I move "That the House sit later than 12 p.m. to-day, and that the motion for the adjournment be taken not later than 8 a.m. to-morrow morning."
Late Sitting.
May I ask what business it is proposed to discharge by 8 a.m. to-morrow morning?
It was hoped that three days would complete all stages of the Finance Bill, and it is to make sure that it will be completed before the July adjournment, that it is necessary to make the motion I have made.
I did not ask what was the anticipation on the Estimate. I asked what business it is proposed to conclude by 8 a.m. to-morrow morning.
You have been told exactly and quite clearly—The Committee Stage of the Finance Bill.
What is the proposal of the Government with regard to business for the remainder of the Session? Can I have a civil answer to that question?
Mr. Boland
I should like to say that on the proposals we laid before the main Opposition, last week, it was not possible to get agreement, so we intend to go ahead with the programme, with an additional supplementary estimate in respect of sole and insole leather, and the idea is to continue in session until all these proposals are dealt with.
What is the Parliamentary Secretary's scheme for getting agreement? Does he mean that he must get all stages of what he wants with the additions that he may make from day to day? Is that what he means by agreement?
Mr. Boland
It was not possible to reach agreement. We thought that three days on the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill would be sufficient and that some attempt would be made to complete it. As it was not possible t, get agreement we did not see why the Bill should not be got through without more time. I admit there has been an addition since the attempt was made to get agreement.
A point which escaped the Parliamentary Secretary's memory.
Mr. Boland
It did not escape my memory at all; it came rather late. There does not seem to be any chance of getting agreement and the only alternative is to get through as we propose.
Mr. Hayes
Is not the Parliamentary Secretary's position this: he has a programme that he wants to get through and unless he gets every item of it he will not talk to anybody any further about it?
Mr. Boland
We have a minimum programme; we had a very much larger programme. We cut everything away that we could and simply took the minimum. Without that we could not carry on.
The Parliamentary Secretary had himself to blame. He says we had three days for the disposal of amendments to the Finance Bill. Does he mean three days from 3.30 p.m. to 10.30? One of these three days was Friday. If my recollection is correct, the business on Friday was interrupted. If my recollection is correct, the business on Thursday was interrupted, and the Parliamentary Secretary himself has admitted that the programme submitted last week, and submitted in the same way as if he were making a proposal of another sort to a different person, was not complete—the Finance Bill, the Shannon Bill, Estimates, Appropriation Bill, Finance (Customs Duties No. 2) Bill, Old Age Pensions Bill, Housing Bill, Control of Manufactures Bill, Financial Motion concerning flour, Army Pensions Bill, and a motion for the setting up of a Joint Committee to enquire into alleged ill-treatment of prisoners. Estimates and the Appropriation Bill, with the list of Estimates, as the Dáil knows, are undisposed of are down for consideration and discussion. With an Army Pensions Bill that, if my recollection is again correct, has not yet been circulated, with a motion for the setting up of a Joint Committee to enquire into the alleged ill-treatment of prisoners which has not yet been formulated, with a Finance Motion in connection with flour which has not been put down yet and with the reminder this morning that we are to have another Financial Resolution for sole leather—a subsidy for sole leather, I think—
Mr. Boland
Sole and insole.
The Government is in a position to know what it wants and we are to sit late to-night to provide the time which was wasted by the Administration during the last two or three months. The Government has not yet produced and passed through its own Council some of the business to be introduced for consideration. I say that it is trifling with the Dáil and one of the reasons in connection with the hurrying through of this pretty elaborate programme is to let loose upon America three Ministers. The Minister for Industry and Commerce cannot be let go until the Control of Manufactures Bill is passed through the Dáil. I submit that it is trifling with the House. I submit that it is trifling with the time of the House, and if they were to get accommodation at this moment in connection with the Finance Motion we would have to adjourn this evening in order to allow them to work a few more hours.
Mr. Boland
Try it.
There is a lot of difference between working for a few hours and showing the results of the work. We want the results. The Government is in a position to produce them.
Undoubtedly, three days were mentioned but it is equally true that, when the three days were mentioned, it was pointed out that the Finance Bill was a very complicated and intricate measure and that the proper discussion of it ought to and probably would take a great deal longer. Surely it will be agreed that business ought to be done properly for the good of the country and a measure of that complicated and intricate character is not going to be done properly for the country and in the best way for the country in an all-night sitting. I confess that it is with the greatest regret that I hear this proposal from the Government Benches.
Accustomed as they have been to a five months' adjournment for the summer, we can easily understand the horror of Deputies opposite at being asked to work. After their ten years in office they left a situation in this country which required a great deal of cleaning up. The Government have been engaged in that process of cleaning up since they took office, and in order that the more glaring defects of the late Government might be remedied as quickly as possible, we prepared a number of proposals which we submitted to the Dáil. In view, however, of the attitude of the Opposition, which, as we all know, has not yet got the experience to prove its effectiveness as an Opposition, a lot of time has been wasted and some of the proposals have had to be postponed till the next session. As Deputy Boland said, we have reduced our proposals to the minimum, and these proposals represent the least possible that could be done by any conscientious Government anxious to repair the damage done by its predecessors. We have had the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill before us and there was no objection to sitting on Friday. The objection came from Deputy Cosgrave's own Party.
There was no proposal put forward. It was only a sin of thought on the part of the Minister.
Deputy Cosgrave need not be so emphatie and so certain about it. We have had that Finance Bill in Committee before us, and the various Resolutions upon which the Bill is based were before the Dáil and discussed.
