Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 11—Public Works and Buildings. – Dáil Éireann (8th Dáil) – Thursday, 11 Apr 1935

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £593,216 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá Mhárta, 1936, chun caiteachais i dtaobh Foirgintí Puiblí; chun coinneáil-suas Páirceanna agus Oibreacha Puiblí áirithe; agus chun déanamh agus coinneáil-suas Oibreacha Dréineála.

That a sum not exceeding £593,216 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for expenditure in respect of Public Buildings; for the maintenance of certain Parks and Public Works; and for the execution and maintenance of Drainage Works.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. Hugo Flinn)

This represents an increase of £133,653. Under sub-head A—Purchase of Sites and Buildings—there is an increase of £31,000, made up principally by the purchase of the reversionary interest of the Dublin Corporation in the site of the Custom House, amounting to £14,000 odd, and the cost of sites for Volunteer Drill Halls, Gárda Síochána Barracks, and similar items. Under sub-head B—New Works, Alterations and Additions—there is an increase of £224,113, made up principally of grants for the building, enlarging and so forth of National Schools, £80,000; Galway and Ballyvourney special schools, £18,000; the reconstruction of the old Viceregal Lodge as a Folklore Museum, £10,000, and about £100,000 on drill halls. I think that that is all that really specially arises on this Vote.

General Mulcahy

I move that the Estimate be reduced by £100 in respect of sub-head B. Sub-head B provides for a certain amount of money for reconstruction of the General Post Office, and a Supplementary Estimate on the same sub-head, in August last, provided £1,000 for the provision of an Easter Week memorial in the General Post Office. On the last day of the Summer Session, in August last, and about half an hour before the adjournment was moved, the Minister for Finance introduced an Estimate for £1,000 and explained that it was proposed to set up a bronze memorial in the General Post Office, as a memorial to the men who fell in the Post Office during Easter Week. The matter was introduced in a most haphazard way. Deputy Cosgrave pointed out at the time that it was an unreasonable action on the part of the Government, and that it was a very inadequate action on their part. He pointed out that neither was the form of the memorial nor the time suitable, and that there should have been some understanding with the particular people who were concerned with the Rising in Easter Week. He pointed out that they should have been consulted in the matter, and that there should have been some understanding that they agreed that the action that was proposed to be taken was in some way suitable and that there would be general harmony between all parties concerned with the Government's action. There was no time to discuss the matter adequately. It was introduced without any previous notice to the House generally and was presented practically as a fait accompli.

Mr. Flinn

On a point of order, I do not think, Sir, that this is in the Vote at all. It seems to have been in a Supplementary Estimate voted last year.

General Mulcahy

Yesterday morning's paper tells——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is a point of order before the Chair.

Mr. Flinn

I say, Sir, that this does not seem to be in the Estimate at all.

General Mulcahy

I am objecting to the provision of money in this Vote——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What particular item is the Deputy referring to?

General Mulcahy

I am referring to page 47, item No. 82, General Post Office Reconstruction, where a certain amount of money has been provided for work in the Post Office and where reference is made to the sum of £1,000 voted for the provision of an Easter Week memorial in the last Vote.

Mr. Flinn

The Deputy is not discussing the book of Estimates. He is discussing the Estimate before him and, as far as I understand, that £1,000 is not on this Estimate.

General Mulcahy

I draw attention to a paragraph appearing in the newspapers yesterday.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That £1,000 is not in this Estimate.

General Mulcahy

I am referring to the £300,000 provided for under item No. 82, and in connection with that I wish to refer to the following paragraph appearing in the Press yesterday.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Let us finish this matter of order before we proceed further.

Mr. Flinn

That money is not included in this item.

General Mulcahy

I would draw attention to the fact that at present work is being carried out at the General Post Office and expenditure is being incurred——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is money being provided in this Estimate for that?

General Mulcahy

Money is being provided in the £300,000 under item No. 82.

Mr. Dillon

There is a sub-head B here in the Vote for the Office of Works for "New Works, Alterations and Additions." Somebody is paying for the work which is at the present moment being done in the General Post Office with reference to which Deputy Mulcahy was about to read an extract from the Press. The submission is that the expenditure on that work will be defrayed under a sub-head of the Office of Works Vote, which is described as "New Works, Alterations and Additions."

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is no proof that this money is being expended on the work that Deputy Mulcahy is referring to. The Parliamentary Secretary says it is not.

Mr. MacDermot

He did not say that. He said the particular £1,000 referred to here belonged to last year's Estimate. That does not finish the matter. In any case, the expenditure is going on which is included in the £300,000.

Mr. Flinn

The Deputy does not know. I submit that the only entry in this which could concern the G.P.O. is "Provision of Easter Week, 1916, Memorial" and no money is provided for that.

General Mulcahy

No.

Mr. Flinn

No money is provided for that in this item.

General Mulcahy

I draw attention to this——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Before he proceeds to draw attention to anything, I want to know if what the Deputy is going to refer to is expenditure provided for in this Vote. The Parliamentary Secretary says it is not.

General Mulcahy

I assert here that £300,000 under Item 82 on page 47 of the Estimates provides money for paying for that work which is being carried out at present at the General Post Office for the purpose of making a Fianna Fáil holiday and I object to the expenditure of that money.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is one thing, but the Parliamentary Secretary says that this money is not being expended for the purpose which the Deputy referred to.

General Mulcahy

I do not believe it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

He says it is not. He is the head of the Department and he knows.

General Mulcahy

I decline to accept the Parliamentary Secretary's statement when we see a notice in the Press that work is being carried out by the Office of Works at the General Post Office.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

How can the Deputy relate that to the money which is being provided for here? I have no proof that that is the case—that the work is being carried out and that money is being provided for it here. I must take the word of the Parliamentary Secretary, as he is the head of the Department concerned.

General Mulcahy

Will the Parliamentary Secretary say where the money is being provided for the work which is being carried out at the General Post Office at present?

Mr. Flinn

On a point of order, it is not my business to answer any such question. The only person who can ask me anything on a point of order is the Chair, and the Chair has not asked that question. The Deputy was asked what he raised it on, and he told us specifically that he raised it on Item 82, page 47. The only thing in Item 82 which concerns this matter is "Dublin General Post Office—Provision of Easter Week, 1916, Memorial, £1,000," which was voted last year.

