This legislation is to amend earlier legislation of the year 1926. Under Section 1, sub-section (2) of the Road Fund (Advances) Act, 1926, there was a limit put to the amount of money that might be advanced to the Road Fund. Under the section, the ceiling was £2,000,000. It is proposed now to raise that ceiling to £5,000,000. Actually, the position was that under the Act of 1926 the £2,000,000, with the exception of somewhere in the neighbourhood of £210,000, was all from time to time required, and has all been repaid. Under the old Act there would be a further possible advance of £210,000. Road works this year will be very heavy. It is proposed, therefore, to put the new limit at £5,000,000. That will enable £3,210,000 of a further advance to be made. That is the purpose of the Bill.
Road Fund (Advances) Bill, 1948 (Certified Money Bill) —Second Stage.
As I understand the Bill, its purpose is to enable the Minister to mortgage the Road Fund and to raise the limit from £2,000,000 to £5,000,000. That will enable the sum of £3,210,000 to be made available at the present time. In connection with the Act of 1926, it is well to remember that the Road Fund was established for the specific purpose of seeing that the moneys derived from motor taxation would be made available for the development of our roads. Under that Act the Minister was empowered to borrow on the strength of the Road Fund, a sum of in or about £2,000,000. As the Minister has pointed out, the sum so borrowed was £1,790,000, and all that has been repaid. When we examine the situation we find that in the period 1926 to 1931 a scheme was in operation of mortgaging the Road Fund and expending the money so obtained on road repair and reconstruction, and that from 1932 onwards a very delicate position arose as to the financing of our road development. We are now about to undertake the former type of borrowing. As a result of the emergency, our main and trunk roads are in a very bad state, and also our village and by-roads. That is because they had to serve the nation as a whole when our railway system had almost ceased to exist. During that period our people had to depend on road transport for food supplies and other necessaries of life.
I think that the nation, as a whole, owes it to the people to repair the damage that was done to the roads during that period. Provision in that respect had been made by the outgoing Government. They had sent a request to the various county councils—the road authorities—to set about, immediately, the repair of damage that had been done to the roads during the emergency. In addition, they directed the local authorities to draw up a scheme of national road works for the improvement of our highways in general. It was suggested by them that the moneys that would be made available for that purpose would come from the Central Fund and not from the Road Fund. As I have stated, the Road Fund is made up of the moneys derived by way of revenue from motor taxation. The people who contribute those revenues certainly feel that the money which they subscribe should be devoted to the improvement of the roads.
The proposal in this Bill is that, in the future, the Road Fund should be mortgaged to the extent of £5,000,000. The figure does not really amount to that. The real figure is in or about £3,210,000. The people who contribute by way of taxation to the Road Fund feel that an injustice is being done to them in that their money is going to be devoted to the repair to damage that was done to the roads during the emergency when they were put at the service of the people as a whole instead of to the rebuilding and to the making of new roads suitable to their mode of transport. Much, of course, might be said for and against that. It is most unfair, however, that we should mortgage the future of the fund in this way, and that we should go back on some proposal or guarantee that was given to our road authorities by the outgoing Government.
There are members of this House who are members of county councils. They are aware that the county councils were asked by the outgoing Government to have estimates prepared for road repairs, and to employ engineers whose duty it would be to prepare large scale general plans for road development. The moneys so required were to be supplied from the Central Fund. I understand that the amount that would be required to meet expenditure this year and to assist local authorities to meet the demands that would be made on them would be in or about £1,500,000. That sum of money is not now going to be met out of the Central Fund but rather by mortgaging the Road Fund. Some years ago a fund called the Transition Development Fund was established. A case might be made for taking moneys for the repair of our roads out of that particular fund rather than from the Road Fund. If we are going to develop the roadways of this country, and I am sure the Minister holds we should because if I remember rightly he suggested in this House and in the other House that road transport was the cheapest and most effective——
I did?
——and that if there was one way of bringing Córas Iompair Éireann to its senses it was by giving licences and permits to all our lorry owners throughout the country so that they might engage in the transport of merchandise. That was the promise or the suggestion made by the Minister and his colleagues.
