Tourist Traffic Development Bill, 1931—Committee.
The Dáil went into Committee on the Tourist Traffic Development Bill.
Section 1 agreed to and added to the Bill.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed—That Section 2 stand part of the Bill.
I would like the Minister for Industry and Commerce to give us some indication of his policy in respect of the granting of a certificate of approval to the organisations formed for the purpose of developing tourist traffic in Saorstát Eireann. I may say it is my view that there has been a considerable amount of wasted effort in the organisation of the tourist traffic here in the past. It seems to me that we have not in this country either the climate or the facilities, or, may I say, the legislative intention of providing attractions for tourists that are provided in certain Continental countries. Nevertheless, the attempts made were of a nature that would indicate that those who are responsible for the tourist development were contemplating entering into competition with these Continental countries.
On the other hand, there has been a considerable amount of money and time devoted to attracting to this country people interested in sport. In neither of these directions do I consider it possible to secure any considerable extension of tourist traffic in this country. It seems to me that if attention were concentrated in getting the Irish people to decide upon spending their holidays in Ireland, and the Irish in America and the Irish people in foreign countries to come home for their holidays to Ireland much more beneficial results would be secured. It should be made clear, however, that those people are not necessarily tourists of the class that go to Paris or other Continental countries, or sportsmen anxious to find fishing or hunting facilities as their amusement. I do not know whether the Minister's views coincide with mine in this matter, but it appears to me that the Irish Tourist Development Association could do with a reminder from him that activities of the type I have indicated would be much more likely to yield beneficial results for the country.
I think Deputy Lemass is very largely mistaken in what he has said about the tourist development business in this country, because the efforts made by the Irish Tourist Development Association for several years past have led to a very large influx of visitors to the country precisely of the type that Deputy Lemass thinks we cannot attract here. I remember a few years ago I was very interested in putting forward the view that a great deal of good could be done by advertising the sporting amenities of the country and by the adoption of a two-season traffic. Sporting tourists come here in the winter and spend their time hunting, fishing and shooting, and the second season attracts the summer visitors. That was taken up, and I do not think there is any hunting club in the country that did not benefit by it. We had numbers of English, American, and Continental people coming here for the hunting, for which this country holds the first place in Europe. They brought a considerable amount of money into the country and they gave a considerable amount of employment, and the money spent in that way has been very well spent.
On the other hand, the attractions of the country, advertised through the efforts of the Tourist Association, have brought about results of very considerable importance to the country. These results are not fully appreciated because the advantages in money spent are very often hidden. We have tourists coming into this country who do not merely spend money in travel and in living here for time, but by acquiring objects which are made in the country, and these things are not always taken into consideration. A great deal of the business which is done with the tourists is not shown at all in the results given by the Tourist Association.
We are asked to pass this Bill, which is "An Act to make better provision for the encouragement and development of the tourist traffic in Saorstát Eireann"... If the Ministry is really sincere in the desire to encourage the tourist traffic so far as the country itself is concerned, I would like the Minister for Industry and Commerce to explain why he allowed the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway to be partially closed down.
The Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway is a considerable distance away from this particular section. We are discussing Section 2 of this Bill.
I quite realise that, but if the tourist traffic is to be developed we must have an efficient and up-to-date railway service.
We are not now discussing the development of the tourist traffic. We are discussing Section 2 of this Bill.
We are discussing the general principles——
That opportunity was afforded and is now past.
At any rate, I have got in my protest.
I do not exactly know what is the point I have to answer. Deputy Lemass asked for my likely attitude towards the granting of certificates to certain associations which might apply under Section 2, and then went on to indicate that in his mind the only association that exists is largely wasting its time. He thinks that the country has a climate fit for natives to live in but not for strangers to endure. I think he is giving a very bad advertisement both to the Tourist Association and the country, in the remarks he was foolish enough to make and which were not even appropriate to this section. I have nothing to do with the activities of the Association and as long as they satisfy me that they are encouraging and developing the tourist traffic of the Free State I have nothing to do with the money raised for that purpose. It is raised either through the Association or from the local authorities. If the Deputy thinks the Association is not doing proper work or the work he desires to see done he should address himself to the local authorities who subscribe or to the members of the Association who make up the fund. So far as I am concerned, I think this Association is doing very good work, and is well worthy of support both by the members and by the local authorities. I do not know exactly what the Deputy has in his mind. Apparently he is convinced that sporting facilities for this country do not exist. The natives have to exist under the bad climatic conditions that there are. According to the Deputy's remarks, the enticement that he offers to Irish-Americans to come to this country is that there are no sporting facilities and that the climate is bad. Why should Irish-Americans be subjected to that particular form of propaganda? At the beginning I thought that the question related to the number of associations that were going to be encouraged. As far as I am concerned, until a better one makes its appearance and shows a better programme than the one in existence, it will only be one.
