I intend to oppose the passing of this section. Public opinion in Waterford disapproves of the dissolution of the committee of management appointed under the Tuberculosis Prevention (Ireland) Acts, 1908 and 1913. This section proposes that the committee of management appointed by the Council of the County Borough of Waterford is to be abolished and that the functions, powers and duties of the committee are to be transferred to the corporation. This committee of management—it has existed up to the present—had the advantage of the service of persons who were not members of the corporation. They rendered most useful service. The help that they are able to give should not, in my opinion, be refused. Opinion, locally, is that a separate committee is able to give the matters dealt with here closer attention than they can get under the proposed new arrangement. The Minister, of course, will reply that what is proposed here applies in every case where you have a city manager.
Supplementary Estimates. - Waterford City Management Bill, 1939—Committee.
Mr. Broderick
I would point out to the Deputy that this is a purely administrative function. The work to be done under this section comes within the ambit of the duties and responsibilities of a city manager. I do not want to say one word against the voluntary workers who were put on the committee originally, but I am quite satisfied that in the future the work will be done efficiently and well under the manager's supervision.
Mr. Broderick
You are dealing here with the cases of poor afflicted people. Therefore, local knowledge is a most important consideration. The committee members were in close touch with the people living in the different portions of the city. I do not want to say one word against city managers or officials, but I do say that because of their local knowledge the members of the committees were in a far better position to deal with those cases than any official could hope to be. You do find people who have a natural disposition and inclination to assist in work of this kind. It is humanitarian work of the highest importance, and when people's services are available I think they ought to be availed of. It is not fair to poor afflicted people that they should be left entirely in the hands of an official. I would earnestly appeal to the Minister to agree to the deletion of the section.
As regards this section, we are following the same line here that we have following in every other instance where we have a city manager.
Mr. Broderick
The Minister's decision to insist on the passing of the section will cause very great disappointment, not to the members of the committee but to the general body of the people. It will deprive poor afflicted people of the generous help and assistance that they have been accustomed to receive from people who for years have been taking a most praiseworthy interest in this work. I am not finding any fault with city managers or with officials, but, as I have said before, I do not think that an official could be expected to give to afflicted people that sympathetic attention which they have been accustomed to get from the kindly disposed citizens who have been acting on this committee for years. I do not like to force this question to a division, because if I do I know in advance what the result will be.
The Minister must be aware that numbers of people suffering from tuberculosis, especially in its incipient stages are, one may say, reticent in the matter of revealing their state of health. It is really only in the last stages of the disease that they have resort for assistance to those occupying official positions. There is, as we all know, a certain amount of hesitancy on their part to admit to anybody that they are in a delicate state of health. I would appeal to the Minister to agree to the deletion of the section.
The Deputy is aware that we had similar committees functioning in different counties, and that some ten or 11 years ago those committees were abolished. I have never heard that there has been any complaint with regard to the administration of tuberculosis work as a result of the abolition of those various voluntary tuberculosis committees all over the country.
Mr. Broderick
By handing us over to the officials you are practically shutting the door against complaints. Those complaints will only come from those who are in constant association with those people, and who have the human feeling that they want to look after them. Those are the only people who will give you complaints. You certainly will never get complaints from the officials.
I got them myself —not very many, but I got some.
Mr. Broderick
With all respect, in many of the cases the Minister is not approachable. I really feel that we are being driven into official control altogether, and I simply want to retain the spontaneous assistance of people throughout the country. My only objection to a division—I am challenging a division—is that many people in the House who think with me on this matter will be compelled to vote against their own convictions.
Tá
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Crowley, Fred Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Friel, John.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kelly, James P.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Loughman, Francis.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCann, John.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Munnelly, John.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Bennett, George C.
- Benson, Ernest E.
- Brasier, Brooke.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Broderick, William J.
- Burke, Thomas.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Corish, Richard.
- Curran, Richard.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, John L.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Hughes, James.
- Hurley, Jeremiah.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Nally, Martin.
- Norton, William.
