In regard to the word "certain" in the side heading to section 1—Elections of certain conservators postponed—do I understand that means the elected members of the various boards of conservators?
Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 1974: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
Subsection (1) provides:
2. —(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Fisheries Acts, 1959 to 1964, the following provisions shall have effect:
(a) the elections of conservators pursuant to sections 22 and 27 of the Principal Act which, apart from this section, would fall to be held in the year 1974 shall be held instead either in the year 1975 or in such later year as the Minister, if he thinks fit, by order fixes.
The objective of this section is to postpone the elections for one year, thus prolonging the period in office of the elected conservators. As I said earlier, the extension beyond 1975 is a safeguard in case any delays should arise in regard to the comprehensive revision of the constitution of the boards of conservators following the reports which are to be received. The word "certain" refers to these elected conservators.
That is what I am asking.
Has the Minister any proposals to re-establish any of the boards?
I cannot say what will happen, but the boards will cease to exist as they are drawn up at present. It is my intention to devise a different system from the present one, particularly with reference to elections and so on.
That is not happening this year?
No. There is no change at all this year.
And the boards set up already will not be re-established?
No, they will not be re-established.
In regard to the ex officio members of the boards and nominees of the board, suppose Mr. A has been nominated by the ESB for the past five years as a member of the No. 8 board of fishery conservators, will Mr. A be the man who will hold office for the next 12 months as well, or can the ESB say: “We will dismiss Mr. A and put Mr. B on this year”? Have we any legal control over that situation? I know the elected members will hold office when this Bill is passed. What is the position to be in the case of those members for the next 12 months?
There are 178 elected members, to whom the term "certain" applies. Then, 88 is the number of ex officio members. I am assuming in the case of the ESB that if its nominee dies or withdraws from the board the right of nominating a successor will continue.
I do not expect a man to withdraw. Take the case of Mr. A who has been a member of the board up to now, nominated by the ESB. The life of this board will be ended in October. Can the ESB say, "We are withdrawing Mr. A and nominating Mr. B?" Can that be done this year? Would that apply also in the case of ex officio members with a valuation of £50 or more?
If that were to happen and Mr. A for one reason or another were to leave the board, I assume the nominating authority would have the right of selecting a successor. The same system of selection and election that at present obtains will continue for the 12 months.
With the same members, both elected and nominated?
Whatever system applies at present will continue. It was considered that the best thing to do was to continue the members for 12 months and the regulations at present governing the members will continue until such time as the system is changed.
That is not very clear in section 2. It is not clear that the membership of persons who are at present members of boards of conservators due to their having received a nomination from a nominating body continues for this further year. The section states that it is the intention to postpone elections. There is no reference to the position of nominated persons.
I would say that that is just the wording of the section. A nominated person could be deemed to be elected.
Not necessarily so. That could be disputed.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary——
Would the Deputy allow the Parliamentary Secretary to reply to the question from Deputy Molloy?
My interpretation and the explanation given is that this applies to all members and whether a person is elected, deemed to be elected or nominated, when this Bill is passed that person will continue his membership in the same way as if the normal lifetime of the board was for a further year.
Would that be the case in respect of a nominating body, say the ESB?
There is no change in the system of selection or co-option.
Does it not mean that the board has the power to withdraw a nomination?
This Bill does not go into that question at all. It simply asks the House to prolong the lifetime of the board for a further year and it is implied that the same set of regulations as exist at present will continue for the year.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that the Bill should contain either a new subsection to section 2 or a new section stating that a person who holds ex officio membership of a board of conservators shall continue in office for this additional year or for any subsequent year until such time as an election is held? Should there not also be a subsection covering persons who are members because of their nomination by a nominating body? There is not any reference to that in section 2 as it stands.
It relates only to elected members. I am assuming that the other members under existing legislation are ex officio members. If the board continues, then by virtue of being ex officio members, in accordance with our laws, their membership must continue. They need not be singled out in a subsection here because as the law stands at present a member is ex officio because he measures up to certain qualifications which entitle him to be an ex officio member of a board. So, it is not necessary, once the lifetime of the board is extended, to make a stipulation here covering the ex officio members.
How does the Parliamentary Secretary arrive at that conclusion? To preface one's remarks with the word "assume" does not seem to be a very satisfactory way to deal with it on a Committee Stage. The 1959 Act lays down the statutory period of five years as the life of a board. Some members are elected, some are nominated and some are members ex officio. The Parliamentary Secretary has brought before the House a Bill only to postpone the elections. One could interpret that as meaning that those members of boards who have been elected would have their membership extended for a further year beyond the fifth year but no reference has been made to the membership of those persons who are appointed for a five-year statutory period only. The statutory period is extended by this Bill for a further year or subsequent years. The reference is only to those members who are elected.
By way of illustration, a person who is an ex officio member of a board by virtue of having a valuation of over £50, sells his fishery. The person who buys the fishery, by virtue of having purchased that fishery, would then become an ex officio member of the board.
In the remainder of the five-year statutory period.
Yes.
There is no authority or reference to his right to continue as a member for any period longer than five years. The Parliamentary Secretary may have omitted this from the Bill. I do not want to put the Parliamentary Secretary in a spot but either there is a clear explanation for the point we are making or there is not. If there is not an answer to it, then there must be a new subsection put in.
I do not think so.
All I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary is to tell us where in the law such persons are covered and are entitled to continue membership beyond the five-year statutory period.
There is a Bill covering the election of fishery boards. I am sure it is within that.
That is the 1959 Act. Where is it in that?
A nominated member of a board is not elected. He is there only for such period as he is qualified to be a nominated member. If Mr. A becomes a member of a board on its inception by virtue of having a valuation which entitles him to ex officio membership and if he loses that valuation or sells his right within one or three or six months, he loses his right of nomination and the person who so acquires it would then become qualified.
No.
That is my interpretation. The section governing ex officio members is section 36 (a) and (b).
With respect, section 36 refers only to one area in the country where the ESB have all the rights on the Shannon.
Section 37 refers to the appointment of ex officio members in respect of other fisheries acquired by the ESB.
There is no reference to these sections in the Bill we are discussing.
