Deputy Dillon rang me up to say that both he and Deputy McGilligan are engaged in the High Court this morning, Deputy McGilligan as an advocate in a case and Deputy Dillon as a witness. He said that both of them were principally responsible for the amendments to this Bill from that Party, and he asked that we should adjourn this morning and resume at whatever time we might agree upon. They would be agreeable that the Committee should meet in the afternoon if we agree to that here. I think we can hardly ignore a request of that kind, as the Party is concerned, and I propose that we adjourn until 3,30 p.m.
Adjournment
Minister for Agriculture
Is that agreed to ?
I do not know.
Deputy O'Reilly
I suppose the difficulty cannot be got over, but it seems particularly hard luck on most of us who have come here with a certain amount of difficulty. Naturally we have other business to attend to, just as Deputy McGilligan and Deputy Dillon have, and I am afraid that if you accept such a principle we shall never be able to meet.
Minister for Agriculture
Personally I would not be inclined to accept the absence of Deputy McGilligan, because he has business to do, as a reason why we should adjourn, but it is different where a person has to appear as a witness.
That is the thing that strikes me. If Deputy McGilligan was put on the Committee by his Party it must have been known to them that he was liable to be engaged in the courts.
Minister for Agriculture
I think there is an excuse for Deputy Dillon, as he has been summoned as a witness.
Mr. O'Reilly
My object is largely disciplinary so as not to make the thing too easy.
I do not see any way out of it. Where a Party is concerned it is different from an individual. Where a Party is concerned, they should have been able to substitute somebody else, but I have nothing more to say on the matter.
Could we not go on with some of the other amendments ?
If we are not going to hold the Committee the better way would be to have an informal discussion so that those who have amendments down can exchange views on them.
Deputy O'Reilly
As far as that is concerned, we have a Party meeting to-day in which we are equally interested. If we do not do some business, it is hardly fair to continue.
Minister for Agriculture
I do not know whether Deputy Roddy has anything to say. I have moved the adjournment until this afternoon on account of the absence of Deputy Dillon and Deputy McGilligan, as I was asked to do it. I suppose that is the attitude Deputy Roddy's Party are taking in the matter.
I heard this morning that Deputy McGilligan and Deputy Dillon could not be here and I think that is the only thing we can do in the circumstances. In their absence I do not see that there is much use in having even an informal talk.
It is only fair to say that I do not think the Minister will get a short-cut from us because of this postponement. We want time to go into the amendments. If the Minister is satisfied that there will be plenty of time to discuss the amendment fully, I am satisfied to have the meeting postponed. I would not, however, agree to a postponement and then have to cut the discussion of the amendments short at the end. I understand from the Minister that he is more or less tied to time to get this Bill through— that he wants certain Stages of the Bill by a certain date, so as to have it operating at a certain time. If the Minister considers that necessary, it is he who is running against time now by adjourning, because the members of the Committee want adequate time to discuss all the amendments.
Minister for Agriculture
I think it would be unfair to try to limit the discussion because we asked for an adjournment.
No matter what differences of opinion we may have, there ought not to be an absence of courtesy to one another. I am sure if the Minister were engaged otherwise we would not have a word to say against adjourning.
That is a different matter, because there is no analogy between private business and public business. I think we should not allow this thing of being brought here and told when we come here that men are practising in the courts.
Minister for Agriculture
I should like to make it clear that I think the adjournment would not have been asked for because Deputy McGilligan was appearing in court as an advocate ; it is the fact that Deputy Dillon has been called as a witness, which, of course, he cannot avoid, that is responsible for it.
I take it that there is no objection to the proposal to adjourn until 3.30 ?
Can we arrange now how long we will sit ? We will want to fit in the time of our sitting with the business in the Dáil.
Deputy O'Reilly
If divisions are being taken in the Dáil it will be difficult to carry on.
Deputy Maguire
Would it not be possible to have some discussion on the amendments even if we had to hold over the matters under discussion for the views of the absent members ?
I think that even to start with a measure like this in an informal way of that kind would not be satisfactory. You will have to have it one way or the other.
Deputy O'Reilly
Are all the amendments in order ?
They are in order.
Minister for Agriculture
Perhaps it might be as well to decide how long we shall sit in the afternoon, whether we will sit until 6 or 6.30 p.m.
Say 6.30 p.m.—three good hours.
What will happen if there are interruptions owing to divisions ?
Minister for Agriculture
I think it is not likely that there will be divisions in the Dáil. I think the Education Estimates will be on all the time.
There will not be division on them.
I think that if the members here paired it would be a good idea, as it would avoid interruptions, because if divisions are anyway frequent you will hardly have taken up where you left off before the bell rings again.
Deputy O'Reilly
Then we may as well pair for the day.
It is largely for that reason that, as a principle, it is undesirable that committees should meet during the sitting of the House.
If we decide to pair there can be no objection to continuing until 9 or 9.30 p.m. with an adjournment for tea, as it would be as well to get over all we can.
Minister for Agriculture
I cannot be here after 6.30 p.m.
I think from two to three hours is as much as we will want at this heavy work. We will be tired of it by that time.
Agreed that the Committee sit from 3.30 to 6.30 p.m.
Shall we leave over the question of sitting to-morrow until this afternoon ? Some members might like to know whether we are likely to sit to-morrow.
Deputy O'Reilly
The Dáil is meeting to-morrow.
Let us meet to-morrow and do all we can.
I would be against meeting while the Dáil is sitting to-morrow. I would be satisfied to meet in the afternoon after the Dáil rises, but it is bad business for us to be meeting here in Committee while the Dáil is sitting.
Minister for Agriculture
Perhaps we had better leave it over till this afternoon, until we see what progress we are making.
Agreed.
The Committee adjourned.
The Committee resumed at 3.30 p.m.
Members present :—Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan) ; Deputies P. Beegan, P. Belton, J. M. Dillon, A. Haslett, M. J. Keyes, P. McGovern, B. Maguire, T. J. O'Donovan, M. O'Reilly, M. Roddy, P. Smith.
Deputy S. Moore in the Chair.
Section 1 agreed to.