Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Apr 1933

Vol. 47 No. 1

Application for Private Bill. - Railways Bill, 1933—Report Stage.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment 1:—

In page 4, Section 3 (10), to delete all from the word "Nothing", line 7, to the word "Company", line 8, and substitute the words "Neither the reduction effected by this section in the nominal capital value of any debenture stock of the Company nor the reduction similarly effected in the amount of interest on any such debenture stock shall entitle any holder of any such debenture stock".

This is really a drafting amendment intended to make it clear that debenture holders would not be entitled to take action by reason of the reduction of capital or of interest provided for in the section.

Mr. Good

Do I gather from the Minister that he is taking this right altogether from the debenture holders? Debenture holders, in the event of the debenture interest not being paid, had the right in the past to go in and take possession. Is that right being taken from them?

Mr. Lemass

The right to take action of that kind in consequence of the reduction effected by this Bill was intended to be taken from them by Section 3 (10). Some question arose in the Committee Stage as to whether sub-section (10) as drafted actually achieved that intention and this amendment is being inserted to clear up this doubt about the drafting which was commented upon in the Committee Stage. It does not really change the Bill in the least. It merely improves the drafting.

Mr. MacDermot

It does not affect the rights of the debenture holders as regards failure to pay the reduced rate of interest?

Mr. Lemass

Not in the least.

Mr. Good

Is that clear?

Mr. Lemass

Quite clear, if the Deputy will read the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment 2:—

In page 4, Section 5 (1), to delete all from the word "to", line 47, to the word "manner" in line 48 and substitute the words "by making therefrom such deduction" and in line 49 to insert after the word "equitable" the words "having regard to the reduction in the amount of interest payable and dividends reasonably to be expected."

This amendment is also intended to clear up a difficulty which was commented upon by Deputy McGilligan on the Committee Stage in respect to Section 5. It is intended that the Railway Tribunal shall review the standard revenue and, having regard to the reduction in capital effected by this Bill, to fix a new standard revenue which, in the opinion of the Railway Tribunal, will be fair and equitable in all the circumstances. The manner in which the section was drafted was criticised on the Committee Stage and on examination I came to the conclusion that an improvement in the drafting was possible. The insertion of the amendment will make it clear that the Railway Tribunal can take all relevant facts into account and fix a standard revenue which, in the circumstances, it considers to be equitable.

Mr. Good

Will the Minister explain what is meant by the words "and dividends reasonably to be expected"?

Mr. Lemass

The words convey a clear meaning in my opinion to anyone who applies to each of them the ordinary meaning. "Dividends reasonably to be expected" are dividends which can be reasonably expected, but if any question as to the interpretation of the words arises it is the Railway Tribunal that will have to decide upon the point. The intention is that the Railway Tribunal shall have regard to the new capital of the Company and, taking into account the original standard revenue and all the factors which came into account when the old standard revenue was being fixed, then it will fix the new standard revenue which will have regard to the reduction in the amount of interest payable and dividends reasonably to be expected.

Mr. Cosgrave

The whole section appears to be rather a joke because, so far as one can see what is meant by this term at all, it refers to the ordinary stock. Obviously the Railway Tribunal or anybody in making up what the standard revenue is to be will include, first, the debentures, secondly, the guaranteed preference, thirdly, the preference; and then there is the ordinary stock. As the ordinary stock will amount in future to something like £700,000—I am speaking from memory —the dividend on that even at five per cent. is a negligible amount. It will amount to a half per cent. on the old stock. Five per cent. on the new stock refers only to £35,000. It is a question simply of putting into the Bill some thing which satisfies a person's æsthetic taste. The Bill itself will not give the means of providing either a reasonable or any other sort of dividend.

Mr. Lemass

That is a matter on which opinions differ.

Mr. Cosgrave

Has the Minister read the returns recently? £7,000 per week down in sixteen weeks!

Mr. Lemass

That is why the Bill is necessary.

Mr. Good

Has the Minister seen the fall in the Stock Exchange quotations as a result of his Bill?

