DÁIL RESUMED. - DÁIL IN COMMITTEE.

I beg to move Clause 1:—

"1.—The Minister of Finance may issue out of the Central Fund and apply towards making good the supply granted for the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March one thousand nine hundred and twenty-three, such sum as together with sums already issued for Supply Services out of the Consolidated Fund of the Provisional Government shall amount to the aggregate sum of thirty million fifty-one thousand and eighty-six pounds."

Clause agreed to.

I beg to move Clause 2:—

Clause 2:—"(i.) The Minister of Finance may borrow from any person and the Bank of Ireland may advance to the Minister of Finance on the credit of the sum authorised to be issued by Section One of this Act any sum or sums not exceeding the amount so authorised, and for the purpose of such borrowing the Minister of Finance may create and issue any securities bearing such rate of interest and subject to such conditions as to repayment, redemption or otherwise as he thinks fit.

(ii.) The principal and interest of any securities issued under this Act and the expenses incurred in connection with the issue of such securities shall be charged on the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof.

(iii.) Any money raised by securities issued under this Act shall be placed to the credit of the account of the Exchequer, and shall form part of the Central Fund and be available in any manner in which such Fund is available."

Now, we must have some Bank. You can, if you wish, have several Banks, but at any rate we must consolidate in one Central Fund the resources of the revenue of the State, and it is obviously essential that we should deal with one Bank. One Bank should have some authority to permit of the overdrawing of the account or the providing you with the money you require. I read in the Press yesterday that the Provisional Government was reputed to have gone to the Bank of Ireland and borrowed one million at 6 per cent. I read the announcement in three papers, and I did not find any of them telling the same story. It is not a fact that we borrowed one million at 6 per cent. from the Bank. We did not borrow it at 6 per cent.; we did not borrow it at all. How people outside the Government know all the things they know and state them soberly before a Committee is more than I can understand.

I beg to move as an amendment in Clause 2 to leave out the words "Bank of Ireland," and to insert instead therof the words "any Bank of good repute having its head office in Ireland, at the discretion of the Minister of Finance.

This is the first I have heard of any million pounds. I did not read it even in the newspapers, but I think it is undesirable that we should put into this Bill this particular phrase: "And the Bank of Ireland may advance to the Minister for Finance." As I understand it the Bank of Ireland has power without any Act of Parliament to advance to the Minister for Finance any monies. The Bank of Ireland has been advancing, I take it, monies, small or large I do not know, without an Act of Parliament, and I am not objecting to the Minister for Finance fixing upon the Bank of Ireland as his banker for the time being. But it seems to me to be unnecessary to single out the Bank of Ireland here, for it is the only body that is selected to advance to the Ministry for Finance certain sums. The Minister for Finance may borrow from any person. Any person means any Bank as well as individual, but we are asked to go further and say that the Bank of Ireland may advance to the Minister for Finance on the credit of the sum authorised to be issued any sum of money. I want to enlarge the powers of the Minister, and I do not want even to imply that only the Bank of Ireland is capable of advancing to him sums of money. And I think it is unfortunate that he should select the Bank of Ireland and advertise it in this way when it is quite unnecessary. I propose to amend this by striking out the words "of the Bank of Ireland" and inserting "any Bank of good repute having its head office in Ireland"—any bank of good repute which may be selected by the Minister for Finance. I am prepared to go as far as that. But I am not prepared to agree to advertising this private institution—the Bank of Ireland—over and above any other Bank that may have its headquarters in Ireland. Its only claim to preference is that it has hitherto been the agent of the British Government. I do not think it has a claim for preference from the Irish Government, and there are other Banks capable of assisting the Government here, and you should not select one and put it in the position by Act of Parliament, on the initiative of the Parliament itself, not by special application from that Bank, and that we are to ennoble by Act of Parliament the Bank of Ireland over and above any other Bank in this country is to me a quite unnecessary and an uncalled-for advertisement. I beg to move the amendment.