Mr. Dillon

Item 82 reads: "Dublin General Post Office—Reconstruction— £300,000."

Mr. Flinn

The portion which definitely refers to the matter which the Deputy wants to raise has no money under it.

General Mulcahy

That is not so.

Mr. Flinn

It is not for me to show; it is for the Deputy to show the Vote in this in which that is included.

General Mulcahy

I am showing the Parliamentary Secretary that there is money provided in Item 82 to pay for certain work at the General Post Office, and the work that is being carried out to-day at the General Post Office must be paid for out of that £300,000, or out of some Supplementary Estimate to be provided later. I submit that it is nonsense to think that a Supplementary Estimate can be provided later.

Mr. Flinn

I submit, on a point of order, that the reference here to the specific matter which the Deputy has raised specifically states that there is no money under it. I am not going to object in the slightest; but there is direct evidence that this thing is mentioned, and that no money is provided for it.

Mr. Morrissey

May I submit that if, under any heading in this Estimate, money is being expended by the Office of Works at the General Post Office at present, the Deputy is entitled to raise it on the Estimate under any heading? I suggest that the point raised by the Parliamentary Secretary is not really a point of order at all, but a point of obstruction.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No. The position, as the Chair sees it, is that Deputy Mulcahy wishes to raise a particular matter. He referred to that matter on rising to speak. It had reference to the Easter Week Memorial in the General Post Office. In the Book of Estimates there is no money provided for that. The Parliamentary Secretary, who is head of the Department, and who knows what money is being expended on that matter.

Mr. Flinn

I would be very glad if the Deputy could point out where it is——

General Mulcahy

This is an extract from the Press——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am not concerned with that. I do not want to know anything about Press extracts.

General Mulcahy

I want to point out that it is publicly known that work is being carried out in the General Post Office which must be paid for out of money provided under sub-head B of this Estimate. I want to discuss the matter on sub-head B, on the motion I have put down.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I cannot relate the work being done at the General Post Office to-day with money provided here. The Parliamentary Secretary tells me that there is no money provided here for work being done in the General Post Office in connection with the particular matter which the Deputy wishes to raise.

General Mulcahy

I am most anxious to conduct myself in an orderly way.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I appreciate that.

General Mulcahy

But I am not going to be deprived of my right as a Deputy to discuss a matter, which I am entitled to discuss here, by the Parliamentary Secretary wriggling about any matter here. I propose to discuss on my motion the particular piece of work at present being carried out at the General Post Office and I am going to explain why I object to the expenditure of public money on this work.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I want to assure the Deputy that there is nobody anxious to help anybody to wriggle. The Chair is not anyway, and the Chair is not anxious to prevent Deputy Mulcahy from doing what he is entitled to do. As to the particular item to which the Deputy refers, there is no money on the Estimate for it.

General Mulcahy

That is not so.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is no money specifically mentioned.

General Mulcahy

There is a sum of £300,000 for general work in the General Post Office and this piece of work which is being carried out is going to be paid for out of that.

Mr. Flinn

May I ask, Sir, for a ruling on the matter of order one way or the other? It will be quite satisfactory to me whichever way the Chair gives it.

General Mulcahy

I resist any invitation on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Chair to shut me up on this matter. I have a right to discuss this matter here and I am going to discuss it.

Mr. Flinn

Am I entitled to raise a point of order with you, Sir?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary is quite entitled to raise a point of order. No attempt is being made to prevent Deputy Mulcahy from speaking. The Chair would not allow anybody to prevent any Deputy from speaking who is within his rights. But the Deputy wants to discuss a matter as to which I have no proof that there is any money provided in the Estimates. I cannot allow the Deputy to proceed along that line.

General Mulcahy

Under sub-head B here, to widen the matter, there is a sum of £521,013 provided for new works, alterations and additions. At the General Post Office, Dublin, alterations and additions and, to a certain extent, new works are being carried out, and I propose to discuss these works and to object to the expenditure of public money on them.

Mr. Flinn

I prefer that opinion may be expressed in its widest interpretation, on the principle that it is on sub-head B of the Vote alone and is not supposed to relate to the 82 items.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am not concerned with what the Parliamentary Secretary thinks is desirable. If Deputy Mulcahy wishes to discuss it with particular reference to a matter for which no item is specifically provided, we will find ourselves in a difficulty. If the Deputy wishes to discuss the entire expenditure of £300,000 nobody wants to prevent him.

Mr. Morrissey

Surely Deputy Mulcahy is entitled to discuss any item covered by the £300,000. It need not be specifically set out in the Estimate. Deputy Mulcahy has spoken of £300,000 that is being provided for work being carried out at the General Post Office, and I submit that he has a perfect right to discuss it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Does not Deputy Morrissey agree that Deputy Mulcahy has created a good deal of his difficulty by stating that he wants to discuss a particular matter for which no money was provided?

Mr. Morrissey

Whether he did or did not is beside the point. Whatever the Deputy said, his rights remain and are not to be sidetracked by the submission of the Parliamentary Secretary. I submit that the Parliamentary Secretary is trying to create the position that when he says so certain things must be accepted, not only by the House but by the Chair. That is a new precedent.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The difficulty with the Chair is that Deputy Mulcahy proposes to raise a particular matter for which no money was provided. I have indicated to Deputy Mulcahy that if he wishes to discuss the expenditure of the entire amount, £300,000, I am not going to prevent him.

Mr. T. Kelly

I was ruled out of order the other evening when discussing an Estimate because no money was provided. Deputy Dillon objected and I had to stop when no money was provided in the Estimate. Surely the Chair is not going to make one rule for one Deputy and a different rule for Deputy Mulcahy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The rule made by the Chair the other evening was in accordance with Standing Orders.

General Mulcahy

The following appeared in the Irish Times of April 11th:—

"With a uniformed policeman and three detectives in plain clothes standing nearby, workmen were busy in the General Post Office, Dublin, yesterday, on what is presumably the base for the statue of Cuchulann, the official memorial to the men who were killed in 1916. It will be recalled that the statue, which had been in the public hall of the General Post Office for a long time, was removed last week by men employed by the Office of Public Works.

