Vol. 257 No. 3
I am sorry about the confusion which arose in connection with this. I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:
Section 11: In page 6, line 44 "or ceases to be ordinarily resident in the State" deleted.
This is an amendment put forward in the Seanad which I accepted.
I am glad the Seanad thought of it and I am sorry we did not think of it here.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2:
Section 17: In page 8, subsection (5), line 19, "Subject to subsection (6) of this section" inserted before "An Bord".
This is simply a drafting amendment.
Could the Minister explain its purpose?
It was suggested to me, I think, by Senators O'Higgins and Horgan that subsection (6) might not be read in conjunction with subsection (5). The parliamentary draftsman informed me that in fact subsection (5) as it stood would have to be read in conjunction with subsection (6) but, in view of the arguments put forward by the Senators, I decided through this amendment to clarify the position.
Were the Senators arguing in favour of subjecting subsection (5) to subsection (6) or were they arguing that it was not subject to it and they would like to keep it that way?
They were arguing as far as I can remember, in relation to the legal position. It was simply that as I was holding in relation to the subsections as they were and the Senators felt that subsection (6) might not necessarily be read in conjunction with subsection (5) I think the only clash here would be in regard to the word "numbers".
Were they welcoming the possibility that subsection (5) would be free from the restrictions of subsection (6) or were they deploring it?
I think the matter arose originally in relation to the fact that they wished to delete the word "numbers" in subsection (6). I did not accept this. Then, as far as I can remember, the argument was that subsection (5) as it stood, might not necessarily apply to "numbers"; that, for example, the provision that the board may appoint such other officers would apply to grades, qualifications and so on, but would not apply to "numbers". It was to ensure that the Bill would be in proper order, as it were, that I put forward the amendment.
In other words, the Minister is endeavouring to frustrate the wishes expressed by the Senators that subsection (5) should be free of the control over numbers in subsection (6). If I understand it correctly, what the Minister suggested was that subsection (5) would be subject to the qualification of subsection (6), but they argued that it would not be and in order to tie it up tightly, the Minister decided to put down this amendment.
This is not so. It is simply because I did not accept the amendment in relation to numbers that from a purely legal point of view they pointed out to me that there might be a clash between subsection (5) and subsection (6).
I regret that the Senators pointed out this defect to the Minister and thereby enabled him to make the change which has the effect of giving to him control over numbers of staff. This control is improper and was something that we in this House tried to prevent. The amendment is to be deplored.
I am not accepting at all that it was a defect. In fact, the parliamentary draftsman pointed out to me that it was not so and that subsection (5) could be read with subsection (6). In order to clarify the situation I put down the amendment.
It was in order to copperfasten the Minister's control and in case the Senators might be right and the draftsmen might be wrong, that the Minister inserted this. He wanted to make sure that he would have control over numbers.
It was to make sure that what I considered to be proper would be accomplished.
I am not too clear on the procedure but if we sought to negative this by a division and if, by chance, we succeeded the effect would be the holding up of the Bill and the holding up of the College of Art and it is important that we do not do that. Therefore, I am not challenging the amendment to a division.
It would hold up more than the Bill.
I can tell the Deputy that he would have lost the division.
