It is proposed to ask leave to introduce an additional Estimate—Vote 74—Alleviation of Distress. If leave be given, it is proposed to take the Estimates in the following order:—Nos. 28, 74, 65, 66 and 3.
Business of Dáil.
The Estimate for the Department of the Taoiseach will be discussed to-day. It has, by tradition, become the occasion for a discussion of Government policy generally. As, however, the sub-heads comprising the Estimate do not provide a guide to the matters that may be discussed, advance notice should be given of matters to be raised in order that the Taoiseach may be in a position to reply, and also in order that the Chair can effectively direct the course of the debate. Parties have complied with the request made by the Chair and notice has been given of ten subjects for this discussion. Even allowing for the fact that some of these tend to dovetail with one another, this is, obviously, far too many and would make for an unwieldy, rambling debate. Several of the proposed topics seem to offend against the rule which prohibits the reopening of the debate on individual Minister's Estimates, thus:—
(a) Post-war development of agriculture (Fine Gael):
(b) Conditions of Agricultural workers (Labour): and
(c) Low agricultural income and absence of sound agricultural development policy (Farmers);
are the particular, and statutory, concern of the Minister for Agriculture and should not be raised here except as aspects of a wider subject; otherwise discussion would inevitably be a duplication of the debate on the Vote for Agriculture—which is not permissible.
The question of the establishment of a Ministry for the production of feeding stuffs for animals (Fine Gael) is scarcely a suitable topic for discussion on this Estimate, asking, as it does, for decision on a specific point. At best, it could only be put in as a suggestion while dealing with a major subject.
This leaves four of the topics, of which notice has been given, that might be regarded as definitely suitable, namely.
No. 1.—The present cost of living and its effect on the economic position of people dependent on low wages or social service payments (Fine Gael and J. Larkin, Junior);
and allied to this is:
No. 2.—Social policy of the Government (Labour);
No. 3.—Post-war reconstruction plans (Labour); this could include general aspects of post-war development of agriculture;
No. 4.—Contribution to post-war Europe through the Red Cross.
Number 4 may be ruled out of consideration as the matter may be discussed to-day on an additional Estimate 74. If the House were willing, Government policy and plans for post-war reconstruction might be discussed on, say, the Second Stage of the Appropriation Bill.
I presume it will be permissible to ask the Taoiseach to give a further explanation in this House about matters which he recently raised outside the House—matters of Government policy. I presume it will also be in order, as it has been allowed in previous years, to raise the question of the fitness of a Minister for his position and the inability or refusal of that Minister to respond to the wishes of the majority of the members of this House on a particular issue.
Notice of any important matter to be raised should be given. I do not know whether the matter which the Deputy has in mind is among those of which his Party has given notice. Each Minister, is, according to law, individually responsible to this House for the administration of the Department in his charge and his administration may not be again raised directly or indirectly by reporting to the Taoiseach the alleged remissness of a Minister. That would be a subterfuge for repeating the debate on the Estimate. If a Deputy considers that a Minister is not fit it is open to him to table a motion.
The Taoiseach thought fit to refer in a public speech to certain major matters of public policy. I refer to the issues raised by the Taoiseach at a recent meeting of the Solicitors' Apprentices' Debating Society. We should be entitled to ask for further explanation of the policy-issues raised by the Taoiseach.
That would, probably, be in order, but notice should have been given in due time.
Would it be possible to raise the question of the co-ordination of the work of the various Ministries?
Possibly, but without debating the administration of a particular Minister's Department.
Without putting any hypothetical questions, I give notice that I reserve all my rights to raise such matters as may be relevant to the Department of the Taoiseach.
The Deputy should have given notice of the topics he proposes to raise. That used to be the practice. The Chair requested Deputies to give such notice.
I have every confidence that the Chair will protect my rights and guide my faltering footsteps if I should trespass on the limits of order.
The Chair expected and asked for the co-operation of Deputies to that end by giving notice of the subjects they intended to raise.