Mr. Lemass

Or the Deputy's speeches.

Mr. T. Kelly

How do you know it is the result of the Bill?

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move:—

In page 7, line 18, Section 8 (2) (b), after the word "company" to insert the words "notwithstanding any statutory, contractural, or other obligation to the contrary" and to delete all from the word "whether" in line 21 to the word "obligation" in line 22.

This amendment is also to clear up another point raised by Deputy McGilligan. He queried the words in paragraph (b) which relates to the obligation, whether voluntarily undertaken or undertaken by virtue of a Statute or contract. I agreed with him that the word "voluntarily" was ambiguous and we propose therefore to change the wording and to bring it into agreement with the wording of paragraph (a), that is, by inserting these words: "notwithstanding any statutory, contractual, or other obligation to the contrary."

Mr. Dillon

The question arose, I think, as to whether the Minister deemed it prudent to take—what was never taken before—power to release one party from its contract without regard to the other party's claim. I take it that the Minister, having carefully considered the representations made on the Committee Stage, has decided that he requires that power?

Mr. Lemass

Quite. It is intended in all the circumstances envisaged by this section that the company should be allowed to reduce the services of trains, and that there should be no doubt of our ability to enable them to do so. As the section cannot come into operation at all except on the application of the railway company I do not think there is any danger of arbitrary action being taken which would interfere with the existing rights of individuals or companies. The change which is now proposed to be made removes a certain amount of ambiguity which the original sub-section contained.

Mr. Dillon

I do not propose to delay the House by repeating the debate which took place on the Committee Stage. It was pointed out to the Minister that the circumstances under which he could require this power were very few and far between —possibly non-existent—but that in taking the power he established a highly undesirable precedent. In that connection, Deputy McGilligan intervened to say that he had taken analogous but not identical powers under the Shannon Electricity Supply Board Acts, and that when he went out of office he was actually in correspondence with the Electricity Supply Board to warn them that if they made use of those arbitrary powers he would have to introduce amending legislation to take them away from them.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy is mixing this up with a debate which took place on another matter.

Mr. Dillon

Maybe. At any rate, even if those words were not used by Deputy McGilligan in connection with this matter, it was pointed out to the Minister that there is no precedent for the taking by a Minister of power to break contracts—no precedent in any legislation we have ever heard of. I challenged the Attorney-General, who was sitting behind the Minister on that occasion, to get up and quote any precedent for what the Minister was going to do. The Attorney-General smiled a sickly smile and remained sitting. There is no precedent whatever. I invited the Minister on the Committee Stage to produce it on the Report Stage——

Mr. Lemass

We are not doing it.

Mr. Dillon

Doing what?

Mr. Lemass

Anything the Deputy is imagining.

Mr. Dillon

Under this section "the Minister may by order authorise the railway company notwithstanding any contractual obligation to the contrary" to do certain things. I am putting it to the Minister that he is taking power to break contracts. I put that to him very exhaustively on the Committee Stage; so did Deputy McGilligan. If he considers that debate, or reads it, he will see the reasons put forward for our point of view, which in my opinion are convincing.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move:

In page 8, to add at the end of Section 8 (4) a new paragraph as follows:—

(e) such railway company may transfer to any road transport business or any other undertaking owned or controlled by such railway company any employee whose services are rendered redundant by steps taken by such railway company under the authority of such order, and unless such transfer is refused by such employee on reasonable grounds, or any such employee so transferred is dismissed for any cause other than inefficiency or misconduct within two years from the date on which he is so transferred, no employee so transferred shall be deemed to be dismissed for the purposes of the foregoing paragraph.

This amendment is designed to secure that the railway companies will have an inducement to offer alternative employment instead of compensation to employees rendered redundant by the making of an order under this section. I think that is to the advantage of all parties concerned. As the Bill originally stood, the railway company had no such power, and in fact it would probably be the practice that redundant employees would be dispensed with and compensated. If this amendment is inserted the railway companies may, instead of dispensing with employees, give them alternative employment in some other capacity. I understand all parties are agreed that that is the better course.