And given in bulk— some of them.
The time was wasted by Deputies opposite repeating their speeches over and over again. Deputy Cosgrave, himself, I think, protested against one of his colleagues who rose to make the same speech six times.
He has had my advice since then to repeat it for the twelfth time.
Exactly; and no doubt at 3 o'clock to-morrow morning when he is repeating his speech for the twelfth time, Deputy Cosgrave will realise that the motion before the Dáil should be passed and that motion explains the anxiety of the Government to give them an opportunity to repeat themselves as often as they wish—the oftener they do it the more glaring is their fault.
The Minister does not like that £2,000,000 being mentioned.
I told Deputy Cosgrave that it was the greatest possible pleasure to me to hear Deputies opposite explaining why they lost the election. The various measures before the Dáil will no doubt take some time in their passage. When the Adjournment will take place has yet to be determined. The measures down for this week, and which it is hoped to pass this week, are measures affecting mainly the Department of Industry and Commerce and, as Deputy Cosgrave mentioned, I and some members of the Executive Council will be leaving the country on Friday. We hope to have these measures advanced by Friday to such a stage that it will be possible to complete them in the absence of the Ministers responsible. It is desirable that the Minister responsible for a particular measure should be present in the Dáil when that measure is being discussed and particularly when points of detail in relation to such measures are raised, so that effective answers can be given. The position is that the Government has been extremely reasonable and, despite the provocative attitude of the Opposition, it intends to maintain its reasonableness.
The proposals which are before the House are all necessary, and it is desired to have them enacted in the shortest possible space of time. No unnecessary proposal will be submitted, and when the Dáil has disposed of these measures the members can then take their accustomed leisure until such time as they are recalled for a further period of work.
Mr. Hayes
Would the Minister say what Departmental measures of his own he desires to pass this week before he leaves.
There are four such measures-the Shannon Bill, the Committee Stage of the Control of Manufactures Bill, a motion in relation to flour and a supplementary estimate in relation to leather.
I notice that the Minister faltered over one of the phrases he used. He said that the Government was determined to the end to maintain its reasonableness. He was about to say "reason," but better judgment prevailed.
No determination is necessary in that case.
None. You cannot preserve an unexistent quality. The Minister also talked about the inexperience of the Opposition. When the Minister gets, if he does get, any lengthy experience of Government, he will know how to prepare his business better, and we will not have to be faced with the condition of semi-chaos that we are confronted with at this moment. The Minister wants to get through before he goes to Ottawa —we will discuss for what purpose he is going to Ottawa in a moment— the Shannon Bill, the Committee Stage of the Control of Manufactures Bill, a flour resolution and a resolution about sole and insole leather. The resolution about sole and insole leather is not yet with us. I do not know if it is drafted. The resolution about the control of flour is not yet with us. The Shannon Bill has recently made its appearance, and on the Control of Manufactures Bill the other day the Minister found himself not in a position to give evidence for certain statements which he rashly made on Second Reading, with regard to similar types of legislation in other countries. When questioned about that matter he took refuge in statements that so many references were involved and the matter was so involved that it was hardly any use educating the House on the point. That was a rash statement. One wonders if there is any evidence for it. Certainly, there is a reluctance to produce evidence, but it was realised, at any rate, under pressure by supplementary questions, that the matter was an important one, and the Minister, in the end, was driven to say that when that matter came to be discussed, he would indicate what was in his mind in regard to it, but the Deputies composing the House are not going to be given the opportunity of seeing these things, of seeing them as excerpts from Acts and getting references to the dates of the Acts, and getting some indication of what is in these proposals in other countries, so that a comparison can be made.
The Minister thinks it is necessary to clean up. He has done a bit of cleaning up already. Gallahers' has almost entirely been cleaned up by reason of what he decided to do, and the best he could say in answer to that is: "Well, if a few people are cleaned up it is only to be a casualty matter and, therefore, there ought to be no great insistence on the point." A little later he told us that he had talked to these future casualties and he had found that they were so imbued with the spirit of patriotism that they did not mind falling by the way.
I did not say that.
The talk about business and the preparation for business comes badly from a Government which has introduced the system of sleeping over its work. Until the present Government made its appearance, there were no such things as beds in Government Buildings while work was being done. It takes people now to sleep at their work.
The Deputy can bring his bed here to-night.
There is an ancient joke about the man who appeared at the office one day and explained his absence by saying that he overslept himself at home, and his employer said: "Good God! Do you sleep there too?" The Ministry apparently have the same habits. They sleep away from their work and they have beds at their work.
What is the Deputy objecting to work for now?
I object to being kept out of my bed which I keep at home because the Minister for Industry and Commerce has a bed on the premises. That is one of the reasons but I object for a much more sensible reason than that. This is all necessary because the Minister for Industry and Commerce must go to Ottawa. Must he go to Ottawa? What is he going to Ottawa about?
His health.
What reference has this to the matter we are discussing? We are discussing the adjournment.
The case has to be made for the British.
The Deputy is in order in discussing the reasons for a prolonged sitting to-night or rather the reasons against.
As the case may be.