The Minister, of course, is trying to conceal his lack of ideas on the subject by misrepresentating what I said. I did not say that there were no sporting facilities in this country. I did say that the most profitable field for the expenditure of energy in getting tourists to come here was not in attracting those whose one concern is the sporting facilities which are available or in attempting to make this country a competitor for the type of tourist who goes to Paris and certain Continental countries in the summer, but in getting, in the first place, the people of Ireland to see their own country, and, secondly, in getting Irish people residing in different parts of the world to come and spend their holidays at home. It seems to me that the most profitable field for the expenditure of energy in the matter of attracting tourist traffic to the country is being neglected by the existing association. The Minister said that he has got nothing to do with the policy of any association that may apply for a certificate under the section, but he ended up by saying that only one such association would get a certificate. These two statements would appear to be in conflict. If the Minister has merely to give a certificate, without any question of policy at all being considered, to any society that purports to be formed for the development of tourist traffic in the country, then we can understand the situation; but I take it from the Minister's statement that he is not going to do that; that he is going to refuse a certificate, if necessary, until he is satisfied with the policy of the association that applies for the certificate and the manner in which such an association is likely to benefit the country. In either case he will have to consider, whether he likes it or not, the question of what is best for the tourist policy of the country!
Mr. P. Hogan (Clare):
I do not know that Deputy Lemass is very well informed as to the general activities of the Irish Tourist Association.
Mr. Hogan
Only yesterday, or the day before, there was a report published—I do not know whether it came into the hands of Deputy Lemass or not—and I suggest to the Deputy that he should read it. If he does he will find in it an outline of the activities carried on by the association and of the work done in getting not one particular type of tourist, but every type likely to be of benefit to the country, to come here. If the Deputy reads that report he will possibly find in it some food for reflection, and perhaps good grounds for an alteration of his present outlook on the activities of the Tourist Association.
I suggest it is a happy coincidence that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who is in charge of this Bill, is also the Minister for External Affairs. We have a number of representatives in various foreign countries—in England, America, Germany and France. I do not know that their activities are as well directed towards advertising the attractions of this country as they might be—of hitting the people in those countries in the eye, so to speak, with the fact that we have a country worth seeing. I am not making any complaint, but I am anxious to know from the Minister whether there are any schemes in existence by which our representatives abroad would bring the attractions of our country to the notice of the people amongst whom they live? I do not mean that our consuls should go around with attache cases delivering leaflets, folders and booklets in various places, but, while making no complaint against them, I have heard from people in regard to two foreign countries that leaflets, folders and booklets relating to this country were not available in places where they might be expected to be available. I do not know whether it is the duty of our representatives abroad to look to that or not, but I suggest that the Minister might consider the formulation of a scheme under which the attractions of this country as a tourist resort would be kept before the eyes of the public in the countries to which our representatives are accredited. I would be glad to hear what the Minister has to say on the matter.
Deputy Lemass referred to the development of the internal tourist traffic of the country and to the question of urging our people to patronise the many beautiful watering places we have in the country during the holiday season. That matter has already been attended to. A campaign with that object in view has already been carried out throughout the country. There is one matter that requires attention, and I hope before the Bill goes through the necessary amendment will be made. I think that the maximum amount which it would be possible to raise under certain sections of the Bill would not provide sufficient funds for the activities of our tourist associations. I intend to propose an amendment on the Report Stage dealing with that—that is to give power to have the present maximum increased.
That does not arise on this section of the Bill.
