It is proposed to take items 3, 9 and then 14, for which two hours will be provided. Items 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15 will then be taken. It is proposed that the House should adjourn until February 5.
Order of Business.
Does the Minister consider that two hours are sufficient to devote to the revolutionary and confiscatory principles contained in Emergency Order No. 53? Will he not consider the granting of more time for the discussion of that order?
An effort was made— I do not know on whose representation—to facilitate the discussion of the motion in the Deputy's name relating to compulsory tillage. That motion was taken out of its order. If the Deputy is not prepared to accept that special arrangement, we can put the motion back in its numerical order.
There must be some reason for doing that. When the Act was passed which provided for similar orders, it was not visualised that 21 sitting days might run over a year. It would be a very peculiar situation to find ourselves discussing a tillage order for 1941 in 12 months' time—when 1941 would be run out. There will be no use in starting to discuss the revocation of this order next February, when it will have become operative. If farmers have not shown reasonable preparation for breaking up fresh land, they can be prosecuted, while the question of revoking the order is still in suspense in this House. I appreciate that the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Smith, has put himself to a lot of trouble to try to please everybody. If the question I am urging would dislocate the arrangement come to by Deputy Smith, I shall withdraw my objection. If he could fit in the rest of the work to-day and grant us say another hour, I should be glad. If he cannot do that, well, then, seeing the trouble that he went to yesterday and to-day to try to facilitate everybody I will withdraw my objection.
I think the arrangement about two hours will have to stand.
All right then, in the circumstances.
I assume that Deputy Belton will be given a quarter of an hour in which to conclude.
Agreed.