Is the Senator referring to me?
Surely there must be collective responsibility. If one Minister propounds and puts forward a policy in the national interest, the Cabinet must accept that as being an agreed policy.
Why not answer my question. Did I say what you are talking of?
Yes.
I do not remember; it is not my view.
I think that if the Minister throws back his mind to a statement he made in this House on the Finance Bill he did, if not in exactly the words I have used, suggest to the House the same form.
That is it now?
I cannot accept responsibility if from day to day each and every one of the Ministers go back on statements they made yesterday.
You are going back.
The Minister denies making the statement.
To-day there is a change of policy.
Will you change that to-morrow when you are speaking?
I hope on the Committee Stage to be able to produce the exact words the Minister used on that occasion.
Apparently my words do not matter. It is your interpretation.
I do not know where we are going to get or if we are to accept that position. This is not the proper way to meet the demands to repair the damage done during the emergency and prepare our national roadways for the future. In place of mortgaging the Road Fund, the sum necessary should be made available from the Transition Fund. The Minister may say that that fund expires on the 31st March next. I am sure Senators will agree that the upkeep, repair and provision of roads is a very serious burden on the rate-payers of each county. The time has arrived to examine this from another aspect, since no longer is the wear and tear confined to the county.
Does the Senator remember when we used to make that case?
Surely Senator Baxter does not object that, because he suggested something sometime, long ago, in his dreams of youth, he is displeased when other people come to recognise that there may be something in it? The same applies to the Minister. It seems that the more we come together the more we can agree. We in Galway have a large burden for road maintenance. It is a tourist county and we have to bear the cost of the roads in Connemara, which are used by the tourists. Tourists left £35,000,000 in this country last year, no matter how much we may dislike their coming amongst us. Small counties are faced with the burden of building and maintaining roads, and it is time now to approach it from a new angle, instead of from the local angle. Each county council last March budgeted for double the previous year's expenditure on roads, on an intimation from the then Government that they would be generously met—not by mortgaging the future of the Road Fund, but by a generous advance from the Government in appreciation of the services rendered by engineers and roadworkers during the emergency.
Would the Senator quote? Has he a notice to that effect?
I cannot do better than quote from the Taoiseach, who said:—
"The decision of the last Government undoubtedly was that £2,250,000 should be advanced to the Road Fund."
Is that the end of the quotation? The Senator should not stop in the middle of a sentence.
It is from the Dáil Debates, column 1599, of the 28th July, 1948. It continues:—
"but it was not decided whether the sum should be obtained from the Transition Development Fund or out of the moneys provided by Parliament."
That is, it was not out of the moneys provided by the Road Fund. The Taoiseach has admitted that the last Government's decision undoubtedly was that the £2,250,000 would be advanced to the Road Fund. He did not say it was out of the moneys provided by mortgaging the future of the Road Fund. The present Taoiseach admitted the case arrived at by the previous Government, who had intimated to the road authority that they were prepared to make available sufficient money to put the roads back into the state of repair they were in before the emergency, in appreciation of the services rendered over those roads during the emergency. It was a reasonable proposition and in the best national interest that that policy should be carried out.
This is a very small Bill, but it mear mortgaging the future of this Road Fund to the tune of £3,210,000 and curtailing the future development of our roadways. We all, especially roads authorities, would like to know if the same employment grants and assistance will be given from the Central Fund to road authorities as were proposed to be made by the outgoing Government. That requires a straight and simple answer.
We all have great sympathy with Senator Hawkins in his endeavour to speak on this Bill. This was created a vocational Chamber by those who occupied these benches in the previous Government.
That is not correct.
Senator Hawkins has forgotten the vocational character of the Seanad and has repeated in this House the speeches made by Deputies MacEntee and Allen in Dáil Éireann.
The first person to repudiate the vocational character of this House early in 1938 was the present Minister for Education. It is on the records of the House.
Senator Hawkins is in a difficulty. I cannot imagine him making that speech otherwise. He is quite capable of understanding the Bill and discussing it intelligently. However, let me first draw attention to what the Bill does not contain. I have here a cutting from the Irish Press. There happened to be two newspapers with two articles headed quite differently and I think they are likely to mislead members of the Seanad.