The final remark made by the Minister suggests that his attitude is rather different from what might be inferred from the Bill. He said that, so far as he was concerned, only one company would be recognised, unless a better one appeared. The Bill provides that the Minister may grant a number of certificates. I would like to know, following the Minister's statement, if it is his intention not to grant a certificate to a new company unless it can show that it is better than the existing one. If that is his intention, then I must say that is not the inference that one would draw from reading the section. Does the Minister mean that people are to be encouraged to organise companies, raise capital and incur all the expense incidental to the establishment of the company and then find that because, in the Minister's view, the proposed new company is not better than the existing tourist development association, they are going to be refused a certificate? That, I suggest, is the inference to be drawn from the Minister's statement. I submit that it involves a serious departure from what we thought was in the Bill. Since there is the danger that there may be an unnecessary number of companies formed it would, in my opinion, have been a far better idea to restrict the minimum amount of capital that would be necessary in the case of a company claiming registration than to do what, according to the Minister's statement, it is his intention to do.
With regard to the point raised by Deputy Hogan, I do not consider it the duty of our representatives abroad to think out schemes of the type that he refers to. They certainly lend their aid in every possible way and work in co-operation with the existing association. They will continue to do that. The Deputy said that he was not making any complaint, but stated that he had heard from two people that there was not sufficient attention paid by some of our officers abroad to the display of folders and booklets in regard to tourist development. I would be glad to hear privately from the Deputy on that with a view to better arrangements being made. The policy of our people abroad always has been to work in sympathy with the existing association, but while that is so we do not want to put on them the responsibility of dealing with these things. They have from time to time criticised schemes that have been put up, and suggested amendments and modifications of them. I understand that there is quite good co-operation between our representatives abroad and the association.
With regard to the point raised by Deputy Moore, I do not think people are going to be foolish enough to go to a lot of expense without finding our beforehand whether they are likely to get approval or not. Companies may come along and say that they are prepared to make an offer of a certain type. I will do my best to get effort concentrated, with regard to tourist association, in the hands, as long as it can reasonably be kept there, of the present Tourist Association, until I see a better association formed—one that is going to carry out the duties in a better way than the existing association. At the beginning, when I got in touch with tourist development, I found there were three associations, and it took a lot of effort to get them to amalgamate. Since then they have kept together as one body, have worked well together, and brought a good amount of money to the country. They have also got the hotels, boarding-houses, and sporting facilities looked to. I do not say that they have got to the end of their work, but they have achieved considerable improvements in these things. While they continue on that line, I think they deserve support. Remember, the support in the main comes from the local authorities who subscribe, and from the members of the single association who subscribe.
Mr. Hogan
I know that there is nothing but harmony between the members of the association and the representatives of this State abroad. I want to make it clear that no complaint came to me from the Tourist Association, but a complaint came on two or three occasions from individuals from two countries.
I have no objection to the Minister favouring the existing association. As far as I know, it has done extremely good work, but I think there are always people who think they can do things better than those who are actually doing them. There are bound to be people, knowing that this law exists, but not knowing that the word "may" has such serious significance as it has in the Bill, who may go to certain expense before they approach the Minister. The Minister seems to think that they may approach him before attempting to form a company. I would not think that would be a reasonable expectation. It is much more likely that they would establish the company first, and then go and look for sanction from the Minister. Since the Minister has it in his mind that he does not want more than one association, and that that association is already in existence, he could have expressed it much more clearly than is done in the section.
I think this is a point that we ought to be clear about. Is it the Minister's present intention to limit sanction to one company only? If there is an existing company which the Minister favours, and if a company comes along with a better programme, will the Minister, having granted the certificate under this Bill, consider the revocation or the withdrawal of the certificate granted previously to the existing company? He implies that that is going to be his attitude, and in view of sub-section (3) it becomes a serious matter, because the Minister has power to withdraw the certificate without assigning a reason. I think if the certificate is going to be withdrawn because another undertaker comes along, and puts up a programme which, in the Minister's opinion, is better than the one which the existing company is carrying out, the Minister should be compelled to state his reasons, if he is going to withdraw the certificate from the first company. After all, the public, the local authorities and the other parties involved have a right to judge as well as the Minister, and the facts upon which the Minister would withdraw a certificate ought to be put before them.
I would like to state my policy again. I think the efforts with regard to the development of tourist traffic in this country should be concentrated in one association. There is a good association in existence, and I do not like to have any competitors. I do not think these competitors are going to arise.
