State Lands (Workhouses) Bill, 1929—Committee.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
(2) Every lease or licence made or granted under this Section shall (unless the Minister is of opinion that such lease or licence should in the public interest be made or granted free of any payment) be made or granted subject to the payment to the Minister of such moneys, whether by way of fine or other preliminary payment or by way of rent or by both such ways, as the Minister shall think proper and shall agree upon with the person to whom such lease or licence is made or granted, and all such moneys when received by the Minister shall be applied by him in such manner and for such purposes within the functional area of the local authority in whose functional area the land the subject of such lease or licence is situate as he shall think advisable.
I move amendment 1:—
In sub-section (2), page 3, to delete all words from the word "and" in line 6 to the end of the sub-section.
I undertook on Second Reading to make it clearer that the moneys received from the lettings of these buildings would be applied to the maintenance of these buildings and for the purpose of the Poor Relief Act. Amendment 8 makes that necessary provision. It provides that "All moneys received by either the Minister, a local authority, or the council of a county under this Act in respect of any land shall be applied by the Minister or such local authority or council (as the case may be) in discharge of any debts, liabilities, outgoings or expenses payable"—I shall ask the leave of the House to take out the word "due" which occurs here and which is unnecessary—"by the Minister or such local authority or council in respect of such land and any other land held under the same title, and, in so far as the same may not be required for the discharge of such debts, liabilities, outgoings and expenses, in aid of the expenses incurred in the relief of the poor in the functional area of the local authority in whose functional area such land is situate." Amendment 8 meets the undertaking I gave on Second Reading, and amendments 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are consequential.
We shall take a decision on amendment 1, which is the operative section.
There is only one point that occurs to me. Perhaps the Minister would be agreeable to adopt or to be incorporated in the Bill—if he would not agree to that perhaps he would do it otherwise— something to the effect that once a year, say in January, a return should be sent to the local authorities concerned setting out the amount of money received during the previous year in respect of such lands and the amount of money estimated to be available in the coming year for the upkeep of the lands and buildings and so on. If the Minister would agree to send such a return once a year to the local authorities concerned that is all I want. Let his Department send out each year to the local authorities a statement of the money received in the previous financial year and also showing an estimate as far as that could be made of the money that would be available in the following year to aid them in making their annual budget.
Not only will the list be sent to the local authorities but the actual money will be credited to them. Some of the money will be paid directly through the local authority, some of it will be paid to the Minister, but whether paid to the local authority or the Minister it will be credited to the local authority and the local authority will take it into its moneys.
They will be duly notified at some specific date?
It is really a matter of administration. According as each lease is entered into by a local authority they will know how much there will be coming from such licence or lease; according as the lease is entered into by the Minister in respect of five years or more, the local authority will be consulted beforehand and apprised of the lease being entered into. But so far as estimating from year to year what the income from the letting from these lands will be the local authorities are in a more satisfactory position than the Minister. I will not say that workhouses are involved in the possibility of such a letting, but there are 128 of them and it would be difficult for the Minister to make an estimate of what the income will be to the local authority from such letting.
Do I understand that the moneys receivable under the Act whether by the Minister or the local authorities will be expended at the discretion of the local authority?
Certainly. The local authorities will be responsible for the upkeep of these buildings and will be required to administer the Poor Law Relief Act. They will get a certain amount of money under these leases and so far as that is not required for the upkeep of the buildings, the repayment of loans or debts, it will be so available and must be spent on Poor Relief.
It is understood that the local authorities shall get only such sums as accrue from the land in the immediate neighbourhood of the unused workhouse?
But will they get the amount that will accrue from the letting of these lands?
Yes, also any funds that will accrue from the letting of the building which is included.
Many of these buildings have been allowed to get into a terrible state of disrepair and if the local authority has to make that good they would have to expend a considerable sum more than the letting of the land would realise even in most favourable circumstances.
The Deputy requires a certain amount of money to be set aside now for the repair of certain damage to certain workhouses throughout the country.
There will be back payments to certain of the local authorities and could they not be set aside?
There is £1,099. Amendment 8 here introducing a new section 10 requires that the money shall be so spent.
Is it not possible in the case of a particular local authority with some back money coming to them to use it in relief of rates in the coming year rather than in executing repairs that have been long over-due?
