventilating their genuine grievances, and offering what contribution we can to a solution of the problem. I submit that those who vote in favour of the adjournment are voting in favour of bolting and barring the doors of this House, and taking away any opportunity that presents itself here to let the country know of the hardships of these people. Will the Labour Deputies go into the lobby in favour of that attitude, for that is what it amounts to?
Would Jim Larkin vote for or against?
He is not here to tell, and I am anxious to know if Jim Larkin presented himself in this Assembly would the Labour Party assist anyone who would attempt to ensure that he is entitled to his seat?
Why do you not bring him in?
The people who returned him are the same people who are responsible for my being here, and I am personally proud of the connection.
A DEPUTY
May God forgive them.
I hope God will forgive those who claim to stand here in the interests of downtrodden masses, and who claim to represent the Labour Party. Where is the Labour Party to-day? I inferred from Deputy Morrissey that he and his Party intend to vote for the motion for the adjournment for three months. The unemployed have sent the message which I have delivered to this House to-day in their name. As one who attended the meeting, I put it up to the Labour Party, to the Independents, and to anyone who is free to exercise his conscientious belief in this matter that they cannot go into the lobby in favour of this motion for an adjournment.
In view of the fact that the proposed adjournment will be of such duration, and also that it will take place immediately, I would like to ask the President if he could inform the House as to the extent of the Committee which he has set up in regard to ex-servicemen, as to the numbers of that Committee, and also, if possible, as to whether it is to be public or private. Will facilities be given to that Committee for proceeding to various parts of the country, if necessary? I do not know whether the President will be able to give me this information or not, but in view of the fact that until the announcement was made in the Dáil yesterday as to the setting up of this Committee I was not aware of the intentions of the Government in the matter, and as I am not aware yet of their intentions in the directions I have indicated, I would be grateful if the President could give us the information I desire, especially as the Committee will not be set up now, I presume, until the Dáil is adjourned.
There is just one point which I do not think has been touched on by any of the previous speakers to which I would like to allude. Some of us have been here since early in June, and there has been imposed on us a task which many Deputies must feel, and I know do feel, and that is the task of listening to a great deal of what has been said here since the 16th August. That has been most dreary, and repulsive to our common sense. We have had to listen to an indictment of Deputy de Valera coming from his own benches such as I have never heard in the House before.
Strictly speaking, it is not in order to criticise debates in the House after they have concluded. Of course, I am quite aware that it is sometimes done and that it would be very difficult to keep it from being done to a certain degree; but it is certainly not correct to give a resume or an impression of debates. I hope Deputy Wolfe will not do it.
Mr. WOLFE
I was merely replying to what had been said. We have just heard from Deputy Cooney that an adjournment for two and a half months would be sowing the seeds of revolution. Deputy de Valera told us two or three times that it was most unfair that members of the Houses hould only at tend on an average three times a week. I wonder did he mean three times a year, because, after all, let us judge him by his own actions. He has been a member of this Dáil for five years, and what has his average attendance been?
The people will answer that.
Mr. WOLFE
I have no doubt some one will answer it. I want to get an answer.
We will tell you all about it.
I do not want to get an answer and I do not want to have the question asked. The question I want discussed is whether this Dáil here and now at its rising this evening should adjourn until Wednesday, 15th February, 1928. I want nothing else discussed.
The Deputy can get full information from these benches if he wants it.
Mr. WOLFE
I bow to your ruling, sir, and withdraw the question.
You nearly got the answer once at dawn.
There are two motions on the Order Paper that should be discussed and approved of by the Dáil. The first motion, in the name of Deputy Lemass, deals with the machinery of the Tariff Commission. Under it, the one industry that is supporting all the machinery of Government in this country has a chance of coming into its own—that is the agricultural industry. It is proposed now to adjourn for three months. That means adjourning until next Spring. The principal reason why the Fianna Fáil Party introduced this motion was to give the farming community an opportunity of doing something to relieve unemployment next Spring. At the present time, under the machinery of the Tariff Commission as at present constituted, an industry applying for a tariff is required to put down £100. The farming community is not organised. We maintain that it is the duty of the Government, since it draws most of its revenue, two-thirds or three-fourths of it, from the farming community, to look after their interests. We maintain that at the first available opportunity the Dáil should set up such machinery as would enable farmers to employ labourers and keep their sons at home in their own land. If agriculture is protected it can give employment to at least one-fourth more people. In addition, it can keep fully employed farmers who at present are only half employed. The one little help that the agricultural community got from this Dáil during the past five years was the tariff of 2s. 6d. per cwt. on imported oatmeal. That resulted in a big increase in corn production in this country and in increased prices to farmers.
On a point of order, might I ask is this a tariff debate?
I am afraid the Deputy must not anticipate the discussion that will take place on that particular motion.
I am opposing the adjournment of the Dáil because the Dáil has not discussed or voted upon the most important motion on the Order Paper. I will oppose the adjournment until that motion has been discussed.
The University has adjourned, so the Deputy need not bother.
There is a difference, I submit, between opposing the adjournment and discussing a motion, which is what Deputy Aiken is trying to do.
I know the difference all right. Now that we are here we are going to trample on the heels of the Government, make them step out and do something for the people of this country. We have been here only three months. Deputies know quite well why we have not been here during the past five years. Now that we are here we are going to see that the Government will step on or get out and make room for men who will do some work for the people. Another reason why we oppose the adjournment is because we do not trust the powers of the Public Safety Act in the hands of a Cumann na nGaedheal Executive, and also because the Cumann na nGaedheal Executive have at the present time prisoners in jail for the same reasons that they advocated men should go to jail four or five years ago. We are going to oppose the adjournment of the Dáil until an impartial Committee of the House is set up to go into the whole question of the prisoners, particularly those who claim that their cases arise out of the civil war, or that their cases have a political aspect. We demand of this Dáil that it should not adjourn for three months without going into the cases of those prisoners. We propose to set up a small committee consisting of members of all Parties to go into and examine these cases, with a view to the release of the prisoners if they are found to be political cases. We do not trust the Cumann na nGaedheal Government with the powers in the Public Safety Act for three months. We do not trust it with these powers for one day, but we cannot help it. We are going to see at least, if we can help it, that the Dáil will not adjourn while the Cumann na nGaedheal Executive has such powers as the Public Safety Act gives at its disposal.
I desire to ask the Minister for Finance whether, in the case of local authorities putting up schemes to him for the relief of the unemployed he will be in a position to deal with them, and make immediate grants to such local authorities before the House re-assembles?
Yes, up to the limit of the grant of £150,000.
Mr. BYRNE
May I ask whether any local authority has yet made any representations to him for this purpose, and, if so, will he make immediate grants to the Dublin Commissioners for such a purpose?
Some have made applications. In connection with Dublin, I have not seen the application yet, but I have had some discussions with the Minister for Local Government on the matter.