Do they deal with the present Bill?
Yes. They have misled Senator Hawkins. The Irish Independent for July 29th, reporting the proceedings of Dáil Éireann on the Road Fund Advances Bill, 1948, heads the article: “£3,000,000 Extra for Road Work.” The Irish Press of the same date heads the same report: “£3,000,000 Raid on the Road Fund.” Can we be surprised that Senator Hawkins was misled? The Irish Press gives the report a heading which creates in the mind of the people the impression that the Road Fund has been raided of £3,000,000, whereas, in fact, the Bill proposes to advance that sum to the Road Fund. In other words, the Road Fund will be able to advance to the roads authorities £3,000,000 more than it could have advanced if it were depending on the normal taxation revenue of the Road Fund. Senator Hawkins has been misled by the Irish Press report.
If Senator Hawkins was misled, Senator Duffy is befogged.
He is talking about mortgaging—mortgaging what?
The Road Fund.
Is there anything wrong or improper, or financially unsound, in advancing £3,000,000 to the Road Fund on condition that the Road Fund in better times would repay that loan? If Senator Hawkins were interested in buying a house and the bank advanced £1,000 to be repaid when he was better off——
The bank would not do it on those conditions.
Would there be anything wrong if they did? If the Senator appreciates what is in the Bill, I cannot understand his logic.
Can Senator Duffy inform me of a bank that will lend me money on the condition that I will repay it when I am better off?
Is that not what the Minister is doing here?
No.
Of course it is. I hope the Senator will not persist in correcting me, as there is no doubt about what is happening. The Minister is simply advancing a sum of £3,000,000 to the Road Fund so that local authorities can build better roads and put the present roads into better condition, on the understanding that, as time goes on and income flows into the Road Fund from taxation, the fund will repay to the Treasury the amount advanced. That is what has happened, whether we like it or not. Senator Hawkins's plea is that instead of advancing this money in the manner provided by the Bill, it should be advanced as a free gift from the Transition Development Fund. That is the only question between us, as to whether or not the money should be repaid by the Road Fund. Is it not better that the Road Fund should repay a lump sum of this kind— £3,000,000—than that the Road Fund should be raided by the Minister for Finance for Budgetary purposes? That is what was done, with all respect, for a great number of years during which the Fianna Fáil Administration was in charge of the Exchequer.
That is not being done now.
I hope Senator Hawkins will not persist in saying that what is being done is not in accordance with the facts in the Bill. The Road Fund was raided in 1926-27 to the extent of £100,000. It was raided on nine occasions deliberately by the Fianna Fáil Administration to the extent of £1,100,000, a sum which, if now in the Road Fund, would pay interest on a capital advance of £27,000,000. That is what happened. The Road Fund was raided in the past and the money which motorists, according to Senator Hawkins, expected to see expended on roads was expended on the relief of taxation of other kinds. It was grabbed up by the Exchequer, by one Minister for Finance after another, during the past 15 or 16 years. Before Senator Hawkins and the Irish Press commence discussing raids on the Road Fund they ought to have regard to the fact that they have been raiding it year after year, until they took out of the fund £1,100,000 which should be there now for road construction, and to make up deficiencies of the war period.
On that point I should like to draw attention to the fact that the Irish Press in giving a heading of that kind to the article to which I referred had no justification for such a heading, and seems to me to be creating a public mischief which, if done by some private citizen, would involve that person being brought before a court and charged with the criminal offence of creating public mischief. I offer that advice to the Minister for Finance, so that he might consult the Attorney-General to see if this misleading heading and misleading article would come under that heading.
This from the Party that stood for free speech and a free Press.
We do not stand for a lying Press. What we are asked to do is to give our approval to a Bill which, when it becomes law, will enable the Minister for Finance to advance on loan £3,000,000 for the purpose of expending the maximum sum which local authorities can expend on road maintenance and road repair, and also, I take it, on road construction. Let us bear in mind that when this sum is made available the Road Fund will advance in respect of main roads £9 for every £1 put up by local authorities. Broadly speaking, it means 90 per cent. on main roads or 66 per cent. in respect of every £1 put up by local authorities in respect of county roads.