Supposing a better association comes along, what will happen?
If it does, and if the Bill remains as it is, I will be able to withdraw the certificate of a company without assigning any reason.
I hope the Minister will stick to the attitude that he has expressed, and that he will not tolerate more than one organisation so long as it does its work efficiently. I will ask Deputy Moore to picture the situation that might be created if two or three bodies catering for tourists went before Wicklow County Council and had a squabble as to which should get support.
I stated that I had no objection to preference being given to the existing organisation. What I find fault with is that there is an encouragement to start new companies which will not be approved of by the Minister.
Deputy Moore gave me the impression that he was arguing in favour of having more than one organisation for this purpose, and that being so, I would certainly advise the Minister to stick to the attitude that he has taken up in the matter.
I think we ought to discuss this matter further. Let us agree that there should be only one active association in being, with the approval of the Minister. There is already such an association to which the Minister is prepared to give a certificate, but if another association comes along, with a programme which he considers better than the present one, will he be prepared to grant that association a certificate? Does the granting of the certificate to the second association imply withdrawal of the certificate granted to the first association? If so, I submit it is unfair that the Minister should have power to withdraw the certificate from the first company unless he assigns a reason. To my mind that is the important principle in the section, that the Minister, having granted the certificate, may withdraw it without giving any reason. In doing so he may be acting bona fide, but at the same time he may be acting unjustly to the first comer. After all, if the question is to be decided on the merits of the respective programmes— the merits of the programme in operation as contrasted with the merits of what is promised in the programme to be put into operation—I think before the second certificate is issued, which will mean the withdrawal of the first certificate according to the Minister's statement——
The Minister stated that he will not tolerate more than one association, and we know that the Minister can be intolerant when he desires—intolerant as well as intolerable. He has also indicated, I think, that the first company would retain the certificate until the second company comes along with a better programme. I think these were the actual words used by the Minister, and they necessarily imply that when the second association comes into being, the certificate of the first association will be withdrawn, unless the Minister makes it clear that that is not what is in his mind.
Will the Minister state if it is the intention that the accounts that are to be published will be submitted to the Dáil?
The Bill does not state that, and it is not the intention, unless these things are brought under the sway of local government. It is not intended to publish them as a separate item.
In that event I think on the Report Stage we ought to have an opportunity of considering the effect of sub-section (3), which gives the Minister power to revoke a certificate without assigning any reason.
Section 2 put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a local authority may, in any local financial year, enter into an agreement (in this Act referred to as a local contribution agreement) with an approved company to pay to such company, in respect of the next ensuing local financial year, or in respect of each of a specified number (not exceeding five) of consecutive local financial years, commencing with the next ensuing local financial year, a specified sum (in this Act referred to as a local contribution).
(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, a local authority may, in any local financial year, enter into any number of local contribution agreements with the same approved company or with different approved companies.
(3) A local authority shall not enter into a local contribution agreement to pay a local contribution in respect of any local financial year, if the effect of entering into such agreement would be that the total amount agreed to be paid by way of local contribution by such local authority in respect of such local financial year would exceed—
(a) where such local authority is the council of a county or borough a sum equal to the amount of a rate of one penny in the pound on the rateable value of such county or county borough at the time such agreement is executed; or
(b) where such local authority is the council of a borough, other than a county borough, or an urban district or the commissioners of a town, a sum equal to the amount of a rate of twopence in the pound on the rateable value of such borough, urban district or town at the time such agreement is executed:
and any local contribution agreement entered into in contravention of the foregoing provisions of this sub-section shall be void and of no effect.
(4) Every local contribution payable in respect of a local financial year shall be expressed in the local contribution agreement under which it is payable to be payable and shall be payable in four equal quarterly instalments, on the 30th day of June, the 30th day of September, the 30th day of December, and the 31st day of March in such local financial year.
(5) Where an approved company ceases to be an approved company, every local contribution payable to such company in respect of any period commencing on or after the date on which such company ceases to be an approved company shall cease to be payable, and for the purpose of this sub-section every local contribution shall be considered as accruing from day to day and shall be apportionable in respect of time accordingly.
(6) The receipt of an approved company for any moneys paid to it by a local authority under a local contribution agreement shall be a good discharge to such local authority.