I might say for the information of the Deputy that I have had an application from the City Commissioners. I have been in consultation with them in connection with their general scheme.
I heard it stated a few moments ago by Deputy Cooney that it would be a hardship on the public if these doors were barred for the next three months. My experience is that there would be no hardship inflicted on anyone. During the last four years, whenever we had holidays——
It was all a holiday.
For you.
For your side.
What was the percentage attendance during the last four years?
I do not want to get into any conflict. I do not grudge you a holiday, and I am sure you will not grudge me mine. Anyway, you are not going to put me off the trend of my argument. At any time any of these people had a grievance or wanted anything done for them, I found I had no trouble but to come up to Dublin. The offices were all open. I could meet some of the Executive Council and remedy any grievance or get concessions or anything else to meet the necessities of people who wanted anything done. For that reason I say the great hardship which was pointed out a moment ago will not exist at all. I am going to vote for the motion, and I would be ashamed unless I told you the reason why.
Deputies have supported this motion on the grounds that they are feeling tired and overworked. I wonder are they too tired to draw their salaries. Are they not sent here to discuss these matters? I daresay that the sessions of this House are shorter than the sessions of similar Assemblies anywhere else in Europe, with the exception. perhaps, of the other Partition Parliament which has been established in Ireland, but I never heard more unsubstantial reasons for this adjournment than those advanced by the Minister for Finance. Here we are with legislative work already in arrear, with a number of important matters to be discussed. We are being brought back immediately after February, and then we have to rush at once to consider the question of the Budget and the Estimates. The only way in which we can put the work in order in this Chamber is by dealing with the arrears and all the matters on the Order Paper before the adjournment, by having the adjournment as short as possible, and then coming back with a free hand to tackle such work as will await us, afterwards.
I submit the real reason why we are asked to grant this long adjournment is not in order to allow legislation to be prepared, but because the Government is carrying on with an unreliable and small majority. There are other important things that the Government has in view. Geneva is calling, and they have got to go, and they cannot go as long as they stand here with a majority of seven. Therefore, they have got to put this House in cold storage in order that they may have their winter sports abroad.
The attitude of the Labour Party in this House during the past session has filled me with amazement and a certain amount of admiration.
Despair.
They are the most adept political Blondins I have ever seen. There has never been a single discussion in this House in which they have not contrived, while voting against the Government, to speak in favour of it. There was one resolution down in this paper—a resolution which, we understand, created a certain amount of difficulty for the Government and a certain amount of internal dissension within the Party. That resolution stands in the name of Deputy Morrissey.
I should like to know whether the conduct of the Labour Party enters into the question whether we should adjourn.
Past conduct, no.
Present conduct certainly does, and here they have a resolution supposed to express their concern for the condition of the old age pensioners—a resolution upon which this House ought to be called upon to make up its mind at the earliest possible opportunity. It is quite possible that if it were passed by this House you might have in power tomorrow a Government coming with a supplementary estimate to this House and instead of deferring the restoration of the shilling until the next Budget granting it immediately.
If you were here in 1924 there would be no necessity for the motion to-day.
In 1924 I was not an elected Deputy, and in 1924 we were elected to this Dáil not to attend. We were the servants of the people and we obeyed the people.
If a similar policy had been adopted on another occasion you would not have Deputy Morrissey and others on those benches at all.
Furthermore, there is one thing about the matter. During our absence Deputy Morrissey and his party had their opportunity and how they made use of that the people showed at the last election. As soon as it was clear that there was a party coming into this Dáil which would stand for the principles of Pearse as well as of Connolly, the people who had increased the labour representation from 11 to 24 speedily reverted to the men who would combine and guard, at once, the interests of the whole nation as well as of democracy in Ireland.
As I was saying at the beginning, there was no reason which I could see as to why we should adjourn except the party necessities of the Government. They want to go to Geneva. Their own members are becoming restive; they are refusing to attend. They permitted the Government to be beaten on one division and we feel certain that if we had been able to give every question that would come before us the same examination and criticism of the Government's attitude as we have given during every discussion that has taken place during this session, we would speedily convert the Government majority into a minority. That is the reason why this adjournment is proposed.
I would not intervene were it not for the fact of discovering the recently awakened enthusiasm for the unemployed people of this country by members of a party who did more to create that unemployment than any other destructive force in this country for the last five years.
That is not true.
Deputy MacEntee has spoken of the length of the session in this Dáil as compared with other legislative Assemblies. Surely he must be aware of the fact that even in the Assembly in the British House of Commons many of its members—the major portion at any rate—are resident in London for the greater part of the year. That is not so with the Deputies in this House. Many of us have to come long distances to attend sessions here at a serious financial loss. I wonder whether or not Deputy MacEntee and those associated with him suffer that financial loss. I do not know.
On a point of order, is the Deputy not paid for coming here?
What is the point of order?
Is the Deputy not paid for coming here?
You do not pay me.
A DEPUTY
Your price is higher.
I am not half paid. It pays some, but it does not pay me.
A DEPUTY
You are worth twice as much.
I do not mind interruptions. The Party opposite simply revels in interruptions. Deputy MacEntee had the unblushing effrontery to lecture certain members of this House on their acrobatics. I ask the common people of this country——
They are not here.
—to whom so much lip-service has been paid by the Fianna Fáil Party during the last elections, to judge as between the conduct of the Labour Party in this House and the action of a Party who said that the oath was merely an empty formula and who have now taken it.
If I am asked for a substantial reason for the adjournment it would be to give us a rest from the Fianna Fáil pyrotechnics of the last few weeks. It is very easy to make statements and to bring charges at the crossroads and in the country towns and villages, but it is quite another thing making these charges and statements in this House. The history of that Party which to-day charges the Labour Party with neglecting its duty to the poor——
We are not going to have a history of that Party.
Mr. BOLAND
We have no objection.
I must be pardoned if I have transgressed the rules of order. We have now these recently awakened advocates of Labour beginning to teach us, of the Labour Party, our duty, those of us especially who have been associated with the trade union movement all our lives. We are being told what our duty ought to be by those who, perhaps, were not trade unionists at all and who have now come into the arena full of zeal for the unemployed and for those in the community who are hungry, all the time forgetting that they themselves contributed largely to that unemployment and misery.
In opposing this motion for the adjournment, I have in mind the 293 writs in respect of land annuities in East Cork that we have been told are in the hands of the Sheriff. I wonder was the three months' adjournment decided on for the purpose of having 293 evictions? We have an assurance from the Minister for Finance that the Tariff Commission spent ten months hatching out the rosary beads, and that it is now dealing with the tariffs on flour and woollens. If there is anything in the world that would increase my anxiety to have this House continue sitting and to deal with the motion, notice of which has been given by Deputy Lemass, it is the dread of what this famous Tariff Commission will do in the matter of the tariffs on flour and woollens. I say that because I do not think that that Tariff Commission is competent to judge anything whatever. The Tariff Commission, we are told, has no power whatever. I asked a question here the other day about a tariff on or prohibition of foreign malt. This prohibition of foreign malt would mean employment for 300 unemployed in one of our local towns; and when I asked that question I was told that the Tariff Commission had no power to go into that matter. Are these 300 unemployed going to wait for three months longer?