In any case, my view is that nominated members can vary from time to time but if ex officio members cease to qualify, automatically they are disqualified from membership. Once an elected member secures election, like Deputies he continues until the next election, but an ex officio member can continue for as long as he is qualified. If by some remarkable coincidence all of the 88 ex officio members became disqualified next month by virtue of losing the rights which qualified them in the first instance they would cease membership. I do not know how there could be a subsection in a Bill like this to continue a group of people as members of a board who may be disqualified in the course of the period of office. At any rate, that is my interpretation.
We appear to be on the wrong wavelength on this matter. We are not disputing the question of elected members who are covered by section 2 of the Bill. We are talking about ex officio and nominated members. My reading of the matter is that section 34 of the 1959 Act covers ex officio members. Such a person is a member of the board for a statutory period of five years.
I am doubtful about that.
Provided he is nominated and that his valuation is more than £50, he is a nominated member for the statutory period of the life of that board of conservators —namely, five years. The five years expire in October, 1974, and by this Bill we are extending the life of the boards for a further year. I do not think ex officio members are covered.
As I have explained already that an ex officio member retains membership only for as long as he is qualified. Once he loses qualification he loses membership. Under the system that operates at the moment, if we had the kind of election that was held for fishery elections, ex officio members would continue on the next board. It is by their personal qualification they retain membership. They need not be mentioned in this section. If anex officio member disposes of his fishery, he disposes also of his membership of the board.
If a person owns a fishery right and his valuation is in excess of £50, is he a continuous member of the board, irrespective of the lifetime of the board?
So far as the present law obtains if the person holds his qualification he remains on the board.
There is no question that the person would have to be re-elected or re-appointed every five years? Would it be necessary that he should be proposed by someone.
It is a case of the person having the qualification. In the course of the debate it was mentioned that some people got on the boards because of the valuations held by them.
I should like to be clear on this point. May I take it that ex officio members are entitled to membership of the boards of conservators continuously so long as they qualify to be ex officio members, irrespective of how many election years may occur? Does their membership stand for as long as they have ownership of fisheries with valuations in excess of £50? The Bill as presented deals with the election of certain conservators. The Parliamentary Secretary has only himself to blame for our asking these questions. In section 2 there is the heading: “Elections of certain conservators postponed.” Why is a distinction being made in this case of “certain” conservators?
Because the ex officio members by virtue of their ownership do not need election. Their continuance in office depends on their holding certain qualifications and once they lose those they are out. Had I put in a section stating that 88 ex officio members should continue as well as the elected members, it would not be correct from the legal point of view and it would not be approved by the parliamentary draftsman. Had I done this I would be saying the 88 members should be continued in office even though some of them may lose their qualifications in the next or subsequent months. That kind of system—it is one I do not like—prevailed, whereby such a person could be on the board with the same voting rights as an elected member. However I am going to change that now and the question will not arise again. I can tell the House that whatever boards exist or whatever system applies, it will not contain any stipulation that because a person has fishing property with a certain valuation he may become an ex officio member.
If we were to accept that as reasonable, although I have certain doubts about it——
I can reassure the Deputy on the matter.
That may be, but the Parliamentary Secretary has not managed to quote any section of the 1959 Act, or any other Act controlling the operation of boards of conservators, to justify his statement. The provision here is for an extension of a 12-month period for elected members. He is telling us that we can assume that ex officio members have a right to continue to sit on the boards for this extra year even though the Bill as it stands does not make any reference to them. His explanation for the ex officio members cannot be deemed to apply to members of boards of conservators who are nominated members. If the board of the ESB—who have certain rights under section 36 to nominate people —appoint Mr. X for a five-year period which will end next October, there is no reference in the Parliamentary Secretary's Bill showing that the membership of such a person will continue for a further 12-month period. It is not good enough to say that we can assume that his membership continues.
One would expect that a Bill should deal in a comprehensive way with the matter entailed in it. This Bill deals only with the elected members. It makes no reference to the position of the ex officio or nominated members. One of the important jobs that falls to be done by nominated members is the allocation of drift net licences, which has given the members of these boards a special status in recent years because of the Parliamentary Secretary's Order. Membership of these boards can become a very cherished position and one of great influence in a locality or community. Therefore the right to sit and vote on these matters will be a matter that could be challenged in the future. Because of the consequences of decisions of boards of conservators a man could lose his whole livelihood or could have presented to him an opportunity to make a livelihood from drift net fishing of salmon if he obtained a licence from the board. There is greater importance now in making sure that whatever legislation governs their operations is watertight; that the fellow sitting there in November is entitled to be there and that it is clearly seen in the fisheries legislation that he is entitled to be there and not just because Deputy Michael Pat Murphy told us when the Bill was going through the Dáil that he assumed that they had an entitlement, even though he made no reference to them in his Bill.
We know that Bills have been deemed to be unconstitutional and have been thrown out before. Possibly I am exaggerating now, but a situation could arise where somebody could decide to challenge a decision if he lost by one vote. If he took it to court the first thing the judge would ask would be to see the Bill and, having examined that, he would see immediately that there was no reference in it to the nominated or ex officio members. It would have been a very simple thing to have included a subsection in section 2 stating quite clearly the entitlement of ex officio and nominated members to continue as proper, full members of boards of conservators for this extended 12-month period which the Parliamentary Secretary is giving to the elected members.
If there are members nominated by, say, the ESB, does the fact that there is no provision for this in the Bill mean that at any time the ESB can nominate new members? In other words, what the Parliamentary Secretary is doing is extending elected membership but can there be changes in nominated membership? There will be no changes in elected members but can there be changes by some people like the ESB who will nominate new members before the period of expiry of this Bill?
The ESB are empowered, in accordance with the previous legislation, to nominate members. That right will continue so long as the present board continues. That is quite definite.
Going back again to the question of ex officio members, the difference between an ex officio member and an elected member is that, obviously one is there by a system of election and the other because he is qualified—he holds a certain qualification which gives him the right to ex officio membership. If he loses that qualification, he loses his right to membership. The boards are made up of elected members; ex officio members and the ESB have special rights to nominate members. The make-up of the fisheries boards is laid down in section 21 of the Act. As I have said already, we would have no right to say in this subsection that we proposed to continue the 88 ex officio members for the lifetime of the board because, as I have mentioned again and again, possibly next month or in subsequent months some of the ex officio members will lose their right to membership by virtue of a change in their position or circumstances, such as the sale of the fisheries which entitles them to ex officio membership of a particular board.