Amendment put and agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 5 is out of order.

Mr. Dockrell

Could the Minister make any statement as to whether there is any possibility of agreement amongst the parties, or how he regards the principle of this amendment?

Mr. Lemass

I do not know if I would be in order in making a statement in view of the Ceann Comhairle's ruling. The matter is obviously one to be discussed between the parties themselves in the first instance, and I see no reason why they should not do so.

Mr. Cosgrave

This question arose some years ago. It is a case in which a railroad runs along the side of the bridge. At the time that the bridge was actually constructed the railroad traffic was an economic proposition. Along with that railroad on the bridge there is also provision for vehicular traffic. That is a very considerable advantage. The suggestion that I made some years ago, and which I understand was acted on for some time, was that the charge was one properly attributable to the Road Fund. I think it is out of the Road Fund that provision should be made for it. The ordinary public use it to a greater extent than the railroad, and it is certainly unfair that—with the growth of traffic, and greater use on the part of other persons than the original constructors of the bridge—some way out in that form should not be found. I think neither the Harbour Commissioners nor the Corporation ought to be charged, and that it is on the Road Fund the charge should be made.

Professor Thrift

I want to raise one point. When we were concluding the Committee Stage of this Bill, rather in a hurry before the Recess, I understood that certain amendments which we did not then touch were to be carried forward to the Report Stage, and brought in along with certain official amendments by the Minister. Those amendments have actually dropped out from the Paper, and I have been disappointed at not seeing them there.

Mr. Lemass

I did not contract to have the amendments put down on the Order Paper.

Professor Thrift

May I read what the Minister said? "Probably the better procedure now would be to complete the Committee Stage, as we did with the Road Transport Bill, holding over amendments in the names of private Deputies until the Report Stage, and to put in official amendments."

Mr. Lemass

There was some misunderstanding. In fact, as the Deputy will remember, most of the amendments remaining over, with I think the exception of three, were covered by amendments that had been dealt with before we stopped the discussion. In respect of those three I was asked whether I was inclined to accept them or not. I intimated that I was not and the reason for it.

Professor Thrift

In connection with two of them.

Mr. Lemass

It applied to the three of them. They all relate to the powers of the Railway Tribunal in regard to applications by the railway company in connection with rates and matters of that kind. I indicated that I would be inclined to oppose them strongly, as in my opinion the Railway Tribunal should be the responsible authority in matters of that kind and not the Minister, and that the giving of the powers to the Minister would be undesirable and might possibly be unconstitutional.

Professor Thrift

This is rather unfortunate, because it prevents our having any opportunity of putting the case for those amendments, particularly in connection with the Schedule. I think it is an unfortunate curtailment of our privileges in this matter. I certainly expected to find the amendments on the Order Paper.

General Mulcahy

I should like to ask considering that the Committee Stage closed quickly, for the convenience both of the Minister and of the House, and in view of the fact that those amendments have been printed and have been before the House, is there any objection on the part of the House to considering those amendments now in their proper place on the Report Stage?

Professor Thrift

There is a further point; the Minister, in connection with the Schedule, which is to my mind the only important thing left, gave what I understood was an undertaking that a certain part of the Schedule would be altered, as he was satisfied that it was not equitable.

Mr. Lemass

There was no undertaking concerning amendments to the Schedule.

Professor Thrift

I think the Minister said he was satisfied that the arrangement with regard to the City of Dublin Junction was not equitable.

Mr. Lemass

I can say in that connection, perhaps to satisfy the Deputy, that the information which would enable me to decide in what manner, if at all, the Schedule would be amended, affecting the minor stocks, had not been made available to me at that time. A large part of the information came to me in the last couple of days, but there are still some essential parts missing, and I am not in a position to arrive at a decision on the point. I intended to inform the House on the general question that the matter of the minor stocks was definitely under consideration at the moment, and that I am almost in the position to say that an amendment will certainly be introduced. I propose to have it introduced in the other House so that it will come back to this House again.

