Before I moved to report progress last night I asked the Minister to re-read to the House the first few paragraphs of the statement he made in introducing the Supplementary Estimate. I should like him to do so now in order to enable us properly to understand to what extent we can refer to certain matters which, apparently, could be moved out of order.
In Committee on Finance. - Supplementary Estimates, 1949-50. Vote 46—Primary Education (Resumed).
The Minister to conclude.
I have asked the Minister to re-read that part of his opening speech about which there was some difference of opinion. The Chair is calling upon the Minister to conclude.
If the Deputy desires to continue his speech he may do so.
Would the Minister be kind enough to assist the House by reading that portion of his opening speech again? It may clarify the position and it may not, but we should like to hear it again in order to see that we are not ruled out on further discussion on the matter. If what the Minister reads out has a different meaning to that which I understood it to have, I shall be quite satisfied to conclude.
The Deputy will be perfectly satisfied when I make my concluding remarks. If not, there are other ways of raising the matter.
If the Minister concludes we cannot intervene any more.
The Deputy may ask a question.
I do not think any more debate will be necessary.
It is quite legitimate, if the Minister concludes, to ask questions in reason within the discretion of the Chair.
I am afraid I am straining the patience of the Chair too much.
No, no. That is impossible.
As far as I can recollect, the Minister, in introducing his Supplementary Estimate, made references to certain dates. Subsequently in the debate, when those dates were taken into consideration for the purpose of certain arguments, it was held and the Minister himself suggested that that was out of order and should not be raised. He subsequently amended the dates by going back over 100 years. I should like the Minister to tell us the dates to which he referred in his opening statement.
Deputy Briscoe wants me to go back into the discussion of a matter that is entirely irrelevant to this Estimate. I do not think I would have your permission to do it, a Chinn Comhairle. Deputy Briscoe has asked me to read the statement which I made yesterday. It is as follows: "This Supplementary Vote is required to meet the cost of the increases in the pensions of retired national teachers, which were approved by the Dáil in the national school teachers' superannuation amendment scheme of 1948 and the Pensions (Increase) Bill, 1949."
That is correct. That is what we understood. I only wanted to get that clear. Will the Minister tell us now what relevancy the date 1814 bore to the discussion afterwards? When people tried to speak of 1948 and 1949 the Minister said that that was entirely out of order.
I made a point of order that Deputy MacEntee was out of order.
Because he referred to 1948 and 1949.
No, not at all.
On what grounds, then, was Deputy MacEntee out of order?
On the grounds that he was discussing a matter that had nothing to do with the superannuation amendment scheme of 1948 or the Pensions (Increase) Bill, 1949. It was an entirely different matter but, in so far as we are dealing in a practical way with this Estimate now, I would reiterate that the money being asked for is being asked for in relation to the Pensions Bill that this House dealt with a comparatively few days ago, increasing the pensions of teachers who were pensioned prior to October, 1946, and increasing the pensions of national teachers who retired so soon after that date that they did not get the benefit of having their pensions based upon three years of the new scales. That was an amendment providing that they would get the benefit in their pensions of their being paid notionally on the new scale. That was passed in the House on the 9th March, 1949, and this Estimate provides the money for paying these teachers the increased pensions. The Estimate is strictly and tightly related to the demands that arise out of these two things.
Will the Minister now tell us what 1814 had to do with it?
Vote put and agreed to.
Votes reported and agreed to.