That does not answer my question. The Parliamentary Secretary thinks that he is prolonging the life of boards plus their membership. My net question was: supposing the ESB decide in two months' time to nominate a brand new team of nominated members, is there any provision for that in the Bill? In other words, they can change the personnel of the boards despite the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary is making provision for no change.
I am sure the Deputy will accept that the board will have the same right to change their membership, if they so decide, as exists already. This Bill is continuing the existing system whether it relates to elected members, ex officio members or nominated members. It is prolonging the present system for a period of one year.
The Parliamentary Secretary is preventing elections for a year.
We are prolonging it.
But the Parliamentary Secretary is preventing elections.
I have explained about the ex officio membership. Then there is the present system of nomination by the ESB which is something laid down by statute. Their right of selection will continue for the ensuing year in the same way. They can operate in the same way as they have been operating during the past four years, during the lifetime of the existing board. Whatever system obtains will continue and that is clearly implied in the terms of this short Bill.
Is section 2 agreed?
No. I do not accept that. The Parliamentary Secretary has been working on the basis, that under the 1959 Act, the ESB have the right to nominate a person and that they can change their nomination at any time if they so wish.
The system obtaining so far as the ESB making nominations to elections is concerned will continue for the ensuing 12 months.
The point we are making is that the statutory position of nominated persons seems to cover them for the statutory five-year period as laid down. We are not referring to the actual individual who is nominated; we are referring to the right of the nominating body to have a nominated person act as a member of a board of conservators. It is quite clear that they have this right to nominate any person they like for the five-year period. We do not mind if they have changed the individual five times in the five-year period. It is quite clear that they have the right to have a nominated person there for the five years. What we are saying is not clear is that this right continues into the extension year, the sixth year—the year the Parliamentary Secretary is seeking in the Bill—because the Parliamentary Secretary's Bill makes reference to the elected members only. It makes no reference to the right of the nominating bodies for the extra year. The only point we are making is that we cannot see—and we are asking the Parliamentary Secretary to show us—where it states that the nominated bodies have the right to representation on the board of conservators whose life is extended beyond the five years. We also question the fact that there is no reference to the position of ex officio members. Where is it stated?
The position with the ESB is that they are in a privileged position and they got this privilege from Parliament. They do not specify a period when they nominate a person and they can change their representatives at any time.
Within five years?
At any time. They have the right to nominate members and even if there is a new board that right will continue and it will be there until such time as the law is changed. If the board was extended for three years or four years the right would continue.
We do not want the Parliamentary Secretary to get the impression that we are trying to be awkward about this, but can he point out to us where that right is given? Section 21 of the 1959 Act says that the boards are constituted by elected members, ex officio members and such members——
It is in section 36 of the 1939 Act.
That is the ESB.
The life of the board of conservators according to existing legislation terminates in October, 1974. Agreed?
Yes.
Under existing law all boards of conservators end up in October, 1974. We are trying to extend the life of those boards for a further 12 months. It is quite clear that the elected members are covered by the Bill. We accept the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation about ex officio members, but in regard to nominated members how can the Parliamentary Secretary say that the ESB can come along and nominate anybody they like for a further 12 months? Where do they get the right to nominate a person for one year instead of five?
Suppose this Bill never came before the House. We would have an election in October of this year and the election would centre round the 178 elected members. Neither the ex officio members nor the nominated members would be participating in the election. As soon as the election was over the ESB would notify us that they had appointed Mr. A and Mr. B to be their representatives on the board.
For how long?
For any period they liked.
For five years.
No. It is granted to them to change. If they nominated Liam Cunningham as a member of the board from 18th July, in 12 months' time they can change. They are given that power by this House. They do not have to participate, and neither do the ex officio members, in the election. Under Section 34 of that Act they have a right to be members of the Board as soon as the election is over. These are rights. We are trying to do away with this system particularly in relation to ex officio members. The ex officio members does not have to go for election. He continues to be a member of the board and in the case of the ESB they continue to have the right of nomination to the board. This is the position so long as the present system obtains. When we are changing the system that right will be reviewed.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary read out to us the section that gives this power? Section 34 says nothing.
The Deputy has asked a question and he has got a reply.
We do not accept it. We want the Parliamentary Secretary to prove it.
The ESB have authority for five years. We accept that. Where do they get their authority for six years?
They have that right under Section 36 of this Act, and if it lasted for ten years they have the right. What the ESB tell us and what they tell the Limerick Board of Conservators is that in accordance with the provisions of the Act they have decided to nominate a person from a particular date. They do not say how long he is to be their representative on the board. If they decide to change him they do so and have done so down through the years and I assume acted legally.
If they do not decide to change him can he regard himself as a member for another five years?
Yes, so long as he is there as the representative of the ESB.
Can we take it that apart from the reference to five years in the 1959 Act there is no reference to any period longer or shorter than that in the Fishery Acts and that this has necessitated the Bill which has been brought forward, that five years is the statutory period?
For elected members. Ex officio members continue to be entitled to sit on the board as long as the system continues. The board ceases after five years and the ex officio members are back again on the next board. They are in a somewhat similar position to the Ceann Comhairle of this House, deemed to be elected to the ensuing board. The names of nominated members are submitted again by the appropriate authority, the ESB, and we accept them and the Limerick board accept them. That has been the procedure. If they want to change their nominee they are entitled to state who will represent them for the forthcoming period. That is their entitlement. That is what has been happening since 1959.
The only reference to the life of a board is the five-year statutory period. The 1959 Act lays down how certain persons shall be elected for that period, how certain persons shall be nominated, how certain persons shall be ex officio members. The 1959 Act makes no reference to any period shorter or longer than five years. It does not state that if an amending Bill is brought in continuing the elected members as members for longer than five years that the nominated and ex officio members shall be entitled also to act on the board for that period. Their entitlement to act on the board, I say, is for the statutory period of five years. The Parliamentary Secretary is now introducing a new period of one year and he is making no reference to their entitlement to be members. He is not saying that the on-going entitlement of ex officio and nominated members, laid down in the 1959 Act, also applies for the period of extension granted under this Bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary's argument is based on many assumptions. He is basing it on the assumption that because it is ex officio it is on-going and does not refer to any specific period and that the specific period only relates to those elected for that period. He has not convinced me that that is so. I do not want to repeat myself but the only period in the main Act is a five-year period. People are elected to it for five years; they are nominated to it for five years; they are ex officio for five years. There is no place in the new Bill or in the main Act where their entitlement extends beyond the statutory five-year period. The Parliamentary Secretary is introducing a new thing here, a six-year period. We are quite entitled to question whether or not they are legally covered in continuing as members during that additional year. This could be the cause of a lot of litigation later on. Answers should not be based on assumptions. There is no use telling the judge: “Michael Pat told us the day this came before the Dáil that he assumed they would be OK.” I do not think that would stand up in the District Court.