I think the Government might consider the amendment moved by Deputy Johnson if for no other reason than that everybody in the country knows the position a Bank gets for being the Bank of the Government. It gives one Bank an undue position over the rest. Unless there is some particular reason no Bank should be made the Government Bank at all. If there is a sane reason I will support the Bill, but if there is not I will seriously consider Deputy Johnson's amendment.

I am quite in sympathy with Deputy Johnson and take up much the same position as Deputy Gorey. If the Government could find out some way of making it clear that all the Banks would get any advantage there may be in being practically the repository of the enormous funds of the Government—I mean in normal times, for of course it is different now, when the Banks lend to the Government—I think it would be a very popular thing in the country if there could be an impartial distribution of the revenues of the nation amongst them all. I do not know whether it is possible to have any such system carried into effect as that which prevails in Insurance Companies, which re-insure with one another the sums they receive from clients. I do not know whether that could be done so that the national revenue would be pooled among all the Banks, but it seems to me that it would be a very fair way of dealing with the system if some system like that could be carried into effect and all the Banks could receive and give, as their revenues fluctuate. If that could be done, I think it would be very desirable.

The Minister for Finance may borrow from any person or Bank.

Surely the intention is to authorise the Ministry to pledge the security of the Saorstát in the Bank for loans, and when we come to the later Sub-section, that any moneys so raised shall form part of the Central Fund to be available in any manner in which such Fund is available. We shall find ourselves creating not merely difficulty for the Minister for Finance, but serious difficulties for the Banks if they all simultaneously are to be pledges of the National security. Furthermore, it has been the custom to have armed guards or sentinels in the Banks in which the National securities are deposited, and there might be a very serious difficulty as regards this. But I suppose we all look forward to the time when a Bank shall be created, which does not now exist, and which shall be something in the nature of a State Bank, and pending that time we may authorise the Minister for Finance to raise money to secure advances in any Bank he may select. Personally, I happen to be interested in the National Bank, which precludes me from advancing its claims.

It has not its headquarters in Ireland.

I see a difficulty in Deputy Johnson's motion. Are you not tying the Government to get money at a price which they might find to be higher in Ireland than elsewhere? If the Government decide to get the money—the Bank of Montreal has been mentioned by the President—then Deputy Johnson's motion would knock that out. I think the suggestion of Deputy Gorey is the right one, that the Minister of Finance may borrow from any person or Bank he likes. There is no use in paying out money here because a Bank has a head office in Ireland if you get it cheaper elsewhere.

I do not think I could accept the amendment. The Bank of Ireland is at the present time acting for us, and has control of all these funds and accounts. It understands, as it were, the Government business, and I would not be prepared, without giving the matter very careful consideration, to agree to the amendment. It would seem that no direct authority would be given to this Bank to advance the money, and a general direction such as that which would include four or five people is not, to my mind, at this moment good public business. I have not heard of the same thing happening before with regard to any public account, and I do not think it would be advisable. If you were thinking of making such an alteration it would be necessary, in my view, to specify the particular service and the amount for such a Bank, and I am not prepared at the moment to recommend the Dáil to accept such a proposition. In other words, a limit should be fixed to the sum for each particular institution. I do not think that would be easily found at the present moment, and you would place the Banks in a very difficult position. You would have to undertake to declare that you were not dealing with other Banks. We are dealing direct with an institution which is authorised to advance to us, on the authority of this Act, a sum of something like £10,000,000. That might be on short loan, and it might not be necessary to get it from them at all. That is, if we were raising it from any source it might not be necessary to borrow, but at the moment I do not think it would be practicable to adopt the suggestion.

There is nothing to prevent you exercising your discretion to get it from the Bank of Ireland without putting it into the Act.

Without taking expert advice I would not like to change the terms of that particular Act, but I will look into it before bringing up an Appropriation Bill for next year in four months time.