We had my friend Deputy Jasper Wolfe getting up here and attacking our Party. It is only a short while since Deputy Jasper Wolfe told this House about the 50 per cent. increase he got in his votes since the June election. He did not tell the House that in the June election he went around West Cork as an opponent of the Government. He did not tell the House that he told the people of West Cork about the way the Government were blackguarding the poor republicans. In the June election he told the people that he was a half republican himself; in fact, he was "one of the boys." He came up here then and voted for coercion. In September he went back for votes again, not to the republicans but to the Orange Lodges. He got their verdict and he came up here again, and is now carrying out their verdict here.
In dealing with this matter, I wish to know are those writs going to be put in force in East Cork during the next three months? Are we going to have, in my constituency of East Cork, 293 homeless families? Are 300 to continue unemployed in one of our local towns until this hen of the Tariff Commission finishes out its hatching? I think it is time, and more than time, that we should get rid of the Tariff Commission, at any rate. I think that while there is a large amount of work here unfinished the Government should remain here and finish those arrears of work. The Minister for Finance assured us that the matter of the political prisoners was not a very urgent one. He thinks they can wait. They have waited for five years, and he thinks they can wait a bit longer. I met the Minister for Finance before, in 1918, and it was in Belfast I met him. I am sure that at that time he was hoping that somebody would make a move to try and get out the political prisoners. I do not think he would have been satisfied to wait there five years longer. I think it is now high time that this question of the political prisoners was finished and these men released. I think any prisoner, a political prisoner in particular, who spent a Christmas in jail, will realise the feelings of these men to-day and will realise that it is time that some Commission was set up that would get these men released before Christmas. I wonder will we get an assurance from the Minister for Justice that they will be released before Christmas. Evidently the Minister for Justice does not understand jail. I would like that he would get a spell there at any rate. Then he would be more competent to judge what it is. I strongly and definitely oppose this adjournment, and I think it is time we proceeded to get rid of the business in arrears and then adjourn afterwards.
Might I ask a question? I certainly, for one, have been greatly surprised to learn that the Executive Council are floating a loan without consulting the House. I would like to know on what authority they are floating this loan without consulting the House?
On the authority of the Appropriation Act.
The words of it run "And the Minister for Finance may borrow."
I understand that the theory on which this House was founded was that it was a Sovereign Assembly, ruling the country, and that the Executive Council are the servants of this House. I understood that this House has to say yes or no to whatever is done by the Ministers, and that even if the Appropriation Act says that the Ministers, in reference to the loan, can deal with this matter, it does not give him care blanche to act apart from his masters, namely, this House. The whole attitude to-day, to me at least, has been a surprise. I thought that the fiction would be maintained that this was a Sovereign Assembly, but the attitude to-day is one glorifying the position of the Executive Council and the permanent officials and setting aside this House as an absurd talking shop. That has been the attitude adopted from the Ministerial Benches, and I regret very much to say from some other benches also. If this House is master of the situation, at least it should be treated with sufficient courtesy and should be allowed to finish the programme that is here. Agreement could easily be arrived at, and some attempt could be made to meet the wishes on this side and complete the programme. Some attempt should be made to meet the exasperated feelings of the people whom we represent. The President has expressed more than once —other Ministers have expressed the view, too—that he was gratified that there was an appearance of an end of the quarrel by our coming in here; that there was some likelihood of a healing-up of the split in the nation. I suggest, if the President is serious in his attitude, he should go as far as ever he can in dealing with the feelings of those whom we represent. We are here trying an experiment. We are here trying to do the very best we can for the things we love in the most peaceful manner in which it can be done. We are not here simply to barge. It is very painful to me personally to see quarrels between the Labour Party and ourselves, and even between some of those on the other side and ourselves.
If there was one thing which interested me more than anything else when the Civil War came to a conclusion, it was the feeling of the shattered life of the Irish people, the shattered life of the nation. The splendid unity we had before the Civil War was gone, and we were at the mercy of the enemies of this country. Friends, I suggest that we should do the best we can here to meet the wishes, not merely of those in this House, but the wishes of the people in the country, the wishes of our supporters. We should do our best in order that there will be a real healing in the national fabric of Ireland.
I regret very much that the Labour Party should have taken up the attitude which it has taken up, because I believe that in most of our objects we have a common cause with Labour. Most of our supporters are the very poor, the small farmers and the workers. So far as I am concerned, nothing made me rejoice more than to feel there was a common feeling amongst the poor people in Waterford, a common feeling between the workers—the Labour people—and the Fianna Fáil Party. I would rejoice if the position were such that we felt we were working for a common cause.
I regret gibes should have been thrown at us for not coming in here before. We may, in the views of some people, have done something that was wrong. They may think we were mistaken, but at least they must attribute to us deep convictions in the matter, and leave it at that, with the ordinary respect one human being has for the dignity of another when that other human being has considered convictions. We do not want to go back on past history. We merely want to go ahead and heal the wounds of the past and get the best possible results for the nation in the future. I appeal to the President to try as best he can to meet the wishes and interests of Deputies on those benches, and their supporters, and see if in some way we cannot complete the programme and end this session in a spirit which will help to build up a new nation in this country.
It has been no surprise to me to hear some members of the Labour Party getting hot under their collars against Fianna Fáil in this matter. When they look for an adjournment for three months, for a prolonged adjournment, it is no surprise to me at all. Deputy Anthony, who was one of those who got hot under their collars, told us that he is suffering serious financial loss by being here. I suggest that it is a capitalist he ought to be and not a Labour man. We were told that we have not been here for the past five years, and that we were only new in this matter of being zealous in regard to the sufferings of the unemployed. It is not a new thing at all with us, because some of us were in the position, not alone for five, but for the last seven or eight years, that we would not have suffered serious financial loss by being here. As a matter of fact, most of us have been unemployed for the last eight years owing to our zeal for the unemployed; that is, those of us who have not been on hard labour in prison. Some of us were on political treatment.
The Labour Party, to my mind, is only living up to its reputation in voting for this particular adjournment. I had no other impression about the Party than that it would do such a thing. On these benches there are Deputies who have been so zealous in the cause of democracy in this country that for the last eight years, and the last five years in particular, those Deputies were unable to be here most of the time because they were in jail in the cause of democracy. I think it ill becomes those who call themselves Labour representatives to attempt to bring us to boot on that matter. You do not like history, A Chinn Comhairle, any more than I do, but I have in mind the fact that there was one particular occasion when the elected representatives could not meet, as a revolution took place before they had time to meet. I object to this prolonged adjournment in case, as Deputy Cooney pointed out, of a possible revolution of the unemployed in this country. That revolution might take place before this Dáil has time to reassemble. On those grounds I oppose this prolonged adjournment.
took the Chair.