The statute says that the election of the 178 members shall take place every five years. Then there is the election of the ex officio members and the others. They are nominated and are in a completely different classification. Section 3 (3) states:
The Principal Act and this Act shall be construed together as one.
I do not know what the Deputies seek to achieve by continuing this discussion. The position is quite clear and I have discharged the obligation on me in giving an answer to the queries raised by the Deputies. I will not have any more to say on this particular matter.
According to section 37 (1) (b) of the 1959 Act a person cannot be nominated until after the fishing rate has been struck every year. The subsection states:
If and so long as the said Board is the owner, lessee, or occupier of two or more such fisheries situate in the same fishery district each of which was, on the 1st day of January, 1931, a several fishery, the following provisions shall apply and have effect, that is to say, whenever on the date on which the fishery rate for any fishery year is struck by the board of conservators for the said fishery district, such fisheries are valued under the Valuation Acts at valuations amounting in the aggregate to not less than fifty pounds, the said Board shall be entitled to nominate one person to be, until the next fishery rate is so struck, an ex officio member, in respect of such fisheries, of the board of conservators of the district in which such fisheries are situate.
That takes the weight out of the Parliamentary Secretary's argument completely.
There are qualifications in the same way as there are for members of county councils. If rates are not paid they are disqualified.
I am not referring to unpaid rates. I am referring to the nomination of a member to be an ex officio member of the board.
Suppose I am nominated by the ESB, the Parliamentary Secretary says I am entitled as a nominee of the ESB to sit for a further year on the fisheries board without any subsection being put in the Bill to cover this. If he decides to abolish all boards at some time in the future what section of the 1959 Act would he have to amend or delete so that my nominated membership of the board would cease?
I have nothing to add to what I said previously. I dealt with all questions raised. The Electricity Supply Board notified the Department and also the board of conservators and I have nothing further to add on this section.
We would like to produce a Bill which would stand up to any test. I should like to know in what way this Bill provides for nominated members? Is there something in the 1959 Act that makes it unnecessary to put anything into this Bill? When the Minister is abolishing the boards and ceasing the life of a nominated member what section in the 1959 Act will he have to revise or cut out in order that my nominated membership of a board will cease?
I have dealt with the section under discussion and I have no further statement to make.
We would be prepared to accept it from the Parliamentary Secretary if he would state chapter and verse rather than telling us his answer is based on an assumption. We expect him to fulfil his obligations here as the person responsible for trying to get this legislation through the House by giving reasonable explanations and quoting his source for interpretations which he places on the Bill. The membership of a board of conservators has become a very important position in the communities where they exist. The powers of the members, as already stated, can affect the livelihood of a lot of people when they come to decide who shall and who shall not get a drift net licence. The composition of the board is a matter of very grave importance. If we are interfering with the structure of the board through legislation we would like some guarantees, which can be verified, that what the Parliamentary Secretary is doing is adequate to meet the situation.
We accept that any person who is entitled to membership of a board through election shall continue as a member for another 12 months. We assume it will be for a period of 12 months because this Bill authorises the Parliamentary Secretary to make an order. Section 2 (2) states:
When an order under this section is proposed to be made, the Minister shall cause a draft of the order to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.
In fact it is clear that the Parliamentary Secretary is asking for powers not alone to extend the life of a board of conservators by one year but to extend it for any number of years. It is not a very good thing to leave it so open in that way. The only good thing about it is that it has to be approved by a resolution passed in this House and in the Seanad. Therefore, it must be debated, but there is no statutory time limit on the timing of that debate. The Parliamentary Secretary, by making an order under this Bill, can extend the life of a board of conservators by as many years as he wishes. To use his own words:
or in such later year as the Minister, if he thinks fit, by order fixes.
That is a very wide sweep. The Parliamentary Secretary could continue them in office for ten years if he so wished. We understand that the elected members of existing boards of conservators will stay in existence until October this year and that they shall continue as members for a further 12 months if the Parliamentary Secretary decides. We are not satisfied as to the position of nominees and ex officio members to act on that board for a period other than the statutory five-year period referred to in the principal Act. We would like an assurance or reference to some section in the principal Act pointing out to us that the right and the entitlements of ex officio and nominated members shall continue for the period mentioned in the Minister's order.
We have no authority which we can refer to to discover their entitlements in a period which shall be referred to in an Order. There is no reference in the 1959 Act. The only reference to an Order is in this Bill. We are questioning the position of nominated members and the ex officio members to act on the boards of conservators in a period which shall be determined by an Order under this Bill if it becomes an Act. We claim that there is a serious omission in the Bill, that it is a defective Bill because it leaves the authority of nominated and ex officio members to act on boards of conservators in serious doubt. We fully realise the important position a conservator now holds and the important decisions which he will be involved in. We want an absolute assurance and guarantee that nominated and ex officio members acting on boards of conservators in the period mentioned in the Minister's Order have the right to act in that period and that their right cannot be challenged by anybody.
The simplest way out of this position is to include another subsection in section 2 which would adequately cover the rights of such persons to continue to act during the life of the board in the period determined by an order which shall be made under this Bill. This is a very serious matter, and we appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to give us an indication that he will consider our proposal or that he will agree to include such a subsection to clear away the doubt. We have highlighted a great weakness in this piece of legislation.
No further comments from me. I have repeated myself on three or four occasions on the points raised and I cannot, by virtue of the rules of the House, repeat myself again.
At first we asked the question about nominated members and we followed this up by inquiring about the position of ex officio members. We have been told, more or less, that ex officio members are continuing members. The extension of the life of the boards for elected members is covered in this Bill, but will those nominated members on the occasion of the annual general meeting of the boards be entitled to attend that meeting? That is the only question we want the Parliamentary Secretary to give a specific answer to. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that he assumes that they will carry on and that the ESB can nominate the members they wish. All we seek from the Parliamentary Secretary is the legal authority on which they can do this.