Professor Thrift

Should not the Minister give the House an opportunity now of discussing the Schedule?

Mr. Lemass

Deputies had two weeks to put in amendments.

Professor Thrift

We understood we were getting them from the Minister. Was the Minister aware that there was a sum of money in court which would not be required? It is quite clear that the figures he has put down should not go forward from this House to the other House, when there is a very serious defect in the Schedule.

Mr. Lemass

The sole reason why the amendment has not appeared is the failure or, shall I say, the refusal of the parties concerned to supply information to enable a decision to be arrived at.

Professor Thrift

The Dáil remains.

Mr. Dillon

Surely the Minister recognises that he virtually gave an undertaking to introduce a Government amendment, and to offer something in accordance with the representations?

Mr. Lemass

I did not give any such undertaking.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister did everything except actually to put it in words. I raised the question of the equity of the Schedule as a whole. I referred to the debenture stock, about which there might be a debate, and I pointed out in respect of the 4 per cent. City of Dublin Junction Railways Preference Stock, and the 4 per cent. City of Dublin Junction Railways Guaranteed Stock, that it was manifest the Schedule was inequitable. The Minister when replying admitted that in some of the junior stocks referred to there was an absence of equity and that it was his intention on the Report Stage to remove that, and to introduce an amendment which would bring these junior stocks into what would be an equitable position. In face of that it did not seem worth while putting down amendments which were pretty certain to be rejected by the Minister in favour of his own. It would make a very difficult position if, after a guarantee of that kind was given, the Minister did not introduce his amendment and refused to allow Deputies to do so.

General Mulcahy

On a point of order, would it not be a good thing if the House agreed that the amendments which were dropped, when the Committee Stage was finished, could be taken now?

Mr. Lemass

That would not cover it.

An Ceann Comhairle

It would not be in order at this late stage, seeing that the amendments have not been circulated and are therefore not before the House.

General Mulcahy

The House having had the amendments before it already, could it not decide that there was nothing to prevent it taking them now and discussing them?

An Ceann Comhairle

It would be quite irregular to take these amendments now. Possibly Deputies were in ignorance of the fact that they could have tabled for the Report Stage amendments not taken in the Committee Stage. The amendments should have been re-tabled by Deputies, certainly not by the Ceann Comhairle, nor by the Minister.

Professor Thrift

That would have been done in the ordinary course but for the Minister's statement that these amendments would be carried forward along with certain official amendments. I think we were justified in assuming that.

Mr. McMenamin

In order that the Minister would get that stage of the Bill.

Mr. Good

It was on that understanding we agreed to it.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister has suggested that the matter can come before the House again, and there will then be an opportunity of discussing it.

Mr. Dillon

I have found the relevant part of the Minister's statement. It appears in the Official Debates, col. 2299:—

"I am not happy about the minor stocks. I think we are acting unduly harshly about the minor stocks. I was waiting to get information and representations which would permit of a review of our proposals in that respect and we have not got them."

Professor Thrift

Could not the Minister hold this matter over for a day or two?

Mr. Lemass

That does not get us anywhere. If Deputies will take my word for it, on the full information which is desirable and necessary, being supplied, an adjustment in the Schedule will be made. At least, an adjustment will be made which, in my opinion, will be equitable, although the Upper House, as it is called, or this House, may disagree with that view. Nevertheless, an amendment is likely to be made on the Committee Stage of the Bill in the Seanad. It will not be taken until I have reached a definite conclusion upon that point. There can be no possibility of that without definite information being given.

Professor Thrift

I am quite satisfied from one standpoint, but I am not at all satisfied from another standpoint, and that is for this House to surrender any rights it may have, particularly in a matter of a contract where private money is involved. We should have the first right in any-proposals of the kind.

Mr. Cosgrave

Could the Minister say what is the hurry about this? Why not accept a motion now that consideration of the Final Stages be postponed for a week?