"President de Valera will formally unveil it during the remembrance celebrations on Easter Sunday morning."

I object to the expenditure of money on that object in the particular circumstances in which it is now being spent. I indicated that in August last when, without previous notice to the House and half an hour before the Adjournment Motion was taken closing the session for the summer, the Minister for Finance, in a most casual way, asked the House to grant £1,000 to be spent in putting up a memorial to the Easter Week men at the General Post Office. Certain criticism was made against that. There was no vote against it because it came on in an unexpected way at the end of the session. It was, however, indicated that this was going to be a national thing, a State thing, that the occasion was one to honour the men of 1916, one that was to be an honour to this State, and one to help to unify the various Parties in the State. No exception was taken since to the matter until an advertisement appeared in the Irish Press early in March indicating that a Fianna Fáil flag day was to be run on Palm Sunday, Holy Week and Easter Sunday. There was disseminated to the Press the information that the President was going to unveil the memorial on Easter Sunday, that there was to be a big procession of men who were out in 1916, that the Army was to parade, that Volunteers were to be brought from all parts of the country, and that there was to be a big military display. No invitations have yet been issued by the President or by the Government or anything done to indicate that this is being carried out out of State finances.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely this has nothing to do with the reconstruction of the General Post Office. I allowed the Deputy to discuss the expenditure of £300,000 in connection with the reconstruction of the General Post Office but he is now proceeding to tell us something about a ceremony that is to take place.

General Mulcahy

I propose to indicate that this money is being spent to make a Fianna Fáil Party collection, and that this is part of the way in which State money is being used under cover of having a State ceremony, to provide funds and possibly political capital for the Government Party.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will appreciate that I cannot allow him to discuss the type of ceremony that is going to take place, who is going to be invited or in what way it will be carried out. I allowed him to discuss the proposed expenditure of £300,000 in connection with the reconstruction of the General Post Office. Surely that cannot be related to a military display or any such thing.

General Mulcahy

We will leave the military display.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

And the invitation to the ceremony.

General Mulcahy

We cannot leave the flag-day out.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes.

General Mulcahy

We cannot leave out mention that public money is being spent on an alleged official occasion when Ministers' replies have indicated that this is purely a Party matter, and that so far from bringing about unity in the country——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot proceed along these lines. I want him to be perfectly clear about this. An expenditure of £300,000 on the reconstruction of the Post Office cannot be related in any way to a flag-day for any Party, to a military display, or invitations to a ceremony.

General Mulcahy

I protest that I am being wrongly ruled against, and that I am entitled to put before the House simple details of the position in order to show what the Government is doing with this money and why it is doing it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has not been wrongly ruled against. He can have his own opinion. I do not object to that. Connecting the reconstruction of the General Post Office with military parades, invitations to a ceremony, and who is going to send the invitations, is something that I cannot see.

Mr. Dillon

May I submit that if representation is made in this House that out of the £521,000 provided in sub-head B, and if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance is asked if part of that money is being provided for the purpose of having a Fianna Fáil platform in O'Connell Street, we are entitled to describe the circumstances of the alterations and to protest to this House that that is not the way to spend the money.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not seriously intended.

Mr. Dillon

I mean it, and that is the case that Deputy Mulcahy has been making.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I will not hear any point so frivolous as that.

General Mulcahy

I protest, Sir——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will the Deputy please allow me? I cannot allow the Deputy to proceed on any other lines than the expenditure of £300,000 on the reconstruction of the General Post Office. I will not hear him any further in reference to the ceremony or to invitations, who is going to be invited or who is going to invite.

General Mulcahy

I think that is entirely wrong, Sir.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Very well.

General Mulcahy

And I insist on my rights to tell this House what is happening in the use of this money, and that this money is being used to provide——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will sit down.

General Mulcahy

I have a right here——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will sit down.

Deputies

Chair!

General Mulcahy

No, Sir.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will sit down or leave the House.

General Mulcahy

No. I have a right here——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will sit down.

General Mulcahy

I will not, Sir, because this House is being asked to vote money and this House is entitled to hear what this money is being spent on.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has disobeyed the ruling of the Chair and I must ask for his suspension.

General Mulcahy

I have no desire to be disorderly in any way, but I think it is quite wrong that this House should be throttled in this way——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I want to warn the Deputy. I have sent for the Ceann Comhairle to report the Deputy's deliberate disobedience to the rules of the Chair and will ask that he be suspended.

General Mulcahy

And I will ask the Ceann Comhairle to adjudicate on the extent to which we can be cloaked up here in this House by the political difficulties of the Government Party. We are defending decency and order in the State against a Government that care more for Party than they do for the State and that care more for Party than they do for the nation, the spirit of which they are breaking up into pieces.

Mr. Donnelly

It is magnificently staged. You should get a good Press to-morrow.

Mr. T. Kelly

Another man would not be allowed to make it.

[An Ceann Comhairle took the Chair.]

Mr. MacDermot

Are we at liberty to submit to you, Sir, the point of order which has been under discussion?

An Ceann Comhairle

I understand that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle gave a ruling that a certain matter was not in order on this Vote and that a Deputy refused to accept that ruling.

General Mulcahy

On very definite grounds stated, Sir.

Mr. MacDermot

Are we at liberty to submit the point of order to you, Sir?

An Ceann Comhairle

I shall hear the point of order.

Mr. MacDermot

There is provision made in this Estimate for the expenditure of £521,000 on new works, alterations and additions in sub-head B. In connection with that, Deputy Mulcahy was drawing attention to certain expenditure on certain new works, alterations and additions going on at the General Post Office and, in doing so, he was describing the surrounding circumstances which, in his opinion, made that expenditure improper. He was ruled against by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and I think it is only right that it should be stated, while, of course, nobody challenges the good faith of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that it is the unanimous opinion of us on this bench that this ruling was unfair and oppressive.

An Ceann Comhairle

There must be no comment of that nature. I call on the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to report.