I expressed my reservations about extending the life of the boards from year to year. The Parliamentary Secretary said that one of the reasons for postponing the election was because he was awaiting final recommendations from the Inland Fisheries Commission. He said he was looking at the system of election to the boards to see what improvements can be brought about and what necessary legislation needs to be framed. If the final recommendations of this commission are not published for five years what will the position be? There is nothing in the regulations setting up the commission to the effect that they must report within a certain period. Will this order be used from year to year until such time as the Inland Fisheries Commission decide to bring in their report?
I have clarified that point already.
If the commission does not report next year what will the position be?
I have clarified that already. Repetition is not allowed in this House.
It is possible that this report will not be available in time for next year's elections. There will have to be a certain period of time to study the recommendations and to study the improvements that can be made in the constitution of the boards. It is quite likely that this will not come for the next three or four years. When will we get back to a system of 5-yearly elections for fishery boards?
I wish to draw the attention of the House to the extraordinary situation which has developed. We have been making valid points in discussing this Bill on Committee Stage on which the normal debating procedure is a two-way flow. We assume that the Parliamentary Secretary is here to give information to the House on the measure he is asking for. I put it to him that he has prefaced his remarks with the words that he assumes that such and such is the position. We are asking for clarification of the basis upon which he is making the assumptions. We would only accept such clarification if we could be assured that these assumptions are based on legislation which has already been enacted in this House, or on legislation which he is asking us to enact now in this Bill.
For the Parliamentary Secretary to get into a huff and to play silent and refuse to offer any further clarification or explanation of the points being questioned here which are worrying us—we did not expect that type of treatment from him, a rural Deputy. If he does not know the legal basis for his assumptions let him be man enough to admit that to the House and we will accept it from him, but we would expect that he would withdraw the Bill and bring forward amendments which would give legal standing to the persons in question under any Order made by him.
I am greatly surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary has decided to sit there and say nothing and to act dumb. It is not what we expected from him. I do not think he is being true to himself. He is putting himself slightly out of character because he is not that kind of person. He may not have much experience of dealing with the Committee Stage of a Bill. I do not know whether he has. From the seat he is sitting in now, he probably has not. This is fair cut and thrust and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary not to get huffed and think that, if he says an assumption of his is such and such, we must accept it.
I put it to him that in his long years in the House he has never accepted an explanation couched in such terms. He would demand from any Minister, or Parliamentary Secretary, coming before the House with legislation, a full explanation and a reference to the legislation upon which his argument was based. We are disturbed at his attitude. We are concerned about the effects on the Bill if this point is not cleared up. We suggest a simple solution: a small subsection covering the persons in question and making sure that they also will be included in the life of boards of conservators as extended by an Order under this Bill. It is unfair of you to expect us to accept an assumption from you which is not based on any facts that you can refer to.
The Deputy should address his remarks to the Chair.
It is unfair of the Parliamentary Secretary to expect us to accept a statement from him, which he says is based on an assumption, when he cannot refer to any factual basis on which he has made this assumption. He would not accept it if he were on our side of the House. I am surprised that he should ask us to accept it. I appeal to him either to tell us that he does not know and withdraw the Bill or to give us the basis on which he is making the assumption.
I am surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary does not answer these questions.
I have replied to these questions three times over.
I was just outside the door.
You said you assumed.
I replied to them three times over. I will not join in your game.
Will you repeat the reply now?
No; I will not repeat it. I have replied to the questions on section 2.
I did not hear the Parliamentary Secretary reply adequately.
If the Deputy was absent——
I was not absent. I was outside the door and I was listening.
I am making no further comment. I have dealt with it adequately and fairly.
I cannot understand the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary on a non-controversial Bill like this, which is necessary and simple legislation. There is no political significance in it one way or the other for any party. We have an obligation as the Opposition to ensure that every piece of legislation that goes through this House is examined critically. We must make sure that the intentions of the Bill are actually there. When the Parliamentary Secretary expects us to accept that, because he assumes something, it is so, that is being rather naïve. As Deputy Molloy says, when the Parliamentary Secretary was in Opposition he would be the last man——
I never adopted that type of tactics.
What type of tactics do you describe them as?
This question has been replied to in detail at least three times, if not four times. This question has been replied to in more detail than usually obtains in the House. I am not adding any further comment to the statements I have already made on this section. I have discharged my obligations to the House in full.
There was no adequate answer.
We had a very similar incident on another Bill which the Parliamentary Secretary had here before us. He accused us of exactly the same tactics and yet, on the following day, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries conceded every point we had been putting forward as being correct and amended that Bill accordingly. These are exactly the same requests. There is nothing political in the Bill. I am surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary should adopt such a dog in the manger attitude. As the Opposition we have an obligation to ensure that the legislation we pass through the House is unambiguous and protects the people who need to be protected.
The elected representatives are protected in this Bill. There is no doubt about that. We are worried about the position of nominated members and ex officio members. If the Parliamentary Secretary says: “They are protected, or if they are not, I will introduce a subsection that will protect them”, there would be no further argument from this side of the House. I do not think that is an unreasonable request to make or an unreasonable attitude to adopt. We are being very responsible on this side and the Parliamentary Secretary is being most irresponsible in his attitude towards us.
It is easy to know where the irresponsibility lies. You do not have to guess that.
Will you do it by "yes" or "no"?
No. I have dealt with the section and the type of repetition we are hearing from Deputies opposite is a wanton waste of the time of this House.
I could quote the Parliamentary Secretary at length.
This is not a serious debate, to my mind.
He was steering a very simple Bill through the House.
There is an obligation to give one explanation only, and I have repeated it three or four times.
The Parliamentary Secretary on that occasion kept making the very same charges as he is now making. That was a short few weeks ago. The Minister for Agriculture on the following day accepted every one of our points as being valid and amended that Bill accordingly. Perhaps he was not able to amend them all there and then but he undertook to amend them at a later stage and he did so. Therefore I do not think these accusations by the Parliamentary Secretary hold water.