Although they may not commend themselves as reasons to the Minister for Defence who has made some sour remark appropriate to them. Some of these people are going to Ottawa. I asked to-day a few questions about Ottawa and what preparations had been made. We know that the Ministry were not very frank in their statements when asked questions previously about the negotiations that have taken place and the arrangements that had been made with the British Government. We heard to-day that they have made no arrangements or have had no discussions with the Governments of Australia, Canada, South Africa or New Zealand and the President could only give as his opinion, that probably the Ministers, in the course of their business, which involves the sleeping side of it, would have met some home producers, and might have got from them some indication of the principles that should underlie agreements that may possibly be made at Ottawa. But this delegation of ours sets out, we are told——
On a point of order, I would like to get quite clear if it is in order for a Deputy to make a rambling speech on all sorts of subjects on the motion before the House.
The detailed discussion of arrangements for the Ottawa Conference is scarcely in order on a motion that the House sit late.
I do not intend to make any very detailed speech on that point but certain details are appropriate. We are told that the reasons for this late sitting to-night are that the Minister for Industry and Commerce must get three or four measures through and that he must start for Ottawa on a certain date. I want to know what he is going to Ottawa about, and I want to find out how his ground has been prepared——
On a point of order, the motion before the House is for the purpose of securing that the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill will be disposed of before to-morrow morning.
But, surely, there were reasons given for that.
The Minister referred quite incorrectly to previous adjournments of this House for five months. There was in his lifetime and in mine only one such adjournment, while he said there were several.
If I might be allowed to take up the thread of the speech I was making—the Minister said that he must get through, before he goes to Ottawa, the Shannon Bill, the Committee Stage of the Control of Manufactures Bill, a flour resolution and a resolution about sole and insole leather. The purpose of to-night's late sitting is to get through certain financial business in order to leave the rest of the week free for these measures and I want to find out what are the prospects the Minister has before him in going to Ottawa; how far the ground has been prepared; and what success, if any, is likely to attend his efforts. To-day, as I was saying, we heard that there have been no discussions with the Governments of Canada, South Africa, Australia or New Zealand. There has been, I understand, a communication received from Southern Rhodesia and I was waiting to hear the Minister for Agriculture explain that that was one of the places in which he was intending to open up a market for our agricultural surplus.
We are not protecting it.
But the Minister for Agriculture is also going to Ottawa and we will see what his business is there, after the Minister for Industry and Commerce——
It seems to me that this question would be more appropriately raised on the motion for the adjournment.
I am not concerned with what the Minister for Industry and Commerce thinks more appropriate. I do not align my conduct at all by his judgment. I was speaking quite relevantly on the motion before us, but there have been no arrangements made with any of these Governments I have mentioned, and, so far as the Government itself is concerned, we were told that it has established a committee of Ministers—about a month or two months ago, was what the President said, and then, under cross-examination, he said "well, a month ago." It does not seem to him to be very important and I doubt if it was considered important when that committee was set up.
Is the Deputy really in order in persisting in these remarks?
The Minister for Industry and Commerce referred to the fact that he had to go to Ottawa and that he, therefore, required certain business to be disposed of. It is not in order for a Deputy to base a whole speech on a casual observation made by a Minister; otherwise, there would be no termination to any discussion in this House. It is quite in order to refer to Ottawa and briefly to state the reasons why the fact that Ministers have to go to Ottawa should not necessitate a late sitting to-night. A detailed discussion of the reasons for or against going to Ottawa is not in order on this motion.
I have not yet been allowed to go beyond a few preliminary observations with regard to Ottawa, owing to constant interruptions. I want to remark on the statement that you, sir, were good enough to make, that it was not a casual reference by the Minister, but the gist of his speech giving the reasons.
Is the Deputy criticising the Chair?
I am not criticising the Chair. It was giving the reason why this motion had to be passed and why this sitting had to take place. There was important business. The Minister, naturally, puts himself in the foreground in every argument, and looks upon himself as the pivot around which every argument revolves. We heard to-day from the President that there has been a Council of Ministers sitting for about a month discussing preparations, and that there have been no negotiations with certain mentioned Governments. We know from previous discussions in the House that whatever negotiations there have been with the British broke down at a certain point, and we know, further, that the Government has not made use of the opportunity unless with regard to the British. Of course it will come out afterwards, but when we are going to discuss to-night the Finance Bill and several detailed points of finance we have generalities about the Finance Bill in our minds eye. The generalities assume that certain taxation is going to be imposed this year, and that certain results in the way of revenue are going to be shown by reason of that taxation. I asked previously if that was a sound basis upon which to discuss the Finance Bill, because if anything happened to the economic finances of this country which would be likely to lessen the yield of the taxation we imposed, then the debate would be useless. That is relevant to this particular Finance Bill, which is to be discussed until 8 o'clock in the morning. If there is anything in the way of a break down in the ordinary economy of this country as we know it, and if taxation to be imposed does not yield the revenue assumed, clearly the whole bottom has been kicked out of the Finance Bill. It was to that point that I addressed my previous observations, when I asked if any discussion had been initiated with the British Government following upon the invitation put before me previously, and if any information had been received from it in the matter. We now know that there was a British statement that no agreements will be made with this State. We may further say that our Finance Bill must be discussed in another way. It must be discussed in relation to a change over in the economy of this country, and possibly we are going to have something in the way of an export business and where the exports are going to. I addressed a question to the Minister to-day in reference to relations with Governments in the Commonwealth, but fearing that the Minister might consider that question too narrow in its scope, I gave the Minister for Agriculture a way to state what were the markets outside the Commonwealth he was looking for. The Minister for Agriculture has brought himself under notice on this motion by interjections, and the same Minister previously appeared before the House with a particular measure designed to get rid of the exportable surplus of butter that we had, 320,000 cwts. Supposing we get no arrangement made with England.