A few reasons have been put forward why this House should adjourn. The Minister for Finance tells us that he wants time for Executive work, and it has been suggested that too much time has been spent talking. I recollect that on another occasion the Minister for Finance used an expression with regard to time when he said: "Ireland ceased to be an island of saints and scholars simply because her people gave too much time to their books and prayers and too little to the feats of strength and daring and the practice of sword-play." Deputy Morrissey tells us that Deputies here are tired because they have been sitting here for the last five and a half years. I may say that I never saw the inside of this building until I was elected, and if what I have seen since I came here has been a fair sample of what has caused the tiredness to those very strong-looking Deputies, I cannot quite understand their attitude. I have some notes here that I took during various debates. I find, for instance, that when the discussion was in progress with reference to the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Bill, Second Stage, ten Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies were present.
We cannot have the history of the number of Deputies present. What has that to do with the motion that we adjourn?
I am speaking on the reasons put forward why we should adjourn. There were three reasons given. The Minister for Finance wanted time for Executive work; Deputy Morrissey wanted a holiday because he was tired of being here, and Deputy Jasper Wolfe, who has since vacated his seat, said he was exhausted listening to the speeches for the last few months. These, as far as I can find out, are the very strong reasons or arguments put forward why we should take a holiday. The benches at present show how strong those arguments are. We know from our little experience here that Deputies seem to act merely as a voting machine. They come into their place when the bell rings. In the circumstances, I think that we could keep the House in session, and that the three arguments put forward could easily be met by having bells placed in the various places—first of all where the Minister for Finance and the other Ministers want to do their Executive work. When the bell rings they can come back into their seats. I believe— at least it is rumoured—that that method was very successfully adopted in the Shelbourne Hotel, or some place like that, during the week.
We have heard a good deal of talk since we came here with reference to the will of the people. I should like to know how many Labour or Government Party Deputies have listened to the people outside and ascertained their opinion upon this question. From travelling on trams and trains I have heard opinions expressed, and as far as I can make out, from mixing with the people, they are totally opposed to this early adjournment, and especially to a long adjournment. I think that we would not be acting in the interests of the people if we adjourned at this time.
There are two reasons why I oppose the adjournment, and I should like to state them as briefly as possible. One is the Public Safety Act. I believe that the fact of this Act being in existence, and of its operation being permissible during the long adjournment, would have a rather dangerous effect throughout the country. Only yesterday, for no reason whatever, without the slightest semblance of a foundation, a man was arrested in Dublin by the C.I.D. and charged under this Act as being suspect of having concerned himself in the assassination of the late Kevin O'Higgins. There was no semblance of foundation for any such charge. He was taken to the police station and held there for a considerable part of the day. I know from investigation that that man was only arrested because of a bit of spite that arose, and he was threatened that they would get even with him. If this House is not in session for any length of time, and if men are harassed as a result of the powers in the hands of the servants of the State under this Act, I fear that a serious situation will arise which could not be easily redressed.
The Minister for Finance referred to the floating of a National Loan during the adjournment. I should like to put forward a suggestion. I believe that if this House as a whole voted a loan, or understood what loan was being negotiated and gave its approval— although the Minister has the power to borrow—the loan would be a far greater success and would be more readily supported by all sections of the community throughout the twenty-six counties. It would do away with the danger of a certain class of people thinking that it was only the Cumann na nGaedheal Party that could float a loan—that it was a loan floated by Cumann na nGaedheal. We have never yet suggested from these benches that we would oppose a loan which would be used for the benefit of the State, for the building up of our resources and the alleviation of unemployment. I should like the Minister for Finance to appreciate that a loan sanctioned by the whole House could be more readily obtained, and on better terms, once it was known that Fianna Fáil—although they are not yet the Government, but may shortly be the Government—are prepared to shoulder responsibility for the flotation of such a loan. That is purely and simply a business proposition. Of course, the Minister for Finance may feel that if the loan is negotiated by the Cumann na nGaedheal Party it may have a better value from a party political point of view, but I believe that people outside, irrespective of their political outlook, would be better pleased to see the loan sanctioned by the whole House, and every Party in the House having full responsibility for its negotiation. I should like the Minister to consider that, and I should also like to get some assurance that the powers under the Public Safety Act would not be abused in the event of this adjournment for a long period being carried.
I do not know exactly what Deputy Briscoe is driving at, and when other members of the Fianna Fáil Party talk about the Dáil discussing the future loan, I do not know exactly what the proposal is.
The Minister in reply to a question said that the loan could be negotiated, and would be negotiated, during the adjournment without the sanction of the House.
The same as if the House were sitting.
Does the Deputy propose that we should discuss in the House whether the loan should be issued at par or at 95, or at 5 per cent. or 5½ per cent., or what does he want the House to do in connection with the loan? Some Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party talked in a vague way about the issue of the loan being one of the reasons why they objected to the adjournment. Deputy Briscoe has suggested that there should be a formal sanction from the Dáil of a loan, which, of course, is rather unnecessary, seeing that the Minister for Finance is arranging with the banks for loans every day. That is part of his usual function.
The flotation of a National Loan.
He proposes that before the adjourment we should sanction the loan. I do not think that is necessary, because I think all Deputies are agreed that the loan must be floated. I do not think there is any objection from any Deputy to the loan. Beyond that, I do not see what use it would be, unless Deputies want us to discuss the terms and the details of the loan, which, of course, would be——
The amount.
Are these the things that Deputies want to be discussed here?
Why not?
I think that is rather childish. If the Deputy suggests that as a financial transaction, I am afraid it is——
What do you think you were elected to do?
Deputy Cooney talked about some meeting which took place to-day of 2,000 unemployed. He apparently was invited to the meeting, but other Deputies were not. I am sure they would have been very glad to attend to hear the opinions of the unemployed in this matter. He did not mention who it was drew up and proposed the resolution which was unanimously passed. I do not know who the gentleman was, and the Deputy did not mention his name. I presume it was after consultation with the 2,000 unemployed who attended the meeting. I agree with a lot of what the Fianna Fáil Deputies have said about the Labour Party. In this I am speaking for myself. Although the Labour Party did great and historic work for the State, in fact, kept this Dáil going during a very hard and difficult time, I notice, now that the Fianna Fáil Party have come in, they are getting rather pompous and self-satisfied. A lot of what the Fianna Fáil Deputies said about them is quite correct. At the same time, the Fianna Fáil Deputies should be very careful of what they say about the Labour Party. They may need them at any moment, and they should not be too extravagant in their criticism of them. I notice that they did not denounce the Labour Party before the various votes of no confidence in the Government were proposed within the last few months.