Mr. P. Hogan

Deputy Mulcahy, in the first instance, indicated that he desired to raise the question of expenditure in connection with a specific item in the book of Estimates. The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that there was no expenditure provided this year in connection with that particular item, and that it had been voted on last year. Some further discussion took place, but I ultimately indicated to Deputy Mulcahy that I was prepared to hear him on the £300,000 money which is provided there for expenditure in connection with reconstruction, etc., in the General Post Office. Deputy Mulcahy proceeded to discuss that for a little while. He proceeded then to tell us about a ceremony that was to take place in connection with the unveiling of the Easter Week memorial in the General Post Office, and proceeded to speak about the celebrations, military parades, invitations and who were to send the invitations, and who were to be invited. I indicated very definitely to Deputy Mulcahy more than once that I could not connect the ceremonial, the invitations to the ceremonial, or who were to be invited and who were to invite, with the expenditure of £300,000 for reconstruction work in the General Post Office. I definitely indicated to Deputy Mulcahy that I could not allow him to proceed on those lines. He deliberately disobeyed that ruling and continued to speak. I sent for you, Sir.

General Mulcahy

May I address you, Sir?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes.

General Mulcahy

I indicated that there was work being carried out to-day at the General Post Office and that that work was provided for under the £300,000 in sub-head 82 on page 47, or, at any rate, under the £521,013 provided under sub-head (b) and that that work was being carried out in connection with a Supplementary Estimate passed in August last for carrying out the purchase and erection of a monument there.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I submit, Sir, that you are being put in the position of deciding between the veracity of my statement and the veracity of Deputy Mulcahy's statement, and I submit that you should not be put in that position, since you were not here.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair will not be put in such a position.

General Mulcahy

If it is a question of my dealing with the matter in this particular way creating a conflict as between myself and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for the Ceann Comhairle, I do not wish to approach it in that way.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is what is happening.

General Mulcahy

I would approach it by putting to the Ceann Comhairle the line of argument I was pursuing on this item and the line of argument which, I think, I have the right to pursue.

Mr. P. Hogan

I am not discussing Deputy Mulcahy's attitude. I am endeavouring to be the Leas-Cheann Comhairle here and not a Deputy. It is rather difficult. I am putting to the Ceann Comhairle this position: I ruled on an incident that was specified definitely and intimately before me; we are putting the Ceann Comhairle now in the position of deciding whether my version is the correct one or whether Deputy Mulcahy's is the correct one.

General Mulcahy

Do I understand from the Leas-Cheann Comhairle that he objects to my addressing you, Sir?

Mr. P. Hogan

No, I do not.

Mr. Victory

Did the Deputy not defy the ruling of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle?

General Mulcahy

I should like to be clear on what the Leas-Cheann Comhairle thinks I can do.

Mr. P. Hogan

Nothing.

General Mulcahy

Do I understand from the Leas-Cheann Comhairle that he objects to my addressing you? I would like to be clear what he wishes me to do.

Mr. Hogan

Nothing.

A Deputy

Did you not defy the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's ruling?

General Mulcahy

I still am not clear as to what the Leas-Cheann Comhairle thinks I can do.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle's ruling should have been obeyed. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle ruled definitely on a certain matter and the Deputy refused to accept that ruling.

General Mulcahy

That is quite right, Sir.

An Ceann Comhairle

Then I shall have to ask the Deputy to retire from the House for the remainder of this day's sitting.

General Mulcahy withdrew.

Mr. Coburn

Is there no appeal?

An Ceann Comhairle

No. There can be no comment on the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Coburn

I say that Deputy Mulcahy was ruled out of order very wrongly. He is a partial Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must withdraw that remark.

Mr. Coburn

He is a most partial Leas-Cheann Comhairle to be a Labour representative.

An Ceann Comhairle

I must ask the Deputy also to withdraw from the House.(Interruptions.)

Deputy Coburn withdrew.

Mr. Donnelly

Are there any more of you—that's two?

Mr. Dillon

On a point of order. A very serious matter has occurred and I think that the remarks made by members of the Government Benches are most disorderly at this particular stage, particularly that one of "passing the buck."

Mr. Morrissey

May I submit now that the matter of Deputy Mulcahy's refusing to obey has been dealt with, that the point arises as to whether a Deputy is in order in objecting to the expenditure of public moneys——

An Ceann Comhairle

That incident is closed.

Mr. T. Kelly

Are we in order in discussing the Estimate?

Mr. Morrissey

That is the point I am putting. I am trying to get a ruling on a point of order. I asked if a member of the House proceeds to discuss this Estimate and if that member decides to object is he entitled to give his reasons for such objection? That is the point.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy knows that when the Ceann Comhairle has given his ruling the matter ends.

Mr. Morrissey

I understand that the Ceann Comhairle has confirmed the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's ruling with regard to Deputy Mulcahy. I submit that a Deputy cannot make his case without discussing the Estimate and Deputy Mulcahy was not allowed to do that.

Mr. Gearóid O'Sullivan rose.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am calling on Deputy O'Sullivan.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I am supporting the motion that the Vote be reduced by the sum mentioned. This is a Vote for £250,000 and the motion is that it be reduced by the sum of £100. In seconding that motion, I need not address you on the subject of a number of persons on the Front Benches and ask: "Where were you in 1916?" and neither shall I ask that question of the Parliamentary Secretary, who has objected to this particular question being discussed, because we all know where we were then and what we want to know is where we are now. I notice the Parliamentary Secretary smiles.

Mr. Flinn

As a matter of fact I am smiling. Look at your own Front Bench.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The question was raised by Deputy Mulcahy that he wanted to raise the question of specific expenditure. I want to raise the question of £300,000, as I do not know whether it is being spent on a lavatory or upon the reconstruction of something else, but we do know that Deputy Mulcahy read from the Irish Press that a monument had to be altered reconstructed and replaced. Whether or not the money expended on that by the Board of Works during the last year has nothing whatever to do with the motion before the House.