- O'Sullivan, John M.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
There is a new Section 7 which will be found on the amendment paper which meets certain amendments that Deputies opposite have put down. Therefore, I do not propose to move Section 5.
As I said, I am proposing a new Section 7 which meets several of the amendments to this section in the names of Deputy Mrs. Redmond and Deputy Broderick.
There will be only one area for voting purposes.
For the first year. After that there will be power for the council to ask the Minister to divide it into two or more.
Will the Minister not interfere unless asked by the council?
Not unless he is asked by the council. I suppose Deputy Broderick understands that.
Mr. Broderick
I quite understand that.
I move amendment No. 2:—
To delete sub-section (3).
I move amendment No. 4:—
To delete sub-section (4).
That is dealt with further in my new Section 7.
I move amendment No. 6:—
Before Section 7 to insert a section as follows:—
(1) Unless and until an order under this section comes into force, the following provisions shall apply and have effect in respect of city elections, that is to say:—
(a) there shall be one electoral area consisting of the area of the city and such electoral area shall be a borough electoral area for the purposes of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1919, and
(b) the first five members of the council elected shall be aldermen and all other members of the council shall be councillors.
(2) The council may, in pursuance of a resolution passed by the council, and for the passing of which not less than two-thirds of the members of the council voted, apply to the Minister for an order dividing the city into two or more electoral areas.
(3) On receiving an application for an order under this section, the Minister may, as he thinks proper, either refuse such application or make such order.
(4) An order under this section shall—
(a) appoint in such manner as most nearly secures equal representation on the basis of population—
(i) the number of members of the council to be elected at a city election for each of the electoral areas created by such order, and
(ii) the number of members of the Council elected at a city election in each of such areas who shall be aldermen, and
(b) declare that every member of the Council who is not, in accordance with such order, an alderman shall be a councillor.
(5) Every electoral area created by an order under this section shall be a borough electoral area for the purposes of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1919.
(6) An order under this section shall have the force of the law in accordance with the terms thereof.
This new section meets several of the amendments put down by Deputy Mrs. Redmond and Deputy Broderick as to the electoral area, etc.
Mr. Brennan
Will the members of the council have any right in the selection of the area beyond asking to have a division made?
No, it will be the Minister who will make the division.
Mr. Brennan
I wonder is that satisfactory. I do not know what Deputy Broderick thinks of it. They simply ask the Minister to make a division, but they are not to say how the division ought to be made.
No. It will have to be made on the basis of population.
Mr. Broderick
I assume that if there is a request from the Waterford Corporation next year or any subsequent year for an alteration this question can be considered?
Surely.
On representation by the council.
Mr. Brennan
What representation do you desire to make? According to the amendment, as it stands, the only representation you are entitled to make is to ask the Minister to make a division. You cannot do any more. Do you want any more, or is that reasonable?
Mr. Broderick
I understood that the Minister undertook that, on representation being made by the Corporation of Waterford as to the division, that would be considered by the Minister.
Certainly.
I think it is a very fair section.
I think the better arrangement would be the one proposed in the Bill. However, certain responsible people in Waterford made representations to me and I am falling in with their suggestion.
Mr. Broderick
You are going a good way to meet them. Representations may be made as to the division of the area, whether one, two or three divisions.
One, two or three divisions, and it will be done on the basis of population.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In sub-section (1), line 52, to delete the words "Town Hall" and substitute the words "City Hall".
I hope the Minister will agree to this amendment. It is not a big question, but the people prefer the name "City Hall."
If the people prefer it, it is an extraordinary thing that they do not use it. I understand that it is never called anything but "Town Hall." However, if the people want the term "City Hall," they are welcome to it.
Mr. Broderick
Amendment No. 8 provides that in the case of an equality of votes the Mayor or presiding member of the Council shall have a casting vote. I am told that that is already the law.
That is already provided for by law and it is unnecessary to include such a provision in this Bill.
I am advised that the same applies to amendment No. 9. The amendment suggested is not necessary.
Mr. Broderick
They already have the powers sought?
Yes.
