The motion is that this Bill be now read a second time. The debate was adjourned on the last day on the motion of the Attorney-General.
MINISTERS & SECRETARIES BILL.—SECOND STAGE.—DEBATE RESUMED.
When the Dáil adjourned I was bringing the observations I had to make to a close, and I have little to add to what I then said. I would like, however, to make one comment upon the danger of superficial criticism in an Assembly of this kind. This is not an assembly in which mere chance-points of a debating society should be made on a serious topic such as this Bill undoubtedly is, chance remarks and debating points which are afterwards seized by newspapers and emblazoned as if they were gospel for the edification of the public. I have in mind two or three such criticisms in particular. Deputy Redmond, for instance, in his remarks, referred to the position of the Army and of the Commander-in-Chief. He says: "As far as I am aware, and I have a little army experience, there is only one Commander-in-Chief in this country according to our Constitution, and that is the King," and so on. Now, if Deputy Redmond, instead of depending upon the empirical knowledge acquired during his little experiences of the Army, had studied the matter, he would have discovered that what he was stating was not constitutionally accurate. It is a fact that in the early portion of the 19th century, the late Queen Victoria and her predecessors were titulary commanders-in-chief of the army. In the middle of the 19th century the command-in-chief of the army was delegated, and so remained in a soldier officer until just after the Boer War. I think the last person who held that delegated command-in-chief was Lord Roberts. I do not think Deputy Redmond's little army experience was gained prior to 1904. He might have been misled if it had, but after the reorganisation of the British Army after the Boer War, the office of commander-in-chief was abolished, so far as the British Army was concerned. This really shows the danger of making those chance observations of half-baked knowledge gained, one does not know how, in an officers' mess, or so on. I would suggest to him he should now study our Constitution, and the Constitution of our co-equal Dominions upon this subject, and his knowledge would be considerably extended.
In the same way he speaks with a similar kind of empirical knowledge, gained during a little experience of Parliamentary life elsewhere, when he says that he there discovered that the Attorney-General was a mere legal officer I would also suggest to him to correct the knowledge which he gained, whether by constant attendance within the House or in its precincts, by a study of, say, Anson's standard work on the British Constitution, and he will find a great deal indeed to learn upon the subject of the position of the Attorney-General under the British Constitution, and he can pursue his studies still further in some of the leading textbooks on Dominion Constitutions. Deputy Cooper presents his matter so agreeably that one does not at first sight see whether he, too, is guilty of these kinds of superficial points. But Deputy Cooper's standing is such that he is quoted as an authority, and I find certain observations of his made here on the last day exhibited in the manner which I believe Pressmen call "framing" in the pages of one of our leading journals. It is headed: "Inflated Cabinets: How Ireland compared with other countries. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, had all a less number of Ministers than are in our Government. The Deputy also referred to the fact that in Canada they had not an Attorney-General, but they had a Minister of Justice." These observations were entirely superficial and unsound. The Deputy totted up the Ministers of the Federal Government of Canada, entirely losing sight of the fact that there is a complete Executive Government in each of the provinces of Canada; he totted up the Ministries in Australia, entirely losing sight of the fact that each of the Australian States has its own Executive Ministers. South Africa is somewhat differently constituted, but it has administrative offices in the different provinces, and he swept into his comparison a country like New Zealand which has a wholly different plan, because it has, as distinct from the Federal Governments of Australia and Canada, a unitary Government. If he had appreciated this important distinction he would have seen the explanation of the point he made with regard to the position of the Attorney-General. In Canada they have in the Federal Government a Minister of Justice whom we all had the pleasure of meeting at Geneva, and a Solicitor-General, who advises the Federal Government, but each province of Canada has its own Attorney-General, and any of us familiar with Law Reports, particularly Reports of Privy Council cases, knows that frequently contests arise as regards certain rights or privileges and whether they are vested in a province or in the Federal Government, and these cases are always fought out as between the Federal Solicitor-General and, say, the Attorney-General of Manitoba. I refer to this as showing the great danger, because this thing has been seized upon, has been made into a headline in the newspapers. For the purpose of making these superficial points Deputies just dip into the pages of Whittaker's Almanac, or some book of the kind, and I suggest that when a Bill of this kind is under consideration it should really receive much deeper consideration than is indicated by the observations——
On a point of personal explanation, may I point out to the Attorney-General that it is impossible to make a complete investigation when we only receive a Bill on Tuesday and have the Second Reading on Friday, and that one is forced to rely on ordinary works of reference because one has no time to obtain anything else.