The motion before the House is to reduce that Vote by £100, not the £1,000 but the £300,000, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with what was voted last year, the sum of £1,000 which is put there as an unvoted sum. It is, I submit, a matter of interest to the taxpayers of this country to know how that sum of £300,000 is going to be expended in alterations or otherwise to the General Post Office, and it is also, Sir, I submit, a matter of interest to know that there are at the present moment, to-day, yesterday and, possibly, to-morrow, persons employed in the Office of Public Works who must be paid out of that Vote because it is for reconstruction in the General Post Office, Dublin. It is a matter of interest to them to know what we are reconstructing and why we are doing it. It is possible, indeed very probable, that the Parliamentary Secretary is not desirous of having any reference whatsoever made either to 1916 or to the particular function that he is preparing to participate in. I would say that his only association with 1916 would be the nineteen part of it—the nineteenth anniversary.

Mr. Cleary

What about Deputy Dillon?

Mr. O'Sullivan

If the Parliamentary Secretary wants to know about Deputy Dillon I would refer him to the three generations of Dillons in Irish history. Yes, and the men on this side and on the other side of the House know that the first man who raised his voice for the protection of the men who were in prison was the father of Deputy Dillon.

Mr. Traynor

But not Deputy Dillon.

Mr. MacDermot

At the age of 14.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The Parliamentary Secretary made these remarks in his cowardice and only in his cowardice.

Deputies

Excellent!

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputies should not lose their sense of order.

Mr. Dillon

Defending Hugo Flinn— my God, the depth of degradation which they will fall to. It is dreadful, even from a Deputy of this House.

Several Deputies

Oh, oh!

Mr. O'Sullivan

The question of this expenditure of £300,000 and the reduction of the Vote by £100 has been raised by a Deputy who, unfortunately, was ordered from the House. I do not propose to raise the justice or otherwise of that removal but if something is being done in the General Post Office, it must be done for some purpose. There is no doubt a monument is being erected and that monument is to be exposed or unveiled in some way on Easter Sunday and surely the people of Ireland have a right to know what is the cause. How is it going to happen? Who is going to do it?

Mr. Donnelly

Everybody knows that.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Mind you, we can also ask who paid for it. I may not get back to this question of £1,000 as it has already been voted, but that sum paid for it. I can ask how much of this £300,000 is going to be expended on the unveiling of this monument and the reconstruction of the General Post Office. Part of the reconstruction is what General Mulcahy has set out—the replacing and resetting of this particular monument.

Mr. Jordan

It will be worth the whole lot of the £300,000.

Mr. Brennan

To Fianna Fáil?

Mr. Jordan

To Ireland—and the Deputy knows that too.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The Deputy never thinks of Ireland in terms of pounds, or thousands of pounds. The official organ of the Party, which is at present in charge of the Government Front Benches, has declared that a flag day is to be carried out during the week commencing, I think, on Palm Sunday.

An Ceann Comhairle

This Vote has no relation with Party flag days or parades.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I do not want, Sir, to disobey your orders in any way, but I think that you will at least allow me to say it is a regrettable day in this country when the memory of the men who died in 1916 is being celebrated as a State function on the one part, while, on the other hand, political and partisan capital is being made out of it. Nobody, Sir, would regret that more than the persons who are dead, and, I think——

An Ceann Comhairle

There is no money in this Vote for proposed celebrations on Easter Sunday.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Surely, Sir, the work that is being carried on at the present time, perhaps at the present moment, has some reason behind it. Work is being done in the General Post Office. What is it for? I submit, Sir, with all respect, that I am perfectly in order in discussing, first of all, the work and, secondly, what the work is for. I have said, Sir, that this work is alleged to be a monument to the men who died in 1916. I am not referring to the £1,000 Vote to which Deputy Mulcahy referred, but to the £300,000 for reconstruction and renovation in the General Post Office. Now, Sir, I have a perfect right to ask what is the purpose of that? It is to make a holiday for the Fianna Fáil Party.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy cannot keep within the rules of relevancy he will have to resume his seat. A discussion on the parade for Easter Sunday is not in order.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Suppose, Sir, that a part of this money were to be spent on fitting a new letter-box in the General Post Office, surely I would be relevant in saying that it should be in some other part of the building. Suppose, as I said originally, that some part of it were to be spent in erecting lavatories there. Would I not be perfectly in order in saying that they should be in some other part of the building? Suppose the rails on the counter were going to be altered. Anything that would happen between this and next year could be discussed, and could be properly discussed. I submit, Sir, that part of this money is being expended for one reason, and for one reason only, to make a Party show——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must resume his seat. He has been repeatedly told that the matter he insists in discussing is not relevant.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I am making a submission. I am not making a speech at the moment. I beg to submit that this money is being spent so that the Fianna Fáil Party can——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will at once desist from speaking.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I am sorry, Sir, that I have so far to disagree with your rulings that I cannot do so.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Gearoid O'Sullivan will now retire from the House for the remainder of this day's sitting for having refused to obey a direction from the Chair.

Mr. O'Sullivan then withdrew from the House.

Mr. T. Kelly

I presume, Sir, that we will now consider the general Estimate for the Board of Works. When I was young there used to be a song about the Irish Board of Works. I have forgotten it long ago, because I never thought I would be in close contact with the Irish Board of Works as I am here to-night. At that period I know there was no job for me or for my companions in the said Board of Works. My references to the various items here will be fairly commonplace —a sort of anti-climax to what has occurred. In connection with the Phoenix Park I should like to remind the Secretary——

An Ceann Comhairle

As the Deputy seems to be getting away from this particular sub-head, the question on the motion to reduce that sub-head must be decided before proceeding with the other items of the Estimate.

Mr. MacDermot

Are we departing from sub-head B?

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputies are free to discuss sub-head B.

Mr. MacDermot

I want to ask a question, not in connection with the matter of the Post Office, but there are other things in sub-head B besides that. I wanted to ask for a little information about one item here which, I think, we have heard nothing about yet, and that is the preparation of busts——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.

Mr. T. Kelly

On a point of order. I was proceeding to discuss the question of the expenditure on the Phoenix Park. If the Deputy can proceed in regard to busts——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Kelly will understand that there is an amendment down with reference to sub-head B. The particular matter which Deputy Kelly wishes to raise does not arise on that sub-head.

Mr. Esmonde

On a point of order, I should like to say it was agreed that Deputy Mulcahy's motion should be put first, and that then there should be general discussion on the sub-head after that.