Mr. Broderick
I move amendment No. 10:—
In sub-section (2), line 29, to delete the word "not" and in the same line to delete all words after the word "council" to the end of the sub-section.
The election will be on the basis of proportional representation. There will be no senior alderman and it might happen that the men elected first, second and third, according to the number of votes received, would be candidates for the mayoralty. You would, in that case, be giving an individual a double vote for himself. It was to avoid that that this section was drafted. Similar Bills include similar provisions, so that the councils will not be tied up as they were in Sligo, Cork and other places.
Amendment No. 11 is not required as the matter is covered by paragraph (h) of the sub-section, which lays down that matters relating to Parliamentary and local elections are reserved functions.
I move Amendment No. 12:—
In sub-section (1), page 14, lines 54 and 55, to delete the words "as amended by this Act."
The words I propose to delete are not necessary.
I move amendment No. 13:—
In sub-section (1), page 14, line 60, to delete the word "one-twenty-fourth" and to substitute the word "one-twelfth."
Mr. Broderick
The Chamber disapproves of this section, the effect of which is to render vacant premises, even though incapable of being let, liable to half rates. There are similar provisions in the Limerick and Dublin Bills but not in the Cork Bill. Waterford has been heavily hit by the decline in trade, the burden of revaluation and the failure to obtain new industries in the city. In this regard it is in a much worse position than the other boroughs and this section will result in greater hardship to the city owners. The Chamber recognises that the aim of such provision is to discourage selfish owners from taking and holding stores and premises to prevent their being acquired by rivals. In view of the great number of idle premises in the city and the scanty demand, or even inquiry, for them, the Chamber feels that these considerations do not apply to Waterford.
This amendment will cover what the Deputy has said because we are substituting the word "one-twelfth" for the word "one-twenty-fourth." That will meet the whole case which the Deputy and the people of Waterford have put up.
I think my amendment meets what the Deputy wishes to do by the next amendment.
Mr. Broderick
Yes.
Mr. Broderick
I move amendment No. 15:—
Before Section 31, to insert a new section as follows:—
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in paragraph (m) of Section 1 of the Trustee Act, 1893, stock issued by the county borough of Waterford shall be deemed to be a trustee security.
The corporation feel intensely on this matter, that they should have the power to create stock. It would be a great advantage if they could do so and would provide the opportunity for the investment of local money which, in many cases, would be diverted from other objects. At present the population and the valuation, while substantial, are not sufficient for this purpose, but it is felt that it would be a great advantage to the city if this power could be granted to the corporation.
Strictly speaking, this is not a matter to be dealt with in this Bill or in any similar Bill, because it would necessitate an amendment of the Trustee Act, which should not be amended by a side wind. I have a certain amount of sympathy with the proposition, but I do not think it proper that it should be done in this way. I know that the question of amending the Trustee Act in this direction has been under consideration by the Department of Finance for some time. I do not know when that consideration will be finally completed, but I know that there is a disposition to reconsider the provisions of the Trustee Act with a view to widening its scope in some directions, or lopping off branches in another direction. When it is proposed to deal with it I cannot say. I am not familiar as to how far the Department of Finance has gone in the matter, but I know it is under consideration. I do not think it would be proper to amend the Trustee Act in the manner proposed here.
Mr. Broderick
As there is a reconstitution of the powers of Waterford Corporation, the Chamber of Commerce felt that this would be a suitable opportunity to raise this question, especially when an extension of the powers of the corporation are under consideration. With the assurance of the Minister that there will be an opportunity later to discuss the matter, when the Department of Finance brings forward a Bill, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment now.
I move amendment No. 16:—
In sub-section (1), line 2, to delete the word "twenty" and substitute the word "fifteen".
The Chamber of Commerce examined this matter very carefully and were anxious that employees, other than those officers mentioned in the Bill, should come under any contributory pension scheme. They stressed the matter very strongly, because they felt that other employees should be entitled to consideration in any pension scheme.
