I would like to suggest to the House and to the Minister that the Second Reading of this Bill should not be taken until after the Recess. It is a Bill to amend the Currency Act of 1927 in certain rather important phases. It requires a great deal of consideration, for the Currency Bill of 1927 was, as some of us will remember when it was going through this House, a very complicated and technical measure. I do not think it would be right to take this Bill now at the fag-end of the Session. It requires more consideration than it could get now with twelve or thirteen other Bills before us. There is no particular hurry about this Bill, and I suggest that it stand over until next Session.
Private Business. - Currency (Amendment) Bill, 1930—Second Stage.
Cathaoirleach
This Bill certainly requires a great deal of thought, and I suggest that the Minister would agree to its postponement until after the Recess.
There is a fair amount of urgency about this Bill. After the Currency Act of 1927 was passed there were funds transferred over to London and invested in securities as a backing for the Currency Notes. The rates of interest at that time were comparatively high in London. You are now in a period of very cheap money, and the loss of interest, even for a few months, is a very considerable consideration to this country. I am not in any way insistent on this matter, but on the mere material point of view, on the money side alone, it is well worth while to consider this Bill now, even though we sit a week or two longer.
Cathaoirleach
That is another point of view.
As I understand it, the proposal is to postpone the consideration of this measure to——
Cathaoirleach
The autumn.
Until we meet after the recess.
I beg to support what Senator Dowdall has said. This matter of currency is one in which the Seanad is greatly interested. It is a matter in which all the members of the Oireachtas should be more interested than they are. But we are getting extremely inquisitive about these matters. There is a proposal in Section 2 of this Bill for investment in securities of the Government of the United States of America. That proposal, in my judgment, is a very good one. I do not think that there is anything in this Bill to which I could offer serious objection, but I think we have not got sufficient information on these currency questions to enable us to deal intelligently with Bills of this description. I have read as carefully as I could the report of the Currency Commission, and I find that a good many of the conclusions arrived at in that Report are not borne out by the arguments contained in the Commission's Report. I would like to say to the Minister, supposing there is to be an adjournment for the consideration of this measure, that we should have the minutes of evidence that were taken before the Currency Commission. I have endeavoured to get these minutes of evidence. I know that other members of the Seanad and members of the Dáil have made the most industrious efforts to procure those minutes of evidence. They are not printed, but are in typescript. Those minutes are in the office of the Minister for Finance. They would be of great value if made available to the members of this House and of the Dáil. I understand that in the course of that Commission some discussions took place and some evidence was given of vital importance to this country. In my opinion, notwithstanding the findings of that Currency Commission, the amount of currency notes in circulation in this country is at least four or five millions short of what it ought to be——
rose.
Cathaoirleach
The question really is whether we will postpone this Bill or not.
It is on the question of postponement I am speaking. I do not think I have said anything to irritate anybody——
The speech to which we have just listened is the very strongest reason for the postponement of this Bill.
But it appears I have irritated them to the right and left of me. They are volleying and thundering.
If the Senator thinks he has irritated me he is making a mistake. I got up to say what my friend, Senator Brown, has just said, that I do not think anybody could give stronger arguments for the postponement of this Bill than Senator Comyn has given. Senator Comyn has rightly said that the matter requires a great deal of consideration and we have not got the information about the Bill to-day which would enable us intelligently to discuss it. Therefore I am supporting what Senator Comyn has said. I thought at first that the Senator really meant to second Senator Brown.
I moved in the way I did move for the purpose of saying what I wanted to say, and I am glad that Senator Sir Walter Nugent agrees with me—that there is a lot to be learned in relation to this question of currency. The only man who can be our proper teacher in this matter is——
Cathaoirleach
The Minister for Finance.
Yes, the Minister for Finance.
Cathaoirleach
It is his Bill if he wishes to withdraw it.
I would be quite satisfied if the Minister would say that in the near future he would let us have the minutes of evidence taken before the Currency Commission.
Cathaoirleach
That is entirely outside the matter. The question is whether this Bill is to be postponed or not.
This is a small Bill and it only deals with minor points. I do not think it is very controversial. At the same time, if there are any Senators who want to read up any matter connected with it, I do not want to force the House to deal with it now, and I will give them an opportunity of reading up the matter. A good deal of the evidence—indeed, large portions of the evidence—given before the Currency Commission was confidential. That is, the banks or the various witnesses made disclosures which they would not have made if the material was to be published. I would not undertake, therefore, that the minutes of evidence would be published. The personnel of the Commission was selected partly to get people who had a good deal of direct knowledge of currency matters so that they would not be dependent on the evidence to the extent that a Commission normally is. That is to say, a great deal of the evidence was evidence that would not even appear on the minutes if the minutes had been printed, because this was evidence that was brought out in the discussions between the Commissioners, who were people who had personal knowledge of the various factors themselves. Therefore there are two objections to the evidence being published—first, that parts of the evidence could not be published because it was given in confidence, and, in the next place, parts of the evidence could not be published even if the minutes were to be printed, because all the evidence on which the Report was brought in would not appear in the minutes. The minutes were not a complete picture. A great deal of the information on which the Commission acted was brought to the Commission, not by witnesses, but by members of the Commission themselves. I could not undertake, therefore, to publish the minutes of evidence. There are various reports and comments made on them, and the Senators who wish to consider the matter could examine the reports.
Would the Minister let us see such of the evidence as is not confidential?
I do not think that would be right because it would be a partial disclosure of the evidence, and no disclosure is better than a partial disclosure. It would be much better not to disclose part of the evidence when the whole is not to be disclosed. The members of the Commission were known. People may say that they were prejudiced, but even allowing for prejudice Senators could examine the report.
I did not allege prejudice. We do not want a complete picture of the evidence. All we want is as much of the evidence as is not confidential.
Cathaoirleach
The Minister has made his statement and it is for the Seanad to say whether they will adjourn consideration of the Bill or not.
It is really a matter for the Seanad. If the Seanad adjourns it now I would like that the matter would be dealt with expeditiously when the Seanad reassembles.
Second Reading debate accordingly postponed till the first meeting after the recess.