Business will be taken as on the Order Paper, except that No. 5, Land (Purchase Annuities Fund) Bill, 1933, will come before the Central Fund Bill, 1933. I want, also, to explain to the House, that when the announcement was made that the sitting of the House would terminate to-day at 2 o'clock it was hoped by the Minister for Finance that all the stages of the Land (Purchase Annuities Fund) Bill would be taken to-day, and that may necessitate the House sitting till 10.30.
Order of Business.
That will mean that the adjournment will be moved not later than 10.30 p.m.
Is the President aware that the arrangement come to, for business, during the week, embodied the taking of the Central Fund Bill alone to-day, and giving to that Bill the whole time of the House to-day? With regard to the Land (Purchase Annuities) Bill, in respect of which the Minister for Finance indicated that he would like all stages to-day, the position on Tuesday last was that after hearing the Minister for Finance no useful purpose would be served by delaying any longer the final stages of the Bill to be taken to-day. It has not been found possible, on our side, to agree that the final stages should be taken to-day, for the reason that there are certain points which require further consideration, and, also, that it has not been made apparent that there is any real urgency on the part of the Minister for Finance in this matter.
I am not aware of all the details of the discussion that went on. I only know, as indicated by the Deputy in his statement, that the arrangement has broken down. There has been some misunderstanding about the agreement. The Minister for Finance has reasons why it is urgent that this Bill should be proceeded with to-day.
Can we have them?
They have been already given on the Second Reading Stage of the Bill.
Is the passage of this Bill necessary in order to get some money to balance the Budget?
I have already indicated that if the Bill does not go through the Government will have to borrow £1,116,000 or withhold the balance of the grants to the local authorities. That is the urgency.
Until when?
Until we get the Bill through.
The difference between to-day and Wednesday means the withholding of certain moneys from the local authorities?
I know, of course, that Deputy McGilligan regards the Seanad as a necessary tail to his Party. In this matter the Seanad must be considered, and they will probably ask for time to consider the matters raised here, and it is to give the Seanad adequate time to consider the Bill that I ask for all its stages to-day.
The Seanad will have to do that in any case. The point is whether the Bill should go to the Seanad to-day or next Wednesday.
That is all very well, but the point is that this is a one-clause Bill and any useful discussion that could take place upon the measure has already taken place upon the Second Stage. Is there any justification for any Party to further disorganise the finances of the local authorities by holding up this Bill, or for imposing further burdens upon the farmers of this country for whom the Party opposite professes such great anxiety.
Is the cause for rushing this Bill that the local authorities are not getting this money, or are without it?
The position I should explain, as I have already tried to, is that we have asked the Opposition to meet us in this matter.
I cannot hear what the Minister is saying.
I have never previously been accused of lack of volume when I speak.
Hear, hear.
I am perfectly certain there is no deficiency in my utterance whatever there may be in the Deputy's hearing. What I should like to say is that, as already indicated, the measure was debated at length on Tuesday. There cannot possibly be any rational reason for obstructing it further. It is a one-clause Bill. It is not unusual to take all the stages of a Bill in one day. Much more important Bills than this have been taken in a day and this Bill is of sufficient importance to justify that all the stages should be concluded to-day. It remains entirely with the Opposition. The Dáil can either adjourn at 2 o'clock after getting all the stages of the Bill through or sit until 10.30.
I have asked a question and I should be glad to get an answer to it.
Possibly my hearing was as defective as the Deputy's because I did not hear it.
The Deputy's hearing was not defective because he had a conversation with his friend on the left. I asked whether the local authorities were deprived of any money. Are they at present without this money, this £1,600,000?
They are, at any rate, without £994,000.
Of this money?
Yes.
The Dáil has voted £1,600,000. Is that money not available?
No, that money is not yet available.
Why?
That money will be made available when the Bill goes through.
Is this £900,000 in addition to the £1,600,000, or is the £900,000 to come out of the £1,600,000?
I had already explained the position at length, I thought, on the Second Stage of the Bill. Out of the £1,616,000, £500,000 had been already advanced to local authorities out of the Emergency Fund, £194,000 had been further advanced out of the Central Fund and the balance of £994,000 has yet to be disbursed.