(7) The benefit of a local contribution agreement shall not be assigned save to an approved company or without the consent of the Minister endorsed on the assignment.
(8) All moneys received by an approved company under a local contribution agreement shall be expended by such company on such objects and in such manner as may be approved by the Minister and not otherwise.
I move amendment 1:—
In sub-section (1), page 3, to insert in line 15 after the words "in respect of" the words "such local financial year or" and to insert in line 18 after the word "with" the words "such first mentioned local financial year or."
The object of this amendment is to meet a case which is, in fact, likely to occur where a Bill comes into operation in the course of the financial year of the Association, to enable changes to be made within that year. The phrase remains as it is. The changes would only become operative as from the beginning of the new year.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 2:—
In sub-section (3) (a), line 31, to insert the word "county" before the word "borough."
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I do not propose to move amendment 3. (In sub-section (4), line 47, to insert the words "or before" before the words "the 30th day of June".) I think the phrase in the amendment, which had a certain purpose to meet, might cause conflict with the matter set out in the next sub-section, in which it is provided that the moneys are to be apportioned as from day to day. By inserting this amendment, there would be unnecessary complication. The purpose to be served can be met in another way.
Amendment not moved.
Amendment 4—In sub-section (4), line 48, to delete the figures "30th" and substitute the figures "31st" (Minister for Industry and Commerce).
Agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The question arises as to whether or not it is advisable that a maximum of 2d. in the £ should be fixed in respect of all urban districts. It has been contended that there are certain towns like Killarney, the prosperity of which is very largely bound up with the tourist traffic, which might be prepared to expend a larger sum in development of that traffic than is permitted by the Bill. Is there any good reason why they should not be allowed to do so? It may be advisable to have such a maximum in regard to the majority of towns, but surely there should be an exception in the case of towns which exist very largely by tourist traffic.
Mr. Hogan (Clare):
I think that the section is a bit rigid. It ought to be somewhat more flexible. Under the Bill, Killarney will have its maximum reduced by 1d. in the £. Some option ought to be allowed to local authorities as to the amount they would spend. If one considers the amount of advertising carried out across-Channel by towns of much the same size as Killarney but with not nearly the same attractions, there is a strong argument for allowing more flexibility under this section. I think the Minister ought to allow some option locally.
With regard to sub-section (8), is it the Minister's intention that the approved company shall have to keep accounts of the contributions which it receives from local authorities separate from its other funds? That would seem to be the expectation. But will not that lead to great difficulty in working on the part of the company? If they have to submit a statement as to how they intend to spend the moneys received from local authorities, that statement may not be at all as satisfactory as if the contribution were included in their general funds. The Minister may think that the amount they are proposing to spend on a particular object is so inadequate that it would be waste of money, whereas they may be spending so much money from their general funds on the same purpose that such an object may be quite useful. This seems a curious provision and one which I am surprised to think the company would find it satisfactory to accept.
With regard to the point as to the maximum rate and the point referred to by Deputy Moore, it must be remembered that this is an amending Bill. It is changing the situation because of the matter referred to by Deputy Moore. Before this, there was extreme rigidity—such extreme rigidity that the association concerned found that it could not spend in a remunerative way the money which came to its hands. On the question of the maximum rate, this, as I have said, is an amending piece of legislation. Under previous legislation, there was a maximum of 3d., that 3d. being for a county council and including the rate struck by local councils. It was thought better, on account of the representations made to us, to have the matter made clear and to separate these two items of charge. The situation now is that there can be a sum up to a maximum of 2d. contributed and in addition the 1d. rate can be struck otherwise. We are really preserving the old maximum. If it is thought that the 2d. maximum even, as it is in the Bill, should be enlarged to 3d., making the rate all over 4d., I have no objection. I think it was an amendment of that type that Deputy Egan had in mind. However, we had better wait and discuss the merits of that on a concrete proposition.