It is perfectly true, as Mr. Gorey points out, that the amendment does not insist that the Minister will have to go to a number of Banks. It is leaving him that discretion, which he has already exercised. It is leaving him in the same position under this Act as he had been under the Provisional Government. He then exercised discretion, and he used the Bank of Ireland. I am proposing to leave him with that discretion, but I object to ennobling the Bank of Ireland over and above every other Bank by inserting the title in this Bill. I am not sure whether, if we passed this in its present form, we would not require a definition of what is the Bank of Ireland. This is a new assembly. We have the third bill, and we are, as a matter of fact, dealing with matters of which we have had no concern before. We do not know, as an official body, whether there is such a body as the Bank of Ireland in existence. We would want to know something of its character; who are its shareholders; and what are its reserves. Why should it be given special credit by this Dáil? If you are going to leave this title and this institution, which presumably exists, then we should have a definition Clause as to what that Bank consists of. I submit the amendment is very much more in conformity with law-making than the draft as proposed, because we propose to leave to the discretion of the Minister who is responsible for Finance the right to choose which bank he shall deal with between now and the end of March. Now that is a discretion which he has already exercised. I am anxious to leave that discretion with him, but I am very much averse to advertising, and that is the whole thing, advertising the Bank of Ireland in an Act of Parliament No. 3 of 1922.

It is rather a pity the case is not as indicated by Deputy Johnson, because while it would be possible to borrow from every other Bank it would not be possible to borrow from the Bank of Ireland.

That shows how much the Bank of Ireland trusts you.

Do not jump to conclusions as quickly as that. The fact is the Bank of Ireland must get statutory authority. It is not necessary for the other Banks to get it. That is my information, and you exclude the Bank of Ireland if you do not mention it.

Would you be prepared to accept it if we name a number of Banks? That would give the Bank of Ireland authority. We can name all the Banks having their head offices in Ireland. That would meet the case.

If that be so would it exclude other Banks?

No. We can borrow from all the other Banks, but not from the Bank of Ireland unless it is specially mentioned.

Has the Bank of Ireland already at any time within the past twelve months advanced the Government any money?

Not to my knowledge. It may have to this extent, that we may have overdrawn our accounts at particular times, but we have not borrowed.

A nice distinction.

If it is a distinction I have not information of it. You know yourself your own account might be overdrawn without your knowledge. If you mean that I went to the Bank, say, for a million, that has not occurred.

If the Bank of Ireland advanced an overdraft then they do not require special authority, as they had no legal authority before from the Provisional Parliament.

Would it not meet the case to put down the Bank of Ireland in conjunction with the other Banks?

It is not necessary to mention the other Banks.

Why should they get this privilege? I will vote against it.

They must get statutory authority as far as the Bank of Ireland is concerned to borrow from them.

The amendment is in Clause (2) Sub-section 1, line 2:—"To delete the words `the Bank of Ireland' and insert `any Bank of good repute having its head office in Ireland at the discretion of the Minister of Finance.' "

The Dáil divided: Tá, 11; Níl, 34.

Tá.Tomás de Nógla.Riobárd Ó Deaghaidh.Tomás Mac Eoin.Tomás O Conaill.Aodh O Cúlacháin.Liam O Daimhín.Cathal O Seanáin.Seán Buitléir.Nioclás O Faoláin.Domhnall O Muirgheasa.Domhnall O Ceallacháin.

