It is proposed to take business in the following order: Items Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 (Votes 41 to 64) and item No. 5. I understand it has been arranged to take the motion under item No. 5 at 6.30.
Order of Business.
It is understood, I take it, that I will get a reasonable time at the conculsion of the debate to reply on the motion.
The Deputy will I hope be allowed 20 minutes.
That will suit me.
Would the Tánaiste say if it is intended to sit to-morrow or next week?
It is intended to sit to-morrow, but not next week or the week after.
Mr. Byrne
Will the Tánaiste say when we will have an opportunity of discussing the new Tea Order which appears in this morning's papers? It will have the effect of inflicting severe hardships on the most needy of our people. It has frequently been stated that tea is a principal item in the diet of the poor.
The Deputy in purporting to ask a question may not make a speech.
Mr. Byrne
Would the Minister kindly give a reply? It is a very important matter affecting a very large number of the poorer people of the city.
With reference to the motion on the Order Paper standing in the names of Deputy Bennett and myself, the Minister for Agriculture indicated yesterday that he would be prepared to give a reply if the motion were put in the form of a question. We submitted a question yesterday, and I would be glad to know if the Minister has anything to say about it. The question was put in this form: "To ask the Minister for Agriculture if, in order to avoid severe losses such as those sustained by farmers in the disposal of their produce last harvest, he will now fix minimum prices for this year's crops".
The Chair would like some understanding about the withdrawal of the motion.
That will depend on the answer.
Deputies want to have it both ways.
If, for instance, the Minister were to indicate that he was doing nothing, then we would have to ask for time for a discussion of the motion.
Would it be in order to discuss the reply, and then say that it was of such an unsatisfactory nature that the question would be raised on the adjournment, the whole discussion being confined to half an hour?
Mr. Byrne
Has the Minister any reply to my question?
The following is the reply to Deputy Linehan's question:—"Growers of wheat, sugar beet and flax are already aware of the prices which will be paid for this season's crops. The question of fixing prices for oats and barley is at present the subject of an investigation by the Departments concerned with a view to the adoption of a suitable scheme applicable to the produce of next harvest."
I suggest to the Minister that he should only fix minimum prices for oats.
That is being considered.
Would the Minister consider announcing forthwith the minimum prices that he will undertake to pay for those commodities in the autumn so as to get the barley and oats sown? Details of the scheme can lie over. If the Minister will announce the minimum prices, it will enable all of us to co-operate in getting individuals to sow the corn. If the experience we had last year were to be repeated, when only 8/- and 10/- a barrel were paid, it would be very hard to get people to venture again. If the Minister were to announce now that minimum prices will be paid by him—let anybody else pay more if he wants to—that will enable us to get the stuff sown.
I am hopeful that it may be possible, in the course of a few days, to announce that we have decided to fix minimum or fixed prices for next harvest. It would be impossible to state the amounts at this moment.
I would be very much against any fixed price for oats. Let us have minimum prices.
What is the use in the Minister saying that he intends to adopt a scheme if he is not going to fix the minimum prices? What advantage will the scheme be unless he announces the price?
It is hardly necessary to do that at the moment.
The Minister must do it if he wants the stuff sown.
In view of the Minister's answer I must ask for leave to raise this matter on the adjournment.
That would be anticipating the motion. The Deputy cannot have his cake and eat it.
My point is that if this motion is left over for a fortnight it will be too late then to discuss it. That is why I am asking for leave to raise this question on the adjournment this evening.
I shall consider that.
I would ask the Minister to take into consideration that we have got notice from the English authorities that no cattle will be taken from this country, alive or dead, from October. Consequently, all our oats will be wanted. If the Minister adopts the suggestion that I have made to him the small farmer and the poor farmer will have a better chance of getting a good price for his oats than if you leave the price too low.
Why leave the price too low?
The price is not being fixed, and may not be further discussed now.
I want to ask the Tánaiste if he prepared to give time for the two motions which appear on the Order Paper in the names of Deputy Cogan and myself and treat them as matters of urgent public importance. If so, we can deal with a scheme for oats and barley and other agricultural production. I should like to know if the Tánaiste is prepared to give time for their discussion?
No.
Then under Standing Order 27 I ask for leave to move the adjournment of the Dáil for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance as contained in the following motion on this day's Order Paper:
That Dáil Eireann is of opinion that adequate steps have not been taken to deal with the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic, and that the Government be requested to explain why the disease appears to be spreading and to state what new steps, if any, it proposes adopting to cope with the epidemic.