Surely the Senator is not suggesting that that is being done under this Bill. That was done two years ago.
Certainly, I agree. This is three millions more.
On the same terms.
That is the point I am making. Actually, what is being done is that a larger sum is being made available now for road maintenance and road repair and represents a contribution by the Exchequer.
No, by the Road Fund.
By the Exchequer to the Road Fund, to be repaid later on by the Road Fund and amounting to £9 in the case of main roads for every £1 put up by local authorities. Senator Hawkins seems to me to have one complaint in relation to this Bill, that the advances which are to be made under the Bill must be repaid. Is it not better and more honest to repay advances to the Road Fund than to allow the Treasury to seize the proceeds of the Road Fund and to divert them to other purposes? That has been going on since 1926, when £100,000 was taken—pure robbery— without the knowledge or consent of the taxpayers. As I pointed out, a total of £1,100,000 was taken out of the Road Fund by the last Government. I suggest it is better to have the money in the Road Fund and to pay interest on the advances than to have it collared by the Exchequer for other purposes.
Who will pay the interest?
The Road Fund.
Chomh fada agus feicthear dhom, tá cuspóir simplí ag baint leis an mBille seo ach bheadh dá locht le fáil agam ar an mBille. Sé an chéad locht ná go bhfeicthear dhom nach bhfuil a dhóithin airgid á cheapadh amach le caitheamh ar na mbóithre. Sé an dara locht a bheadh agam air—an rud a luaidh an Seanadóir Hawkins—gur trua nach bhfuil réiteach níos fearr, níos cúramaí á dhéanamh le cúiteamh a thabhairt do na comhairlí contae mar gheall ar an diomailt, an caitheamh a rinneadh ar na mbóithre le linn na héigeandála. Tuigimid anois níos fearr ná riamh chomh tábhachtach agus tá na bóithre i saol na tíre. Brathann go mór anois ar an saghas bóithre a bheas againn cén chaoi a rachaidh cúrsaí tionscail chun cinn. Is cuma an feilméaraí nó tionscalaithe atá i gceist, teastaíonn bóithre maithe uathu. Brathann go mór ar fheabhas na mbóithre cen costas a bheas ar chúrsaí iompair agus brathann go mór ar chostas iompair cen costas a bheas ar sheirbhísí agus brathann a go mór air sin an costas maireachtala Mar sin caithfimid admháil go bhfuil bóithre maithe ar phríomh-riachtanais na tíre, agus is dóigh liom go mba cheart dúinn breathnú ar na bóithre mar ghléas náisiúnta agus go mba cheart dúinn féachaint chuige go mbeidh bail agus feabhas orthu an oiread agus bheadh ar ár gcumas a chur orthu.
Tá rud amháin eile ar mhaith liom a mheabhrú don Aire. Is dóigh liom gur dearmad é na bóithre a roint ar an mbealach a rointear iad. Na príomh-bhóithre, bóithre contae, na bóithre ar a dtugtar mór-bhóithre orthu, tugaim faoi deara go dtugtar aire réasúnta dhóibh, ach——
I have nothing to do with classification.
Tá fhios agam sin.
And the Bill has nothing to do with it.