Níl.Liam T. Mac Cosgair.Uáitéar Mac Cumhaill.Seán Ó Maolruaidh.Micheál O hAonghusa.Séamus Breathnach.Darghal Figes.Micheál de Duram.Ailfrid Ó Broin.Seosamh Mag Craith.Domhnall Mac Cártaigh.Earnan Altún.Sir Séamus Craig.Gearóid Mac Giobuin.Liam Thrift.Liam Mag Aonghusa.Seosamh O Faoileacháin.Seorse Mac Niocaill.Fionán Ó Loingsigh.Criostoir Ó Broin.Risteard Mac Liam.Caoimhghin Ó hUigín.Proinsias Bulfin.Séamus Ó Dóláin.Proinsias Mag Aongnusa.Eamon Ó Dúgáin.Peadar Ó hAodha.Séamus Ó Murchadha.Liam Mac Sioghaird.Tomás Ó Domhnaill.Éarnan de Blaghd.Uinseann de Faoite.Domhnall Ó Broin.Séamus de Burca.Micheál Ó Dubhghaill.

I beg to propose this amendment: To insert after the words of Section 1 as they now stand, "That, in addition to the Bank of Ireland, the Minister for Finance may, at his discretion, procure the said sum on the aforesaid credit from any other Bank in the Saorstát Eireann."

It says in the first line that "The Minister for Finance may borrow from any person, and the Bank of Ireland may advance." That is really the purpose, I think, that the Deputy has in mind, that each and every one of them should be open to lend us this money should they be so required. Mentioning Banks, instead of persons, to my mind does not make any difference.

To my mind it makes this slight difference, that it authorises the Minister to deposit securities, and so on.

To my mind it makes the difference that one Bank is to be put in a position which it ought not to occupy. Its shares will become of more value, I think, and I propose that all the Irish Banks be included as well as the Bank of Ireland. If one name is to go in let all go in.

Am I not right in saying the first sentence, "The Minister of Finance may borrow from any person," means that any Bank may lend money, but hitherto, by reason of its charter, the Bank of Ireland has been precluded, and the sole object of the second sentence is to enable the Bank of Ireland to participate in the benefits, whatever they may be?

Will the Deputy go out to the country and explain that to the general public?

There is no such obligation upon the Deputy.

It is not fair to give an advantage to the Bank of Ireland; they have done very little for the people of Ireland, and its people and its governors have done very little. I am not interested in their shares or their governors, but I am interested in the common good, and this is not playing the game fairly. I say that, and I do not care whether the President likes it or not.

Supposing we get Deputy Magennis's amendment before the Committee?

I did not put up this paragraph; it was put up to me to this extent, that somebody must do this business. I did not know that the Bank of Ireland was going to be mentioned, and I did not know until this evening that there was a statutory disadvantage suffered by the Bank of Ireland, that they must get statutory authority or they could not advance money. I undertake to look into it for the next Appropriation Bill, and to see if some other terminology cannot be used in order to remove any misconceptions that there may be that we are doing something for the Bank of Ireland here that we would not do for another Bank. I will undertake to do that. The damage will not be covered by the ten millions, and there is plenty of time to allow of that being considered by the Cabinet.

Deputy Figgis conveyed the idea that if the Bank of Ireland was not mentioned in this way they would withdraw from the whole transaction. I do not think it would be much expense in ink and paper if the other Banks were included. I think the nation would stand it when they have stood so much.

The suggestion is now that in one half line of a Bill dealing with appropriations we are to pass legislation enacting that the Bank of Ireland may do henceforth what it has never done before. Now, that is the suggestion of Deputy Figgis, and I think the Minister for Finance is supporting that suggestion. Surely if the Bank of Ireland is precluded by its Charter from lending money to the Government the right course for that Bank to adopt is to come to the Parliament for Private Bill legislation to increase its powers and authority. But we are asked here to remove that disability which is alleged to exist without any reason being given for its removal. We have the right to assume that if there was a disability imposed upon the Bank there was some reason for it, and we are asked now, incidentally, without any explanations, to remove that disability, to enlarge the Charter, to enlarge the powers of that Bank without any quid pro quo. Now, that is an entirely unwise and unsatisfactory proposal to make. The Dáil has defeated the amendment, and I rather gathered that the reason for voting it down was because there was a provision in the amendment that said that Banks must have their headquarters in Ireland. Many Deputies expressed the view that that was limiting matters too much, and that we should not limit it to Banks having their headquarters in Ireland. If that phrase had not occurred in the amendment I am sure 20 other Deputies would have voted for the amendment. But I want to assist the Minister, and I want to assist him to this extent, that if the Bank of Ireland required this permission, and he is prepared to agree to the insertion of the words after the Bank of Ireland, “The Munster and Leinster Bank,”“The National Provincial Bank,”“The National Bank,”“The Hibernian Bank,” I will even go so far as to say “The Ulster Bank” and “The Northern Banking Company,” and such others as the Minister himself may suggest. Now, that will give the Bank of Ireland all the powers which this clause would give, but it will not ennoble them over and above other Banks. I ask the Minister if he will accept that.

