I move formally:—
That the Bill be now read a Second Time.
In Committee on Finance. - Cement (No. 2) Bill, 1933—Second Stage.
There will be a Committee Stage to this Bill?
Yes.
I read the debate very carefully in reference to the first Bill that was introduced and I observed that the Minister said he was going to see that cement was made available to the public at certain prices, albeit a higher price than exists now. He did not go on to say anything in reference to the standard of the cement or whether he was going to stipulate for any particular standard. I would like to have that question considered and I propose to raise the matter on the Committee Stage and elaborate it at somewhat greater length.
Will the Minister explain the reason why this Bill had to be discharged on the Report Stage? Will he explain what was wrong with the Money Resolution as originally put on the Order Paper? Will he explain also the effect of the amendment which he had to move to the Bill?
The amendment was tabled in my name for the Report Stage of the Bill and its object was to insert a new part in the Bill concerning the construction, maintenance and operation of transport works. The Ceann Comhairle ruled that the amendment inserted a new principle in the Bill and consequently it was deemed advisable formally to withdraw the Bill and reintroduce it with the new amendment in it. I shall deal with the effect of that part of the Bill now if Deputies desire, but perhaps it would be more appropriate to deal with the matter when we come to it in the Committee Stage.
I want to have from the Minister or from the Chair an assurance that the amendment does not introduce a new principle. If there is a question of principle involved obviously we cannot discuss it on the Committee Stage; it must be discussed on the Second Stage. I would like the Minister to explain how an amendment moved by himself to the Report Stage affects the principle. Are we to take it that it is not a question of principle as understood in the ordinary sense? I do not know whether the Minister gets the point I am making. If it is a question of principle, then I think it cannot be debated on the Committee Stage. If the amendment introduced by the Minister on the Report Stage had the effect of bringing the Bill outside the terms of the Money Resolution, and only that, then we know where we are. I want to have an assurance that this amendment can be debated in Committee. If it can be so debated, then I agree with the Minister that it could more properly be debated there.
The amendment forms a new section in the Bill and consequently it can be debated.
I understood the Minister to say that the Ceann Comhairle had the view that this introduced a new principle into the Bill.
In view of the fact that the Long Title had to be amended, that an additional Money Resolution had to be introduced and that the amendment seemed to the Ceann Comhairle to be an enlargement to a certain extent of the principle of the Bill, the Ceann Comhairle advised that the Bill be withdrawn and reintroduced.
I am not for a moment questioning your ruling, sir, but I want to have an assurance that when we come to discuss this matter we can go into this question.
The amendment may be discussed as it forms a new section.
Question—"That the Bill be read a Second Time"—agreed to.