We make, as far as it is possible to do it by legislation, the discharging of debts, the meeting of liabilities, outgoings and expenses, a first charge on the money received, and as we make the local authorities responsible for the upkeep of the buildings I think that is met. Any settlement of the matter must be administrative.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I beg to move:
To add after sub-section (2) a new sub-section as follows:—
"The Minister shall submit annually to the Dáil a return showing all moneys received by him in each year in respect of every lease or licence granted under this Act, and the purpose or purposes for which such moneys were applied."
I table this amendment to meet the point I raised on the Second Reading debate. The Bill has been amended since by the deletion of the words to which I had most objection, namely, that the State revenue accruing from licences or leases paid to the Minister shall be expended by the Minister in such manner as he deems advisable. Despite the fact that the Bill is improved by the Minister's amendment, never theless I think it is desirable that a return should be submitted annually to the Dáil showing the amounts received by the Minister each year in respect of leases or licences granted under the Bill and the areas from which the amount came and the local authorities to which they were credited. I do not know whether the Minister has any objection to submitting such a return. I think it is desirable that in all matters dealing with finance the Dáil should be kept fully informed of everything that happens.
In the first place, speaking only of workhouses. I wonder what purpose would be served by the provision of this return. There will in fact be laid before the Oireachtas in respect of licences granted for a period of more than five years an actual statement of the terms in respect of each letting according as the letting is made. The other lettings will be made by the local authority under regulations made by the Minister subject where the letting is for more than one year to the Minister's consent, and where under one year subject alone to the decision of the local authority, but subject to regulations made by the Minister. Most of these lettings will be for less than twelve months. There will be lettings of grounds for grazing, there will be lettings of the halls for bazaars, for flower shows or dances.
The return is only asked in respect of moneys received by the Minister.
In respect of lettings for which money will be received by the Minister, according as such lettings are made, the whole terms will be tabled before the Oireachtas in the same way as lettings under the State Lands Act, 1924, have been tabled up to the present.
I do not know that any particular purpose would be served if we were to take these figures and make a return of them, but in so far as it is desired to keep a control over the money and see that it is spent on work which it is stated in this Act it should be spent on, each of these lettings, whether made by the local authority or by the Minister, will come under review by the auditor, and the auditor will have machinery for seeing that such moneys were brought to account and were applied to the particular purposes for which they were intended. The auditor will do that side of the thing, so that I do not know that anyone in the Oireachtas will be helped in any way by doing what the Deputy suggests in his amendment.
Is the Minister referring to the Comptroller and Auditor-General?
No, but to the ordinary auditor auditing accounts
As we shall discuss the matter on the amendment that refers to documents laid on the Table I will withdraw this amendment.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
Section 3, as amended, put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
(2) No lease or licence for any term exceeding five years shall be made or granted under this Act until either—
(a) each House of the Oireachtas has by resolution authorised the making or granting of such lease or licence either with or without modification of any of the proposed provisions of such lease or licence, or
(b) the expiration of whichever of the following periods shall be the longer, that is to say:—
(i) twelve days after the first day on which either House of the Oireachtas shall sit next after the statement in accordance with this section shall have been laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas, or
(ii) six days on which either House of the Oireachtas shall have sat after the said statement shall have been so laid before the Houses.
I move amendment 3:
To delete sub-section (2) and substitute the following:—
"(2) No lease or licence for any term exceeding five years shall be made or granted under this Act until each house of the Oireachtas has by resolution authorised the making or granting of such lease or licence either with or without modification of any of the proposed provisions of such lease or licence."
