I move:
That it is expedient to authorise such charges on and payments out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof as are necessary to give effect to any Act of the present session to amend the Local Loans Fund Acts, 1935 to 1961.
Committee on Finance. - Local Loans Fund (Amendment) Bill, 1964: Money Resolution.
While I appreciate what the Minister said in relation to the publication of the projected Capital Budget in a pamphlet, my recollection is—I am only talking on recollection and I may be wrong—it was published only two or three days before the Current Budget debate. It is inevitable that the interest and attention of Deputies and the country at the time of the Current Budget debate will be on the more immediate effects of the Budget. The Minister will agree, I think, it is virtually impossible for him to frame his Current Budget until he has first got his Capital Budget to see what he wants to carry in for sinking fund, interest and so forth. Therefore, as far as I can see, there would not be any difficulty in the publication of a Capital Budget around the time of the Vote on Account.
If that were possible, it might mean we would be able to get a discussion on our Capital Budget away from the more immediate impingement of Budget proposals on our pockets. It is very necessary that some attention be called to the nature and amount of our Capital Budget and to the necessity for ensuring it is directed into the right channels. I can see no better way of doing it than by publishing the Capital Budget proposals, as they were published in 1963, a month or six weeks before the Current Budget and accordingly have an opportunity of discussing them on the Vote on Account.
I will certainly keep in mind what the Deputy says. I have received some information since I last spoke. The reason these names are given is that they are actually on the property as a mortgagee and it is to get them released.
If that is so, should we not identify James Kelly? There are a few James Kellys in the country although there may not be many McKenzie-O'Rourkes, leaving out the James Ryans and the Gerry Sweetmans.
They are identified in the Office, of course, and by the amount, so they can be conveyed to the people concerned.
There has to be a further conveyance. Could it not be done by the statute to save the cost of the conveyance?
That is a legal question. I do not know. It is probably done by the statute all right, yes.
Perhaps there has to be a vacate procedure?
It is a legal argument. I do not know.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolution reported and agreed to.