There is an amendment from Deputy Magennis of which notice has been given. Unless there is going to be some solution of this thing ultimately, by the Minister for Finance accepting something——

I do not know. I am prepared to accept "might borrow from any person or corporation." That is what I am advised. Will that do you?

Perfectly satisfactory.

"And the Bank of Ireland may advance——"

Oh, no, no.

You want to exclude that. You wish to override the authority of the Dáil, and the Dáil has already decided that that shall not be excluded. I am now invited to exclude it.

I beg your pardon. That was the Minister's suggestion, and I am accepting his suggestion.

"May borrow from any person or corporation and the Bank of Ireland may advance." That is my suggestion.

How does that compare with Deputy Magennis' proposed amendment? It seems to be the same thing.

Mine amounts to the same thing as the President's proposal, with this difference that his still leaves the objection that resides in the minds of some Deputies that the Bank of Ireland is getting a special advertisement by being the sole Bank mentioned, and my amendment removes that difficulty by mentioning other Banks. Deputy Johnson seems to refuse to take the Law Officer's advice that the President has conformed to, to wit, that the Bank of Ireland would be excluded unless now authorised. I accept that legal opinion that the Bank of Ireland is excluded unless it is empowered especially to make an advance. Consequently the most harmless form in which this thing can be proposed is to put it in the discretion of the Minister to secure advances from any Bank that he desires, at the same time not putting the Bank of Ireland under a disability by pretending something else.

The amendment proposed by Deputy Magennis is to add to Clause 2, Sub-section 1, "Provided that in addition to the Bank of Ireland, the Minister for Finance may, at his discretion, procure such sums on the aforesaid credit from any other established Bank in Saorstát Eireann." Except that it includes the words "the Bank of Ireland," it seems to be substantially the same as the amendment which has been defeated.

I think the simpler form of words would be that the Minister for Finance might borrow from any person or corporation, from the Bank of Ireland or any other Irish Bank. The reason I object to this is that I am speaking from the point of view of the outside public. I am coming down to their mentality—my own is not so high —but I come down to theirs, and I say that this sort of thing gives an enhanced value to the security of the Bank of Ireland; it gives their shares an enhanced value; it gives the security of their deposits an enhanced value, and it is not fair. To that extent I object.

Might I suggest that that Clause should be postponed until to-morrow, and that the Law Adviser be asked to prepare words, because it appears to be a question of words. I think that words could be drafted to meet objections raised by all parties, and I think the Minister ought to postpone it.

If there is no amendment I will propose another amendment.

There is an amendment by Deputy Magennis.

I will withdraw it in favour of any useful amendment—to save time.

If after "The Bank of Ireland" you say "or other Irish Banks," that would be very simple.

It would be still advertising the Bank of Ireland.

How would you get over the difficulty?

I think my proposal will meet Deputy Gorey's suggestion, that we should insert after "The Bank of Ireland" the National Bank, the Provincial Bank, the Hibernian Bank, the Munster and Leinster Bank, the Royal Bank of Ireland, the Belfast Bank, and the Northern Banking Company, and any other reputable Bank, at the discretion of the Minister for Finance.

