I propose to take the business as on the Order Paper, item No. 1 first, and then item No. 10, Estimates for public services, Votes 45 to 53, inclusive; public business not to be interrupted at nine o'clock to take Private Members' time.
Order of Business.
Again I want to raise the question as to whether the Government propose to allocate any further Private Members' time before the Budget is introduced?
I would like to get from the Vice-President some answer to the question raised by Deputy Norton. There are certain motions in the names of Deputies of this House to which some answer should be given by the Government. There is a motion standing in the names of three Deputies and myself in regard to introducing proposals for legislation to amend the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act. I think the Vice-President would admit that that is a motion that should be taken before the adjournment and we ought to get some indication of what the Government's intention is with regard to that and the other motions.
I do not know if there has been any departure from the usual procedure with regard to Private Deputies' business this session as compared with previous years. It is usual at this time of the year to give most of the time to financial business and it is seldom that time is allotted at such a period for Private Deputies' business. I think if the number of hours during the last session of the Dáil were reckoned up and compared with the number of hours allocated in previous years it would be found that more than average time was given in the last session for Private Deputies' business. At this time of the year, while the Estimates are being discussed, it is not usual for the Government to give time for Private Deputies' business. I understand from the Parliamentary Secretary that the matter is being discussed in the usual way, and if agreement can be come to as to the provision of time, or if certain arrangements can be made, that a considerable amount of time can be given to Private Deputies' business. With regard to the point raised by Deputy Morrissey, with regard to amending the Widows' and Orphans' Act, I do not know that the motion he has on the Paper would be affected in any way by the passage of the Budget.
I am glad to hear that. In regard to what the Minister has said about providing time for private Deputies' business, I agree that it is customary in the course of financial business to take Private Members' time. But the Minister is aware that there have been weeks in this session when the Dáil has not been sitting at the time it ordinarily would sit. The Minister is aware that in two recent weeks the House did not sit on Friday. That means depriving Private Members of four hours and four hours are of considerable value, as I think the Minister will agree.
It depends on what use is made of the four hours.
I quite agree, but the Minister ought to give us an opportunity of making some use of these four hours, whether good or bad. That is our complaint. I do suggest that this turning of Private Deputies' time—this taking away by the Government of Private Deputies' time—is really turning the matter into a sort of farce. It is a farce to have motions on the Order Paper as long as two years without our getting a chance of discussing them. The Minister may not consider it so, but there was a time —when he and his colleagues were in opposition—when they were very jealous, and properly so, of Private Members' time. That may happen again.
It will not happen for a long time.
We do not know what the arrangements are. I know of no arrangements that are under consideration. So far as we are concerned, all we have seen is an announcement in the Press, and which was not communicated to us officially, that the House proposed to sit on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday and not on Friday which is a day for Private Deputies' business. As Deputy Morrissey has said, there have been weeks when there was no business before the House. There have been Fridays when the House did not sit. I suggest to the Vice-President that he should make an announcement to the House this evening as to what it is proposed to do regarding Private Members' time. Some of us are interested in motions that are on the Order Paper. We are anxious that other motions should be disposed of so that the motions in which we are interested should be debated and that the matters represented in them should be ventilated to the House.
Might I suggest to the Vice-President that the House sit on Friday of this week and on Friday week and that those two days should be devoted entirely to Private Deputies' business?
I do not think that it would meet the views of the House even if I proposed to accept the suggestion of Deputy MacDermot. I do not think the House generally would agree to sit on four days a week, even to discuss Private Members' business. I understood that the arrangement that was made was generally accepted by the House.
Why should not the House sit four days a week? Is there any other Parliament which does not sit four days a week?
The Deputy evidently has a wider acquaintance with other Parliaments than I have. I doubt that there are many Parliaments that would sit four days a week all the year round.
Who said "all the year round"?
I understand that the matter is now under consideration.