On a point of order, surely the matter before the House is whether we are to sit late or not to dispose of the Finance Bill, and not to discuss something that was said on the Butter Bill? The Deputy is deliberately wasting the time of the House, and a good deal of the valuable sixteen hours that the Finance Bill is to take.
I protest against any observation that I am deliberately wasting the time of the House. The Minister has been engaged in taking notes on the points I made.
No.
Taking them down to see if there was anything irrelevant in them. Of course, the mind of the Minister does not run to irrelevancies. We are discussing a motion to sit late in order to conclude the discussion on the Finance Bill. I say that we have to take that in the atmosphere we have, and the irrelevant point is whether discussion of the Finance Bill ought to be continued until eight o'clock in the morning, seeing the framework into which the Finance Bill has got itself. The Minister for Agriculture told us previously with regard to butter, and it applies to anything else of which there is an exportable surplus, that prices could not be raised abroad and therefore had to be raised on the home consumer. The Minister I notice is one of the people who has been selected to go to Ottawa. He goes there, if he will pardon me for saying so, a new and a greasier Atlas bearing on his shoulders our 320,000 cwts. of surplus exportable butter. What is he going to do if he has to bear that greasy burden to the Ottawa Conference and carry it home again?
How did you bear our £3,000,000?
He will put the blame on the proper shoulders; on those people who advised the British to put on a tax against us.
I see. If that point is relevant it can be easily answered by a mere repetition of the statement made by certain of the wise heads we see before us, that Britain could not do any such thing, because Britain wanted our stuff.
That remains to be seen.
That is the argument to be used.
You advised them to do it.
I have not advised anything.
Yes, at all the by-elections.
The Deputy should be put in the Tower.
I asked a question which aroused Deputy Allen's ire. On the Fifth Stage of the Bill dealing with butter I asked whether it was possible to hold the butter so that we could command famine prices, seeing that the British only bought it when they could not get it elsewhere.
Is it right for a Deputy to make use of a threat towards another Deputy?
I told the Deputy the right place for him.
I did not hear the threat and, coming from Deputy Corry, if he was the Deputy, the enunciation —because he scarcely ever speaks—is one I do not pay any attention to.
Would the Deputy tell us about the £3,000,000?
The Ottawa Conference falls for consideration on this matter, and we feel that it must be discussed and that it is relevant to this discussion. Clearly our whole finance returns from certain taxation turn upon either the continuation of the present economic fabric in this country or else the speedy substitution of something else. I think it would be meet at this point, before we resume discussion of the Finance Bill, that we should hear what it is proposed to substitute for the present economy of the country, or what Ministers have on hands, if anything, to meet a sudden change, and the circumstances over which the Government will have control to meet it. That is the reason why I introduced this matter of the delegation that is going to Ottawa, the preparations made for it, and the chances of success. Can any of the Ministers say that there are any chances of success? If there are, they are in circumstances not known to them, because they have not considered them, and had not any exchange of opinions with any Governments in the Commonwealth other than the British Government—and from the British Government they have simply had a definite rejoinder that they will not make any agreement as long as they persist with a certain course. That is the point about sending a delegation to Ottawa, and it is the point for having a discussion on a motion to sit until eight o'clock in the morning, in order to enable certain Ministers to go to Ottawa.
If we are to have such a lengthy sitting, why should not that Minister work in his office in Government Buildings rather than take a trip upon the seas? That was a point that might have been made by the Minister who spoke, because he put himself into the forefront of this particular debate and said it was to let him away that this motion was being moved. We have been told that there was a waste of time previously—a waste of time because I read a certain slogan which had been put before the electorate. May I point out that, so far from obstructing, I read only one of these advertisements? I have here another of them and yet another. The advertisement I did read I have in my hand. (Interruption by Deputy Corry).
The Deputy must restrain himself.
Is it to be counted as obstruction when the Minister says, on an amendment moved to his Finance Bill, that he cannot accept an amendment, and gives as his only reason that he could not afford to do so? Is it obstruction or is it misuse of the procedure of the House to remind him that he promised a £2,000,000 reduction of expenditure without impairing social services or Government machinery or inflicting hardship on Government servants? I want that seriously considered.
On a motion to sit late.
The point has been put to me that this motion is required because, at an earlier stage, there was obstruction. The only example of obstruction given was that I had made —I think I was the person referred to— a particular speech——
Six times.
It was not made six times, but it will be if the Finance Bill goes on much longer. I referred to that advertisement three times in the course of the debate. I can understand the reluctance of people here to having election promises brought up and subjected to a sort of cold analysis, but that is not obstruction by any means. It is not going to be counted obstruction, since these promises were promulgated throughout the country. This claim of obstruction indicates only a bad conscience on the part of the people who are arguing.