This is an amendment to deal with the other point which I raised on the Second Reading discussion, namely, the value of Section 4 as a safeguard over the powers of the Minister. The section is identical with the section and powers in the State Lands Act, 1924. Its ostensible purpose is to provide that the Dáil will have the right to exercise an effective veto over any proposed lease or licence, information concerning which is placed before it in the documents laid upon the table of the House. When an attempt was made last year by Deputy Hogan to exercise the power presumed to have been given by a similar section in the State Lands Act of 1924, it was found that the machinery set up was defective. The section provides that any Deputy desiring to veto or amend a proposed lease must table an amendment in the Dáil and secure the passage of that amendment within twelve days after the documents are first laid upon the table. There is, however, no provision to ensure that the Dáil will discuss the motion within the twelve days specified in the Act. Deputy Hogan, it will be remembered, proposed a motion asking the Dáil to disagree with the proposed leasing of workhouse lands in Clare. The motion appeared upon the Order Paper for months. The twelve days specified in the Act passed and the lease was made permanent long before the Dáil got an opportunity of discussing the motion proposed by Deputy Hogan. A similar section is proposed in this Bill and I suggest that either this section should be deleted entirely or else some machinery should be devised which will make the power of the Dáil effective. I propose that paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) should be deleted, in other words that no lease or licence under the Bill should become effective until a motion has been proposed in the Dáil expressing approval of it. That is in effect an attempt to make the powers of the Dáil positive and not negative.
I do not suggest that the amendment I propose is perfect. It, if anything, gives the Dáil too much power and might lead to a number of unnecessary discussions concerning these leases here. Nevertheless, I suggest that procedure is better than the procedure suggested in the Bill for the very good reason that it will work whereas the other will not or may not work in the majority of cases. If there is some middle course to be followed which the Minister can suggest, I will be very glad to withdraw the amendment in my name. Otherwise I think it will have to stand. The course I would like to see adopted by the House is to leave the section in the Bill as it stands with an additional sub-section to provide that a motion tabled under that section shall be given priority over other business in the Dáil within the period of the twelve days specified.
Does the Deputy seriously mean that?
I am quite serious. I cannot possibly see the sense of putting in a section of that kind if it is the intention of the Government that it shall be meaningless.
The letting of workhouses to take precedence of all Government business!
The letting of a patch of workhouse land!
If the President makes any suggestion of alternative machinery I will be glad to get it. Might I point out that the intention of the Government as expressed by the Minister for Local Government during the second reading discussion was that the section should be inoperative. On page 119 of the Official Report of February 12th the Minister states:
"The Executive Council controls the time of the Dáil and there was no necessity, and I cannot imagine that there was any intention, to put a section into the State Lands Act stipulating that time should be given to Deputies who wanted to raise discussions over the granting of particular leases."
In putting a section identical with this section in the State Lands Act of 1924 the Government's intention was that the machinery thus created should be incapable of being worked. Now here is the procedure: A lease is proposed, a document containing particulars relating to that lease is laid upon the Table of the House. If some Deputy on examining that document finds something is being done with which he could not agree then his only means of securing a decision of the Dáil on that matter is by tabling a motion. Now, if the President or the Minister will look at the Order Paper to-day he will come to the conclusion that a motion tabled by a Deputy under this section could not be possibly considered before this time next year.
Is the Deputy quite sure of that?
I am quite sure. In the particular instance of Deputy Hogan's motion concerning Scariff Workhouse——
Did that motion of Deputy Hogan exhaust the subject? Was not that position rectified?
Deputy Corish had another motion subsequently, and I think it was generally agreed that a matter of that sort would be given precedence in private members' time.
A matter of this kind to be left to general agreement? What the President is suggesting is more serious than the defective nature of the section in the Bill. Any private member under such an arrangement would probably hold up discussion on a motion under a section of that kind by refusing to surrender his place upon the Order Paper.
No. The present position is that any such motion in reference to a matter of that sort gets precedence in private members' time.
In respect of what Act or what Order?
In respect of the State Lands Act.
Deputy Lemass means under what provision.
I think it was the Committee of Procedure and Privileges.
There certainly was a discussion on this matter in the Committee of Procedure and Privileges and general agreement was arrived at to give precedence to such motions, but it should not be left to agreement between Ministers and Deputies of the House to give precedence. It should be definitely provided in the Bill that gives Deputies that power that that power shall be exercisable. I think I am correct in saying that if a Deputy proposes a motion relating to some lease under the State Lands Act, and I have a motion on the Order Paper for several months concerning fish barrels, and if I should refuse to give place to that Deputy, there is no power to ensure that that motion will be considered within twelve days. I cannot see either why the power of the Dáil cannot be made positive, in other words these leases should be subject to the approval of the Dáil.
Is not the Deputy confusing two matters, the power of the Dáil and the power of a private member to coerce the Dáil into doing something he wants?
