It is proposed to take business in the following order: items 1, 2 and item 4 (Private Deputies' Business). The resumed debate on item 4, which deals with Motion No. 1 on List 7, will be taken if and when Government business is concluded.
Order of Business.
Is it intended to sit to-morrow?
No.
To what date is it proposed to adjourn?
It is proposed to adjourn this evening until Wednesday week.
Am I to understand that we are adjourning until Wednesday week?
So I understand.
I object. I ask that a decision be taken by the House on that.
It can be taken now.
We here object to the Dáil not meeting next week. Can a formal motion be put before the House now for discussion on the matter?
Yes. The motion is, that the House, at the conclusion of to-day's business, will adjourn until 3 o'clock on Wednesday week.
In connection with that motion, I would ask the House to consider what the position is. It is that the Government apparently have very little business for the House, but that does not necessarily mean that there is not a very large amount of business to be discussed by the House. List No. 7, on which is set out Private Deputies' Business, contains 16 motions. That means that if the full three hours' discussion is given to each motion, we have there 48 hours' discussion on matters that affect vitally the economic, social and financial interests of the country. The motions on that list have been put down by Deputies from nearly every county, Deputies with varying contacts, both socially and economically, with the life of the country. It is rather astonishing to me that the Government should begin the year's work in this spirit, especially in view of the circumstances of the times when the greatest possible thought and the greatest possible discussion in Parliament on matters affecting the lives of the people are necessary. I would ask the Tánaiste to look at the list that was published on the 19th December, 1944, and to look at the list that was published on the 10th October, 1945. We find that, in the list published on the 10th October, 1945, a motion of mine, which appears there as No. 3, stood as Motion No. 14 on the list that was in circulation a year and a month ago. That motion is connected with a very important aspect of the finances of the country and of the building of houses. As I have said, it appeared as No. 14 on the list a year and a month ago.
I consider that the House should sit every week in the normal way, and that if Government business is not available then private members should be given the opportunity of disposing of last year's motions. We should not begin to carry on business in the way now suggested by the Government. I realise that the members of the Government are apparently at variance with one another. The Minister for Industry and Commerce may be more closely up against the realities of the situation than some of the other Ministers. The position is that there are matters on that list that call for urgent discussion, and I suggest that it is stultifying the House, that it is degrading the House and injuring the interests of the people both economically and politically, if this Parliament is going to shut down, quite unnecessarily, now because there is not Government business to put before the House. At this time of the year it may be an advantage that the Government has not business to put before the House, because if we get an opportunity within the next week or two, when Government business is not so pressing, of discussing the matters that are on the Order Paper, then the approach of the Government when dealing with legislation later may be more realistic. The next week or two would give the House an opportunity for a discussion on the wide range of subjects posed by private Deputies. I would ask the Government to reconsider the matter both in the interests of our parliamentary institutions and of the economic situation in the country, and to decide that the Dáil will be kept in session week after week, at least on Wednesdays and Thursdays, so as to get rid of the motions that are on the Order Paper, particularly when the position is that Government business is not able to fill the time. When we get down to the discussion of the Rent Restrictions Bill in Committee, and any other measures the Government may have, it looks as if the present lull in Government work may quickly cease. If that is so, then Private Members may not be given the time and opportunity to which they are entitled for a discussion of their business. In normal circumstances only one motion can be got through in any week, and indeed it is not often that one Private Member's motion is disposed of in any one week. It will be seen then that the hope of dealing with the list of Private Members' business is very slight. I think the Government should be glad to offer the House the opportunity that now arises for discussion of the various items of Private Members' business.
I would ask the Tánaiste to reconsider the decision he has now indicated to the House. I think it is an unwise decision, even from the Government point of view. There is nothing more calculated to bring this House into disrepute than a set of circumstances in which the House, having adjourned for three months, meets for two days and decides to adjourn for another fortnight. I imagine the Tánaiste's realistic mind must grasp the fact that that kind of conduct is not calculated to enhance the prestige of the legislative Assembly in the eyes of the people. One could understand this proposed adjournment if there were no business to be dealt with, but yesterday three Bills were set down for Second Reading on Wednesday next. There is no reason why those Bills should not be available for Second Reading on Wednesday, but, assuming that they are not available, we have Private Deputies' business of a character not only to justify sitting next week but of a character sufficiently important to encourage the Government to ensure that the House does, in fact, sit next week.
One of those motions deals with the provision of a national water supply. Another deals with the rates at which money is to be made available for house building. Another deals with the question of the establishment of a Ministry of Social Services. Another deals with a national free milk scheme. Another deals with the cost of administration of State Departments. Another deals with the question of ground rents. Another deals with the deterioration in the use of the Irish language, and another with the question of old age pensions. Is there any Minister or any Deputy on the Government Benches who is not prepared to acknowledge that those are important issues, and that the House could usefully occupy its time in a discussion of those matters, so that the points of view in favour of those schemes and the point of view of the Government in relation to them may be fully understood by the people? There can be no justification whatever for adjourning the Dáil now, when it has only just resumed after three months. The Government know they cannot justify it. It may just suit their temporary convenience not to sit next week, but, so long as those questions are clamouring for discussion, so long as Deputies are available to move the motions and put issues of the importance I have indicated before the House for consideration, I think the Government ought to assemble the House next week if for no other purpose than to discuss those issues. The Government themselves have business available if they will only go and get the Bills circulated in time. It is a very bad mistake for the Government to adjourn the House when business is available, and I would ask the Tánaiste to reconsider this decision so that the House may not be made a laughingstock throughout the country.
