I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendment:—
New section. Before Section 5 a new section inserted as follows:—
5. —(1) Section 63 of the Principal Act is hereby amended in the following respects and shall be construed and have effect accordingly, that is to say:—
(a) by the substitution in clause (i) of paragraph (a) of the said section of the words "and was continuously employed (whether such employment commenced before or after the grant of such licence) whole-time, for a period of five years ending on the day preceding the critical date in the operation of the said vehicles, either by such licensee or by such licensee and his predecessor or predecessors in title to such business" for the words "and was so employed continuously for a period of five years ending on the day preceding the critical date" now contained in the said clause;
(b) by the substitution in paragraph (b) of the said section of the words "(whether such employment commenced before or after the grant of such licence) whole-time, in the operation of the said vehicles, either by such licensee or by such licensee and his predecessor or predecessors in title to such business" for the words "whole-time by such licensee in the operation of the vehicles used for the purposes of the business authorised by such licence to be carried on" now contained in the said paragraph;
(c) by the substitution in paragraph (c) of the said section of the words "either by such licensee or by such licensee and his predecessor or predecessors in title to such business" for the words "by such licensee" now contained in the said paragraph.
(2) This section shall have and be deemed to have had effect as from the passing of the Principal Act.
When this matter was mentioned here on Friday last, Deputy McGilligan raised some questions concerning possible interpretations that might be placed upon the section of the Principal Act which has been amended by this amendment. I have looked into the matter and I find that no representations have been made to us from any quarter that further amendment was required. I think it is unlikely that the very narrow interpretation which Deputy McGilligan suggested will be placed upon that section when it does come to be interpreted by the courts. The amendment which was inserted in the Seanad meets the only question that has been raised so far by those interested in the interpretation of the relevant section.