Mr. MacDermot

We are still on sub-head B. I will not detain the House for more than a moment. I just want to ask——

Mr. T. Kelly

The position is not clear.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Perhaps Deputy Kelly will sit down. The matter which Deputy Kelly wishes to raise will, I think, be found under sub-head G. We are only discussing sub-heads A and B, and we have to dispose of the amendment to reduce sub-head B by £100. When we come to sub-head G Deputy Kelly will be quite in order.

Mr. Kelly

I thought that departed with the Deputy who was to move it.

Mr. Jordan

Your case is "bust" up.

Mr. MacDermot

There is a provisional estimate for £1,500, which, I suppose, might later be raised to a larger sum, for preparing busts of Patrick Pearse and other national leaders. I think the House should be told a little more about that before agreeing to it. I need not say that I am not challenging the right of Patrick Pearse to have a bust erected in his honour. This is under the heading of the Oireachtas, and I think we ought to be told how many busts it is proposed to put up here, and where they are to be put.

Mr. Donnelly

And what kind they are?

Mr. MacDermot

Who is going to make them? Who is the artist going to be? Personally, I should very much regret to see a forest of busts extending around the Lobby of the House. I do not think it would add at all to the good looks——

Mr. Jordan

——of the members.

Mr. MacDermot

——of the Chamber, especially if they were done by indifferent artists. I do not think we should agree to decorations of that kind until we are first satisfied that they would be an improvement instead of a disimprovement. I expect that in the near future we will get rid of one eyesore—the statue of Queen Victoria —at the entrance to the House—and if we get rid of one eyesore let us not follow that up by introducing a number of new eyesores. I think we are entitled to hear a little more from the Parliamentary Secretary on these matters. I suggest that if it is proposed to put in new busts of national leaders in any part of the precincts of Leinster House these leaders should not be confined to people of 1916 and since 1916, but that they should be selected from the whole line of leaders of Irish national opinion in the past. They should not be concentrated on one particular epoch to the glorification of that epoch at the expense of the rest.

Mr. Belton

Would you begin with Brian Boru?

Mr. Flinn

The point which Deputy MacDermot has raised is one in which he is entitled to all the information we have at our disposal. It has been decided to have plaster busts made of General Collins, Cathal Brugha and Austin Stack, and also castings in bronze of the busts of Padraic Pearse, President Griffith, General Collins, Cathal Brugha and Austin Stack. The provision of £1,500 is intended to cover the cost of the execution of a bronze bust of Padraic Pearse, the purchase from Mr. Albert Power of a plaster bust of President Griffith, the preparation of plaster busts of Cathal Brugha, Austin Stack and of General Collins; the purchase of four death-masks (President Griffith, General Collins, Cathal Brugha and Austin Stack) and the execution of casts in bronze of the four busts. Mr. Sheppard, who has already executed a bronze bust of the late Kevin O'Higgins, intimately knew Padraic Pearse and is fully qualified to prepare the proposed busts.

Mr. MacDermot

Where is it proposed to put them?

Mr. Flinn

That is not a question which is covered by this Estimate.

Mr. MacDermot

Is it a secret?

Mr. Flinn

No, I do not pretend to know.

Mr. Corry

When Deputy MacDermot goes over the border we will put up a bust for him.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The next items are sub-heads C, D, E and F.

Mr. T. Kelly

I was dealing with the question of the Phoenix Park.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Surely, Sir, after having had a Vote in favour of having no reduction in the Estimate in respect of a certain sub-head, we are entitled to discuss the sub-head itself? I presume that that vote does not preclude all discussion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The decision was that all discussions on sub-heads A and B would arise on that amendment.

Mr. Esmonde

As I understand it, the arrangement was that that amendment would be discussed and that afterwards a discussion would take place on sub-heads A and B. Many Deputies here want to discuss certain matters arising out of these sub-heads.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

These matters could have been discussed on that motion.

Mr. Dillon

On a point of order, Sir, there was a motion before the House, moved by Deputy Mulcahy, to reduce sub-head B by a certain sum. There was no agreement whatever subsidiary to that motion of Deputy Mulcahy. I take it that the decision of the House is that the Estimate is not to be reduced by that sum and that the Estimate itself now falls for discussion as to whether that sub-head be adopted at all or not, and that it is open to us to discuss that sub-head and the subsequent sub-heads.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That would be all right if there were no agreement, but there was an agreement that sub-heads A and B were to be disposed of in the discussion on Deputy Mulcahy's amendment.

Mr. Dillon

I am not aware of any such agreement, and unless you, Sir, are aware of such an agreement having been made during my absence, I must deny it.

Mr. Flinn

On a point of order, Sir. The whole of sub-head B was specifically open for discussion on the motion that was put. The Chair asked for other speakers on that motion but no speakers came forward, and it was for that reason that I was asked to conclude, rather to my surprise.

Mr. T. Kelly

I submit, Sir, that I am perfectly in order in dealing with the various questions on the general Estimate.

Mr. Fitzgerald

On a point of order, Sir. I want an assurance from the Chair that what Deputy Kelly is speaking about is not going to carry us beyond the point of sub-heads A and B, because, if so, I must protest, as I am distinctly under the impression that sub-heads A and B are still open for discussion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

My understanding was that sub-heads A and B were to be definitely disposed of in the discussion on Deputy Mulcahy's amendment.

Mr. Dillon

Sir, there was no such agreement whatever of any sort or kind to correspond with the impression you recall. There was a simple motion by Deputy Mulcahy to reduce an estimate by a certain sum. That motion was defeated, and I submit that it is now within the competence of the House to discuss sub-head B and those sub-heads which come after it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Dillon, of course, realises that Deputy Mulcahy's amendment and sub-head B were discussed together and disposed of together.

Mr. Dillon

I submit, Sir, that the fact that a motion to reduce an estimate was defeated in no way precludes Deputies from discussing the sub-head itself.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There have been repeated rulings on similar matters.

Mr. McGilligan

Has there ever been a ruling, Sir, to the effect that when an amendment was defeated we could not proceed to discuss the original section?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

I fail to recall a single instance.

Mr. Esmonde

If we are not to be allowed to discuss this, I think it is most unfair that Deputies should be tricked and swindled out of their rights.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Those expressions will have to be withdrawn. Such expressions with reference to the Chair, as that anybody has been tricked or swindled, should not be addressed to the Chair.