The purpose of this section is to give the Dáil effective control over the leases. In fact, the section does nothing of the kind. It merely provides that Deputies shall be informed of the details of such leases. If the section is to be made effective it has got to be amended in one of two ways. Either it has got to be amended by making the power of the Dáil positive and not negative, or else it has to provide that a motion tabled under sub-section 2 must be considered within the twelve days allowed. Personally, I do not think that the dangers which the Minister and the President imagine will arise, through making the power of the Dáil positive, are likely to be as serious as they pretend, because in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the motions to approve of leases granted under the Bill will be purely formal and will pass the Dáil in two minutes without discussion. It is only in the hundredth case in which some Deputy will have possibly an objection to the lease that a discussion will ensue. The course I would prefer would be to have an amendment inserted in the section providing that it shall be incumbent on the Dáil to discuss and decide on such motion if proposed under Section B within the twelve days allowed by Section B. That will ensure that no Deputy will be deprived of his right to call the Dáil's attention to the provisions of the lease so that the Dáil may veto or amend the lease under the Bill.
I raised this matter on the Second Reading. The Minister, in his reply, gave the impression that it was the intention of the Government that the section should not be operative. He stated that that was also the intention of the Government in relation to a similar section of the State Lands Act of 1924, that it should be inoperative. I think it is undesirable that members of the Dáil should be hoodwinked by a section which purports to give a power which is not capable of being exercised. I would ask the Dáil to pass the amendment which appears in my name, to ensure that this question will be reconsidered by the Minister before the Bill comes before us on Report.
The Deputy attempts to argue that the State Lands Act of 1924 set out either to provide or to persuade Deputies that there was provided machinery for actually discussing here, contrary to the will of the House, any lease given under the State Lands Act that was tabled in the House. There was no such intention. Article 11 of the Constitution provides that such lands shall be controlled and administered by the Oireachtas in accordance with such regulations and provisions as shall be from time to time approved by legislation. The Deputy suggests, in order properly to administer these lands, that it should be possible for any Deputy who wants to question a lease to be able to bring it up here and take up Parliamentary time discussing it. The Dáil appoints a Minister to administer a particular branch of local government, hitherto the Minister for Finance. In future he will continue to deal with State lands other than workhouse lands which are a particular type of State lands and were vested for local purposes originally. The Minister for Finance will continue to administer State lands, but the Minister for Local Government and Public Health will discharge the duties in regard to workhouse lands. Each Minister has his own big Department to deal with. They take actions from time to time that are much more important from the financial point of view than the letting of a few rooms for residences in workhouses or the letting of a patch of land for the purpose of industry, or any purpose that it would be required for, for more than five years. To think, with the limited time at the disposal of both Houses for the transaction of their business, that any one of these leases should be the subject of discussion, however short, here is to take a view about which there is a very considerable want of proportion. What is provided by the State Lands Act and what is proposed in this Bill is that the Minister for Local Government in the discharge of his duties in administering these lands, in the first place, will be aided if necessary by the provision which enables a resolution of both Houses to quicken the date on which the lease may be given.
On the other hand, if there is a prima facie case in connection with any particular lease that would make it acceptable to the Houses as a whole, either here or in the Seanad, the matter can be discussed within a limited time, but it does preclude the possibility of taking up the time of either House by a discussion, contrary to the will of either House, of small matters such as the granting of these leases.
I think the Minister is making it abundantly clear that he is willing—I might say almost anxious—to disobey the law. He indulged here in a very peculiar interpretation of a section of an Act of Parliament. I suggest that we are not qualified to interpret Acts of Parliament, that it is a matter for another place. Anyhow, I do suggest to him that if he wants to limit what we should consider in connection with the letting or leasing of State lands he ought to make it clear what we are entitled to consider. What might appear to be of little consequence to this Dáil may be of very great importance to local people. I put it to the Minister, in a reasonable way, that he cannot have his fingers upon all the leases, lettings and licences in connection with State lands throughout the country. He will have to take the advice of certain officials, perhaps ill-prepared statements from his officials. I suggest that a Deputy with local knowledge, and who comes in close contact with administration in his own county, will be in a better position to judge these matters. The non possumus attitude of the Minister and the statement that it was never intended that the time of the Dáil should be taken up considering these matters, is to my mind most preposterous.