I suggest that if the circumstances are such that the consideration of the Bill is taken with perhaps some haste, before points of this kind are made it should occur to the Deputy that he should weigh them well, even if they look attractive on the surface. I want to say, first of all, as regards this measure, in the few observations I have to make in closing, that it does not set up new Ministries. That statement has been made here by several Deputies. The Constitution provides for twelve Ministers; this Bill sets up no Ministers. This Bill takes existing departments of administration, sorts them out, divides them into their natural compartments and provides for their organisation, their method of making orders, and matters of that kind. It still remains possible to assign these departments in any number when a Ministry is being constituted to a Minister, provided that not less than five Ministers are appointed, and when people talk of creating a number of Government posts it has to be remembered that you have in the Constitution Ministers outside the Executive Council.
At the initiation of the present Government a number of Ministries were left outside the Executive Committee, and the Dáil could have assigned all these to the charge of a single individual if it had chosen, and every time the Ministry is reconstituted the President of the Dáil will have it in his power to assign to any particular Ministers in his Executive as many Departments as he finds it convenient to do, and it will be for the Dáil to deal with the outstanding Departments and to assign them to one, or two, or three as the case may be. The only new thing in this Bill is the creation of Parliamentary Secretaries, and perhaps the only new thing is that power is given to pay salaries to Parliamentary Secretaries. The Dáil does not provide a large number of people who are able to work without remuneration, but even with this provision it is still possible that persons will be glad to serve a Parliamentary apprenticeship without stipend. Perhaps it would be too optimistic to hope that they might even pay an apprenticeship fee for the glory of serving in one of these offices. Subsequently when they have acquired the first elements of Parliamentary skill they might perhaps be paid, as Parliamentary improvers, at a somewhat more meagre rate than they would afterwards earn.
These are all matters which are quite fluid and open to criticism from year to year, and to determination from time to time. I do not think I have anything more to add to the observations I made the last day, save to emphasise this, that this is not the creation of Ministries, it is the organisation of administration; that the number of Ministers remains uncontrolled so far as this Bill is concerned, save by the Constitution and the will of the President of the day, and to suggest that before the Committee Stage perhaps we all shall have a more profound knowledge of the constitutional position of the various individual officers and Ministers.
On a point of order, perhaps it may be more a point of procedure, might I submit that the Attorney-General has just stated that this Bill does not raise the question of the creation of new Ministries, but when the proposal for the nomination of certain Ministers to certain positions was before the Dáil on an earlier occasion, and certain criticisms were raised as to whether it was or was not desirable that such Ministries should exist for the conduct of certain Departmental duties, it was stated that these were questions which it would be more proper to raise when the Ministries Bill was before the Dáil. Therefore, I suggest that if the Attorney-General is now saying that these matters which were referred to this occasion from that earlier occasion may not be raised now, or may be estopped, by such arguments as the Attorney-General has raised, then the Dáil is in the extraordinary and unfortunate position of being told on occasion A that these matters must not be raised then, because they must be raised under B, and when B happens, we are told that they should not be then raised under B, because they should have been raised under A, so that we are in the extraordinary position of not being able to determine with any accuracy under what thimble we may find the pea.
I do not know exactly what the Deputy means. The point I wished to make was that the Ministers are not created by this Bill, that the Constitution has provided for Ministers, that this Bill provides for the division of administration into its natural distribution, and in addition contains the express power of assigning any Department or Departments to a single individual in any grouping that may be considered expedient. I have raised no question of estoppel.
Perhaps I may be permitted to ask whether the Attorney-General will say that the Council of Defence as constituted under this Bill is something new.
The Council of Defence already exists under an Order, which I think has been laid on the Table of the Dáil. It was constituted some time ago.
The Bill says "There shall be and is hereby constituted."
It gets legal and statutory existence from this Bill. Such Council has existed as a matter of administration for some time.
Perhaps I may be permitted to ask the Attorney-General——
Is this on the point of order raised by Deputy Darrell Figgis?
Yes. The question I wish to ask the Attorney-General is whether it is necessary for the Government to fill up all the Ministries created by our Constitution, and if that is not so, whether the filling up of these Ministries is not in effect the creation of them?