Ceart go leor —admhaím sin; ach ó thárla go bhfuilimid ag cur síos ar airgead i gcóir na mbóithre, sé mo thuairim go mba cheart cuimhniú air seo: gur éagcóir a rinneadh mar gheall ar an rangú atá déanta ar na bóithre. I dtaobh na bpríomh-bhóithre, níl mórán locht le fáil agam ar an aire atáthar a thabhairt dóibh; tugtar aire réasúnta maith do na mór-bhóithre; ach na bóithre contae a theastaíonn ó an-chuid daoine, is náireach an bhail atá orthu. An fhaid a bheas na bóithre contae ag fáil deontais ar an mbealach a bhfaigheann siad iad, is dóigh liom go leanfar leis an bhfaillí atá á dhéanamh faoi na bóithre seo. Tá scoltacha suite ann; tá séipéil suite ann; agus tá hallaí paróiste suite ann. Is dóigh liom go mba cheart go bhfuigheadh na daoine a bhaineann feidhm as na bóithre sin serbhís a bheadh ar a laghad chomh maith leis an tseirbhís a gheibheas na daoine a úsáideann na mór-bhóithre. Níl mé ag rá go bhfuil aon bhaint ag an Aire le rangú na mbóithre; ach feicthear dhomsa gur ócáid oiriúnach é seo leis an gceist seo a phlé. Tá éagcóir á dhéanamh ar na daoine mar gheall ar an bhfaillí atá á dhéanamh maidir leis an rangú sin.
Iarraim ar an Aire féachaint le cabhair speisialta a thabhairt do na húdaráis áitiúla mar gheall ar an gcaitheamh speisialta a rinneadh ar na bóithre le linn na héigeandála. Ní dóigh liom gur iarratas mí-réasúnach é sin. Le linn na héigeandála bhí na bóithre ag dul in olcas. Dá bhféadfaí an damáiste a shlánú do réir mar bhí caitheamh ag dul iontu, ní bheadh an scéal chomh dona, ach ligeadh i bhfaillí iad, bliain i ndiaidh bliana, go dtí go bhfeictear dom go bhfuil an tualach a bheas le hiompar ag na húdaráis áitiúla ró-throm dóibh. Dúirt an Seanadóir Hawkins gur ar mhaithe leis an náisiún fré chéile a thárlaigh an damáiste sin toisc an gá a bhí ann móin agus beithigh d'iompair nuair nach raibh traenacha le fáil chun na ruda seo d'iompair. Caithfidh sé aontú gur le linn na héigeandála a thárla an scrios mór sin agus gur ar mhaithe leis an bpobal fré chéile a thárla sé, ar mhaithe le tíobhas náisiúnta agus, ar an ábhar sin amháin, is dóigh liom go bhfuil éileamh ceart ag na húdaráis áitiúla ar chabhair speisialta mar gheall ar an scrios sin a rinneadh le linn na héigeandála.
Tá siad ag fáil deontaisí níos mó anois ná mar bhí.
Má tá cúiteamh réasúnta le fáil acu tá mise sásta. Muna bhfuil, tá mé ag iarradh ar an Aire go ndéanfaidh sé a dhícheall an scéal a leigheas. Brathann ar na bóithre mór-chuid den chóras atá againn le haghaidh iompair náisiúnta agus ní fhéadfaimís bóithre an-mhaith a bheith againn go dtí go gcuirfear go leor airgid ar fáil le deá-bhóithre a chur ar fáil don tír.
We all know that as a result of the excessive motor traffic over many roads, extra expenditure is required for restoration work. We also know that the traffic was entirely out of proportion to what the roads were originally intended to bear. Senator Hawkins believes that the people owe a debt of gratitude to those who maintained this transport during the emergency. I would not like to detract from that, but I would like to point out that they were well paid for their services. This work of repair must be paid for and there are several ways by which it could be paid for. The cost might be met out of the Central Fund, out of the Transition Development Fund, as Senator Hawkins suggested, or it could be made the responsibility of the rate-payers and met by way of direct levy on the rates. I maintain that the cost of restoring the roads to their original condition and of improving them should be the responsibility of the Road Fund. That fund was built up by a tax on mechanically propelled vehicles and in making that fund bear the cost it would be really saddling vehicles with the cost of the damage they have done.
During the war years, some essential materials used in the repair of roads were in short supply. Machinery replacements were difficult to obtain. It is peculiar, however, that in some counties, at any rate, the cost of road maintenance was on the upward curve every year within that period. If they had not the materials, it is difficult to understand how they could spend more money in keeping up the condition of the roads. From 1934 on, because of the very large number of unemployed, extra unemployment grants were made available, which were based on a census of the unemployed compiled in the month of January each year.