It was proposed by the Labour Party.
Deputy MacEntee suggested that the Dáil, in the last five years, had done less work and attended to its duties more irregularly than any legislative assembly in Europe. I happened to see some statistics drawn up by a foreign newspaper, not since this Dáil was elected, but about six months ago, from which it would appear that this Assembly, in the last five years, has actually been engaged in more work, and more steady work, than any legislative assembly, not only in Europe, but in the whole world. These figures were not official, but they were compiled by very serious people. I simply would like to know from any Deputy on the Fianna Fáil Benches if he can mention any Parliament in the world which actually did more work and sat more days than this Parliament did in the last five years.
The Belfast Parliament.
Has the Deputy got the actual days of the sitting of the Belfast Parliament?
I think we are getting up to them already.
I think the Deputy is not serious. Deputy Little said we should wait until we had completed the programme. If we had been dealing with it for the last two hours I think we would have got through a great deal of it. There is a matter that I want to ask the Minister for Finance about in relation to relief schemes. If the Committee on Unemployment bring in an early report on some particular question, would the Government be entitled to go ahead and carry out the suggestions of the Committee before the Dáil reassembles? I understand that the matters that will be dealt with by the Committee will not be outside the £150,000. I would like to know if the Minister would be prepared to go on with any recommendations of the Committee before the Dáil reassembles. I should like to have an explanation on that matter.
I would like very much to know from the Executive whether, in case representatives go to Geneva during the Recess, they are going to sign any trade——
We cannot discuss that matter at this stage.
One of the reasons why I oppose the adjournment is the likelihood of representatives of this House signing certain undertakings behind the back of the House.
Perhaps the Deputy would give way to me for a moment.
resumed his seat.
We cannot discuss what the representatives of this State are going to do if and when they go to Geneva. The Deputy can put forward that as a reason for opposing the adjournment, but he cannot discuss a problematical matter such as what they are going to do when they go there, if they do go there.
I submit that there is likely to be a meeting of the Economic Council at Geneva at which Mr. MacWhite, a representative of the Saorstát, may be present again, and representatives of the Executive Council may be present, and that certain agreements drawn up there, having a great bearing upon the economic conditions in this country, may be signed during the two and a half months of the Recess, and, consequently, I submit that I am entitled to put that forward as a reason why the House should not adjourn for two and a half months.
I do not object to the Deputy doing that.
During the debate there were a number of terms used. One was that there was more important work done by the Departments in the Recess; and number two, we heard the phrase used that this House was nothing but a place for spouting, and that came from such an ardent democrat as Deputy Davin. Then we heard from Deputy Daly about the power of the departments, and terms about the will of the people. I never had any illusions about what the President referred to in the recent debate as the limitations on the power of the Executive. There are limitations, certainly, in certain fields where the interests of the common people of the country are concerned. There are no limitations when the Public Safety Act would be put into operation. We have another reason as to why we should continue in session, and that is to raise the status of this House to that of a real sovereign assembly which would voice the real will of the people.
Deputy Esmonde referred, in a very easy way, to borrowing in an ordinary fashion by the Department of Finance, the flotation of loans and that kind of thing. One would think they had no bearing upon the life of the nation at all, and that it was not a matter for this Assembly to discuss. We can discuss eggs, and whether they are clean, and we can discuss about butter being clean, but we cannot discuss the monetary bearing of these things. The details are for us, the principles are for the departments. We should not adjourn, because it is the duty of the Fianna Fáil Party anyway to see that the sovereign will of the people is expressed in this Assembly, and it has never been expressed in this Assembly. I ask Deputies on the opposite benches now that we are not on political platforms, which of the Parties regard the people as the sheep.
I suppose it is reasonable that I should conclude the debate now.
Pardon me; before the President concludes I should like to say a word. I heard appeals made both from the Labour Benches and from the benches opposite that this motion ought to pass because the adjournment was thought to be a reasonable one. Speaking personally, and I think for those on these benches also, I would not object to a reasonable adjournment being proposed in view of the Christmas holidays. But what we do object to is the unreasonable length of the adjournment moved. After we have sat for twenty or twenty-one days, an adjournment of twelve weeks is proposed. That does not seem to me to be a reasonable proposition. I say we are as reasonable as anybody else in this matter. Speaking for myself, I would be just as happy to have a holiday as anybody in this House. I shall be just as pleased to shake the dust of this place off myself as anybody here, in fact, more so than anybody, I think. I am not so enamoured of this place that I want to sit here very long. I am not so enamoured of the company I have to keep. Some of them, I am sure, will return the compliment, but I am stating frankly what I feel. The President knows very well the company I am referring to. I do not want to sit here longer than is absolutely necessary, but, on the other hand, as I have come in here not very willingly, I do not want to neglect my public duty.
I have sat out the debates here as regularly as any Deputy since I came into this House. I have seldom been five minutes absent as long as the House was sitting, and I hope to continue doing so as long as the House sits. It is a tiring operation. I realise that as well as anyone. One realises that very often on the way home with a headache, and I would be glad of an adjournment. I have gone through all this, and I would be glad to have an adjournment at Christmas as a reasonable thing, but, I say that this proposition is most unreasonable from every point of view. It is unreasonable from the point of view of men who want to do business.
Deputy Davin, I believe, said that this was a talking shop. I wondered that some of the Deputies opposite, who were so fond of lecturing us and talking of this place as a sovereign assembly at certain times, when it suited, did not rise up in anger when a Labour Deputy talked so slightingly of this place as a talking shop. These were the Deputy's words. Public business cannot be done without a certain amount of talk. That has to be so. That is a kind of democratic rule, and this Assembly above all others, we are told, is super-democratic, and therefore we must have super-talkers. Anyway, talk is necessary for this kind of public work, but it is tedious. It takes up time and delays progress sometimes, but, nevertheless, public work has been done since we came here, probably as much work in proportion as was done in any assembly of the kind having the same amount of public work to accomplish. But I hold that we have done very little on the whole because we have not been sitting very long. We have sat twenty-one days and we are going to have a long holiday of twelve weeks. To my mind, that is not good enough. I certainly object to that being called a reasonable adjournment. If a reasonable period were proposed coming near the holiday season I think Deputies on these benches would not be unreasonable. It may be said: "You have been here only a very brief time; you are not as tired as some of the rest of the Deputies who have been here five and a half years," as we were told several times some Deputies have been here. Perhaps some of us who have not been in this House were in other places outside, working for five and a half years, or double five and a half years, and doing much more arduous work. Although I say that sitting and listening to speeches for eight or nine hours a day is arduous and tiresome work, still, some of us on these benches have been doing work equally arduous outside, and, with all respect, I say of at least equal service to the nation, as those who have talked of the arduous work that is done here.