If the Deputy was not here and had not heard my suggestion, perhaps I may make my suggestion now, that he should study the Constitution and he will find that that is not the case. There must be at least five, and beyond that no Ministries need be appointed.
It is not necessary to create them?
With regard to the limitation of debate, Deputy Figgis is fortunate in that nobody can limit his power of debate except myself, but he must not assume that the Attorney-General is making any endeavour to indicate the lines on which debates should go. I do not think the Attorney-General was doing so in any sense.
The Attorney-General has reason to complain of the absence of some critics of the Bill, but my cause of complaint is rather the absence of the Head of the Department concerning which I wish to make some observations. That is the Department which shares with the Ministry of Fisheries the severest castigations by the critics of the Bill—the Ministry of External Affairs. I have no intention whatever of sharing in the expression of opinion that that Ministry should be scrapped. I think it is a very important Ministry and one that will be of great advantage to this State in international intercourse, and in raising the prestige of the Free State in world affairs, that is, provided it fully and effectively discharges its functions. At the moment I will not comment on whether it does or does not, but this is the point I wish to arrive at: There was a provision made on the last Estimates for the appointment of several representatives under that Department in various countries at a cost of £37,290, an increase of over £20,000 from the previous year's estimate.
I want to know what exactly are the functions these representatives fulfil. Particularly I want to know do they deal with our external trade. If so, why are they under this Department rather than the Department of Industry and Commerce? I looked through the Estimates and the definitions given to these representatives, and I only found one—in Paris—who is described as a trade representative. In Berlin, Rotterdam, Brussels and New York they are termed consuls; in Washington and Geneva representatives, and in Great Britain High Commissioner. I had on a previous occasion to make adverse comments upon the composition of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, which I do not intend to pursue to-day, not because I have been convinced of any error of judgement in this matter, but because I wish to refer more specifically to this particular subject. If it is contended that all the economic arteries of this nation should be under some unity of command, such as the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, why is, what I might term our overseas trade, our foreign trade, not under the control or direction or influence of this Department? I suggest it should be. I suggest, with all due respect to the talents of the Minister for External Affairs, that matters dealing with economic life and trade and industry are not his particular speciality and not the subjects in which he shines with the greatest lustre. I suggest, also, that it is a cumbersome method of procedure, if the Minister for Industry and Commerce wishes to effect some beneficial result for Irish external trade in some foreign country, that he has to do so through the medium of the Minister for External Affairs, rather than through agents directly under the Ministry of Industry and Commerce. I should like to know, further, whether it is possible to ascertain the results that have been effected in this direction through the Ministry of External Affairs; what is the volume of our foreign trade and where it is located? I do not know whether it is possible to lay hands on data in regard to this matter, but I think it would be of importance. If these agents still remain under the control of the Minister for External Affairs I trust that when the Estimates for that Ministry are presented to the Dáil that we shall be given figures regarding the extent of the trade that is being secured or maintained as a result of the efforts of that Department.
This is not really a criticism of the Bill itself, because it is simply a suggestion with regard to certain powers embodied in the Bill. In Section 11 power is given to the Executive Council to redistribute or transfer from one Department to another certain functions, or authorities, or services, and I think it is extremely advisable that the Executive Council should consider the transfer of the control of the agents abroad, who deal with our foreign trade, from the Ministry of External Affairs to the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, in order that there may be a more direct, less cumbersome and more efficient control and direction of this matter. I have not a great deal of sympathy with most of the criticism that has been passed upon this Bill. It is in reality merely a setting up of the framework of the State's administration. It covers a very wide and comprehensive field. Neither do I agree with some of the comments which were incidentally introduced into the debate about the necessity for economy. I do not think this nation is yet bankrupt, and I wish Deputies would remember that we have only just emerged from the throes of a struggle with anarchy, and that we have not yet sufficiently stabilised the State so that we can live in normal times or think in the normal terms of a State's life. I believe some critics who have denounced extravagance would be the first to cry out for wholesale expenditure of the State's finances, if there was any outbreak of violence, in order that they might be saved from disaster. Let us remember that the State has just emerged from one of the most terrific trials that any State could have gone through and has emerged with the possibilities of stability and security. It is to make these definite and lasting that this Bill, I take it, is devised. But if we have only got the possibilities, those possibilities may yet again be overthrown and the country plunged back into chaos and disorder, if those who are responsible to the State refuse to give to those who have to exercise administrative charge the necessary means to render permanent the basis of peaceful development which we have secured.