In 1934-35, in County Mayo, a grant amounting to £90,000 was made and distributed in proportion to the number of unemployed in each area. Only those parts of the county in which there was a number of unemployed on the unemployment register benefited by those grants and in other parts of the county, where people who paid very high rates live, the roads deteriorated. They were not able to procure those grants and such repairs as were done were met out of the county rates. When the money provided in this Bill is made available and when the works of repair start I hope that those roads which did not benefit by the former grants will not be lost sight of.
There is a great deal of road-making machinery lying derelict in quarries throughout the country. If it is not possible to put that machinery into a useful condition, it should be scrapped and sold as scrap. The fact that crushers, traction engines and steamrollers are lying derelict is no tribute to the supervision that is exercised in regard to the maintenance and repair of machinery. At a time when road-making materials were very scarce, tar was wasted in many cases. This should not have occurred.
I feel that the Minister in providing for the work that has to be done by supplementing the Road Fund is doing it in the proper way. Any other method would mean an increase in taxation. That is something that the present Government are out to control. Their aim is not so much to keep down taxation as to provide money that may be usefully employed. I have discussed this matter with other people and I have come to the conclusion that the Minister, in adopting this plan for the repair of roads that have suffered during the emergency, is adopting the sensible plan.
Senator Hawkins has made an effort to get out of the mess which the Irish Press landed him in by its heading the other day. It is impossible to describe this as a raid. The term was an unfortunate one. It has directed the attention of inquirers to the real raiding that was done on the fund. On nine occasions, from 1932, the fund was raided in the proper sense of that term. Money was taken from the Road Fund and handed over either to special schemes or to general Exchequer purposes, and the sum involved was £900,000. That was a raid. What is happening now is that the Central Fund is advancing to the Road Fund, or at least, it is asking leave to be allowed to advance, certain extra sums of money so that the advances will not come to more than £5,000,000. It must not be forgotten, however, that the alleviation is only in respect of £3,000,000, because, even although the advance has been repaid, it still counts as an advance for the purpose of the legislation. The sum is being lent on the strength of the Road Fund. The Road Fund has found it impossible to repay these advances from time to time. There is no fear that it will not be able to repay these moneys in future. When the new scheme for restoring the roads which had suffered under the heavy traffic of the war years was inaugurated, it was the intention that it would be financed completely and entirely out of the Road Fund, and for 1946-47 and 1947-48 that was done.
As to whether this money could be found from the Transition Development Fund, it must be remembered that there are certain objections to that. That fund has already been earmarked for other purposes. If any portion of that fund were diverted now to meet expenditure on roads, whatever the amount that was diverted would have to be provided from some other source and there is considerable legal doubt as to whether the section of the Finance Act under which the Transition Development Fund was inaugurated would permit this type of expenditure on roads to be financed from the Transition Development Fund. In any event, there has been a contention that, if it was thought that the Road Fund might not be able to bear the cost of this restoration, then the proper thing was for the Minister for Local Government to conserve the Road Fund by maintaining a lower scale of grants. These were the arguments that were used by my predecessor in the Ministry of Finance in regard to this whole matter. It was these arguments, in addition to one other matter, that led to the peculiar decision being taken which Senator Hawkins half read from the Dáil debate, that was, that £2,250,000 should be advanced to the Road Fund. The part that I persuaded him to read afterwards is part of the same sentence. It is a bad habit to break sentences for the purpose of distortion. It is:—
"But it was not decided whether that sum should be obtained from the Transition Development Fund or out of moneys provided by Parliament."
I read that.
I extracted that.
Would the Minister read the next sentence?
"The decision was taken in principle that a gift of £2,250,000 should be made to the Road Fund, but the source from which this gift was to emanate had not been determined when we took office." That is the Taoiseach. This, of course, was all part of what I may call the late Government getting ready its going away clothes. A decision was taken on the 13th February, when they had just five days to go. It was very easy to take decisions about making grants of £2,250,000 in those days.
These were made two years ago.