Although it is a subject I do not like to talk about, as it has been mentioned, we have not been paid for that work and we did not expect payment; we did not look for it and we did not want it. The less said on these matters the better. We have done our work because we felt a public urge to do what we thought was right and proper. We would do the same again. We are anxious to do the same here. We are not anxious to shirk work, and I am really grieved that support for this proposition came from the Labour Party. I say that sincerely, and I am surprised, because they ought not to set an example in slacking work. To my mind, that is what it amounts to. They may disagree with that view. It is public knowledge that the Labour Party has not, during the last year, improved its position, so far as representation in this House is concerned. Might I say, with all respect to the Labour Party, that this is not the way to improve it? I should like to see the Labour Party well represented here. I think it is right and proper that they should be here in good numbers, and I would say that in their best interests this is not the way to improve their position, or to increase the number they will be able to return to this House— that they should slack work. That is what it looks like to one individual at any rate, and that is what they are proposing to do by voting for this motion. I read yesterday in the newspapers of a decrease in the number of trade unionists. I would ask the Labour Deputies to take that lesson to heart, and to think of putting in a little more work.
Is the Deputy not wandering a bit?
I do not think I am.
I cannot see the relevancy.
I can, with all respect. The Labour Party is supporting a motion for the adjournment of this House, and in doing so, I believe they are doing themselves an injury, as well as doing an injury to the public service. I believe that public services would be helped by having a strong Labour Party here. Therefore, I think it is in their own best interests and in the interests of Ireland——
We are not discussing the interests of the Labour Party. We are discussing whether the Dáil should adjourn to Wednesday, 15th February.
The Ceann Comhairle allowed the Labour Deputies to criticise us for our action, and I thought I was giving them some advice that might be for their good. If the Leas-Cheann Comhairle thinks it is not, I withdraw. I doubt if there is any more important work to be done than the work to be done here, so far as the nation's ordinary routine is concerned. There is no more important work that I know of. I do not know what Deputy Davin has in his mind. There is no more important work than the work done here from day to day. It may be tiresome, but it is routine work that has to be done if the ordinary affairs of the State are to proceed. The question of the loan has been mentioned. I am particularly interested in keeping the House in Session so that the question of the prisoners may be reached. That is one of the questions I have in mind, and it gives me some worry. Some Deputies on the Fianna Fáil Benches mentioned the condition of prisoners at Christmas time. I know what that is, and the state of mind of these men, and so do Deputies on the opposite benches realise it, as I know there are men there who have been through the same conditions. Bearing that in mind I would ask, if the adjournment is to be insisted upon, if some announcement could not be made concerning the motion regarding the prisoners that appears on the Orders of the Day.
I certainly do feel that if we sit here a little while longer and arrive at that stage when we could discuss the prisoners question, we might be able to impress upon the opposite side of the House the desirability of considering the question of public feeling on the loan that is coming on. It might help, and help materially, in getting the settled kind of public opinion that would help the nation as a whole, if a different attitude were adopted to those who are political prisoners, who are in jail for what are called purely political offences. These are the reasons that urge me to vote against the motion, not exactly against the adjournment, but because I am against what I believe is an unreasonable proposition.
My objection to this adjournment is in view of the economic distress of the country. I speak mainly from the point of view of the small farmers and labourers in the West of Ireland. There is no doubt at all about it that these people have been looking towards the Dáil for the last two months in the hope that some word of encouragement might be given to them in the way of a prospect of relief of the distress that they have been suffering from for some time back. The Dáil, in proceeding as if they were dealing with conditions that were normal, are proposing to adjourn after assembling for a few weeks, and the Government are to be at full liberty for the next few months to dispose of matters affecting the people as they like. While that might be all right, or might be a practical viewpoint under normal conditions, I maintain that the conditions are not normal; they are very abnormal, from the point of view of prevailing distress. With the arrival of winter, these workers have been anticipating something in the way of relief work, some outcome of the big discussion that occupied the Dáil quite recently. They look with anxiety as to the possibility of that money being diverted for immediate relief work, particularly so when it is a well-known fact all round the country that Deputies on the other side and their organisation are giving out publicly to all whom it may concern that the administration of the grant for relief work will only be secured through membership of Cumann na nGaedheal.
If the money voted in this House for the relief of distress is to be used again, as it has undoubtedly been in the past, for the purpose of vote-catching and for propaganda work for one political organisation, I hold that it is most unreasonable not to have the House sitting at least during the period in which that money is being disposed of, to see that it will be spent to the satisfaction of the House. Money voted for distress purposes in the past, it is a well-known fact, has not been used to the best advantage. The expenditure of public money in all and every circumstance and condition should be supervised to see that it is used in the most practicable way, and that its proper expenditure is always secured. It will not be secured if the methods adopted in the past and the statements circulated throughout the country are to apply again. On the matter of drainage schemes, these have been promised to the farmers for a long time past, but the Drainage Bill has recently been withdrawn, and we must wait the reassembly of the Dáil before we can discuss any practical method of drainage. The months we are passing through now are the months in which farmers could take advantage of drainage schemes. During the slack period they could work on drainage schemes on their farms, or on drainage schemes on a large scale. Does not this indicate to the farmer that the Dáil is merely tinkering with the question? The position of the farmer, as expressed on the platforms of all parties, has been painted pitiably, but when practical effect could be given to all this discussion here, we find ourselves at a critical moment retreating from our posts and leaving the farmer to bear his burden unassisted.
Within the last few weeks, I am informed that in the constituency that I represent—Sligo-Leitrim—the courts have been busier than ever issuing decrees for the non-payment of land annuities. Will no message of hope be sent to these farmers that their little interest in the homes that they have endeavoured to preserve will be secured to them? There has been a great deal of propaganda used by the Government Party to the effect that they have produced a scheme of agricultural credit by which some assistance will be available for the farmers to enable them to restock their lands and to carry on over this difficult period. But without one word of hope to the farmer, beyond what was given to him during the last two elections, the Dáil is now adjourning, and he is left to wait until the Dáil reassembles to discuss his pitiable condition. Under these conditions, from the economic distress prevailing, if for no other reason, I say that the grounds are sufficiently strong to warrant this House sticking to its duties until something has been done to relieve the distress among the workers and the small farmers. If it does anything short of that, this House will not be doing its duty.
I want to mention a matter that I did not know about when coming in, and that is that the Executive has power to raise a loan without any further reference to the House. The Minister for Finance referred me to the Appropriation Act. I take it that is No. 2 of 1927?
Yes.