Four Bills have to be got through. There is, in the first place, the Shannon Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary has been told, with regard to that Bill, that, provided there was no new principle introduced, it did not seem to be a Bill which would require much discussion. The Bill has since come along, and, on the surface, it reveals no new principle. The Government can count on its being speedily cleared unless, in the course of the Second Reading speech, some new point emerges which is not evident in the text of the Bill. With regard to the motion in respect of flour, the Minister for Industry and Commerce previously asked that he should get one stage of a particular Resolution. He was told that he would get that without difficulty. There was no promise made with regard to sole or insole leather, because that particular point did not emerge until the early forenoon, and no statement could be made upon it. The definite statement was made in an answer sent to the Parliamentary Secretary, that we saw no reason why the Finance Bill, in conjunction with a certain number of named Bills, could not be got through without late sittings, by the 15th. If that can be done by the 15th, there is no reason at all why the Control of Manufactures Bill, a smaller measure and one to which the amendments are fewer—should not also be got through in the same time. The discussions as to the programme were broken off at that point, and the next thing that happens is that this House is presented with an ultimatum to sit until 8 o'clock in the morning, without reason given. There is no statement as to the time which the Minister thinks will be involved by the motion dealing with sole or insole leather, or the flour motion, or the Control of Manufactures Bill, but we must spend until 8 o'clock to-morrow morning to get the Finance Bill out of the way for them. If the House is going to sit until the 15th— the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary was that, if necessary, the House would sit until the 22nd— and if, without any enthusiasm, the Government is prepared to continue until the 22nd, we should have some statement or programme, some schedule of the time required for the various measures which are to be put before us, so that we may get a proper appreciation of why these measures cannot be got through by the 15th or the 22nd. We were treated in the most scandalous fashion this morning. Certain discussions had gone on. These discussions were broken off, and a proposal simply made here that we sit until 8 o'clock in the morning. The Minister who moved that made no statement with regard to the necessity for it.
And the morning after.
The Deputy is always in the condition of the morning after. It is not necessary to take him out of normality to arrive there. Surely, some responsible member of the Party opposite could give us an indication of the time that these five or six measures will require, so that we can see if they cannot be fitted inside the ordinary Parliamentary time this week, next week, and the week after, if necessary. No argument has been used to justify this proposal. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, in a burst of enthusiasm, in regard to himself, simply said, "I want to get away and I want my four measures through." If these are all he wants, he can get them. As I said before, I hope he will arrive in time for the opening of the Conference. There is a Resolution proposed at the opening and a colleague of his, standing with his tongue in his cheek, declared with reference to this that they would be honest about everything. I want to give these two gentlemen every opportunity to get out of this country and be in time for the opening Resolution so that we can see their honesty. We will give the Minister for Industry and Commerce the Control of Manufactures Bill and other measures to get him out of the country in time for the opening of the Conference. But let us have an analysis of the time required for these measures, so that we may see how it is that they will not fit into the ordinary Parliamentary programme. That statement should be made to the House before this motion is pressed in any serious way.
I wonder what is the tower in which Deputy Corry says he would confine Deputy McGilligan? Is it the Tower of London and is he confusing him with the English Labour Party and Mr. Lansbury?
The tower you were kicked out of.
Seriously, I suggest that it is an outrageous thing to accuse a Deputy of advising Britain to start an economic war against this country unless he can prove it up to the hilt. I venture to suggest that it is not in accord with the principles of Gaelic civilisation which we hear so much about.
Where were you these last two years?
While I am not going to make a speech on the subject of the late sitting, I want to add my voice to what has been said on the subject of the Ottawa Conference—that I do think that the time has come when the House should be given some idea as to what our Ministers are going to Ottawa for.
This motion to sit until 8 o'clock to-morrow morning does offer an opportunity for discussing the way in which the Government Party endeavours to arrange the business of the House with other Parties, as well as the reasons which prompted this particular motion and the business which, according to Ministers, requires to be transacted. The Minister for Finance in dealing with his Budget legislation is, I think, very fortunate in being faced with an Opposition which has considerable experience of office and which is quite prepared, and always has been prepared, to see that nothing will happen which will involve any possibility of danger to the public finances. At this time of the year, the business to be transacted usually is of a financial nature. We all know that certain dates are important and that if certain measures are not passed by a particular date, there is a possibility, if not a probability, of financial difficulties for the Government. This Party was quite willing to give the Government every single measure of that particular kind but that was not accepted. We hear about a Government programme. The Government programme for a long time consisted of a list of Titles of Bills that the Government would like to introduce if they had them drafted. That is what the Government programme amounted to for a long time. There are a few on the Parliamentary Secretary's list at the moment.
Only one.
Mr. Hayes
Only one, now, he says. He must have made some progress since I spoke to him last. We are given the list of Bills that they would like to bring in and which they say they would like to see through by a particular date, the 15th July, and they say if it is necessary we will sit until the 22nd July. If there is going to be negotiation and discussion it surely involves that they must give something in return for what they get. Their attitude, however, is this: "This is what we want. We have a majority in the two wings of the Government Party—Labour and Fianna Fáil—and we are going to put this into operation no matter what you say or think."
Something like the closure that used to be applied when the Deputy's Party was a majority.
Mr. Hayes
What is the point? I do not see it.
The analogy.
Mr. Hayes
It is very hard to be relevant in this debate.
made an observation.
You will hear something about lead pipes that you might not like to hear.
Mr. Hayes
Deputy Briscoe appears to be obstructing the passage of this motion. I am surprised at him. This list of Bills was submitted to the main Opposition Party who, by way of reply, stated that their decision about the business of the House was this: They were willing to allow the Estimates and the Appropriation Bill to pass by the 15th July on the promise that an opportunity will be afforded for certain discussions in the autumn or, in the alternative, they were prepared to allow a Vote on Account up to the 31st December, leaving the Estimates over for further discussion. We agree that if the Budget does not leave this House before the 15th July the Seanad might hold it up under the 21 days' rule in the Constitution.