We are as anxious as the Parliamentary Secretary to expedite business through the House, but we want an assurance that these members we are talking about will be protected or, if they are not protected, the Parliamentary Secretary will introduce a subsection to protect them. All the Parliamentary Secretary has to say is: "Yes, I shall do that" and we shall accept that. However he will not say it because he recognises as well as we do that there is a flaw in the legislation——
I recognise that the people over there are filibustering on this Bill.
What reason would we have for filibustering? If the Parliamentary Secretary will give us an answer——
We shall go on.
Yes. There would be absolutely no problem, but the Parliamentary Secretary is not prepared to do that, and I do not understand his attitude.
I have given the answer three or four times already. Repetition is not permissible in this House.
Do you think it is right, Sir, that a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary introducing legislation in this House, no matter how unimportant or obscure that legislation may be, should treat the House in this fashion? We have an obligation as an Opposition at least to ensure that all legislation that passes through is good and unambiguous legislation. Even at this stage if the Parliamentary Secretary would say that, if the Bill does not cover these nominees, he will introduce a subsection into the Bill that will cover them, then we can proceed with the business. Will the Parliamentary Secretary give us some indication of his thoughts?
No further comment.
One can only come to the one conclusion, that the Parliamentary Secretary sees the loophole in this Bill. I know he is not a fool. I happen to represent the same constituency as he does and he does not take long to twig on to any point. The only conclusion one can draw from this is that he is deliberately leaving this loophole in the Bill for some reason. It is bad legislation to leave a loophole in any Bill, and he is doing a disservice to the Department or indeed to the people we represent by condoning that type of activity. We will continue to pursue it here in this House until such time as the Parliamentary Secretary sees our point of view or acknowledges that we may have a point of view and a very valid one at that.
The accusation that we are filibustering is a ridiculous one. What is to be gained politically from filibustering on a Bill such as this, which is only a technical Bill really. I know the Parliamentary Secretary has probably been under a great deal of pressure in relation to the Department, but that is no excuse for wanting to buzz out of this House as quickly as he can and leave behind him a Bill that is incomplete. That is wrong, and we would be erring very seriously if we allowed it to happen.
It is extraordinary for the Parliamentary Secretary to expect us to take a vague generality of a statement like "I assume" as being gospel and that therefore everything is all right. If at a later stage we are found to be right in this, the Parliamentary Secretary can always say: "I only said ‘I assume'. I did not say it was so". We are asking him to say it is so, and that is not an unreasonable request to make. It is time we were finished with this tomfoolery by the Parliamentary Secretary and that he treated the House with the respect it deserves. All he has to do is to tell us that if there is a loophole he will introduce a subsection to close it.
I think the Chair should put the question.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,
We have been more than reasonable with the Parliamentary Secretary. We requested an answer to a specific question with regard to nominated members of boards of conservators. We are quite happy with what is in the Bill with regard to elected members but we are not happy with the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary in regard to nominated members. He said in your absence that he assumed nominated members could become members of boards. We want the Parliamentary Secretary to state categorically that nominated members are in fact entitled to be included in the boards for 12 months, and only 12 months, and the following 12 months. He assumes they will be members if nominated by the ESB. We have made a reasonable request.
I have given all the necessary information at least three if not four times and repetition is not allowed. I have no further comment to make on the section.
We wish to register a very strong protest at the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary and the manner in which he is treating the House and the Opposition spokesmen on this Bill. I have never before experienced such treatment where a Minister or Parliamentary Secretary was asked a question on Committee Stage, a legitimate question which I do not need to repeat because the Parliamentary Secretary knows the question we are asking. He states that he assumes these people would be entitled to continue as members of boards of conservators for the period mentioned in an order to be made under this Bill. We are protesting at his refusal to give any explanation as to the grounds upon which he is making this assumption. We are amazed that we have got stuck on this section in a three-section Bill. We got a shock last night but we are getting another shock now by this incompetent attitude.
The Deputy must apply himself to the section.
Yes. I put it to you, a Cheann Comhairle, how can we be expected to accept an explanation based on an assumption?
During the debate on the Second Stage I made my position quite clear as to my feelings, in the main, about persons who are members of boards of conservators by reason of the valuation of the fisheries which they own. The House is aware that under a section of the 1959 Act persons owning fisheries of £50 valuation and over are entitled ex officio to be members of boards of conservators. I hold no brief for those people and it would suit me and my point of view if it could be shown that if this Bill passes as it stands such persons had no entitlement to remain as members of boards of conservators for the period to be mentioned in an order to be made under this Bill when it becomes an Act. I would shed no tears if it could be shown that they had no right to continue as members for this new period.
We are making a legitimate point. We are greatly disappointed at the attitude displayed here. The nominees are not mentioned in the Bill. The ex officio members are not mentioned in the Bill. Yet the Bill allows the Minister to make an order. The third parties who make up the boards of conservators, the elected members, are mentioned in the Bill and the order will affect them. No reference is made to the position of the other two groups who with the elected members will make up the boards of conservators after October, 1974.
If the Parliamentary Secretary is not anxious to repeat what he said I would suggest to him that he has a very easy way out. If he would give us an assurance that such persons' entitlement to continue as members of boards is a legal entitlement and that it is not based on any assumption that he is making, we will accept it and move on to section 3. We will do that if he will give us that assurance and not preface his remarks with the phrase that he is assuming that they are entitled to be members.
The Principal Act refers to periods of time in which the boards of conservators shall be in existence and shall carry out their functions under the Act. The Principal Act contains no provisions referring to an order to be made by a Minister or Parliamentary Secretary. We feel that we have highlighted a major defect in the Bill. We feel it incumbent upon us to highlight that fact here. We would be failing in our duty and responsibility as Parliamentarians were we meekly to accept and allow this Bill to continue, believing as we do that there is a loophole in the Bill, believing as we do that two categories of persons who form membership of boards of conservators have been omitted from the Bill.
A Cheann Comhairle, we are suggesting that the Parliamentary Secretary should consider including a new subsection providing for continued membership by these two categories during the period mentioned in the order which he can make if this Bill is passed. It is the most reasonable request. I am trying to put it in the simplest possible terms, in the clearest possible way and in as few words as I can. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary now either to agree to the inclusion of a new subsection making provision for such people or else to tell us categorically with the full authority of his position as Parliamentary Secretary acting here for a Minister with the backing of three officials he has accompanying him in the House——
Officials should not be mentioned in the House.