Mr. Lemass

The Bill has been already delayed much longer than I expected, and there have been no restrictions on discussion. There have been long and adequate discussions of every section and clause and I do not think the House would be justified in holding it up further, in view of the fact that it would not make any difference, in any event. If the information is supplied it will enable me to consider the matter. I have no reason now to believe that it will not be supplied. Then a change will be proposed, and that change may be as well proposed in the other House as here, having regard to the fact that a decision cannot be made until the full information is there.

Mr. Cosgrave

I could understand that as a contention for the mainten ance of the Seanad, and as a conten tion for the necessity for having a Second House, but I cannot understand why we should put all our rights and privileges into cold storage.

Mr. Lemass

I am not responsible for the fact that Deputies did not put in their own amendments.

Mr. Cosgrave

A particular record was read.

Mr. Lemass

Which proves that what I said was right and that what the Deputy said was wrong.

Mr. Cosgrave

Obviously from what was read Deputies were entitled to consider that the matter would come before the Dáil again, and having regard to what the Minister said, in my view it practically committed him to bringing in something. If this stage passes now the Bill vanishes from the control of this House and we can only consider whatever recommendation comes from the Seanad, or alternatively whatever bargain the Minister can make with the Seanad. I do not agree with that.

Mr. Dillon

May I draw the Minister's attention to column 2368 of the Official Debates:—

"The proposals appear to me to be reasonable on the face of them, although I will admit, in relation to the minor stocks, that some modification will have to be made."

When the Minister was addressing the House he said in relation to the minor stocks that some modification would have to be made. That means that he was going to come to this House with some other proposal.

Mr. Lemass

If I intended saying that I would have said it.

Mr. Dillon

That is not so certain.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy is not reading what is in the Debates but what he thinks should be in it.

Mr. Dillon

I am reading from the Official Debates:—

"The proposals appear to me to be reasonable on the face of them, although I will admit, in relation to the minor stocks, that some modification will have to be made."

Mr. Lemass

Read on.

Mr. Dillon

Does the Minister want me to read the whole oration? Is the Minister defying me to find anything in the Official Reports to justify the assertion he makes: that he did not undertake to bring in any modifying proposals on Report? The clear meaning of the words the Minister used on that occasion is that he would make a modification of the Schedule before the Bill left this House. He said: "We have asked for information from the railway company to enable us to decide what modification should be made." Then the Minister went on to say that he did not understand those who did not agree with him. It would be most extraordinary if anybody did. The fact remains that these words were taken, and I think reasonably taken by most people on this side of the House, to mean that it was the Minister's intention to introduce modifying proposals, and that it was partly on that account that the Report Stage was postponed until after the Recess.

Professor Thrift

Might I also point out that there is no need for haste in this matter? The need for haste which did exist has fortunately ceased.

Mr. Lemass

I do not agree with the Deputy. Deputy Cosgrave has given very good reasons why the Bill should be passed.

Mr. Cosgrave

Will the Minister give the House a reason why the Bill should be passed to-day?

Mr. Lemass

There is the question of the £7,000 which the Deputy himself referred to.

Mr. Cosgrave

Is that going to stop when this Bill is passed? Did anybody ever hear anything like that? I would like to know if the Chair would take a motion that the question that the Bill be now received for final consideration be postponed for a week?

An Ceann Comhairle

I am not prepared to accept that motion.

Mr. Cosgrave

Then we can only vote against it.

Mr. Dockrell

Arising out of what the Minister said on my amendment, which has been ruled out of order, that the matter was obviously one for agreement between the parties, I would like to point this out to him: that there is no necessity for the parties to come together, and that the railway company cannot compel other people to come to a conference or an agreement.

If the Minister says: "I will summon a conference," then I am satisfied; but I would like the Minister to indicate how the matter could be carried further. The Minister is no doubt aware that all the parties have conceded the justice of the railway company's claim for consideration. I think that my friend here, Deputy Broderick, is burning to tell the House how much the county council is prepared to give. I would like to know from the Minister if he thinks he can do anything to summon such a conference.

Mr. Broderick

I would like to point out that I did not commit any authority to the payment of anything. I say that as a matter of equity they ought to be helped to be maintained by the local authorities.