I cannot accept the amendment. In the first place it would be only a temporary affair because, as many Deputies know, we have under consideration for years the question of a superannuation Bill for employees of all local authorities.
Years is right.
Yes. I hope to introduce it before this year is out.
Thanks very much.
That Bill will deal with the question of superannuation for all employees, and that hope I believe will be realised before the year is out or, if not, early next year.
On the Minister's undertaking to consider the matter then I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Broderick
This section deals with the decoration of the city out of the rates. The feeling locally is that if any occasion arises, when it is proposed to show appreciation of distinguished people or visitors, that should be a spontaneous gesture and not be done at the expense of the ratepayers. Another point worthy of consideration is that occasionally we become politically minded, when one section of the corporation, or one section of the people, might be inclined to use the rates for the reception of distinguished people who think as they do. That might lead to contention, and although I appreciate that the rate would not be used except by a decision of the majority of the corporation, it would be far better if such gestures of appreciation came spontaneously and not be levied on the rates.
I do not feel inclined to accept the amendment. I would like to give councils all the powers possible. They need not use these powers, which are purely permissive. I do not think that such an occasion will arise very often. If at any time it did arise and that something of importance locally or nationally happened any municipal council ought to have such powers. Nowadays it is hardly likely that they would be used with any strong Party bias. I suggest that such powers ought reasonably be at the disposal of municipal bodies if they wish to use them.
Mr. Brennan
Are these powers in any other Bill or are they new?
They are not new.
Mr. Brennan
Then I would not like to deprive Waterford of them.
Mr. Broderick
It is the views of those in Waterford I am expressing.
Who speaks for Waterford?
The Chamber of Commerce does not speak for Waterford.
Mr. Broderick
There were a good many other people concerned besides the Chamber of Commerce. As far as possible I claim that anything that would lead to Party conflict should be kept out of local administration. Those who are in the corporation should not have such powers. Waterford and other cities should make these receptions spontaneous gestures. That would be a far better way than having the expense levied off the rates. The less opportunity there is for Party conflict the better. I speak with some experience in this matter. While I cannot force the matter to a division, because the matter is too trifling, I ask the Minister to consider it.
Mr. Broderick
I move amendments Nos. 17 and 18:—
In sub-section (2), lines 45 and 55, to delete the word "mayor" and substitute in each line the word "council".
In sub-section (3), line 57, to delete the word "mayor" and substitute the word "council".
The powers proposed to be vested in the mayor should not be vested in any individual but should be vested in the corporation.
This section is similar to one that is in the other Managerial Acts, and it was put there originally to give the mayor power in case of an emergency. If say the City Manager fell suddenly ill, or met with some accident, and that some documents or cheques had to be signed, and that it was a matter of urgency, a deputy could be appointed by the mayor. Personally, I do not feel very strongly on the matter, but we have similar sections in the other Managerial Acts that have been passed here and, so far as I am aware, it has worked out satisfactorily in Dublin and Cork. I do not think any difficulty has arisen in the past and there has not been any objection to the mayor, who is the elected head of the municipal council, having that power. It would probably be wise to leave it there.
Mr. Brennan
Might a difficulty not arise in this way? Suppose the Mayor of Waterford or Galway or any other place was at the World Fair in New York and, during his absence, the manager became ill or was incapacitated in some way, how could you manage then? The Bill sets out definitely that the deputy must be appointed by the mayor.
The mayor could communicate his decision by cablegram or telephone.
Mr. Brennan
I suggest there should be some alternative machinery.
The mayor usually appoints a deputy in regard to his own position. Would he have the power?
Mr. Brennan
Not under this measure. It definitely points out that the mayor must make the selection.
There is no provision in the Act for the appointment of a deputy. This has worked out all right in the other cases.
Mr. Brennan
But a case might arise and the provision of machinery to meet that point would be very simple.
I think you might leave it as it is—let it go.
Mr. Brennan
I am not going to press it.
Mr. Broderick
I do not desire to press it, either.
I move amendment No. 19:—
To delete in lines 11 and 12, page 18, the words "and the Council of the County of Waterford respectively", and to delete in line 15, page 18, the words "continue to".