A DEPUTY

The Land Bank.

We are going to get into the stage very soon when we will simply have amendments produced ad infinitum.

I am prepared to accept one amendment, "That the Minister for Finance may borrow from any person or Banking Corporation in Saorstát Eireann and the Bank of Ireland may advance." That must go in. You see, if we do not agree to that we may as well divide on it at once, because I cannot deal with that Bank unless you put that in, and I do not think it was your intention to knock out that Bank. It is knocked out if that is not in.

I am leaving it in, but I also want to associate that the National Bank, the Munster and Leinster Bank, and the other Banks may advance.

I withdraw my amendment in favour of the President's, because it is substantially identical with his. It leaves the matter to the Minister's discretion, whereas these other amendments that have been sprouted during the last few minutes, practically exclude the Bank of Ireland. They exclude the Bank of Ireland unless they are prepared to show that the opinion of the Law Officer is unsound. Consequently, I have much pleasure in withdrawing my amendment in favour of this.

It is very surprising that Deputy Prof. Magennis should say that Deputy Johnson's amendment cuts the enabling power from the Bank of Ireland. It does not; it leaves the Bank of Ireland in, but it puts in the other banks as well as the Bank of Ireland.

Yes, but you see it has not the same meaning if you say that the Bank of Ireland, the National Bank and the Hibernian Bank may advance. What is the meaning of the phrase "may advance" in that context when, as a matter of fact, they are at liberty at present to make advances?

Precisely.

You are simply putting in an ambiguous phrase in order to secure something which has been defeated already by a vote of the Dáil. Consequently, as the phrase is chosen because ambiguous, it is a very bad precedent to set at the beginning of your legislative career.

Might I enquire how many Governors of the Bank of Ireland are represented here?

There is none here.

How many in the Senate?

Two, and one from another bank.

I suggest, if the Dáil agrees, that the Law Agent should give us some advice on this point.

I would like to explain that if you put in "any person or banking corporation in Saorstát Eireann," you are giving authority to the Minister for Finance to borrow from them, but if you say "and the Bank of Ireland may advance and the Hibernian Bank may advance and the Munster and Leinster Bank may advance," so far as those banks are concerned you are conferring no authority on them; you are not giving them any advantage that they do not at this moment enjoy. You do give an advantage if you put in beforehand, "any person or banking corporation," and we can borrow from them. We can borrow from them at this moment without their being mentioned. But my information is this—I have not seen the Charter of the Bank of Ireland —that unless the Bank of Ireland is mentioned there in that respect I am not in a position, and the Saorstát is not in the position, to borrow a single sixpence from that Bank, and that is why it is mentioned.

I accept the President's view. I hope that he will reconsider it within the next few months.

I will not press my amendment after the discussion, but I take it that the meaning of it is that the Bank of Ireland has got a certain grip upon the Ministry, and intends to tighten that grip as hard as they can, and having got that grip they intend to get their powers enlarged by a side wind, by one line of a Clause in that Bill which does not directly concern them, and I question very much whether it is in order to bring in a matter of that kind in such a Bill. It is bringing in, by a side wind, a proposal to enlarge the powers of a private corporation. We are told that it has not powers at present, and now we are asked, by this side wind, to insert in an Appropriation Act a line which enlarges those powers which, for some reason or other, were denied to them when the Charter was approved, and I protest very strongly against any such procedure.

I do not exactly know what is meant by the Bank of Ireland having a grip on the Ministry, but I do question certainly, very seriously, the statement if it is meant that I am in the hands of the Bank of Ireland. I say I have no account in the Bank of Ireland and I have no shares in the Bank of Ireland. There is no other interpretation to be put upon the statement unless the Deputy does not know what he is talking about.

A Chinn Comhairle, on a point of order, Deputy Cosgrave speaks of a private account. I spoke of a grip upon the Ministry. Is Deputy Cosgrave the Ministry?

He is the President.