I think the Minister for Agriculture was singularly unfortunate in allowing the College of Science to be taken from his Department and given to the Ministry of Education. If agriculture is to be developed it is by means of research. I would like to know how the Minister now proposes to supply the means for developing research in agriculture. Singularly enough he takes charge of the College of Veterinary Science but refuses to take charge of an institution which will enable him, by research, to develop seeds and plants adaptable to this country; as well as to find means for preventing diseases in them. Take for example potato blight. There are varieties of potatoes able to resist the blight. The growers are told how to cure the disease when it comes, but there is nothing available to show the cause of the blight or how to produce potatoes that will resist it. Regarding animal diseases, the position of the Department of Agriculture is that when there is an outbreak on a farm, and when, say, five or six cattle are affected, if the local Veterinary Surgeon is not able to diagnose the disease the help of the Department is invoked. The duty of the Department's Inspector is not to find out what disease the cattle had but to ascertain if they had anthrax or foot-and-mouth disease. When he is satisfied that it is not a scheduled disease his duty is done. He goes away and as far as the Department is concerned everything is all right. There is no means by which the unfortunate farmer can be told what the cattle are suffering from and in what way the disease might be combated. I contend that as the Minister for Agriculture takes charge of the Veterinary Department, he should also take charge of research in regard to plant life. That can only be done at the College of Science. I think it is a mistake to allow that institution to be handed over to the Ministry of Education. I remember that there was a wheat-growing district in South Africa where a very suitable milling wheat was raised, but the straw became subject to rust. The Department of Agriculture in that country set to work and produced a seed that gave wheat of the same milling quality with a straw that resisted rust. If we had research in this country it would enable us to carry on the business of agriculture. Apart from the evils from which agriculture is now suffering we want more careful research into diseases, their cause, and also how to get better seeds. As to diseases of animals, I believe there should be a particular Department under the Minister for Agriculture that would investigate these diseases and find out what they are. Half of them are not known. At the present time there is in Co. Wicklow a disease known as "braxy" and the loss to this State from that disease amounts to £30,000 per annum. It would be a very good day that investigation would reveal the cause of a disease that inflicts so much damage on the country. If the Minister hands over the College of Science to the Minister for Education he is giving away the only weapon that can help the farmer to make progress.
I think it is quite clear that this Bill is going to get its Second Reading with practically very little or no opposition. Some such Bill is necessary. There has been very little purely Second Reading criticism of the framework of the Bill. In fact, there are many very good points in that necessary framework. I, for one, think that even Deputy Wilson and the farmers will, later on, be very glad that the different branches of education and scientific work and scientific research have all been united. We may hope for some progress and co-ordination amongst the different branches of education once we have got one Minister to take charge of them all. But, I think it is very important, even at this stage, even though it is not strictly a Second Reading criticism, to stress, from as many points of view as possible, the objections which seem to me to lie against the two clauses, which have received most attention from the previous speakers. I mean the clauses referring to the seven Parliamentary Secretaries and the Army—Clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill, I think they are. Even though I run some risk of coming under the lash of the Attorney-General, I will say that it seems to me in the time that I have been able to give to the consideration of this Bill, that both these clauses are open to one line of criticism. That is, that the Ministry have attempted in a Bill, which they themselves wish to be permanent in form, to meet difficulties which arise from exceptional circumstances. I think it would be wiser in a Bill of this kind, which is intended to be permanent, to make it permanent and not, as the Minister for Agriculture said, elastic, too. If the Bill is made elastic it may be stretched in a way that the framers would not intend it to be stretched. I think it would be wiser if the Bill were made permanent, so that, as far as our lights would go, it would deal with matters which we intend to be in the future permanent, or for a long time, at any rate.
If the Government dealt in a separate way with their proposals for meeting exceptional difficulties, I am quite prepared to admit what the Government claims, the urgent importance of meeting those exceptional difficulties. I am quite prepared to admit that the Ministers are seriously overworked, for example, and that they need Parliamentary help at present. Whether that will be a permanent necessity or not I do not think we can say now. I am quite prepared to admit the need at present for all this suggested Council of Defence, for example. The Minister for Defence the other day said what I am now about to say. It seems to me that this proposal for a Council of Defence is assuming and taking it for granted, in a way that we cannot decide at present, whether it ought to be so taken for granted or not—the existence of a Standing Army. We cannot now go into that question with advantage. I think this proposal assumes that that is going to be the case. I think it would be wiser for the Government to defer such a discussion until we see what the developments in the next two or three years are going to be. I think also that it is regrettable, at a time when there is such urgent need for economising, when the Minister for Finance himself said that he was determined to balance the budget, and that he was sure it would take the greatest cheeseparing in order to be able to balance the budget, that the Government should come in and ask for power to spend money, which they say in the same breath that they do not think they will spend, and which they hope they will not have to spend. I think to put such power into the Bill is regrettable. I think it would be wiser to get powers to deal with the present emergencies in the present overworking of the Ministers in a separate Bill.
