It is proposed to take items Nos. 3, 1 and 5 on the Order Paper in that order and after No. 3, to take the list of Supplementary Estimates circulated on the White Paper. At the conclusion of Government Business, Private Deputies' Business will be taken.
Order of Business.
Will the House sit to-morrow?
Yes.
I should like, when we reach Private Deputies' Business, if the position in regard to motion No. 3 would be cleared up. I asked a question in regard to the matter yesterday and I was informed by the Chair that it would be cleared up.
If the Deputy desires to move it, he had better put down another motion, as it was already down in another Deputy's name, and not moved when reached.
I understood that Deputy Halliden had not withdrawn the motion. I think there was a misunderstanding.
He did not move it.
In that connection, the Minister for Agriculture told me that I would have an opportunity of making a statement in the House in connection with the matter.
And the Deputy did so.
But I was interrupted in the middle of the statement.
The Minister is not in charge of order in this House.
I appreciate that.
I thought I gave the Deputy considerable latitude.
The Minister asked me two particular questions and in the course of my explanation I was cut down.
When we come to Private Deputies' Business, I shall consider the matter.
On that point, we might clear up the position. We are on the motion with regard to teachers' pensions—motion No. 5. Do I understand that if motion No. 5 were finished and that we would normally pass on to motion No. 6, the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary who would be dealing with No. 6 is not here?
Quite.
That is the motion dealing with drainage. And the Parliamentary Secretary will not be here to-day?
In these circumstances, we would raise no objection to motion No. 3, in the name of Deputies Halliden and Cogan, being replaced in its order on the Order Paper, particularly in view of the fact that the Minister for Agriculture would not be available yesterday for it.
The motion was withdrawn.
May I submit that if the mover of the motion rose and addressed himself to the House on the subject of the motion it was not open to him to withdraw it, except by the leave of the whole House so expressed?
But if he did not move it?
I know that with you, Sir, presiding it is unthinkable that he would have addressed himself to the House in vacuo.
He was giving reasons why he did not move it. I thought he should be given a certain time to explain his reasons for not moving it. That is all.
If that is your ruling, it cannot be escaped from. I understood that Deputy Halliden has just now stated that he accepted an undertaking from the Minister that he would be allowed to make a statement and then withdraw. You very rightly intervened to say that the Minister for Agriculture has not the ruling of order in this House. I interpret that as meaning that the indulgence of the Minister did not exonerate Deputy Halliden if Deputy Halliden did, in fact, move the motion.
He did not.
He did something, and as Deputy Cogan's name is down to the motion, surely his assent would be necessary for its withdrawal.
The Deputy explained that he was not moving the motion. He says now he thinks he did not get sufficient time to explain why.
I submit that the Deputy did not get sufficient time either to withdraw the motion, and that he did not withdraw it.
He did not move it. He said that he was not doing so.
The motion is not withdrawn.
The motion was not moved.
If Deputy Cogan's name is to the motion, his assent to its withdrawal would be necessary.
No, I do not think so.
I was not allowed to make my statement in full.
When we come to it we will see.
From the point of view of carrying on business to-day, I am anxious to know whether Deputy Costello and myself will be able to deal with the housing motion if we finish with the teachers motion.
That would appear to be the better arrangement.
I want to know whether that will be the case or not. At the same time I want to say that we have no objection at all to motion No. 3, in view of the doubt that surrounds it, being taken.
Motion No. 3 cannot be taken to-day as the Minister for Agriculture is in Carlow.
I would like to know whether we can get permission to introduce the motion in Private Members' time.
If the Deputy wants to go ahead with the motion he may do so.
Did I understand the Tánaiste to say that motion No. 3 would not be taken to-day?
It cannot be taken to-day, because the Minister for Agriculture is at a food conference in Carlow.
The Minister should be here.
He is away on far more important public business than listening to Deputy Flanagan.
I take it that the debate on motion No. 5 will be continued?
Yes, and then No. 7.