This amendment is rendered necessary by the fact that, the county council in Waterford being dissolved, the numerical representation of that body on the mental hospital committee was altered. That was done shortly after the abolition of the county council by the Minister. This amendment will enable the representation of the newly-elected municipal council to be restored on the mental hospital committee during the interval until the ordinary elections take place.
I move amendment No. 20:—
In sub-section (1), line 22, after the word "Kilkenny" to add the following words: "provided that a majority of the residents of that portion proposed to be included approve thereof".
This is to meet the case that was put forward on the Second Reading. I tried to put it in as liberal terms as I could. If the majority of the people from a townland or portion of a townland that is sought to be included in the borough wished to go in, I have so worded the amendment that it would be possible for them to go in. I think the proposal is reasonable. I do not want to stop progress, if progress ever comes on the other side of the river, but this provision is a safeguard. If the people do not want to go in, they cannot be forced in, and the other provisions of the Bill would not arise. I would like to have the Minister's opinion on this matter.
My opinion is that there can be no extension of the boundaries of the City of Waterford without full inquiry and investigation and anything the Minister proposed to do, arising out of any inquiry that might be held at the request of the local authority, he would have to lay before the Oireachtas and there would be full opportunity for discussion. No order extending the boundaries could or would be made by the Minister without giving the fullest possible opportunity for investigation on the part of everybody concerned on both sides of the river. People would have every opportunity of coming along and laying their views—individuals as well as organised bodies— before the person holding the inquiry.
I have not heard any suggestions that there are likely to be extensions on the Kilkenny side of the river. It has not been suggested to me directly or indirectly. This section is exactly a copy of what is in the Limerick one. It was not put in specially with the view of allowing an extension of the Waterford City boundary on the Kilkenny side. It was put there in order to give the Minister power, if asked by the local authority, to hold the necessary inquiry to extend the boundary. There has been no suggestion that there is going to be a demand to extend the boundaries on that side of the river.
The reason suggested to me was that the corporation own some private property on the Kilkenny side and they might ultimately develop that property as a building site.
That has not come to my knowledge, anyhow.
It must be right.
I am not doubting what the Deputy has said.
It has only been told to me that the corporation have some property on the Kilkenny side of the river that in the course of time they may develop. We have no objection to development in connection with this property, although it might be taking away from the rateable capacity of Kilkenny. I do not think we would oppose it very much provided we had a guarantee that people living in other townlands of Kilkenny would not be forced in against their will. That is the object of this amendment and there can be no question of the fairness of the position as far as I am trying to put it up.
Mr. Broderick
The extension of Waterford on the other side may possibly reach as far as Tramore. Will the Minister give an assurance that nothing will be done in this matter without a full inquiry? I could not agree to the section if I did not receive an assurance from the Minister that if there was any idea that Tramore was to be incorporated the people would at least have to be a consenting party.
Tramore is a long distance away. It will not be in your time or in my time.
I have voted against this Bill on the Second Reading in order to have some sort of expression such as is contained in the amendment. I cannot let this matter pass without a division if the Minister is not prepared to meet the point.
Any extension of the boundary asked for by the local authority can only come into operation after the fullest investigation and enquiry. Every individual would be given an opportunity to come before the inspector and give his views in the matter. We could not accept an amendment saying that people cannot be forced in against their will. In all probability there would be some people who would object. You cannot avoid that.
I have worded the amendment to read "provided that a majority of the residents... approve." I think you cannot fail to see the reasonableness of that.
I would say that anybody in the Minister's position would take all the circumstances into account. If Deputy Gorey were in my shoes he would do the same and he would be very careful. He would be very careful in a case of an extension of boundaries or any other thing, where there was a strong volume of opinion against the demands made by the local authority, not to force a very big body of people into an association into which they did not want to go.