The main Opposition Party are therefore prepared to give the Government, without late sittings, Finance Bill No. 2, the Finance Bill, the Housing Bill, which may be said to be part of the Budget, the Old Age Pensions Bill, which is also part of the Budget, and the Financial Motion on flour. We are prepared even to give them the motion which was mentioned to-day about insole leather. That would not satisfy them. They want more, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce showed himself as very much the young man in a hurry. He wants to go to Ottawa to settle the affairs of the Empire. He wants to make sure that everything is perfect in this country before he goes away. He wants to get the Shannon Bill through and, as well, the Committee Stage of the Control of Manufactures Bill. He wants to clear up the mess that has been made. A great many people think that he is going to make a mess which nobody will be able to clear up. As well as getting all these things done— the Minister is in such an enormous hurry that I thought he would like to get into the Chair in his enthusiasm about clearing up this motion this evening. Not only does he want the business conducted in his own time in his own way, but it seems as if he wanted you, sir, to compel Deputies on this side to make the kind of speech that he would like them to make.
This Budget, about which so much talk has been made and which we are going to discuss all night, when it was introduced consisted of twenty-six resolutions, of which twenty-five were operative. One of these resolutions contained forty-three duties, so the Budget consisted of sixty-seven resolutions. It imposed sixty-seven distinct taxes. That was not the end of them, however, for we have had since a number of supplementary resolutions from the Minister. The Minister, after introducing the Budget, got everything he asked after a ten-minutes' debate. That was in great contrast to the Minister's own attitude. Last October, when the Supplementary Budget was introduced, the Minister discussed the 6d. extra on income tax and the ½d. per lb. on sugar, and said he was prepared to sit until midnight on the First Stage. It is notorious that the Minister cannot himself accept an amendment in less than twenty minutes. The following day, when we discussed the Resolutions on Report, the Minister was not able to answer any questions in regard to them. Neither was the Minister for Industry and Commerce able to answer when certain questions were asked for the purpose of elucidating certain matters in the Budget Resolutions. These questions were postponed until we came to the Report Stage and then the attitude of the Minister was: "Hit me now with the public finance in my arms." Up to the present we have not had an adequate opportunity of discussing the Resolutions at all.
It does really seem if there is any desire to come to an arrangement between the Parties, that nothing could be simpler. There is no necessity to sit up all night. All-night sittings are bad in themselves, and as far as I am concerned I have always thought so.
You never said so before.
Mr. Hayes
All-night sittings are bad in themselves and nothing could be worse than to discuss this Budget, in which there are so many things that citizens generally desire to have made clear, in an all-night sitting because when you sit up all night you are inclined to get into a bad temper. I suggest that it would be quite easy for the Government to get the Budget passed in reasonable time if they were not so sure of their majority and anxious to have everything done in a hurry—to get through the finance business, to get through the Shannon Bill, to get the flour Resolution and to get the insole leather Resolution fixed up before the 15th July without having all this fuss. They simply do not want that. They prefer to bludgeon their way through. I suggest it is very foolish from their point of view not to adopt some other method. I do not think it is going to get the measures through in the time they say. I suggest therefore that instead of sitting up all night they should agree to take their financial measures before the 15th July in ordinary time instead of taking up the attitude of "this is what we want and we have no concessions to make to anybody."
I move that the question be now put.
I cannot accept that motion at the moment.
As one who does not object to sit late but rather as one who would prefer to sit early, I cannot understand why the Government could not arrange that sittings should commence at 9 a.m. instead of at 3 p.m. under the circumstances now existing. At the same time I cannot altogether understand the objections raised by certain Deputies on the Cumann na nGaedheal Benches because many of them have paired during the last few days with members of the Government. Whether they are members of the Official Opposition or members of the present Government, I certainly think it does not come too well from these members when very strenuous objections are raised against sitting either late or early. I would like to protest against any proposal to sit until 8 a.m. when we might begin as early as 9 a.m. for three or four mornings of the week. We have 214 amendments to one of the most important and far-reaching measures that ever came before the Dáil, the Finance Bill of 1932. Many of them are recognised to be of such importance that responsible Ministers, in consultation—the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance—have agreed to accept in principle, while they may raise certain objections to the details, some of the suggestions contained in these amendments. They have accepted in principle some of these amendments. That goes to show that there is some community of thought between the movers of the amendments and certain members of the Cabinet.
I strongly protest against being called upon to sit until 8 a.m. to-morrow morning when I feel that Deputies will not be able to pay the same attention to the business of the House as they would under ordinary circumstances. I do not think it is a very good thing to do; I do not think it is good business to compel tired men, some of whom have travelled long distances, to sit until 8 a.m. to-morrow. I do not think it is fair to ask Deputies to sit here all night. I am not now speaking for myself because I have been here for the past week. It is not fair to Deputies, many of whom have been travelling since 7 a.m. this morning, to be compelled to remain in the House until 8 a.m. to-morrow. It is most unfair to the House and it is a thing that does not reflect credit on any administration which may adopt such tactics.