The grant of £2,250,000 was decided on in one year only. The Senator is talking about the particular grants that were made to the road authorities. These are not being disturbed. The percentage of these is not being disturbed. What was referred to in the Taoiseach's statement in the Dáil was the decision taken on the 13th February, 1948. It was very easy to take these decisions and hand over the job of finding how the money was to be got to his successors.
You could not forecast the bargaining entered into the following days.
I think you could.
On the 13th February, what the Senator, I am sure, was making himself hoarse about down the country and describing as a foul and shameful process, had been nearly completed.
Now we are getting some place—completed on the 13th February.
And must have been known to the gentlemen huddled around the table taking that decision on the 13th February.
Little did they know.
On the 13th February, is it?
Yes. The date of the decision was the 13th February and the memorandum on which it was taken was a memorandum submitted on the 12th February, built up hurriedly, and the request that was demanded of the Government in those days by the Minister for Local Government was that the existing scale of grants should be continued until the work of road restoration is completed and a grant of £2,250,000 should be made towards the cost from the Transition Development Fund—and that was not accepted. The minute of the decision was:—
"It was understood that the question whether the State grant of £2,250,000 should be made out of the Transition Development Fund or out of moneys to be voted for the purpose would be further considered by the Minister for Finance"
—some time after the 13th February.
Not out of the Road Fund.
We do not know what it would have come to. It is useful for taxpayers to know that if Fianna Fáil had continued in office there would have been another £2,250,000 on this year's bill.
Oh, no. There is a very big increased tax now, the petrol tax.
Whatever was there would have been there, plus the £6,000,000 economies which I was able to make, plus £2,250,000 for road development. At any rate, the money is here to be found. I think it can be given from the Road Fund. It is the system adopted so far and it will enable this very heavy restoration work to be got through. As to what has been said by Senator Ó Buachalla and others, I have no function whatever as to how the money is spent. That is the duty of my colleague, the Minister for Local Government. I am merely concerned with getting this money and with deciding on the particular terms and conditions on which it will be loaned. I have nothing to do with the use of it.
When is it proposed to take the next stage?
Is there any objection to taking it now?
In view of the many statements and suggestions that have been made, I think it would be only fair to adjourn consideration of the Committee Stage until next week.
I will not be able to meet the House next week.
There is nothing very much at issue. There is nothing in the Bill that could not be dealt with, if not to-day, then to-morrow.
Perhaps Senator Hearne would agree to have the Committee and remaining Stages of the Bill taken to-morrow.
In view of the fact that we are meeting next week to take the Social Welfare Bill, and in view of the statement made by Senator Hawkins, I object to all stages of the Bill being taken to-morrow.
The Minister will not be available next week. He has had, as Senators know, in the nature of things, a very difficult time, and it has been the practice here, as I think the Senators opposite will agree, to consult in a reasonable way the convenience of Ministers. This is a money Bill, and in spite of all the talk, the net point in it is a simple one. I think there can be no great objection to taking all stages of the Bill to-morrow. I hope that Senators opposite will agree to do that.
I resent the implication in the Senator's statement that Ministers have not been facilitated. Since the change over we have facilitated Ministers who came here with Bills.
I agree entirely. I did not imply that the contrary was the case. I merely said what the practice had been and meant to include the present Government as well as the Government that had been here previously. In view of that practice the House, I think, should take all stages of the Bill to-morrow.
I am perfectly certain that no one wants to force his will as against the opinion of Senator Hearne. I do put this suggestion to him, that if we leave over consideration of the Committee Stage until next week and have not the Minister here, there will be very little advantage in producing any quotations that there may be, whereas if Senator Hawkins will consume a little midnight oil to-night he probably can have his quotations ready by to-morrow and can confront the Minister with them. That might be an advantage, and I would urge that that course might be taken.
We would like to facilitate Ministers. They have been met fairly in this House even though we disagree politically with them and disagree violently with them. Yet, in spite of that, we try not to embarrass them unduly. We shall try to embarrass them elsewhere if we can. In view of the representations that have been made, we will agree to take all remaining stages of the Bill to-morrow.
Thanks very much. That is very satisfactory.
In return, if Senator Hawkins will tell me what quotations he wants I will try and get them for him.