Contrary to the will of the House?
Mr. Hogan
I am getting confused between the will of the people and the will of the Dáil, I am hearing them so often. The will of the Dáil, as expressed in a section of an Act of Parliament, was that the Dáil would have a complete opportunity within a specified time to make objection or otherwise against these leases.
There is nothing here to prevent that.
There is nothing there to enable it.
Mr. Hogan
I am speaking from experience in this matter. I do know that when I did want to bring up a matter in this Dáil the statutory period had long elapsed and the Department had taken action before the Dáil could pass an opinion as to whether the lease or letting should be made by the Minister responsible. I know that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges did decide that a certain motion should be taken out of its order and given precedence, and I objected to my motion being passed over. I know that I had to get a certain arrangement made before I would allow the particular motion to be considered.
I think that Deputy Lemass is perfectly right in saying that he can rattle his fish barrels to the discomfiture of any Deputy who wants to move a motion out of its place. If the Minister takes up the attitude that it was never intended to do this, then we do not know what is intended in any Act of Parliament and he ought to tell us. I, for one, cannot see how any motion can come within the statutory limit to put a brake on the activities of any Minister in this connection. I do not know whether this is the proper place to introduce the machinery. I do not know whether it is the machinery of the Dáil that is at fault but I understand that in other places some time is given for the consideration of such motions that might be regarded as Government matters. Wherever the defect is, there is surely a defect and it should not be met by saying that it was never intended that a section of an Act of Parliament would be put into operation.
What Deputy Lemass and Deputy Hogan are really asking for is that, a statement having been tabled to the effect that it was proposed to enter into a certain lease and that some person says that from his particular point of view there is prima facie evidence in that statement that the lease should not be entered into and this person puts down a motion to that effect, then these Deputies want that that person shall be able to have his motion discussed within a certain time although he could not get the support of the House for a discussion on such motion.
The Deputy wants to have a person coming in here, although the will of the majority of the House is in favour of discussing what they consider to be more important business, and forcing the House to allot time for the discussion of his particular motion. We say that there never was any intention to have the will of the House over-ruled in that way.
In other words, the Deputy should belong to the Cumann na nGaedheal Party before he can move a motion.
Would the Minister say how the will of the House can be ascertained? If a Deputy wants a motion discussed within the statutory time fixed he can only do so if the majority of the House or if another Deputy who has a motion down consents. As Deputy Hogan says, Deputy Thrift can rattle his Senators or someone else can rattle his fish barrels.
There are two safeguards. He can get Private Members' time if there is anything in the motion worthy of discussion as to the policy of the Government in granting a particular lease. If there is anything serious he can put the Government into the position of offering time to him.
How? That is the very point.
Because generally, if there is a question of want of confidence involved, the Government have never declined to give Deputies an opportunity of discussing matters which they want to make matters of confidence.
Does the Minister suggest that I should put down a motion of want of confidence because the Government propose to let certain lands in Scariff in a particular way?
I think that the Deputy is wrong in arguing about lands in Scariff as he did before. The Deputy wants to take up the time of the House against the will of the House——
You had a majority of only three.
——protesting against the giving of certain lands in Scariff for the purpose of a creamery business.
Surely we should not get back to Scariff workhouse at this particular stage.
I would advise the Deputy not to get back to that.
I take it that the Minister says that the section cannot become operative without the consent of the Executive Council?
I think the Minister misses the point; what is asked for is that legislative sanction should be given in this Bill for particular purposes, that it should be raised from being the practice of this House to take a motion within twelve days, that instead of being the practice it should get legislative sanction. It is not a question of the will of the House, because if Bills take precedence over motions concerning fish barrels and other matters, I am perfectly certain that if it is a question of appealing to the will of the House Deputy Lemass would prevail.
It is not in the order of legislative sanction that Bills take precedence of motions concerning fish barrels. If it can be arranged by the machinery that arranges the order for the discussion of Bills that motions of this particular kind should be discussed in a particular order of precedence, it is a matter for settlement by machinery and not by legislation.