On the whole, I hope, when we come to the Committee Stage, we shall succeed in getting from the Government important modifications of these two clauses. I think, however, there will also be other alterations required in the Committee Stage of the Bill. I suggest to the Attorney-General for consideration, for example, the introduction of a schedule of repealed clauses. I do not see any such in the Bill. As I said in the commencement, the Bill is capable of much modification in the Committee stage, and I think it is probable it will commend itself to us as far as this Second Reading is concerned, and that we will pass it with little or no opposition.
Níl mórán agam le rádh ar an Bhille seo. I merely take part in this debate to deal with one extraordinary thing that I notice here in the arguments that are being used in the criticism of this Bill. And that is as regards the Minister for Fisheries. I see here a sort of concentrated attack, or a desire to arraign that Ministry as one of those which should be scrapped for the sake of economy. I think if there is need for any Ministry in this nation it is a Ministry of Fisheries, and no department in this nation requires the service and encouragement and guidance that a Minister could give it more than the fishing industry. We have so many looking to this industry for their livelihood, and so many people who are so absolutely dependent upon it, and upon the development of this industry, that its importance cannot be overstated. We have, at the same time, a field for development in this industry that does not appertain to other countries. We have a prospect of national wealth from that industry, and we should concentrate our energies in trying to obtain and secure it. I think the arguments that have been urged to scrap and do away with that Ministry are not well or intelligently directed. I admit that the industry, at the present time, is going through a period of stress and trial, and going through difficulties that appertain generally to the same industry in other countries. But it is not at that period of stress or difficulty that we here, who are charged as a body with debating the affairs of the nation, should withdraw from that industry the encouragement which it is necessary it should get to tide it over this period of difficulty, and if possible to bring it to some prospect of success and development. It is a bad time for the doctor to retire when the epidemic is all round. I think now is the time that that industry should be backed up and that something should be done to get it over its difficulties and bring it along its proper road to development.
I am not so much concerned with the other criticisms of this Bill or with some gentlemen who, with clear optical vision, can see ghosts of British Kings and Commanders - in - Chief flying around. Whatever credit they are entitled to for these superior discerning powers, they are certainly not doing any good to the nation by making those allegations which are absolutely groundless. I would urge upon the Ministry to stand behind this Ministry of Fisheries and see that it is properly directed, and that it does its duty.
Finance!
I would also urge upon the Ministry to see that there is something done for those people who have to live by the fishing industry, to enable them to earn a livelihood or benefit in some small way. Finally, I may say it is an industry by which can be accumulated wealth for the nation, and I would strongly urge on the Ministry to put that industry on the right road.
I do not know that much remains for me to say on this Bill, except again to refer to the fact that the criticisms which have appeared in regard to it, notably in the "Independent," and to which I have already referred, are criticisms which, on examination of the accounts or the charges made by the "Independent," will not bear the same scrutiny as the proposals we have here. In 1914, I think, you could purchase the "Independent" for a halfpenny, and to-day you pay 2d. for it. That fact is not blazoned in the same little frames that the Attorney-General spoke of; but it is a fact, notwithstanding. There are other reasons, sir, which have prompted those particular references to the Ministries' Bill. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into them now as far as that journal is concerned, but I will refer to them later on if necessary. I think, sir, you know something of that yourself. This Bill is one of the most important measures which will come before the Dáil. In most of the criticisms either here or in the Press, very little consideration has been given to one or two or three important matters. One is that previous to the setting up of the Saorstát there were two Governments functioning or attempting to function in this country. The one which had the confidence of the people had naturally many of the defects of a young Government. The one which was attempting to function in spite of the people must naturally, during the progress of the struggle, have become very much disorganised, and in that disorganised state it was handed over to us, one of the conditions being that practically every official having a certain status in the employment of that Government was entitled, under certain headlines, to demand compensation and to leave the service. As a consequence of that particular provision, we have a very heavy charge to meet annually for a number of years to come.
