Vol. 93 No. 6
I move:—
That a sum, not exceeding £31,597, be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1945, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Justice.
Shall we do as in previous years and have one debate covering the Estimates appertaining to the Department?
There is no conceivable reason why this Estimate should be taken to-night. There is plenty of time to deal with it, and, if it was never taken, Government business could be transacted. Everybody in the House is prepared to facilitate Ministers in getting their business done in a reasonable way but if Ministers want us to take up, at 2.15, a group of Estimates requiring the expenditure of millions of pounds, I shall be no party to giving them any facilities. I shall debate and divide on every Estimate and do everything I can to protract the business. We have helped the Government in any way we could to get their business transacted in this session. There is no justification for trying to silence debate by calling a group of Estimates at 2 o'clock in the morning. Let the Minister move the adjournment and he can rest assured that he will get every co-operation in getting the Estimates through after Easter.
I agree with Deputy Dillon. It is most unreasonable to ask the Dáil, at 2.10 in the morning, to pass such an important Estimate as that for the Department of Justice. A number of Deputies have had to go home because trains and trams left early and they could not get to their homes after a certain hour. Even if the Vote for the Department of Agriculture took so long, does anybody suggest that there was undue delay? Everybody who spoke on the Estimate was entitled to speak. All the 139 members could have spoken if they so desired. The debate which took place showed the importance of the Estimate and showed the interest the people are taking in the subject and how they want to help the Government to get the land tilled so as to provide the necessary food. I do not think that the Government, in a fit of pique, because the discussion occupied six days, ought to ask us, after 2 o'clock, to take up consideration of so important an Estimate as that for the Department of Justice.
Might I add my voice to the appeal that has been made to the Minister and the Government Party? I would ask the members of the Government Party and other Deputies to realise what we are asked to do at this hour in the morning. If there is any Department that should represent the word "democracy", it is the Department of Justice, which lays down the principle of the equality of all people under the law. We are asked now, at almost 3 o'clock in the morning, to put through all the Votes concerned with the Department of Agriculture. We are also asked at this hour of the morning to put through all the Votes dealing with the Department of Justice and with the Army. Now, about one-third of the total expenditure on all the various Estimates for this year is concerned with these Estimates on which we are now asked to vote at 3 o'clock in the morning; and we are supposed, in this Assembly, to be the responsible representatives of the taxpayers. There is no getting away from the fact that, if the gun is put up to our heads, in effect, and if we are told that all these Votes have to be cleared up by 6 o'clock in the morning, it will only mean the imposition of a punishment upon us and the people whom we represent, because, as has been said, this Dáil has spent six days in discussing the main, primary, and principal industry in this country—namely, agriculture. I suggest that we have often spent months in discussing cheap political Bills, and it was not regarded as a waste of time; but now, because we have spent six days in discussing the Vote for Agriculture—the most important Vote that could come before this House—the people whom we are supposed to represent are to be punished by not giving adequate time for a proper discussion of the remaining Votes.
I must admit that the Minister for Justice has always displayed, both inside and outside of this House, a very firm sense of justice; and, therefore, I put to him the question: is the proposition that has been put up to us now, a just one? The Minister for Justice has never had any trouble since this emergency began—nor has his Government—in getting through any Estimate associated with the Department of Justice, the maintenance of law and order, or the safety of the country generally. Since the emergency began, Votes connected with the Army or the Department of Justice went through as speedily as possible, and with all the efficiency at our command. Therefore, I suggest, that it is unreasonable to ask us to devote our attention, in an alert and intelligent manner, to these Votes at this hour in the morning. I realise that we ought to release the Minister for Agriculture from his seat on the Front Bench, since he has been sitting here all those days listening to the debate on agriculture and fisheries. It is unreasonable to expect him to sit here any longer, and I think that it would have been quite a reasonable thing to release him, even at 9 o'clock, so that the House might be enabled to take up the other Votes. I would be prepared to agree to sit all night, in order to release the Minister for Agriculture, and take up the other Votes in the meantime, but I do not think it is reasonable to ask us to do this now, at this hour in the morning, and I would appeal to the sense of fair play of the Minister for Justice and of the Government.
I think that, perhaps, it would be a little unfair to make the charge that, in making these arrangements, the Government were actuated by a fit of pique because of the rather prolonged debate on the Vote for Agriculture. I think it would be more correct to say that the arrangements were prompted by the fact that the Government had an eye on the time that would be taken up by discussions on the Estimates as a whole, and that they feared that it would not be possible to carry all the Estimates through within a reasonable time in the summer period. I think that that was what prompted the suggestion that we should sit until 6 a.m. Having said that, may I join my voice to those who have spoken on this matter and who have suggested that, having regard to the importance of a Vote, on which practically all members of the House would have something to say, it would be totally unfair, and unbusinesslike to say the least, to hold members here until a late hour in the morning so as to put Votes through without adequate discussion. I am sure that all members of the House are content to remain on here until 6 a.m., if they are forced to do so. I am satisfied that they would do so willingly, if they thought it would be in the best interests of the country.