It is recognised, both inside and outside this House, that our agriculture is the mainstay of the country, and that our live stock is the mainstay of our agriculture. It is further recognised that the present outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease threatens our whole cattle, pig and sheep population vide the statement of the Minister for Agriculture in Dáil Eireann on the 20th ultimo. He then said, in a prepared statement before the House adjourned:—
"I regret to say that the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease continues to be very serious."
The Deputy may not make his case now.
I am not, I submit, making a case for the motion now. It will be necessary to do that when we come to discuss the motion. I am making the case that the motion be taken now.
The Deputy may state briefly why it should be taken but not make his case.
I submit that, as I read the Standing Order, I must make some case that it is a matter of urgent public importance.
The Deputy is supposed to hand me a copy of the matter on which the Chair is to then judge whether it is or is not a matter of urgent public importance under Standing Order 27. The matter, I understand, consists of two motions, the ultimate and penultimate motions on this Order Paper.
My intention would be, if time were given, to take the two motions together.
That is for the Deputy to decide. Very courteously, he handed me further notes explaining his reasons.
In tabloid, the question that is asked to be discussed is what is facing this country at the present time, the question of pestilence and famine. We spent five or six hours yesterday discussing a Constitution that is a shell.
That has no bearing on the question at issue.
No, but if we are pressed for time can we not deal with a matter which is urgent? Can we not deal with the matter of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease? The Minister, when granted permission by the Dáil on the 20th March to make a statement here, said he feared it was becoming endemic. We in the Dublin County Council——
The Deputy may not make a speech on the merits of his motion.
I am amazed that Ministers should smile at the serious position threatening this country.
The Deputy must cease.
Is it not required by the Standing Order that the mover in a case like this must show that it is a matter of urgent public importance?
The Deputy is required by the Standing Order to hand a copy of the matter to the Chair, to indicate what he wants to raise as a question of urgent public importance. The Deputy has done so.
The reason I want to move it is that this matter of foot-and-mouth disease does not appear to be under control.
That is surely a speech on the merits of the case. The Deputy has handed in the two motions and stated his reasons. The two motions which explain the matter are before the House. There is nothing further to be said.
Very well, Sir. The statements which I have given to you——
And which the Deputy need not have given, though I appreciate his courtesy in so doing.
The Chair had to get them, and I thought it was only fair to the Chair to have them before the Dáil assembled so that he could look over them. Are those to be read to the House, or published in the records of the House?
No; in fact they were not necessary. The two motions compose the statement which the Deputy was supposed to hand to the Chair. It is only an accident that the matter which the Deputy desires to raise is on the Order Paper. The House otherwise would have had no knowledge of it. Hence the Deputy would have had to read out the motion and then give a copy to the Chair. The Chair is to decide whether or not it comes within the provisions of Standing Order 27. The Deputy has complied with all the regulations; in fact, he has exceeded them.
And I have no other function in the matter?
That is so.
And there is no redress? Deputies are powerless to ventilate what the whole country is worrying about and thinking about?
Yes, unless they can do so within the rules of order.
I will be glad to hear your decision, Sir.
I have considered carefully both the notes the Deputy gave me and the two motions on the Order Paper, and I find in them no new substance, no matter that was not discussed either on the Agricultural Supplementary Estimate, or in a Minister's statement, in two motions on supplies, in a motion on food production, and another on the annulment of the Tillage Order, both by the Deputy concerned and by others. Hence, I decide that the matters are not such as are contemplated in Standing Order 27.
I bow to your ruling. Might I submit——
The Chair having ruled, the matter is closed.
I want to submit that the position has changed.
I have considered the Deputy's notes, the relevant facts and the two motions, and decided that it does not come within Standing Order 27.
I submit——
There is no submission, except to the Chair.
I submit to the Chair——
The Deputy can do so by resuming his seat.
I submit that the present position has not been before this House.
The Chair is not prepared to hear the Deputy further.
When hunger is knocking at the door you will hear hungry men. I wish to move the suspension of Standing Orders to consider this motion.
That would require notice in writing.
Will it be in time for consideration to-morrow if I hand it in, in writing, to-day?
The Chair does not answer hypothetical questions.
They will be made very real soon, a Chinn Chomhairle.
Mr. Byrne
Might I ask the Minister if he will give time to consider this new order——
Deputies can avail of the Order Paper for questions. There are also private notice questions. The Deputy's alleged question is in neither category and is not in order.
Mr. Byrne
Are we to sit idly by——
The Deputy will resume his seat.
Mr. Byrne
It is a contemptible order, which inflicts severe hardships on the poor of Dublin.
The Deputy should not be disorderly.
Mr. Byrne
I do observe order. We cannot stand idly by in view of what is going on in the tenements of Dublin, and Ministers smile at it.
The Deputy will sit down. He has had experience enough in public life to enable him to realise that he should conduct himself in this Assembly.