Mr. Esmonde

I do not suggest that the Chair is doing so.

Mr. T. Kelly

Who is?

Mr. McGilligan

The circumstances are. It is a complete deprivation of rights.

Mr. T. Kelly

Will the circumstances allow me to talk about the Phoenix Park?

Mr. McGilligan

No.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is undoubtedly a precedent for this under which an amendment and a motion have been discussed and decided together. We have that in this case. We had an amendment in respect of sub-head B. That has been decided and therefore these two sub-heads are disposed of.

Mr. Dillon

I submit it would turn the procedure of this House into a complete farce.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Dillon is endeavouring to do that now by opposing the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Dillon

I am not opposing the ruling of the Chair. I submit with respect, that I am entitled to raise a point of order. A motion was put before the House by you, Sir, and the House was called upon to vote upon it and did so, and that motion was defeated. It has no reference whatever, in my respectful submission, to the substance of the Vote, which we had not before us until Deputy Mulcahy's amendment was submitted to the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am ruling that sub-heads A and B are disposed of and I will hear nothing further on the matter.

Mr. Dillon

I protest most strongly against the ruling.

Mr. McGilligan

It is against all precedent.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I will hear nothing further on this matter.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I want to get exactly, Sir, the meaning of the statement you have made, if I might respectfully ask for it. I understood you stated it has been ruled that when there is an amendment to refer back a matter the debate on that amendment covers the whole subject. I do not understand whether you meant that it was a universal ruling that when there is such an amendment the discussion of that amendment shall cover the whole discussion on the sub-head, or whether you merely referred to the fact that such a thing had happened. In that case I submit respectfully that there is a complete difference when it has been agreed and announced beforehand that the whole discussion will take place on that sub-head. I submit that if on the previous occasions there was an understanding beforehand, clearly made known to the House, that all discussion on that sub-head was going to take place on the amendment, there is no analogy between that and the present circumstances, when nobody knew that we were going to be precluded from discussing the sub-head after the Vote was taken.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Sub-heads C and D.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Might I ask if you would clarify the position?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I cannot see how one can discuss an amendment without discussing the matter itself.

Mr. Fitzgerald

In that case, am I to understand that there is a universal ruling that when there is an amendment discussed there can be no further discussion upon the general proposition before the House? Is that to be a universal ruling?

Mr. McGilligan

I take it that that would apply to an amendment to a section of a Bill and would preclude discussion on the subject of the section. That is the logical conclusion.

Mr. Dillon

I submit that there are 121 sub-heads to sub-head B.

Mr. T. Kelly

I submit that Deputy Dillon is grossly out of order.

Mr. McGilligan

Now you are in your proper place. Sit down.

Mr. Dillon

There are 121 sub-heads to sub-head B. The motion of Deputy Mulcahy had the intention of referring to one part of one of the 121 sub-heads and on that part only a decision was taken by the House. If your ruling is adhered to it means that you preclude Deputies from making any reference to 121½ sub-heads of one item.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Dillon

Is that your intention?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am going to hear Deputy Kelly.

Mr. Dillon

Your intention is to preclude us from discussing them?

Mr. T. Kelly

I raised last year the question of closing the Phoenix Park to motor traffic and suggested confining it to hackney cars, particularly for sight-seeing and races. I did this in the interest of trade, so as to try and bring about a revival of an industry that has waned considerably. I raise the question now more by way of vindication because, unfortunately, throughout my life my vindication has always taken place 12 months or, perhaps, five years after the time it should have taken place. Had the Parliamentary Secretary agreed to my suggestion last year there might have been a revival in the hackney car trade here with the consequence that the citizens of Dublin would not be in the position in which they are to-day. What position are we, the ordinary man and woman in the street, in the city to-day? We are absolutely back again to the beginning of man. We have no means of locomotion except our legs and that was the way in the very beginning and in the stone age, the bronze age, and the other ages that we are told existed before our age. If that is so, it only shows the great foresight I possess. I know that motorists were very angry with me at the time. Some of them spoke to me very seriously and asked me was I going back to mediæval times or times long before that; did I want to get back to the wheel-barrow age. If we had a few wheel-barrows to-day they would be very useful. I remember on one occasion when the late Arthur Griffith, the present Minister for Local Government and myself were sketched being wheeled home from the Leitrim election in a corporation wheel-barrow.

I do not suppose that there is much use in my renewing my request to-night. It is, however, a very serious condition of affairs that a trade which has been associated with Dublin for some 100 years should be completely wiped out. If there were a number of cars and cabs plying on the streets of Dublin to-day the inconvenience and the other things we are suffering from would not be so great. I see, later on, in these Estimates that an increased grant is to be given to the Zoological Gardens. That is what we want in this country—more Zoological Gardens. I shall allude to that later on when that Estimate comes up; but if money could be spent upon them they would be useful in a way which I hope to set out when we are considering that particular Estimate.

I wish to direct the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to the Chapel Royal, a very beautiful building internally and externally. The Chapel Royal has been closed to the public for some years. I am not aware if it is open to visitors. Some years ago it was made a receptacle for official documents. I was told that the documents were piled high on the seats and that it was practically impossible to see anything worth looking at in the building. I do not know what the position is now because I have not been there for some time.

Mr. Flinn

The Chapel Royal is open.

Mr. Kelly

I suggest if the building is not put to any use that it should be offered for re-erection in some portion of the city, because it is a pity to have such a splendid building hidden away, where it is seen only by civil servants, who have been looking at it so long that they do not take any notice of it now. I should also like to direct the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to the Arcade in Henry Street which was erected about 10 years ago. The Arcade has never been occupied. I often go down there on Saturday evenings and I notice that the place is closed up and that the shops are to be let. The hoardings have become dilapidated and the paint work must have been done years ago. Notices on the shutters state that applications for the shops should be made to the Board of Works. I submit that that is not a right state of affairs. When the experiment of putting up an Arcade in Henry Street was made it was known that Arcades, generally speaking, and especially in Dublin, are failures. Rather than have the place lying idle the Parliamentary Secretary might consider the advisability of establishing a fruit and flower market there.