I ask him to give us a categorical assurance that the two categories referred to by us have a full legal entitlement to continue as members and I ask him not to preface his remarks with the word "assume". If he gives us that assurance that they have full legal entitlement and if we have his guarantee with the weight of his office and his knowledge supplied and obtained, we will pass on. He should not preface his explanation with the word "assume". We cannot be expected to accept an explanation couched in such terms. We can finish this subsection and we probably will not spend much time on section 3 and we can finish the Bill and get on to the next business if the Parliamentary Secretary will give us that categorical assurance.
One thing I hate is hypocrisy and that is what we have had now from the ex-Minister. This may be out of order but I am entitled to make comparisons. Deputy Molloy was the chief architect in preventing elected members on every body and subcommittee in the Galway County Council——
That is not relevant.
I should like that to be on the record. I hate humbug.
Could we have that categorical assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary?
I have dealt with this question on not less than three, if not four, occasions. I dealt with it in great detail and repeated myself and in so doing I was in conflict with the rules of the House. I am not commenting further.
It is normal practice on the Committee Stage of any Bill to debate each section or subsection line by line, to go through it, accept what we consider is all right, pick out the flaws and try to rectify them. I am looking for the guidance of the Chair in this matter. Is there any way open to us of getting information from the Parliamentary Secretary that would make it easier for us to allow this Bill through?
So far as we can interpret the Bill, there is a flaw in it. If our reading of it is right, it is a pretty big flaw. The Chair has served in this House for a considerable number of years and he knows that bad legislation reflects not only on the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister concerned or on the Government, but also on the entire House. We have been accused by the Parliamentary Secretary of filibustering. Why should we filibuster? There is absolutely nothing to be gained by doing that. Some people have just come into the House and have made humbug speeches. They have not been here all the time but they accuse Members on this side of the House. We are conscientiously carrying out our duties but that is the kind of treatment we are getting from the Parliamentary Secretary and the Members behind him who were forced into the House by the quorum bells.
We are entitled to our point of view. We are entitled to ask the Parliamentary Secretary for certain categorical statements about the effectiveness of the Bill. If we do not get them or the assurances we need, we have no alternative but to pursue the matter in the hope that eventually we may get the assurances we are seeking.
Does the Deputy intend carrying on until 10.30 p.m.? Did his party Whip tell him to do so?
We do not have party Whips like that. To prove our bona fides in the matter, if the Parliamentary Secretary assures us that these loopholes are covered in the Bill or, if they are not, that he will introduce a subsection to give that protection, we will accept it. However the Parliamentary Secretary is not prepared to do that. On at least six occasions this evening we have asked him to give us that assurance but without success. This is showing complete contempt for the House and I am surprised at the Parliamentary Secretary acting in this manner.
I am not too surprised at the Deputy's hypocrisy. He knows the section has been dealt with quite adequately by me.
The Parliamentary Secretary should not talk about hypocrisy; if he wishes I will give him a few examples of hypocrisy in his own constituency.
I should like to hear them.
Ex-Councillor Harrington might be a good example of the Parliamentary Secretary's crocodile tears and hypocrisy.
Let us get back to the Bill.
I did not introduce the matter although I could elaborate on it——
I must insist that we get back to section 2 of the Bill.
I agree completely with the Chair but I would point out it was not I who deviated.
The Deputy has not been applying his mind to the section as such.
I think that is a very wrong accusation to make.
The Chair is making that statement.
It is a wrong one.
The Deputy may not reflect on the Chair.
I was interrupted.
On a point of information, does the Chair consider that it is a proper remark for the Chair to make—the matter of whether a Deputy is applying his mind?
The Chair said he was not applying his mind to the section.
That is not an appropriate remark for any chairman to make. If, in the opinion of the Chair the Deputy was straying from the purpose of section 2, we would accept that the Chair is entitled——
Deputy Molloy may not lecture the Chair.
On a point of information, I am asking the Chair if his remark was just and if the Chair would consider withdrawing it as it has implications——
It has no such implications.
I accept that the Chair did not mean the remark in the way it was interpreted by Deputy Molloy. I do not wish to argue with the Chair but I would point out the interruption came from the Government side.
That is past now. Let us get back to the Bill.
I am as anxious to get on with the Bill as is the Chair. The interruption came from the Government side but the Chair did not reprimand the Parliamentary Secretary. The Chair should be unbiased in this matter.
Let us get back to the section.
If the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to treat us in a proper fashion and to give us the assurances we are seeking, we will not delay him. We are merely looking for proper legislation. It makes us highly suspicious when we cannot get a simple categorical statement from the Parliamentary Secretary about the issues we have raised. Is he deliberately leaving this loophole for some obscure reason known only to himself? Perhaps it has something to do with the ex officio members he has in mind? I do not know but, so far as I am concerned, legislation passing through this House and having our imprimatur, must be good legislation. I was asking the advice and protection of the Chair on the matter.
As the Parliamentary Secretary has made such an issue of this matter, it is vital that we have assurances from somebody that nominated and ex officio members are protected and that they will have the rights to which they are entitled. I do not think that is an abnormal request. In fact it is a very ordinary one, but yet the Parliamentary Secretary refuses to give these assurances for some reason best known to him. We would not be acting in the best interests of those we represent if we did not demand those assurances. Even at this late stage, if he tells us that the interests of these people are protected, or if they are not protected that he will take steps to remedy the matter, we will be prepared to give him the section.
In regard to nominated members this Bill does nothing. When the five years are up— in November or October—what happens to a nominated member? Does he go gaily on for another five years or does his membership of the board cease in October? Where in the old Act is there provision for him to continue for another year? What would happen if the Parliamentary Secretary decided to abolish all boards? What happens to a person who is a nominated member? What section of the 1959 Act would the Parliamentary Secretary have to abolish in the new legislation he says he has in mind— and the purpose of this Bill is to make way for new legislation. I do not want to go into associate members but the Parliamentary Secretary made a very interesting statement in respect of associate members. The gist of what he said—as I understand it—is that he will deal with these boys in new legislation. Has he put the new legislation before the Cabinet? Have the Cabinet agreed to new legislation which will deal with those associate members about whom he spoke? Is he just thinking out loud or have the Government taken some decision prior to the publication of the Report of the Fisheries Commission, the report he is awaiting and which will not be ready? What authority has he to say that he will take this action in respect of associate members whose fisheries valuations are over £50? I gather from what he said that he is going to wipe them out. Have the Government agreed on this? Have all the parties in the Government agreed on it? Do they all support this view of the Parliamentary Secretary or is this view his only? We should like to know. We are all looking forward to the Report of the Fisheries Commission which the Parliamentary Secretary is awaiting. But he is able to tell this House—and has so told this House some half an hour ago—what his actions are going to be. We should like to know if all of the Cabinet will agree with him or have they agreed already? Or is this a piece of wishful thinking on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary?