While confirming all that the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Labour Party have said, does not this consideration also carry weight? In normal times, would it not be a good thing if the impression were generally spread in this House that if the Opposition wanted Parliament convened the Government would be glad to convene it at any time the Opposition wanted it? That is to act on the assumption that the principal Parties in this House will conduct their Parliamentary business in a responsible way. We have all gone a long way to meet the Government during the emergency. We have given them wide powers to legislate without Parliamentary intervention at all, recognising that they require to conduct their executive work free from the obligation of regular attendance at debates in this Chamber. As normalcy returns, would it not be a good thing if every body in this country felt that, in addition to having Parliament summoned to do Government business, if the Leaders of the principal Opposition Parties wanted Parliament summoned to consider business other than Government business the Head of the Government would feel an obligation upon himself to call Parliament at once, so that those responsible Parliamentary leaders might ventilate whatever difficulties or grievances they have, and have them discussed by the Legislature? Surely that is the ideal way to run a Parliament?
The Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Labour Party want Parliament to meet next week to discuss certain matters which to them appear vitally important. In that week they do not want to take any Government time at all; the Government has given notice that it requires no time next week for the discussion of any business of its own. Surely the Government does not want to declare it as its policy that it will not let this House meet at all except when the Government wants it to meet? That is what the attitude of the Tánaiste means at the present time. I feel that, on reflection, the Government will wish to make it clear that that is not the case. The Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Labour Party have formally asked that Parliament should meet next week. Presumably they have done so with the consent of the members of their own Parties who find it just as difficult to come to town as do the back benchers of the Fianna Fáil Party. I suggest that there is something approximating to a duty on the Leader of the Government to say: "Certainly; if the members of the two principal Opposition Parties want Parliament to meet to discuss matters which they wish to raise, it will meet. On every occasion that they want it to meet, it will meet, subject only to the consideration that Government business must be done. If the responsible Opposition leaders wish Parliament to be summoned, and it is possible to do so consistent with the carrying out of the executive functions of the Government, Parliament will be summoned so that they may ventilate their grievances in a constitutional way". If people have not access to that method—and we may be profoundly grateful to Providence that in this country we have— the only other way is to go out on the streets and start a demonstration.
We have a Parliament here, and it is unnecessary to start demonstrations in this country or to use violence while that instrument is here. Withdraw that instrument from constitutional parties, and the people will find other instruments. I believe in constitutional instruments. I believe them to be better and more effective for all sections of the community. The leaders of the two principal Opposition Parties apparently share that view, and are prepared to do their part to make such instruments work in this country. I think the Government should make it quite clear that, in the effort to make such instruments work effectively, they are prepared to co-operate. Now that the Tánaiste has an opportunity to alter the interim decision not to meet next week, Parliament should be summoned not for Government business but for Opposition business, thus indicating to the country as a whole that the Government are prepared to attend here to do Opposition business so long as it does not interfere with the effective carrying on of the Government's normal work.
I understood ...
Is the Minister concluding?
So I understood.
Might I suggest, Sir, that it is not quite helpful that the Government should say nothing on this subject at all, and then simply say something in conclusion? I suggest that it would help towards a reasonable understanding and decision if we had some indication of the Government's mind or viewpoint on this matter, with a view to discussing it.
Surely, the Deputy does not desire a lengthy discussion on that?
The discussion is concerned with two viewpoints.
Quite.
But we have not heard them yet.
We want to find out the Government's mind as to what brought about this decision. I opposed the Government's decision not to meet next week in order to make clear how Private Deputies' time would be taken. I understood that Private Deputies' business would be taken if there were no Government business, but we do not wish to oppose the taking of Government business.
If that is so, then there is no difference at all between us. The Government is quite prepared to meet next week in order to take Government business.
Alone?
As ordered.
Does that mean Government business alone?
No. I understood that there was an objection to taking Second Reading debates on Bills that were circulated yesterday. If there is agreement to take these Bills next week, then the Dáil can meet in order to deal with them, and if any time is left available for Private Deputies' business, that business can then be taken.
I understood that the Tánaiste asked us to put down matters to be taken for discussion next week, and when we saw that there was an objection to taking these Bills because of the lack of time, we thought that Private Deputies' business could be taken.
I understood that there was still an objection.
I cannot understand that, because the Minister's suggestion to-day was to take the motion next Wednesday.
If the Deputy will agree to take those two Bills—the only two in circulation—next week, that can be arranged.
I should like to say——
This is the third time the Deputy has risen.
There has been opposition on our part here to taking the two Bills next week.
There are three circulated.
I know of none, and I intervened in order to give the Minister an opportunity of finding out if there is opposition on the part of anybody here to taking these Bills next week.
On that understanding. I am quite prepared to agree to take the Second Reading of these three Bills next week.
Is it the idea, then, that we are to meet on three days next week: Wednesday, Thursday and Friday?
Wednesday and Thursday, certainly. If the Dáil meets next week, I think we may as well meet for the two days in order to dispose of the Government business, and then any balance of time left can be devoted to Private Deputies' business.
Agreed accordingly.