Mr. Lemass

I would have to consider the question of whether I could take the responsibility of bringing the parties together. I think the principle that agreements cannot be broken except with the consent of both parties is one that all parties subscribe to. That certainly should apply in this case. If there is any difficulty about getting the parties to come together for the purpose of discussing an agreement, then we might consider the question of inviting them to a meeting, but I would not like to give any definite promise to do that.

Mr. Dockrell

If the railway company take the initiative and fail, is the Minister prepared to reconsider the matter?

Mr. Lemass

Quite.

Mr. Good

Would not statutory authority be necessary before a local authority could contribute money out of its funds to the railway company?

Mr. Lemass

I think that the legislation necessary to effect any change resulting from an agreement between the parties would find a fairly easy passage through the Oireachtas.

Mr. Good

That is one difficulty I see. The parties are apparently agreed, but there are difficulties—I have referred to one—in the way.

Mr. Lemass

Judging by the flood of resolutions that I have received, their willingness in that direction is not very apparent.

Mr. Good

I thought there was what the Minister might call sweet reasonableness about the views expressed by the different parties. It appears to me that statutory power would be necessary to enable the parties to carry out what they have a desire to carry out. I think an obligation remains on the Minister to give them that statutory authority under this Bill if they so desire to contribute such moneys.

Mr. Dillon

Could the Minister do that in the Seanad?

Mr. Lemass

No. I do not think it should be done in this Bill at all. Deputies are assuming agreement. I have no evidence of agreement, but I have every evidence to the contrary. Following the introduction of that amendment on the Committee Stage I was deluged with resolutions denouncing the proposal as the most iniquitous that had ever been brought before the Dáil.

Professor Thrift

That arose from the view that the amendment proposed to shut down the bridges which of course it did not.

Mr. Dillon

Might I call the Minister's attention to a statement to be found on column 2370 of the Official Debates?

An Ceann Comhairle

I would draw the Deputy's attention to the fact that the House is not now in Committee, and that he has already spoken three times.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister challenged me to produce what he did say on that occasion. This was the fourth time that the Minister dealt with the matter, and he said: "I have mentioned the matter of the minor stocks. The priority of the charge on the Great Southern Railways for the City of Dublin Junction Guaranteed Stock is one point on which we are seeking additional information which has not been supplied by the railway company. In that connection, and in connection with the other stocks mentioned, I agree that a case could be made for an amendment of the Bill, but a decision on that will not be possible until we get the information which is required and which was asked for." What did the Minister mean by "we"? Did he mean the royal person of Mr. Lemass, Minister for Industry and Commerce, or did he mean the members of this House? I quite recognise that we are approaching a state of royalty on the bench opposite, but that is not yet.

Question put: "That the Bill be now received for final consideration."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 77; Níl, 30.

Tá

• Anthony, Richard.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Brady, Brian.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Browne, William Frazer.
• Carty, Frank.
• Clery, Mícheál.
• Coburn, James.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Corish, Richard.
• Corkery, Daniel.
• Corry, Martin John.
• Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
• Crowley, Timothy.
• Daly, Denis.
• Davin, William.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Doherty, Hugh.
• Dowdall, Thomas P.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Finlay, John.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Gibbons, Seán.
• Goulding, John.
• Hales, Thomas.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
• Houlihan, Patrick.
• Keely, Séamus P.
• Kehoe, Patrick.
• Kelly, James Patrick.
• Kelly, Thomas.
• Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
• Kent, William Rice.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Kissane, Eamonn.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• Lynch, James B.
• MacDermot, Frank.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Maguire, Conor Alexander.
• Moane, Edward.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
• Norton, William.
• O'Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Dowd, Patrick.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Pattison, James P.
• Pearse, Margaret Mary.
• Rice, Edward.
• Rogers, Patrick James.
• Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Martin.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Victory, James.
• Wall, Nicholas.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).