Perhaps he would give us some information on those two points: firstly, with what section of the old Act will he have to deal which will terminate the lifetime of a nominated member; in other words, what amendment or deletion will he have to make in the 1959 Act which will terminate the lifetime of a nominated member who will be a member after October? Secondly, what authority had he, as Parliamentary Secretary, to pontificate on the actions which he would take in respect of fishery owners of over £50 valuation?
To get out of this impasse, could I appeal to the stubborn, spoiled child attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary? If he does not want to clarify it for us on this side of the House, as legislators, in the interests of those people who will be nominated to the old board, would he clarify the legal position for them? These are the people of whom he spoke so highly when he said:
When I speak of changing the constitution of boards of conservators I want to emphasise and acknowledge the wonderful service that has been given by the members of boards of conservators over the years. These members have worked on a voluntary basis and have devoted much of their time to solving fishery problems and attending meetings of the boards in the interests of conservation of our fisheries. I think they deserve our gratitude and appreciation. I am confident that they will rise to the task I am putting to them of giving their services for an extra year beyond the five-year term which would have ended in October, 1974.
In their interests will he say to us categorically that they are legally entitled to be members of boards of conservators throughout the country for the next 12 months and we will move on and get away from this spoiled child attitude?
That has been said four times already.
With respect, the Parliamentary Secretary said he assumed; each time he spoke he said he assumed.
Four times I have said it already. I am sure it was said as far back as 6.30.
The Parliamentary Secretary said he assumed.
I made myself perfectly clear. This Bill is completely legal. Section 2 enables what is stated there to be done and it has been explained again and again to the House. I have answered questions repeatedly.
That is not the point.
That section 2 stand part?
Is the Parliamentary Secretary prepared to give a categorical assurance that there is legal entitlement?
I have replied to that four times over.
We do not accept that.
We do not accept that.
Time and time again the Parliamentary Secretary said he assumed.
Assuming that it does——
Is the Parliamentary Secretary prepared to say it now?
I said it at 6.30 p.m.
(Interruptions.)
We have been an hour waiting for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that.
We have been asking him for the last hour. Is he prepared to say it now?
I have said it already: I have said it four times over.
The Parliamentary Secretary prefaced it with the word "assume".
Could we please get over this impasse? It is a repetition of the same type of question and answer.
In fairness to the Chair, I do not think he was present.
This section is legally in order——
Would the Parliamentary Secretary say that this section is legally in order for nominated members?
——for nominated members.
We will accept that. Could not the Parliamentary Secretary have said that hours ago?
Thanks very much.
That section 2 stand part of the Bill?
No; just one moment, I shall not delay the House. We are happy to have got that out of the Parliamentary Secretary anyway. Before we leave this section I want to ask him something. In his introductory speech he said:
Under the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, elections to boards of conservators are due to be held every five years and the next elections are due in October, 1974.
I have been searching the Consolidation Act of 1959 for the section which lays down the five-year period. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can help me; the only thing I came across was a reference to the election year and the explanation of that is that the expression "the election year" means the year 1961 and every third successive year thereafter. The references in the Act are all to three-year terms, not to five-year terms—triennial periods.
Section 3 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, as amended by subsection (2) of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1962 —there the election year is defined as the year 1964 and every fifth successive year thereafter.
It was the 1962 Act; was it?
The 1959 Act amended by the 1962 Act. The election year was set down as 1964 and every fifth year thereafter. Therefore, the second fifth year will be 1974.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary not have considered it more proper to have referred, in his introductory speech, to the 1962 Act rather than give the impression that this period of time was contained in the 1959 Act, which it was not; it was contained in an Act which amended the 1959 Act. Was not that a bit misleading? Would he agree?
I do not think so.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Report Stage.
Tuesday next?
It was agreed to take all Stages of this Bill today.
Was it agreed?
Yes; at the conclusion of the Second Stage the House agreed to discuss the Committee Stage and to take all Stages.
There is some doubt on this side as to whether it was agreed to give all stages.
We have no such information from our Whip's office.
At the conclusion of the Second Reading——
It was hoped, but in view of what developed during the course of the Committee Stage it would be unreasonable to expect us to let the Bill now go into law. A certain point of law was raised here by us. We were not totally satisfied with the explanation. We allowed the debate to go on on the assurance of the Parliamentary Secretary that he was satisfied; but, in fairness, we should not be asked to take the Report Stage now.
This was the agreement.
If it is postponed until Tuesday it will give us an opportunity, if we feel we are not satisfied with the explanation, to deal with it. If we are satisfied with the explanation following our investigation it will take only two minutes. It will make no difference to the Parliamentary Secretary.
This has been debated since 4 o'clock. It is a relatively small Bill. We had a much wider ranging discussion than the actual terms of the Bill would warrant. I am asking the House to finalise the Bill tonight.
I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary to be reasonable. If we are satisfied with the explanation, the Bill will be through by 4.10 next Tuesday.
The Parliamentary Secretary will still get to the Galway Races in time.
It must go to to the Seanad and be passed before the Recess. It is for Report Stage now. Would the Deputies agree to take it?
The only assurance given was that we were taking the Bill today. There was no question of finishing the Bill today. I think we all understood that it would be finished because we understood it was a short, simple Bill; but when it came to the House it did not appear to be that simple or that short at all. I do not see anything wrong with taking the Report Stage for a few minutes next Tuesday. We, as an Opposition, are entitled to ask for that. There is a precedent for it and there is no question about it.
When the Second Stage was completed we moved on to the subsequent Stages by agreement.
We moved on to the Committee Stage.
Do not say I said we would finish it today.
I am quite agreeable to leave the Report Stage over until Tuesday next.
We thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his co-operation.
The Deputy's thanks are kindly acknowledged. I like to be very fair.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 23rd July, 1974.