Not willingly, surely?
But if it is apparent to them that they should do so, they will do so.
Yes, and with "knobs" on.
My point is that you will not get a fair type of discussion on a matter of such importance as this by calling for it at this hour in the morning. Incidentally, I think it is unfair to those gentlemen who have left the House already. Accordingly, I would appeal to the Government to bear all these things in mind —particularly, with a view to assuring every Deputy here, who may wish to speak, that every facility will be afforded to him to do so.
Regarding this matter, I wonder why it was not brought up by the Parliamentary Secretary earlier to-day. So far as the members of our Party are concerned, at any rate, we have kept our group here together, and are quite prepared to sit here until 6 o'clock in the morning, or whatever time may have been decided upon; but, in our opinion, it is outrageous that, in view of the agreement that was come to to-day, there should now be a change. I do not think that there was anything outrageous in spending five days on the debate on agriculture. That suggestion has been made here, I think. On the contrary, I think that even if the debate on agriculture had taken ten or even more days, it would have been a fine thing. It was the greatest and most important debate that we have had in this House for a long time, and if this agreement about the termination of our sitting had not been come to——
There was no agreement.
That is a matter for the Parliamentary Secretary, but I do not believe that at this hour in the morning you can expect to get any kind of a close or detailed examination of the important problems that are before us in these Estimates. Some hints have been thrown out to the effect that there was an attempt at obstruction in regard to this matter.
I understand that there was an agreement between all the Parties on this matter.
My understanding of it is that an agreement was made that we should sit until 6 o'clock a.m., so that we might be enabled to go home for Easter. It is now 20 minutes past two in the morning; a number of Deputies have gone home; and yet we are expected to give close attention to the Estimates that are yet to come.
On a point of explanation, Sir, I think the members of the Government will agree that we have never broken an agreement which we made with them. Some of the new Deputies do not seem to understand this, but there is a difference between an agreement that is come to between Parties in this House and an announcement made by the spokesman for the Government Party as to the order of business for the day. So far as this matter is concerned, I do not think that either the members of the Government Party or the main Opposition Party would say that there was an agreement.
It was hoped that we might be able to get through all these Estimates by six o'clock this morning. All we wanted to do was to give ample time for discussion. There was no question of pique in the matter; but it must be recognised that some of the new Deputies here may wish to take a longer time in the discussion of every Estimate than was formerly taken; and judging by the time that has been taken up by the discussion on the Vote for Agriculture, it would look as if we would be here till Christmas if a similar amount of time were to be taken in discussing the remaining Estimates. I am just as anxious to get home as any Deputy in this House, but I am quite willing to remain here for as long as may be necessary. It seems to me to be a curious thing, however, that it is only now that this question has been raised.
I was here in the Front Bench when the motion was moved and, as I saw that by opposing the suggested Order of Business, the debate on agriculture might be curtailed, I did not oppose it. I asked the Government not to insist on taking all the Votes, but I did not do so very forcibly. At the same time, I thought it unreasonable, and I protested. It was for the purpose of not curtailing the debate on agriculture that I let it go by default, although I put it to the Minister that it was unreasonable to expect the House to deal with all the Votes. However, it was decided more or less in a haphazard way to continue and to see how far we could get. Now, having finished the Agriculture and Fisheries Votes, and having relieved the Minister for Agriculture, who has had to sit for so many days on the Front Bench, I think the Government could very well accept the motion to adjourn now.
Deputies will, I think, agree that there has been no want of reasonableness on this side of the House so far as the House is concerned and there is no attempt to be unreasonable now. The debate on agriculture, probably justifiably, took a long time, but we are only begining the Estimates, and I have heard in my years here on both sides of the House frequent complaints when the House was kept sitting through the months of July and August. If we were to take the time occupied by the first Estimate as any indication of the time which might be sought to be taken on all the other Estimates, I think the Minister for Justice would not be far out in his suggestion that we would not get through the Estimates very much before Christmas. It was not with any desire to rush matters that we asked the House to complete the Estimates before us to-day by 6 o'clock in the morning. Deputies who have experience of the House will remember that it frequently happened that the Justice Estimates were got through in an hour.
And might easily happen again.
And that might happen to-night.
It certainly will not happen to-night.
Not if Deputy Dillon wants to obstruct.
Is the Tánaiste not aware that the Justice Estimate has often taken three days?
I do not think it took three days, but if it is the wish of the House that we ought not to sit any longer to-night, I, on behalf of the Government, am prepared to meet the House. I hope, however, that the House will remember it and try to be reasonable with us in our endeavour to get the Estimates through.