Níl

• Belton, Patrick.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Bourke, Séamus.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Broderick, William Joseph.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Craig, Sir James.
• Daly, Patrick.
• Davis, Michael.
• Desmond, William.
• Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Good, John.
• Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
• Keating, John.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• Morrisroe, James.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Nally, Martin.
• O'Connor, Batt.
• O'Mahony, The.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Redmond, Bridget Mary.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Thrift, William Edward.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Traynor; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.

Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

When will the Fifth Stage be taken?

Mr. Lemass

To-morrow.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Minister is going mad. We will divide on that question.

Mr. Lemass

I will leave it over until Friday.

Mr. Cosgrave

This Bill has been amended——

Mr. Lemass

It has been amended in respect of a few drafting points on Report Stage. No other amendments can be tabled now and it is only a question of the final passage of the Bill. In view of the very long time given to all the stages, I do not think it necessary that there should be any protracted delay now. Ordinarily, I think that Bills of this kind would be finally passed a day or two days, at most, following the Report Stage. However, I am willing to put it off until Friday.

Mr. Cosgrave

I think this day week would be time enough. It has been amended and we have not got the amendments in print yet.

Mr. Good

Might I point out to the Minister that, so far as some of us in this House are concerned, we quite misunderstood the position? I would never have assented to these amendments being passed over in the way in which they were passed over on Committee Stage, had I not distinctly understood that these amendments would again appear on Report Stage and that there would then be an opportunity of discussing them. That opportunity has been taken from us. Who is to blame I do not know, but it is only fair that an opportunity should be given for discussing those amendments. There are important principles involved in them, and I think that reasonable time ought to be allowed.

Mr. Lemass

There can be no amendment on the Final Stage.

Mr. Good

We can discuss the principles embodied in these amendments, I take it. That is all we can do now, because the right of discussion on these amendments was taken from us under a misunderstanding, to put it mildly.

Mr. Lemass

If the Deputy is prepared to discuss them to-day, surely he will be ready to discuss them to-morrow.

Professor O'Sullivan

I was present in the House and the Minister, I think, will recall that not merely were certain amendments not discussed on Committee Stage, but certain sections were not discussed, including the new Schedules, and I understood that we were to go into Committee on this Stage and discuss these particular sections that had not been discussed. I understood that that was what the Minister was consenting to when it was agreed to give the full Committee Stage on that date. If the Minister will recall what actually did happen, I think he will find that I am stating it correctly.

Mr. Lemass

I suggest that there were only two or three amendments left undealt with or that were not covered by amendments already dealt with and that were to be considered on Report. Any misunderstanding that there has been was with regard to whether I was to bring them in on Report or the Deputies in whose names they appeared on the Paper. I was leaving it to the Deputies for Report Stage but they have not appeared on the Paper. In any event, the amendments were of such a nature that they could not have been accepted. They raised constitutional points and could not have been accepted in any case.

Professor O'Sullivan

As to whether they raised constitutional points or not, the Minister cannot be the judge or the House, either, possibly, but I am referring to the opportunity of discussing sections that were not discussed and also the Schedules. I distinctly mentioned these things and I understood that we were to have the opportunity of discussing those by going into Committee on this stage. The Minister will admit that there was no tendency on that occasion on the part of those who opposed certain views of his to obstruct him in any particular way but undoubtedly we were left under the impression that adequate opportunity would be given to discuss, not merely those amendments, but the portions of the Bill that simply were not discussed at all.

Mr. Lemass

I pointed to the fact that there would be three weeks in which Deputies could put in amendments.

Professor O'Sullivan

It was not a question of amendments, but of dealing with schedules and sections that were not discussed.

Professor Thrift

I certainly thought, for one, that I would have an opportunity on Committee Stage of discussing this Schedule in detail. It did not lend itself very readily to suggested amendments, but I wanted to discuss the details of the proposed reduction and, particularly, with regard to the debentures, and it was on that understanding that I agreed to take the Committee Stage as passed. I assumed that we would have that opportunity on Report Stage, but we have not had it.

Mr. Lemass

I will take the Final Stage next Wednesday.

Final Stage ordered for Wednesday, 3rd May.