The Minister mentioned that there are five important measures coming before the House which he wants to get rid of. These are his minimum proposals. I cannot say what would be his maximum proposals. We have had mention made here of the Estimates and other important items on the Order Paper, but not a word has been said about Private Deputies' Business. I submit that the Private Deputies' Business on the Agenda Paper is business of an important character. We have on the Order Paper something like seven important motions dealing with such things as compensation to people who have had Volunteers billeted on them. We have on the Order Paper a proposal that where protective charges or tariffs are imposed provision should be included to provide that fair wages should be paid. We have another motion in the names of Deputies O'Donovan and Wolfe which suggests that the tariff policy of the Government imposes an undue burden upon our main industry, agriculture. We have had a further motion in the names of Deputies MacDermot and MacEoin asking that the electorate should be given an opportunity, by means of a referendum, to say whether or not they wish to form part of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and that the necessary legislative steps be taken to see that they are given this referendum. That is a most important matter in the eyes of many citizens in this State. There is a motion down in my own name and in the name of Deputy Morrissey which calls for land valuation. That is really a nationalisation proposal. These are important proposals to the State, and no provision is made here for the discharge of this Private Business. I want to facilitate the Ministers going to Ottawa, because the Minister for Industry and Commerce has kept us in the dark as to what he intends to do there. The country has not been taken into the confidence of either the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The matters that are awaiting solution at Ottawa are of tremendous importance to the people of this country.
I wonder if it is a fact that the Ministers are tired and weary when they arrive in their offices in the morning after engaging in their own professional or commercial activities? Is that why the Ministers cannot afford to bring their business up to date? As a Deputy who has attended here regularly, I protest against this night sitting. Since I was elected a member of the Dáil I have followed the business very closely. If Ministers are lazy, or if, perhaps, they are over-active, as they may be in many cases, if their activities outside the House and their activities outside affairs of State occupy their attention, is that any reason why this House should be compelled to sit until 8 a.m. for their convenience?
I submit that this thing should not be sprung upon us as a matter of form at 3 p.m. Surely the Government should have given some notice in the Press this morning or yesterday morning's Press, and then Deputies might have made provision to meet the situation. As one who is prepared to sit late or early, I protest against this sitting. Surely we could have an alternative to it? In the course of a night sitting Deputies' minds are not nearly so active after sitting here 12 or 14 hours as they would when beginning work. The Ministers could very easily arrange that the House should sit each day at 9 a.m. for these four days, and an announcement to that effect could have been made last week. I think the action of the Government is most unfair to the House. Every Deputy in the House knows that much more work could have been done if the Government had decided on starting business at 9 a.m. instead of, as they are now doing, proposing to sit until 8 a.m. to-morrow.
I think anybody who has listened to the debate and especially the contribution made by Deputy Hayes, will recognise the unreasonableness of the proposal that we are asked now to pass. Everybody will see that the offer made to the Government by the Opposition as to what business could be transacted was distinctly reasonable. The Opposition were willing that most of the measures the Government wanted to put through would be put through before the 15th of this month. These financial measures of the Government as well as other measures that are boomed as most important by the Government —such measures as the Housing Bill— could be put through. Everybody will see that the Opposition was distinctly reasonable and their accommodation was certainly more than the Government had any right to expect from the Opposition. There has been one reason put forward, I understand, for this motion. It has been suggested that there was obstruction by the Opposition. There has been no obstruction of any kind so far as the finance business proposed by the Government is concerned. But the Government must realise that if they bring in measures that are not merely revolutionary in their fundamental character but measures that are proclaimed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce himself as revolutionary—and that is the boast he makes—then it is the duty of the Opposition to examine such measures. The proposals of the Government are not merely revolutionary in their fundamental character but in their number. These proposals are also revolutionary so far as this House is concerned. They are revolutionary even in their details. There has been no opportunity given as yet for a detailed examination of the proposals put forward by the Government. If there has been any irrelevancy at all in these debates, I suggest that the irrelevancy is to be found very often in the speeches of the members of the Government Party and even in the speeches of the Minister responsible for the financial proposals. If instead of filling some of his speeches with a great deal of purely irrelevant and abusive matter, the Minister made some attempt to grasp the arguments and the objections that the various parties opposed to the Government proposals brought before the House, it would have been better for the Minister. These arguments and objections are reflected in various quarters in the country. If the Minister tried to grasp these objections and to make some defence or to give some explanation of the proposals which he was putting before the House much time would have been saved.
What has been the history of the way in which the Government has carried on the financial business of the House since the introduction of the Budget? They have refused to give information on practically every point and that has been responsible for a great deal of the time that has been spent on the different stages of this measure. The Opposition have had thrown upon them the onerous and very unpleasant duty of trying to drag information from the Government. It became apparent very often that not merely was the Government not willing to give information, but it was not able to give information. The proposal now is that this, to use the Minister's phrase, very revolutionary measure must be passed through all its stages without any proper discussion. A lot of the important details in this Bill that have not yet been discussed are to be discussed hurriedly in the early hours of to-morrow morning. That is practically the proposal.
As we pointed out already, there was no necessity for this proposal. A generous offer was made by the chief Opposition Party to meet the Government with regard to the disposal of time. What was the attitude of the Government? They simply said: "This is our programme and you must agree to it. We have decided what seems to us to be a reasonable demand for the Government to make. We never budge an inch, we never give way in the matter of negotiations, great or small." They make fundamental principles out of everything, even a tall hat. I suggest that we have under consideration at the moment a very serious matter. Let us merely take the character of this Finance Bill. Probably there are many Deputies on the Government Benches who have not yet seen the amendment paper. I would advise them to look up the list of amendments coming from the Government side. So far as volume is concerned, those amendments amount almost to a new Finance Bill.