It seems to me that we ought to be very jealous of our powers over Supply. I think it is true that, technically and legally, according to this Act, the Minister for Finance and the Executive have the right to borrow up to £15,000,000. I think it will be treating the House with more than discourtesy if this loan is floated during the Recess. There was plenty of time since this Act was passed, on the 29th July, 1927, and since we met here, to bring forward proposals with respect to this loan, and I think it is stretching their powers, just as they did when they dissolved the House recently without consulting it, for the Executive to float this loan when the House is not in session. That is a reason which, I think, by itself, would be quite sufficient to give us grounds for opposing this until the question of the National Loan, its amount, the terms, the purposes for which it is going to be applied—particularly its amount—are made known. The House may feel that the amount is not sufficient, for example, to meet the needs of the country at present and, as I have said, I think it is altogether wrong for us to permit the Executive to take complete control for two and a half months without the provision of a check of any kind.
As the President would say, the Deputy is a child in these matters. It would be quite impossible to consult the House. Whether the House is sitting or is in recess makes no difference in the matter of the loan. It is necessary to consult with people to get the necessary promises of support and, having come to a decision, to act on it. Once that decision is acted on, it is binding whether the House is in session or not. It would be quite impracticable in the public interest to have any other procedure.
We are not all such children as the Minister would lead us to believe. There was a time when we were doing something of this kind before and when the Minister for Finance was a subordinate. We are not all fools in this matter at all.
That was quite a different sort of loan.
It is the business of the Executive, I take it, to do the negotiating part, but it should be the duty of the House to deal with the ratification of the negotiations.
To put in an extra half per cent. or to increase the amount?
No; to tell the Executive that it is not satisfied with the proposed terms.
I understand that well.
If there are negotiations of any kind, I take it that the Executive may negotiate in the first instance, but when the negotiation is complete, before the nation is committed to anything, it should have the final approval of this House. It would be for the Minister for Finance to make his case when the matter is brought forward, and then it would be a matter for the House to approve or disapprove.
Does the Minister for Finance mean to imply that the financiers are the real rulers?
The Deputy's speech this evening indicated that he would not be able to rule much.
I did not hear the President.
I will say it sufficiently loud for the Deputy to hear me when I come to him. In the first place, Deputies are dissatisfied with the amount of work that has been done. Five Bills have already been passed through the House, and I anticipate that two others would have been passed were it not for the fact that something like three hours have been taken up to-day in answering questions and in debating this matter of the adjournment. It is for Deputies to appraise the value of the discussion that has taken place and to say whether or not the time was not, to a very large extent wasted. Deputies repeated what had been said by others. Some Deputies opposite were very severe. A short time after one of them had spoken another Deputy from the same Party would get up with the oil-can and modify, to a very large extent, what had been said by his erring brother, and then a reflection would come to his mind that we were near Christmas, a time of peace and good-will, and that we were verging towards unity and love of one another—that notwithstanding all our infirmities and sins they were still prepared to love us. The time has been wasted.
The fact of the matter is that whatever business there is on the Order Paper that is still incomplete, and not likely to be completed by reason of the adjournment, is business which at this stage ought not be there. Take the question of prisoners. Deputies have stated that they are particularly anxious about certain people, in respect of whom there is a claim that they are political prisoners. I put it to them that if at any time in the future any of these Deputies should be in an Executive and that certain persons have been before the court, have been sentenced, and are duly serving their sentences, it is open to any lightheaded person to come into the Dáil and put down a motion to the effect that so-and-so is a political prisoner by reason of the peculiar circumstances or the time of his conviction and, therefore, there is to be a full dress debate here on a matter of this kind. That is not a business way of approaching such a matter. If there be a claim in respect of a prisoner, or a number of prisoners, which the Executive Council ought to consider, or rather which the Minister for Justice ought to review, that is a matter that ought not in my opinion be discussed here. It is not good government to have a matter of that sort discussed here, and it does not indicate an appreciation of the responsibility of citizenship to have it discussed here. It is not a matter upon which there can be any doubt. It is really a question of fact and on a question of fact there can be very little doubt.
As regards the other matter of the Tariff Commission, I do not take it particularly seriously. Perhaps I am wrong but I heard during the last few months that we were to have prohibition of exports except under licence. I do not quite understand the meaning of "under licence." I do not understand it yet, notwithstanding all the speeches that have been made, but now I understand that the principle of a Tariff Commission is accepted.
We had it in our programme all the time.
The principle is accepted. I did not learn that before but I have learned it now. Now I am in doubt whether the amendment put forward by the Labour Party will be adopted as the child of the Fianna Fáil Party.
The President will get all that information if he allows these matters to be discussed.
I have not time. I am a very busy man, and I consider that the time of the Dáil that has been spent on various matters might have been devoted to business of a more important character.
I quite agree.
But we wasted considerable time. Deputies opposite have been emancipated from the shackles which the electors put on them for a considerable time, and they have, of necessity, much more vim and desire to enter into the arena and discuss these matters than those of us who have been here for the last five years. Making all such allowances, however, I am not satisfied that any words of wisdom which we have heard have given much satisfaction to any of the people who sent them here. That, however, is a matter for themselves. The Minister for Finance has answered the six points put up by Deputy de Valera. As regards the Unemployment Committee, if that Committee recommended some comparatively small or isolated scheme we could advance money from the Relief Schemes Vote, as the money would be there. I am sure that it will not be spent inside three months. I do not anticipate any recommendations that would make it impossible for us, if we agree with the wisdom of the proposal, to finance them. No proposal has been put forward by any member of the Government in that connection, and I think that Deputy MacEntee was probably drawing on his imagination in his references in that regard. Deputy Redmond asked me a question in regard to the number of the Committee dealing with the position of ex-servicemen. I anticipate that it will be small. As to whether they will be facilitated in going through the country, any facilities they would request from the Executive would be afforded. The sittings, I think, ought to be held in private, but that would be a matter on which I would be guided by the Committee.
About how many, would the President say?
I do not think there should be a larger number than three.
Say five.
With regard to the National Loan, the terms on which a loan is floated do not depend on what the Dáil thinks, but rather on the state of credit; and the amount depends partly on the needs of the Exchequer and partly on the terms which can be obtained. I can quite understand an Executive bringing up a proposal that X millions should be borrowed at Y per cent., and the Dáil saying that X should be ten times X, and Y half of Y.
Might I ask the President to deal with the question whether the House has a right to say that when you bring forward a proposal to borrow X millions at Y interest the Dáil could say that it is not going to issue a loan under such terms, and that the amount of the loan is not sufficient?
The Oireachtas has given the Executive Council that particular authority, and we are in a different position to that in which we were when the previous proposal, which the Deputy has in mind, was before the Dáil. The only other matter is that referred to by Deputy Cooney. I think that the Fianna Fáil Party will have to recruit its membership from some better material. We were told that there was an unemployed meeting, and the Deputy devoted fifteen minutes of his speech to that meeting, but there was not a single constructive proposal in connection with the meeting. Any of us could have attended the meeting and said: "I am the only person who has any sympathy for you," as I suppose the Deputy said. Any of us could have said: "All the other representatives have no interest in the unemployed," and not a single benefit would have accrued to the unemployed persons by that.