This amendment suggests a particular method of proceeding, and it has been indicated by Deputy Lemass that in the event of failure to carry the amendment, a machinery might be created. The machinery exists. The matter has been discussed by the appropriate body, namely, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, and they made a suggestion. All agreements made by that body up to the present have been carried out, and will, no doubt, be carried out in the future, but failing agreement, the procedure might have to be regulated by Standing Order. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges considered in May last whether a Standing Order should be framed. Following this it was stated in the House, on behalf of the Committee, that they did not consider that a Standing Order should then be drafted, but that a certain procedure suggested by them should be given a trial. If that suggestion did not achieve the object, the matter would receive further consideration.
Although each individual lease or licence under the Bill might be a matter of no importance. I recollect that the Minister for Industry and Commerce announced that a similar section would appear in the Minerals Bill which he is drafting. He stated in some discussion that he had been considering the improvement of the provision contained in the State Lands Act for the purposes of the Minerals Bill. He announced that he had been unable to improve upon it and he asked the co-operation of the House in devising a better system. I take it that when we have a section in this Bill similar to the section in the State Land Acts of 1924 it is tantamount to an admission that the Government have been unable to devise any other method by which the power of the Dáil over acts of this kind could be maintained. It is only recently that we had it proved that particular machinery established by this section had proved inoperative. It is possible to make it operative as the result of general agreement among Deputies. I think, in view of the importance of maintaining some form of control by the Dáil over administrative acts of Departments, that the power which the Dáil decided should be kept to itself, should not be dependent on an agreement among members but should rest on the more secure foundation of a section of an Act of Parliament.
That is the reason I have been pressing this matter on the Second Reading and on the Committee Stage of this Bill. It is likely to come before the House again in relation to much more important matters than those contained in the Bill. I think it is desirable that members should have every opportunity to resist attempts to lessen their control over matters of this kind. The particular objection to the section is that it purports to give power to the House which in fact it does not give. The Minister has spoken about the will of the Dáil. It was obviously the will of the Dáil when it passed the 1924 State Lands Act that it should have the right to question any lease given under that Act within twelve days after the particulars had been laid upon the Table. It inserted a section in the Bill which it thought gave us that power. It was found, when they came to operate that section, that it did nothing of the kind. Some temporary arrangement has been made by agreement reached at the Committee of Procedure and Privileges. That is satisfactory, but I think that the Government should have noted the fact that the machinery set up by the State Lands Act proved inoperative and that they should have taken steps to rectify it, particularly in relation to the first Bill of a similar nature introduced into the House.
I hope that when the House passes this section it will do so with its eyes open and know what it may expect. As the matter stands I hope the Deputy has more wealth in mind in this country than the mines and minerals we have been discussing here and that matter can be discussed in a suitable way in whatever Bill the Minister for Industry and Commerce brings forward. This Bill expressly leaves out the question of mines and minerals.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 5.
I move to delete sub-section (5).
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move to delete sub-section (4).
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 8.
I move in page 5, to delete sub-section (3).
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 9.
I move to delete sub-section (3).
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 10.
I move.
Before Section 10 to insert a new section as follows:—
"All moneys received by either the Minister, a local authority or the council of a county under this Act in respect of any land shall be applied by the Minister or such local authority or council (as the case may be) in discharge of any debts, liabilities, outgoings or expenses payable due by the Minister or such local authority or council in respect of such land and any other land held under the same title, and, in so far as the same may not be required for the discharge of such debts, liabilities, outgoings and expenses, in aid of the expenses incurred in the relief of the poor in the functional area of the local authority in whose functional area such land is situate."
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 10 put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
(1) All expenses incurred by a local authority (other than a board of guardians) under this Act shall be defrayed by means of the poor rate and shall be raised equally over the functional area of such local authority.
(2) All expenses incurred by a board of guardians under this Act shall be defrayed as a union charge and shall be raised, equally over the whole union of such board of guardians.
I move:
In sub-section (1), line 55, to insert after the word "Act" the words "and not defrayed out of moneys received under this Act."
Both this and the following amendment are consequential on amendment No. 8.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:
In sub-section (2), line 59, to insert after the word "Act" the words "and not defrayed out of moneys received under this Act."
Section 11, as amended, put and agreed to.
Title put and agreed to.
Progress ordered to be reported.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Bill reported with amendments. Report Stage fixed for Friday, 21st February.