To the local authorities?
Yes, but that money will not be disbursed unless we get this Bill through expenditiously.
It cannot be, notwithstanding the lawyers' advice to the contrary.
It cannot be released out of the Guarantee Fund until we get the Bill through. Of course, if the Deputy was not here when the Second Stage was got through——
Would the Minister indicate why the introduction of this simple one-claúse Bill was delayed? The Ministry was returned on the 8th February and the Dáil met on March 1st. This is the 16th March. What was the cause of the delay in the introduction of this one-clause Bill to deal with that situation?
The Bill was introduced in the ordinary course at the earliest possible moment. There was other business before that.
Like the misreading of the 1924 Gárda Síochána Act.
In view of the incompetence of the Government in arrangement of business, we shall agree to help them out.
Rather than sit until 10.30.
There has been no motion to sit until 10.30.
The Minister has complained that we think so lightly of the Seanad that we are restricting the time which the Seanad will have to deal with this measure. I submit to the Minister that it is he who is restricting the time of the Seanad. He brought in last week an Agricultural Estimate, and last night he was facilitated by us in allowing through four or five important Estimates. He got them in order that he would get all the stages of the Central Fund Bill through this week. We have thus accommodated the Minister with his Estimates, and the Seanad are entitled to time to discuss this important measure.
I should like to know what position we are in now in regard to time.
The Dáil ordinarily sits until 10.30 on Thursdays, so that no motion is necessary in that regard.
There was no motion, but there was an understanding or an agreement that the Dáil would sit at 10.30 a.m. until 2 o'clock to-day. That agreement stood, although there was no motion.
There was an announcement made by the President that the Dáil might not adjourn until 10.30 p.m. to-day.
That was unless he got time to get through certain business.
The Ceann Comhairle is not bound by agreements made by the Whips. The Standing Orders, as modified by an order of the House, definitely lay it down that the Dáil shall sit until 10.30 p.m. on Thursday.
Is anybody bound by agreements?
That is not a question for the Chair.
We were informed last week that the Dáil was to sit to-day as on Fridays. That agreement having been come to, I fail to see how the ordinary rule should prevail. If that be so, how could we meet at 10.30 this morning? We met at 10.30 by virtue of the agreement that we were to adjourn at 2 o'clock because, if not, we would not meet until 3 o'clock to-day.
The Deputy correctly states that by agreement the House met at 10.30 this morning, but that agreement does not override the Standing Order which fixes the usual hour of adjournment at 10.30 p.m. on Thursdays. The House met this morning at 10.30 by agreement.
How did we meet here at 10.30 this morning?
By agreement.
I understood the arrangement to adjourn at 2 p.m. was also by agreement.
Not only was there an agreement, but the House made an order last night that to-day's sitting should begin at 10.30 a.m.
The order of the House last night was that we were to meet at 10.30 until 2 o'clock.
Does the President suggest in setting aside the agreement that it was a secret agreement?
I should like to find out under what conditions the House is going to rise at 2 or 2.30?
That all stages of the Land (Purchase Annuities Fund) Bill should be concluded.
And what else?
The Central Fund Bill.
That was not mentioned before.
I would be satisfied with all stages of the Land (Purchase Annuities Fund) Bill. We can keep over the Second Stage of the Central Fund Bill because I understand there is quite a considerable number of Deputies on the Opposition Benches who failed to get a hearing last night and who are anxious to speak now in the debate on the Vote on Account. I should like, in order to give them an opportunity of criticising the Estimates which have appeared, that the debate at any rate on the Second Stage of the Central Fund Bill should be open to-day.
Think of the Seanad.
If the Deputy has the same concern for the Seanad as I have we could have all the stages of the Central Fund Bill and all the stages of the Land (Purchase Annuities Fund) Bill to-day.
In answer to the question that has been put, we will be satisfied, and we can adjourn at 2 o'clock, if we get No. 5 on the Order Paper, the Land (Purchase Annuities Fund) Bill, completed. If we get it completed earlier than 2 o'clock we could continue with the Central Fund Bill till 2 o'clock.
It is not proposed then to take No. 8 to-day?
No.
The fact that the Bill has not been circulated is a small matter. We could pass it without doing that.