It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 1, 2 and 6 (under No. 6, Votes 52, 53 and 54), No. 8 and No. 9. With regard to No. 8, which is down for Second Reading—Local Authorities (Works) Bill, 1949—we are anxious that it should be passed into law at the earliest possible moment. We suggest, therefore, that the debate on the Estimate for the Department of Lands should be interrupted at 7 o'clock, and that the remainder of the afternoon should be devoted to No. 8, if necessary.

I object to No. 8 being taken at 7 o'clock this evening. When this Bill was given a First Reading, the Second Reading was asked to be fixed for yesterday. We protested against that on the ground that we had not seen the Bill, and we did not see the Bill until Monday morning.

That is not true.

It is true.

How does the Minister know that Deputies in the country received the Bill?

The Bill went out on Friday night.

In that case a great many Deputies certainly did not receive the Bill until Monday, thanks to the expedition with which the mails are now conveyed. The Bill, in its appearance, is a simple Bill, but it contains the most far-reaching proposals. This Bill proposes to permit certain local authorities to abolish arbitrarily all the rights which a man may have on his land and opens, in some sections, a wide field for graft and corruption. When this Bill was put down for Second Reading we, in order to meet the wishes of the Government in a reasonable way, said that we would allow them tentatively and provisionally to fix it for yesterday, but that if we objected to taking it this week that then we were entitled to get the usual notice. Accordingly, we object very strongly to this Bill being taken at 7 o'clock.

In his capacity for misrepresenting everybody and everything, Deputy MacEntee is continuing in that role. It was quite definitely understood and undertaken by me that the Bill would be circulated by Saturday. That undertaking was kept, and the House, having regard to that undertaking, set down the Bill for consideration yesterday. This is an urgent Bill, a Bill which intends to promote employment in the country on a very widespread scale. I think that the House would welcome the early passage into law of a Bill of this kind.

It is true, as I have said, that we wanted to meet the wishes of the Government in a reasonable way, but we made it quite clear that if we found the Bill objectionable we would want it postponed for another week so that we might have an opportunity to study it. The Bill requires a great deal of very careful study.

No. 1.

We had better settle the Order of Business. Our Party have been trying to get a preliminary look at this Bill. As far as we have been able to judge, it is a Bill of very wide implications, the full extent of which we will require time to probe. The general view of our Party is that we are not in a position to see the full implications of this Bill at the moment, and that it will require a certain amount of time to study it. The suggestion is that in a week's time we can take the Second Reading. The suggestion has come from the Government side that if that be so that we should take all stages of it next week. That would be impossible if it is found necessary to have important amendments moved to it. It is important that public business be done properly and not be rushed. We are very anxious to see that Government work is done and we want to do our work properly. On behalf of nearly half the members of the House, I want to say that we are not satisfied that we can see the implications of this Bill, or that it can be properly debated this evening. The suggestion is that it be taken next week, but if there are amendments a fortnight at least would be required to consider them and see that they are properly drafted. We are quite prepared to meet the Government and sit on after next week, but we cannot agree to the scamping of public business or to half-doing it.

There is no suggestion to scamp public business or to half do it. This Bill has been in the hands of some Deputies since last Saturday and of all Deputies since Monday.

No.

Well, of those Deputies who opened their post last Monday. This Bill is required urgently to deal with the problem of unemployment. That is why we want this Bill urgently. The week after next will be Holy Week, and I do not know that there is any precedent that the House has ever sat in Holy Week. We have no objection to sitting in Holy Week, but we do not want to create a precedent for the purpose of dealing with a Bill of this kind which can be debated up to a certain point this evening, continued next week and finished next week.

I should like to put this from the point of view of the Opposition. The Government have had an opportunity of studying this Bill. It has gone through various Departments and I take it that its implications have been studied fully. It is now thrown at us and we are supposed to see its full implications in three or four days without any of the assistance which is available to the Government from its legal advisers. I think that is unreasonable and unfair.

It is a very simple Bill.

Our business as public representatives and as the Opposition is to see that public business is properly done. We must be able to understand what are the implications in any legislation that comes before us.

It is not a simple Bill because it contains no safeguard for any individual in this country in relation to his property.

No. 1.

We object.

On this point, when the question of rates was going through the Minister gave this assurance to the House that he would bring in this Bill, and that the purpose of the Bill was to enable employment to be given.

The purpose of the Bill is to eat once again into the rights of private property.

This objection is an objection to giving public employment in the country.

No. 1.

We object to the taking of this Bill to-night because we have not had a reasonable opportunity of considering the implications that are in the Bill. They appear to be very wide.

Will the Deputy agree to the suggestion that was made to him earlier to-day, that if the Bill is taken on Tuesday next he will give all stages next week? That is a fair compromise which he refused earlier to-day.

Is it fair to ask us to consider it?

It is fair.

The practice of the House has been that, if there is a Bill to which it is necessary to have amendments moved, a fortnight would be allowed for the purpose of having them drafted. That is desirable from the point of view of the Opposition. The Government have their draftsmen to do that business for them. The Opposition have to do that work themselves, and we want more time than the Government to do it. We want time to consider the implications of the Bill, and the Government proposal is most unreasonable.

No. 1.

Is there to be a vote?

There is no vote. The Bill was ordered for to-day.

Mr. Aiken rose.

There is nothing before the House except a question in vacuo.

The Bill was ordered for to-day——

Yes

—— on the distinct understanding, to be found in Deputy Lemass's speech, of the Bill being a simple one. That is on the records of the House. It was ordered on the understanding that if it was a simple Bill we would take it. It is quite obvious it is not a simple Bill.

Nonsense.

Nothing could be simpler.

The Ceann Comhairle presided over the discussion in relation to the ordering of this Bill for consideration on a certain date. I want to call attention to the fact that a pledge was publicly given by the Government that if there was objection the Bill would be put back to an agreed date. That pledge is now being flagrantly broken and I hope that we will not again be asked to facilitate the Government in the ordering of business.

There is not a shred of truth in that.