Owing to the operation of the Street Trading Act, which was passed by this House some years ago, a number of honest women have been prevented from making a living by selling fruit and flowers. They are not now allowed to trade in many streets that were previously, open to them. If they attempt to do so they are prosecuted and fined sums that are beyond their capacity to pay. Would the Parliamentary Secretary consider the experiment of allowing some of these women into the Arcade by establishing a fruit and flower market there? If he did that a good deal of employment would be given to these women. Something should be done about the shops in the Arcade or there should be some explanation why they are idle in one of the best business streets in Dublin. The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that I raised a question here some time ago concerning the proposal to expend £100,000 on new offices for the Department of Industry and Commerce.

Mr. Esmonde

Is the Deputy in order?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I was going to ask the Deputy on what item he is raising this question.

Mr. McGilligan

Industry and Commerce, clearly.

Mr. Kelly

I am going to relate that to sundry other premises referred to at the end of the Estimate.

Mr. McGilligan

Surely it is rightly concerned with the Estimate for Industry and Commerce, on which I should like to speak.

Mr. Kelly

I am merely recalling the matter, because I stated then that the Board of Works might have a survey made of the national property they control in Dublin, to see if any sites could be obtained for a citizens' hall that is so badly needed. It was stated from the Chair that in a moment of weakness I was allowed to raise the point but that I was out of order. I hope the Chair will have a like weakness now.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

They do not recur.

Mr. Kelly

There is another item dealing with sundry premises, let or unoccupied, and it is proposed to spend a good deal of money on them. Will the Parliamentary Secretary be good enough to indicate if he will have a survey of unoccupied premises made to see if he could present the citizens of Dublin with a suitable site for the erection of a hall? The questions I raised on this Estimate are commonplace questions, and there is no high-falutin about them. I submit them for generous consideration by the Parliamentary Secretary in the hope that some attention will be paid to them, and also that some effort will be made to revive the hackney car trade in the city.

Mr. McGilligan

On sub-heads (c), (d) and (f) I see items for maintenance, repairs and other charges relating to the sites of buildings and offices. Deputy Kelly has taken the opportunity to discuss a matter of policy, driving traders from Wexford Street and other places. That was done without any protest or indication that it was out of order. The first items, sub-heads (c), (d) and (f) refer to the Oireachtas Vote, and arising out of that I should like to have this early opportunity, just as a matter of policy, of having a definite ruling on the principle that you, Sir, and your colleague, can intervene in debate or preclude debate. To-night a point was raised as to whether, in fact, when an amendment is put down to a particular sub-head, and is voted upon by the House, that that entirely precludes discussion of the main Estimate. On that we had a ruling, in your absence, that discussion of the amendment would preclude discussion of the question to which the amendment was directed, and on that the House was precluded discussing the main body of this Vote. If that is to stand as a ruling in this House, the sooner we abolish all hope of providing money for housing such a collection of futile folk as we appear to be the better.

An Ceann Comhairle

There must have been a misunderstanding. The arrangement was that a decision would be come to on the amendment which referred to one item only, and when that was disposed of the main Estimate might be discussed, but not that particular item.

Mr. McGilligan

That was the point of order, but your colleague in your absence ruled against.

An Ceann Comhairle

Not that particular item. It was a misunderstanding on my part.

Mr. MacDermot

Which one do you mean?

An Ceann Comhairle

Sub-head B.

Mr. MacDermot

The whole of sub-head B?

Mr. Flinn

That was the ruling given by the Chair.

An Ceann Comhairle

That was the statement made, but the motion seems to have been directed to the special item on which a reduction was proposed.

Mr. McGilligan

And that was in reference to the Easter Week memorial at the General Post Office. I submit it is impossible for people who have left the House as a protest, when precluded from having a general discussion of sub-head B, to deal with it now.

An Ceann Comhairle

The decision given was that sub-head B would be disposed of. That was where the misunderstanding arose.

Mr. McGilligan

And on that misunderstanding Deputies left this side of the House as a protest. I submit that the debate should be left over in order that the discussion may be resumed.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is now 10.20 p.m. To-morrow is a sitting day.

Mr. McGilligan

I move to report progress at this point.

Mr. Donnelly

How would Standing Orders come in, then?

Mr. McGilligan

Standing Orders can always be got over by agreement of the House, and when the Chair has stated that there has been a misunderstanding about a ruling given, I suggest it is time for general agreement.

An Ceann Comhairle

The statement was made by me, I think, originally, that item B would be disposed of in that way. If I made that statement, it was possibly too wide, and the Committee should, I suggest, be allowed to discuss further items in B, but not the particular item which was specified by the Deputy concerned in his speech on the motion to reduce.

Mr. McGilligan

That, undoubtedly, is a much wider ruling than that under which we have been labouring and against which we have been protesting in the last ten or fifteen minutes.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle was following the ruling given by me, a ruling which follows the usual procedure.

Mr. McGilligan

I accept your expression of opinion, Sir, and I feel that the House will be grateful to you for having said what you have said. It clears up the misunderstanding between the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

The fault, if any, was mine. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle merely repeated the ruling. On reconsideration, in view of the trend of discussion, perhaps that ruling was too wide.

Mr. McGilligan

It is extremely good of you to have given this explanation to the House, and I suggest that it might be accepted at this particular moment. Might I put this further point so that even that small matter would not be allowed to pass without a mild protest? I suggest that there are precedents whereby, even when an amendment to an item of a sub-head is put and defeated, that item of the sub-head is permitted to be discussed afterwards.

An Ceann Comhairle

It was agreed by the House that it would not.

Mr. McGilligan

Your suggestion was put to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and the precedents of the House are entirely that way.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not refer to the Ceann Comhairle for consideration on the rulings of any other occupant of the Chair.

Mr. McGilligan

I am not trying to interfere between yourself and your colleague, Sir. I am very glad of the explanation you have given, which, I think, clears up the difficulty, but I think that the precedent as expressed here at this stage is exactly what you have said, that, unless by agreement, on discussion of the Vote, a discussion of the item is not precluded. I suggest we should report progress at this point.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.25 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 12th April.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 11 Apr 1935