Can anybody say that the discussion in the House up to the present has not at least produced something definite? Even the mere fact that time has been spent in discussing these matters has produced something very material. Even if the Government Party is not open to conviction by argument, at least the mere passage of time seems to have convinced them that certain modifications are necessary. We had an important example last Friday of the unwisdom there would have been of undue haste. Important concessions were promised by the Government on that occasion. A stranger thing happened. Even the Labour Party was induced to take part in the discussion and to put up certain proposals to the Government. That was a feat that nobody a week ago would have thought possible. If the Budget had been rushed through in the way it is now proposed to rush this Bill, a Government modification of that kind would not have been heard of and the Budget would have been the worse in consequence.
It is the duty of the House to give very minute consideration to a Bill of this kind, which seeks to make a vital change likely to affect the whole life of the country, which, so far as the economic future of the country is concerned, is hailed by one Party as putting us on a new road to prosperity, and by other Parties as leading us quickly down the slope to destruction. I suggest this measure should be discussed in a proper atmosphere and under proper conditions. A definite suggestion was put forward by the chief Opposition Party as to the measures which the Government could get through in the time that remains at our disposal. We on this side indicated the business that could be accomplished this week and even during the next week or two. I consider that that proposal from the chief Opposition Party was not merely fair, but distinctly generous. I have no doubt it would be so considered if we were dealing with any other Party but a Party that makes it a fundamental principle not to agree with anything proposed by anybody. I think our proposal would have been readily accepted so far as any reasonable Government is concerned. I suggest that measures, such as those in which the Minister for Industry and Commerce is interested, could have been taken last week or to-day.
It would seem apparent that the Government's object is to avoid having business discussed in the House. Judging by the way they dealt with the Budget, it would seem that they are anxious that as little information as possible should be given on these matters. It is not fair to the House or to the country that a measure of this kind, the most important in many respects—certainly the most important financially—that has been before the House for many a day because of its reactions, should be rushed through in the way now proposed. According to the Government, this is a good Bill. I strongly believe it is a bad measure. At any rate, when a measure of this kind is before us, it should be discussed fully and in a proper atmosphere. I suggest the Government have not taken steps to secure that a proper discussion should take place. They do not want to have a proper discussion, and that is made quite evident by what has been stated by Deputy Hayes.
There has been continued repetition in the course of this debate, and I will now move: "That the Question be now put."
I shall first hear Deputy Sir James Craig, and the Minister may then submit his proposal.
I merely want to make my position quite clear. I object entirely to sitting later than 10.30 p.m. I object most particularly to an all-night sitting. It may be possible after an all-night sitting for some Ministers to retire to bed at 9 a.m. and rest until 3 o'clock to-morrow afternoon. It is not possible for people in my position to do so. We have to resume work to-morrow, and what condition will anybody be in who has to sit here until 8 o'clock to-morrow morning, work until 3 o'clock, resume the business of the Dáil at that hour, and then possibly have a proposal for another all-night sitting? No legislation can be conducted decently under those conditions.
The Chief Whip showed me his programme and when I referred it to the group of Independents whom I represent I told the Chief Whip that the most important item was the Finance Bill and as far as the other items were concerned we were prepared to give the Government every facility. I pointed out that so far as obstruction was concerned, no obstruction came from this group. I mentioned that we considered it absolutely necessary that the Finance Bill should be properly discussed. A good many Financial Resolutions have been passed over without discussion and some of us were reserving certain matters for the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill. I am responsible for one amendment and I believe that so far as that amendment is concerned it will be far on in the early hours of the morning before it will be reached. I do not think that I could properly submit any amendment at 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning and I do not think it is fair to be asked to propose it at that hour. It is not reasonable for the Government to ask us to rush this important measure through, particularly when we are prepared to facilitate them in every way with regard to other matters that are on the programme.
This is one measure that I consider should not be relegated to an all-night sitting. If the Government desire to put on the closure and carry other measures without any discussion, for God's sake let them do so. We consider, however, that this Bill is too important and I will ask them to give a reasonable time for discussion even though it may take up some time to-morrow. So far as the group whom I represent are concerned, we will give them every facility in relation to other measures. I appeal to them not to press this matter and ask us to sit all night discussing this measure as we could not possibly deal with it properly.
I again move: "That the Question be now put."
I accept the motion "That the Question be now put."
Question put: "That the Question be now put."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 69; Níl, 42.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carty, Frank.
- Clery, Micheál.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Everett, James.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Gormley, Francis.
- Gorry, Patrick Joseph.
- Goulding, John.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Keyes, Raphael Patrick.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- Norton, William.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas J.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
Níl
- Anthony, Richard.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Brasier, Brooke.
- Broderick, William Jos.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margaret.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Davis, Michael.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Gorey, Denis John.
- Hassett, John J.
- Hayes, Michael.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Keating, John.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Kiersey, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McDonogh, Fred.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reidy, James.
- Roddy, Martin.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies G. Boland and Allen: Níl: Deputies Duggan and P. S. Doyle.
Question declared carried.
Main question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 69; Níl, 42.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carty, Frank.
- Clery, Micheál.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Everett, James.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Gormley, Francis.
- Gorry, Patrick Joseph.
- Goulding, John.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Keyes, Raphael Patrick.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- Norton, William.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas J.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
Níl
- Anthony, Richard.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Brasier, Brooke.
- Broderick, William Jos.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Davis, Michael.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Gorey, Denis John.
- Hassett, John J.
- Hayes, Michael.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Keating, John.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Kiersey, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McDonogh, Fred.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reidy, James.
- Roddy, Martin.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies G. Boland and Allen; Níl: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.
Question declared carried.