I think that, probably, Deputy Gorey was prompted to put forward this amendment by the fact that he had a certain area in mind, but it must be remembered that in various other places there is a demand for extension of the borough area, where the case might not be similar to that which Deputy Gorey has in mind, and one can easily conceive of a case where there might be only two or three people in the area concerned, and two out of these three people might be sufficient to prevent an extension being made.
Yes.
As I say, there may be a special case to be made in connection with the area Deputy Gorey has in mind, but it seems to me that, if the Minister were to accept this amendment and apply it to every district in the country it might lead to terrible congestion. I am not referring to the case to which Deputy Gorey, evidently, is referring. I am speaking of what one might call virgin soil, and I think that if this amendment were accepted it would cut across what we all have in mind.
I do not agree with that.
I have sympathy with Deputy Gorey in the point he is making, but I say that, if the amendment were to be applied to every district in the country, it would have a wrong effect.
Is the Deputy withdrawing the amendment?
No, Sir. I should like to have an expression of opinion on it.
I move amendment No. 21:—
Before Section 39 to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) The council shall, in addition and without prejudice to any power of acquiring land conferred by any other Act, have power to acquire land for playgrounds, sportsgrounds, and bathing spaces by way of purchase on lease and may contribute to the support of playgrounds, sportsgrounds or bathing spaces provided by any person whosoever.
(2) The council may make by-laws for the regulation of any such playgrounds, sportsgrounds and bathing spaces.
In connection with this amendment, I would urge on the Minister the necessity of empowering the council to acquire land for playgrounds for the people, and particularly for the children, of Waterford City. A remark was made by a district justice in Waterford City recently with regard to offences committed there by children, but in my opinion, and in that of the members of the chamber of commerce, it is not so much the fault of the children themselves as of the lack of proper provision of playgrounds and sportsgrounds. Besides the lack of such playgrounds being very dangerous for the children themselves and for people driving motor cars, it has become a nuisance to the people generally. On these grounds, I would urge the Minister to accept this amendment. According to the Land Acts, I understand that it is possible to acquire land for the purpose of playgrounds and sportsgrounds, but it is felt, in Waterford City, that it would be much more effective if such power were in the hands of the local council or corporation to acquire the land that they think is best fitted for the provision of playgrounds for the children, rather than to leave it in the hands of those administering the Land Acts.
Another item in this connection, to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention, is that we are anxious to acquire land for the provision of public baths. It seems to me to be extraordinary that, in Waterford City, there is no such thing as a public bath, and I think it is only right that this matter should be brought to the attention of the Minister.
Well, I can tell the Deputy that it is not the fault of the law that Waterford City has not got playgrounds and recreation grounds before now. There is plenty of law available for the Council there to use, if they want to use it. As a matter of fact, I have a list here of, I think, about ten different Acts, all empowering the local authority there to acquire lands for such purposes, and yet these powers have never been used. I suggest, therefore, to the Deputy that this amendment is not necessary. These Acts, a list of which I have here, go back to, I think, 1859—that is, about 80 years—and any time within the last 80 years laws were available for the use of the old Corporation in Waterford, if they had cared to avail of them for such purposes. I suggest, therefore, that you cannot very well blame the law, but perhaps one could blame the lack of interest of the people themselves there in the welfare of their children and of their city.
What about Ballybricken and the fair grounds there?
Very well. We accept that, and I am sure that, now it is realised that the council have these powers, they will avail of them.
When is it proposed to take the Report Stage?
If the House agrees, I should like to take the Report Stage on Thursday next.
The Minister, we suggest, should suit his own convenience in this matter. If he wants to take the Report Stage now, we are quite agreeable.
Well, I do not want to press the matter unduly, in case anybody should wish to revise the Bill.
I only wish to meet the Minister's convenience. My only reason for suggesting that the Report Stage should be taken now is that there does not seem to be anybody except myself and the Waterford Deputies interested in this matter, particularly.
Well, if the Deputy does not mind, I think it would be better to leave the Report Stage over till Thursday, so that we might have an opportunity of looking over the Bill from the point of view of phraseology.
Very well, but the Minister can have the Bill any time he wants, so far as we are concerned.
Thank you.