There is no member of the Ministry that I know of who has an account in the Bank of Ireland.

I am not talking of private accounts.

What do you mean by a grip upon the Ministry? The Ministry are as independent, as far as I know, in their public life or in their private life as the Deputy who made the charge. It is a most outrageous charge.

Perhaps I should have said "the Treasury of Saorstát Eireann."

The Treasury of Saorstát Eireann is just as independent as the rest. I went with the late General Collins for the first time to the Bank of Ireland. The Treasury did not go. We were acting on behalf of the Provisional Government at the time. I was amazed at that time to hear the then Governor of the Bank of Ireland asking us what authority we had. It is well known that we were an illegal assembly at the time, from the point of view of strict law, and that the position was not legalised until the 1st of April. The terms that are here are the terms that are in any Appropriation Act, I am informed, that passes through the British Parliament in regard to the Bank of England. I do not know whether they had any dealings with the Bank of Ireland or not, but I must say I never heard a more ridiculous or senseless or rhetorical expression of opinion than that the Ministry and the Treasury are in the grip of the Bank of Ireland.

Is the amendment accepted by the President, or is the clause being moved as in the draft?

The amendment goes in.

Before that is put I would like to know from the President whether the last three words of his amendment, "in Saorstát Eireann," are to mean that, if a Bank happens to have a branch here—if it is a Bank not founded in this country—if a Bank of Timbuctoo started a branch here—would that be in Saorstát Eireann within the meaning of the words?

I believe it would. We can make it less wide if you like; I have no objection.

Would the President accept the words, "or Banking Corporation with its headquarters in Saorstát Eireann"?

Certainly.

That phrase of limitation was defeated already.

The clause as moved by the President is: "The Minister of Finance may borrow from any person or Banking Corporation in Saorstát Eireann, and the Bank of Ireland may advance," etc.

Motion made and question put: "That Clause 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Agreed.

I move Clause 3, as follows:—

"All sums granted by this Act, together with sums already issued for Supply Services out of the Consolidated Fund of the Provisional Government, amounting in the aggregate to thirty-eight million fifty-one thousand and eighty-six pounds as set out in column (3) of the Schedule to this Act, are appropriated and shall be deemed to have been appropriated for the services and purposes expressed in column (2) of the said Schedule.

"The said Schedule shall be deemed to be part of this Act in the same manner as if it had been contained in the body thereof.

"In addition to the sums hereby granted out of the Central Fund there may be applied out of any money directed under Section two of the Public Accounts and Charges Act, 1891, to be applied as appropriations in aid of the grants for the services and purposes specified in column (2) of the said Schedule the sums respectively set forth in column (4) of the said Schedule."

Motion made and question put: "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."

Agreed.

I move Clause 4, as follows:—

"A person shall not receive any part of a grant which may be made in pursuance of this Act for non-effective services until he has subscribed such declaration as may from time to time be prescribed by a warrant of the Minister of Finance before one of the persons prescribed by such warrant.

"Provided that whenever any such payment is made at more frequent intervals than once in a quarter the Minister of Finance may dispense with the production of more than one declaration in respect of each quarter.

"Any person who makes a declaration for the purpose of this section, knowing the same to be untrue in any material particular, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour."

Motion made and question put: "That Clause 4 stand part of the Bill."

Agreed.

I move Clause 5, as follows:—

"This Act may be cited for all purposes as the Appropriation Act, 1922."

Motion made and question put: "That Clause 5 stand part of the Bill."

Agreed.

I have not any experience of Bills up to this. I now move the Schedule en bloc.

Motion made and question put: "That the Schedule stand part of the Bill."

Agreed.

moved the title as follows:—

"Saorstát Eireann. Appropriation Bill, 1922. No. 3 of 1922. A Bill to Grant and Appropriate certain sums for the Service of the Financial Year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923."

Motion made and question put: "That the title stand part of the Bill."

Agreed.