I challenge the President——
I do not want challenges. I challenge the Deputy to bring forward a constructive proposition.
We brought it forward.
I think there is great danger of the Party opposite not being a party of results but a party of tongues.
Not Imperialists.
During the course of the fifteen minutes in which the Deputy lectured us, the Labour Party, and everybody else, there was very little for the unemployed except that he was the only person who was thinking of them. We have been both thinking and acting and doing for them, and the Deputy has not.
The Deputy was not in the Executive Council.
He will be soon.
Not in yours anyway.
Can we take it that if the Dáil adjourns, these motions on the Order Paper will be the first business to be taken when it resumes?
I would not guarantee that, but I will guarantee the same priority for them as there is on the Order Paper now. If I have Government business I will take the time of the House for it.
Is the President prepared to make any statement in regard to the Gaeltacht Commission?
Not before the adjournment.
Does that mean that the matter is delayed for another three months and that nothing will be done?
The Deputy is entirely at sea in that matter.
Is there any provision by which the House can be summoned at the request of any number of members?
By the President of the Executive.
Only?
Yes.
But could it be summoned at the request of any number of members?
No.
I would like to ask the Minister for Finance, in reference to his statement that the directors of the Agricultural Credit Corporation would settle down to work, whether we are to take it that the Corporation is to proceed with its work during the Recess, and that this House is not to have a further opportunity of discussing the memorandum or articles of association or other regulations governing the working of the Corporation until we meet again?
The House, in a proper way, can discuss that at any time, but the work of the Corporation will proceed and will not be held up.
Would I be in order in moving an amendment to the effect that the House do not adjourn until a fortnight, that it adjourn then for a period of one month, and that on a request, say, of forty members, the House will have to be called together?
On a matter of order regarding the amendment, notice was given of this motion yesterday, and it has been under discussion now for two hours at least. Just now, when I am putting it, is not, in my opinion, a suitable time to talk of an amendment. If it were intended to introduce an amendment it should have been put forward earlier, and I do not think that I can accept an amendment at this stage. With regard to the other matter, it does not come within my province to accept such an amendment as suggested by Deputy de Valera with regard to the summoning of the House.
It is quite obvious that before we had the certainty that the Executive Council wanted to adjourn and not come together for two and a half months, I could not move an amendment. I was anxious to see whether the time could not be shortened when it was apparent to members of the Executive that there was considerable opposition on the part of one Party to adjourn the House for that period.
I am trying to point out to the Deputy that there was ample time to propose an amendment since the discussion started and since the intentions of the Government were clearly indicated. I do not think that it is proper to introduce an amendment at this stage.
Then all we can do is to vote against the motion.
Motion put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 87; Níl, 57.
Tá
- William P. Aird.
- Ernest Henry Alton.
- Richard Anthony.
- James Walter Beckett.
- George Cecil Bennett.
- Ernest Blythe.
- Séamus A. Bourke.
- Michael Brennan.
- Seán Brodrick.
- Alfred Byrne.
- John Joseph Byrne.
- Edmund Carey.
- Patrick Clancy.
- James Coburn.
- John James Cole.
- Mrs. Margt. Collins-O'Driscoll.
- Hugh Colohan.
- Martin Conlan.
- Michael P. Connolly.
- Bryan Ricco Cooper.
- Richard Corish.
- William T. Cosgrave.
- Sir James Craig.
- James Crowley.
- John Daly.
- William Davin.
- Peter de Loughrey.
- Eugene Doherty.
- James N. Dolan.
- Peadar Seán Doyle.
- Edmund John Duggan.
- James Dwyer.
- Barry M. Egan.
- Osmond Thos. Grattan Esmonde.
- James Everett.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- James Fitzgarald-Kenney.
- John Marcus O'Sullivan.
- William Archer Redmond.
- Patrick Reynolds.
- Martin Roddy.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Timothy Sheehy (West Cork).
- William Edward Thrift.
- John Good.
- Denis J. Gorey.
- Alexander Haslett.
- John J. Hassett.
- Michael R. Heffernan.
- Michael Joseph Hennessy.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Mark Henry.
- Patrick Hogan (Galway).
- Richard Holohan.
- Michael Jordan.
- Patrick Michael Kelly.
- Myles Keogh.
- Hugh Alexander Law.
- Patrick Leonard.
- Finian Lynch.
- Arthur Patrick Mathews.
- Martin McDonogh.
- Michael Og McFadden.
- Joseph W. Mongan.
- Daniel Morrissey.
- Richard Mulcahy.
- James E. Murphy.
- Joseph Xavier Murphy.
- Timothy Joseph Murphy.
- James Sproule Myles.
- Martin Michael Nally.
- John Thomas Nolan.
- Richard O'Connell.
- Bartholomew O'Connor.
- Timothy Joseph O'Donovan.
- John F. O'Hanlon.
- Daniel O'Leary.
- Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
- John J. O'Reilly.
- Gearoid O'Sullivan.
- Michael Tierney.
- Daniel Vaughan.
- John White.
- Vincent Joseph White.
- George Wolfe.
- Jasper Travers Wolfe.
Níl
- Frank Aiken.
- Denis Allen.
- Neal Blaney.
- Gerald Boland.
- Patrick Boland.
- Daniel Bourke.
- Seán Brady.
- Robert Briscoe.
- Daniel Buckley.
- Frank Carney.
- Frank Carty.
- Archie J. Cassidy.
- Michael Clery.
- James Colbert.
- Eamon Cooney.
- Dan Corkery.
- Martin John Corry.
- Fred. Hugh Crowley.
- Tadhg Crowley.
- Thomas Derrig.
- Eamon de Valera.
- Frank Fahy.
- Hugo Flinn.
- Andrew Fogarty.
- Seán French.
- Patrick J. Gorry.
- John Goulding.
- Seán Hayes.
- Samuel Holt.
- Patrick Houlihan.
- Stephen Jordan.
- Michael Joseph Kennedy.
- William R. Kent.
- Frank Kerlin.
- James Joseph Killane.
- Mark Killelea.
- Michael Kilroy.
- Patrick John Little.
- Ben Maguire.
- Thomas McEllistrim.
- Seán MacEntee.
- Séamus Moore.
- Thomas Mullins.
- Patrick J. Ruttledge.
- Seán T. O'Kelly.
- William O'Leary.
- Matthew O'Reilly.
- Thomas O'Reilly.
- Thomas P. Powell.
- Patrick J. Ruttledge.
- James Ryan.
- Martin Sexton.
- Timothy Sheehy (Tipperary).
- Patrick Smith.
- John Tubridy.
- Richard Walsh.
- Francis C. Ward.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle. Níl: Deputies Boland and MacEntee.
Motion declared carried.