The real point in mentioning these peculiarities of the particular period in question is that in order to reorganise that Government machinery, certain checks have got to be made and certain administrative control has had to be secured, and in order to get that administrative control we have, during the last twelve months, had three Parliamentary Secretaries, and it is proposed in the Bill to empower the Executive Council to have seven. It is not proposed either inside or outside the Executive Council to have at any time more than three; but it is in our judgement necessary that sufficient authority should be there to make such appointments if and when it is considered necessary to do so.
Would the President mind telling the Dáil the names of the Parliamentary Secretaries in the Third Dáil?
That is not a relevant matter.
No, and I think the Deputy knows it.
I do not know it. It is quite news to me. I thought there was an Assistant Minister for one, and a Minister without Portfolio for another. I did not know of any Parliamentary Secretaries.
We may not have called them Parliamentary Secretaries, but I suppose some time or another, when we do commence to give them a statutory position, they are entitled to some baptismal appellation, and if the name is not one by which, officially, they were hitherto known, it will be made more distinct in future. The real question is how far it is possible in this Bill to make for efficiency in Government control. Those who are comparing the appointments of the Ministries in this Bill with those of other States, or other Governments, compare a new State in the circumstances I have mentioned with old States functioning normally and with none of the difficulties that we have had to contend with. I have already mentioned, in the lifetime of the last Dáil, the amount of time that is occupied in dealing with adjustments, financial and otherwise, with the British Government. That time may not be measured in the length of service the Minister can give or the number of hours he can serve in his office. Another consideration which was present to our minds was that in our experience in maintaining a Government which had the confidence of the people from the year 1919 to the signing of the Treaty, we had a Ministry of Fisheries, and we learned that this particular service of Fisheries was an important one, one in which a very large amount of money could be lost, and on which, as a matter of fact, during the time of the First Dáil, a considerable amount of money was expended.
From the experience we had during that time, we learned it would not be advisable to run Fisheries as a Department, and that the amount of money that might be expended on maintaining a Minister in control of it might be saved to the State in years to come from the experience we would have of his administration and the attention he could give to this Ministry. For almost twelve months now the procedure which is outlined here in Clause 8 has been practically the same. In other words, there has been an Army Council, and it is in the light of that experience that this proposal is put forward. I do not know that there is anything further I could say on this Bill. Certainly, from what we have heard of the discussion that has taken place, it is evident that the Bill will receive very close consideration on the Third Stage, and I do not propose to say anything more on it now.
Question: "That the Ministers' and Secretaries' Bill be read a second time," put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 52; Níl, 25.
Tá
- Earnán Altún.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Richard H. Beamish.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- Henry Coyle.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí
- Dhrisceóil.
- Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
- Henry J. Finlay.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- John Hennigan.
- William Hewat.
- Seosamh Mac 'a Bhrighde.
- Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Seán Mac Garaidh.
- Pádraig Mac Giollagáin.
- Seán P. Mac Giobúin.
- Seán Mac Giolla 'n Ríogl.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Seosamh Mag Craith.
- Pádraig S. Mag Ualghairg.
- Martin M. Nally.
- John T. Nolan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Próinsias O Cathail.
- Aodh O Ceinnéide.
- Conchubhair O Conghaile.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus N. O Dóláin.
- Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Pádraic O Máille.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
- Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
- Caoimghín O hUigín.
- Seán Príomhdhail.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Liam Thrift.
Níl
- Pádraig F. Baxter.
- John J. Cole.
- Darrell Figgis.
- David Hall.
- Conor Hogan.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Risteard Mac Liam.
- Patrick McKenna.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Tadhg S. O Donnabháin.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
- Donchadh S. O Guaire.
- Mícheál R. O hIfearnáin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
- Patrick K. Hogan (Luimneach).
- William A. Redmond.
- Nicholas Wall.
Motion declared carried.
When is it proposed to take the Third Stage?
Provisionally, I should say, the next day we meet after this week. The Minister for Finance will not have his statement ready until Friday. He would like to take the Dáil into his confidence on that day with regard to certain proposals he has to make. If a longer period is required I am quite prepared to consider it. Say this day fortnight.
Committee Stage is ordered for this day fortnight. Under the Standing Orders, amendments must be in on the fourth day preceding that.