I propose to take business in the order in which it appears on the Order Paper. I would ask the Dáil to take Item No. 3, the Trade Loans (Guarantee) (Amendment) Bill, 1929, in all its stages to-day, taking the Second Stage about seven o'clock. As I announced last night, I propose on the rising of the Dáil to-day to move that the House adjourn for the Summer Recess until Wednesday, 23rd October. I do not think that the business on the Order Paper will occupy more than the usual time, but as some of the Bills require to be passed to-day, I move that the Dáil sit later than 11 p.m., and that the Order for the adjournment be taken not later than 8 a.m. to-morrow. I do not think that the business will occupy the Dáil beyond 11 p.m.
Order of Business.
Euclid is not in it with the President.
Question proposed: That the Dáil do sit later than 11 p.m. and that the Order for the adjournment be taken not later than 8 a.m. to-morrow (Friday) morning.
I take it that it is intended to conclude all the business on the Order Paper?
Yes, down as far as item No. 15, if possible.
Might I ask if it is proposed to take item No. 17?
I would be delighted to get that far.
Substitute it for No. 14.
I would put this to the Deputy: Item 14 is an agreement in respect of which one of the parties has some apprehension that delay in reaching the item is scarcely fair to them. While I may not press for the Second Stage, I should like that the Minister would be heard on that Stage. If any objection were taken to the matter now, I would not mind leaving it over, but I think it is due to them that we should get that far.
The President proposes to introduce the Bill and adjourn the debate on the Second Stage?
I am prepared to do that.
It is proposed to hear the Minister's speech on the Second Reading.
As to No. 17, when speaking on Friday, I said I was prepared to ask the House to accept the Bill. In the meantime, I have found out that the Dublin County Council, which is concerned to a large extent in the matter, and with which, in my previous consideration of the matter, I had been in negotiation about the relief position in the county, has not been consulted in any way by the Seanad Committee which dealt with this matter, and very serious objection is taken by the Dublin County Council to the passing of this Bill. Therefore, I find myself in the position that, while prepared to pass this measure, if there was any kind of agreement in connection with it, I find myself opposed in that attitude by the Dublin County Council, and also up against administrative difficulties which the Dublin Union Commissioners would have for a certain period if the Bill were passed. The position as far as the Union Commissioners are concerned is that if the Bill were passed they would like to have an appointed day fixed in connection with it—in other words, that its coming into operation should be postponed for a couple of months in order to enable them to make the necessary alterations which a great change in the administration of poor relief in the city would necessitate. I was prepared to pass this Bill without an appointed day simply because of the shortness of Parliamentary time, and then let the Union Commissioners get over the matter in the best way they could, but, in view of the difficulty that has arisen with the Dublin County Council, and as I was in communication with them in connection with the putting right of this matter, and as, although we came to a full stop in our previous negotiations, these negotiations have been re-opened, I have changed my mind in connection with the matter and would not ask the House to accept the Bill as it stands. I hope that during the Recess we shall be able to make an arrangement for the city and county which, from my point of view, and the point of view of Deputies on both sides of the House to whom I have spoken on the matter, will be more generally acceptable than the present Bill. For that reason, I should like to postpone passing the measure and not to take even the Second Stage to-day.
Are we to understand from what the Minister has said that the Government propose to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill? I think that the matters complained of are all matters of detail which could probably be dealt with on the Committee Stage.
I would practically be forced into the position even of opposing the measure if the House decided to take it to-day. What I ask is that the House should postpone the Second Reading until October. By that time I hope to be-able to say whether I can put an alternative before the House which will be more satisfactory. If the Second Reading is defeated to-day, that finishes the Bill. I do not wish to do that, but I do not wish to commit myself entirely to accepting the principle enshrined in the Bill. The House should bear in mind that the Seanad set up a Committee to go into this matter of poor relief in the city and county of Dublin; and I now find that the Dublin County Council was not taken into consultation by the Seanad Committee, although this Bill is supposed to apply to the county.
Has the Minister an alternative? He is now talking about this matter as if he was going to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. Should the Minister not face the Bill as it stands and say definitely to the House that he is not prepared to accept the principle of the Bill, which is the issue to be dealt with on Second Reading?
We are not now dealing with item 17 on the Order Paper at all, and this discussion is in order merely because notice was given that the Dublin City and County (Relief of the Poor) Bill would be taken through all its stages to-day. I cannot allow a discussion on the Second Reading at this stage.
In view of the fact that the Minister is not prepared to go ahead with this Bill to-day, and as it is possible that the House will be meeting for one day towards the end of the month, would it not be possible to take this Bill on the particular day that the House meets? So far as the County Council is concerned, I understand they are not so much concerned as the Dublin Union, Rathdown District Council, and Balrothery District Council, and it is only to a small extent that the Dublin Union part of the county comes into the area of charge.
I do not wish to discuss this Bill, but I put it to the Minister if he has changed his mind and attitude towards this Bill brought in from the Seanad that there ought certainly to be some alternative. If this Bill were passed to-day as originally intended, there would be machinery put into operation by which the poor, for whom the Bill is intended, could have their wants attended to during the next four or five months. We will not be able to pass, when we resume here, whatever Bill the Minister might then introduce for a month or two, so that in all probability six months will elapse before any alternative arrangements could be made to meet an urgent situation. The Minister knows, and everybody connected with Dublin knows the situation in the city demands immediate attention. That fact was borne in upon the minds of those who brought in the Bill in the Seanad, and I put it to the Minister that something is immediately necessary in the way of an alternative, if this Bill is not passed here to-day.
All I say to the House at this particular stage when facing the business for the day, is that I would prefer not to take the Second Reading of this Bill. I do not want to be committed at the present stage, by saying anything for or against the principle of the Bill. I do not think any particular purpose would be served. If for any reason any Deputy wants to press the Second Stage, I would not ask for further stages.
I ask the Minister to say quite frankly whether he accepts the principle of the Bill without pressing for its consideration to-day.
Yes, the principle, but the dates are the difficulty.
Would not that be a matter for Committee?
Not at all. That will be explained in Committee.
Would the Minister have the amendments he contemplates, ready next week?
No. There are not only principles, but the area of administration, which is the difficulty in the matter, and in respect of this I am in negotiation with the county council.
Is the Minister holding it up in the hope of having another bye-election?
No.
We are now about to make an Order as to sitting late, and the business to be transacted is the business down to and including No. 15 on the Order Paper. There are a considerable number of amendments to Item 13, the Game Preservation Bill. With regard to Item 14, it is proposed at least to hear the Minister moving the Second Reading. The question of the further stages will then be considered.
I understood the President to say that he would be prepared to adjourn the debate after the Minister had made his speech on Second Reading?
If requested.
The point can then be raised and settled.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 65; Níl, 49.
Tá
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Hassett, John J.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- MacEóin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- Coburn, James.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Clery, Michael.
- Colbert, James.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gorrv, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killane, James Joseph.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P. S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Allen.
Question declared carried.
We do not propose to take Item No. 13—the Game Preservation Bill.
It is proposed not to proceed with Item 13. On the motion for the adjournment the President proposes to move:—
"That the Dáil do adjourn to Wednesday, October 23rd."