Deputy Moore referred to sub-section (8). I do not know why he referred to that sub-section more than to any other. I explained the purpose of the Bill on the Second Reading. That section of the Local Government Act dealing with tourist development enabled money to be expended only in connection with advertising. "Advertising" was narrowly interpreted by those who had to interpret the section. It was found that money could not be expended on such matters as inspection of hotels. Matters that, to the ordinary layman would seem to come under the head of "advertising," were ruled out owing to the interpretation put on the section. We decided to clear up that situation and to allow moneys to be expended for almost any purpose. But we decided to have a check as to those purposes and the proposed expenditure must be submitted and must be approved. Deputy Moore seemed to wonder that the association accepted such an arrangement. This is the very arrangement that the association are pressing for. The association had no difficulty in accepting a certain supervision with regard to the objects for which the money is to be expended and the manner in which it is to be expended. There will not necessarily be attention devoted to the details of the expenditure. It will rather be a general supervision, a general approval of the aim and method of expenditure. The expenditure and the method of carrying it out will be ruled again on the accounts.
Which will mean separate accounts.
The Bill says: "All moneys received by an approved company under a local contribution agreement shall be expended by such company..." Should not that be "under all local contribution agreements"?
No. There is a special point in that. The "purposes" will be approved—purposes such as the inspection of hotels, advertising, as we know it, by poster and folder and certain subsidiary methods of advertising, such as signs, and so forth. These will be approved, but as each contribution comes in it is not intended to say that so much of that, received from a particular local authority, must be expended on a particular thing. There is no difficulty apprehended by the association, and from my knowledge of the schemes, as hitherto supervised, there is no difficulty apparent at all in having this matter attended to as each sum of money comes into operation. This gives a better opportunity of seeing that the "purposes" are attended to.
It would seem that the specific approval of the Minister is required in respect of a contribution made in respect of each individual local authority.
It is necessary to have the power to operate that approval in respect of each contribution from a local authority coming in.
Take the case of Killarney. Suppose that the local authority there is anxious to incur a considerable liability to advertise Killarney, under the section it would be the duty of the Minister to see that that money so voted was applied to the particular purposes for which it was intended— namely, the advertising of Killarney, and that it was not used for advertising some other place in the West of Ireland. I take it that that is the meaning of the sub-section.
That is one of the points, probably the main point in view, but I do not want it to go out from this House, as a result of what Deputy Good has stated, that if Killarney voted money under those circumstances we would impose such obligation on the association in regard to keeping separate accounts as would lead to waste. We would generally see that the money was more or less expended on the particular lines indicated, but there would be no obligation on the Minister to approve of a particular method of expenditure. The Killarney Council, of course, would always have its resort, because the money need not be voted the following year. Generally speaking, there is an endeavour here to have the power which Deputy Good referred to left in the hands of the Minister without necessarily implying—as I do not want to imply by assenting to Deputy Good's proposition—that it would always be used in that way.
Section 3, as amended, put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
(3) The amount which may be expended for the purposes of this section in any local financial year—
(a) in the case of the council of a county or county borough, shall not, together with the amount of local contributions (if any) payable by such council in respect of such year, exceed a sum equal to a rate of one penny in the pound on the rateable value of such county or county borough at the commencement of such year; and
(b) in the case of the council of a borough, other than a county borough, or an urban district, or the commissioners of a town, shall not, together with the amount of local contributions (if any) payable by such council or commissioners, exceed a sum equal to a rate of two-pence in the pound on the rateable value of such borough, urban district, or town at the commencement of each year.
I move amendment 5, as follows:—
In sub-section (3), paragraph (b), page 4, to insert in line 37, after the word "payable," the words "under a local contribution, agreement or agreements made," and to insert in line 39, before the word "exceed," the words "in respect of such year."
The purpose of the amendment is to make absolutely certain what I thought was sufficiently clear but about which some doubts have been raised, namely, that if any authority, borough, urban district, or town commissioners expend money, the amount of that expenditure, either by way of contribution to a tourist development rate or otherwise, shall not exceed the sum of whatever is the approved rate. It is to make clear that the whole expenditure has to be considered, and that whole expenditure is ruled then by the appropriate maximum rate.
That is the whole expenditure on advertising alone apart from the contribution to the general purposes of the company?
How will that operate in the case of towns like Killarney, where it might be remunerative to have an advertising rate of more than 2d. in the pound?
They will not be able to do it under this section as it stands, and can only do it if the maximum is raised.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, put and agreed to.
Section 5, 6 and 7, and the Title, put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be reported.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 29th April.
