The principle underlying the first six amendments on the Order Paper is the same—that the figures suggested by the Shanley Committee should be adopted. I suggest, therefore, that the six amendments be taken together.
Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Bill, 1938—(Certified Money Bill)—Committee.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
(1) There shall be paid to the Taoiseach an annual sum by way of salary not exceeding the sum of £2,500 and to each other member of the Government an annual sum by way of salary not exceeding the sum of £1,700.
(2) In lieu of sub-section (5) of Section 7 of the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924 (No. 16 of 1924), repealed by this Act, it is hereby enacted that there shall be paid an annual sum by way of salary, not exceeding the sum of £1,200, to every Parliamentary Secretary appointed under the said Section 7 who shall not, by the terms of his appointment, be declared to be appointed without salary.
The following recommendations were on the Paper:—
(1) In sub-section (1), line 34, that the figures "2,500" be deleted and the figures "3,000" be substituted therefor—Senator Alton, Senator Douglas, Senator Tierney.
(2) In sub-section (1), after the figures "£2,500" in line 34, that the words "to the Tánaiste an annual sum by way of salary not exceeding the sum of £2,500" be inserted.— Senator Alton, Senator Douglas, Senator Tierney.
(3) In sub-section (1), line 36, that the figures "1,700" be deleted and the figures "2,250" be substituted therefor.—Senator Alton, Senator Douglas, Senator Tierney.
(4) In sub-section (2), line 40, that the figures "1,200" be deleted and the figures "1,400" be substituted therefor.—Senator Alton, Senator Douglas, Senator Tierney.
Might I respectfully suggest that the amendments be put separately but that we might be allowed to debate them all together?
The debate may range over the six amendments. Then we shall put each amendment.
I have already given reasons for suggesting that the figures recommended by the Shanley Committee were not over-generous and were wiser than those adopted in the Bill. As the least member of that committee, I may say without arrogance that the members went about their work in a very thorough way and were very impartial and conscientious in discharging the task imposed upon them. They were conscious that the figures proposed were moderate—that, in fact, they erred on the side of moderation. The general principle underlying our decisions was that it was essential for the welfare of the nation and the proper administration of its most vital business that its Ministers should be free to devote themselves completely to their work. We appreciated, and had evidence of, the strain of Ministerial work on those who hold office and we thought it was essential that such men should be freed, as far as possible, from the petty anxieties that beset more ordinary citizens—that the difficulties that confront the ordinary citizen in trying to make both ends meet should not beset the holder of office and that not only should we not allow the wolf to be prowling outside but that the Minister should not be obliged to listen to him scraping at his door. We considered that a Minister should be enabled to concentrate on the vital work of the State.
Another determining reason was that to the office of Minister a certain dignity and certain obligations attach, and that it was desirable that he should have the means, without undue economy, to maintain a position in keeping with his high office. I agree with what Senator Sir John Keane said last night, that recognition of social worth and distinction does not depend on money but the absence of a sufficient income can handicap a man in the position of Minister very seriously. He has to meet Ministers and distinguished men from other countries, and it is desirable that he should meet them on a level. He should not be humiliated by feeling that he is unable—to put it crudely— to entertain them as they entertained him. A certain amount of show is essential in these matters. I do not like anything in the nature of a blatant ostentation or a vulgar parade of wealth, but a sufficient show of hospitality on particular occasions is very desirable and is good for the mental as well as the physical health of Ministers. It is desirable that they should have the means of relaxation. I could give many other reasons for this amendment, but I confine myself to a few.
The Minister who is present to-night spoke elsewhere of ensuring "good and clean government". I think that we have, and have had in the past, good and clean government, but that is because of the exceptional men who were called to office. There are, and have been, in other Governments, if you know your history, abuses, due often to insufficiency of remuneration to people in high office. That is a delicate point, but it is well to be frank about it. After all, we are human, and the greatest political philosopher who ever lived once remarked that you should not overstrain human nature. You will be overstraining human nature if you expect persons to live up to a very high standard—the high standard of those about them—on insufficient income. I have confidence enough in Irishmen to believe that we should struggle through even if we had to do our work for nothing, but I do not think it is fair to subject men to such ordeals. Economy is a very good thing but, in certain cases, economy is foolish. In the present instance, anything like cheeseparing is worse than foolish. It could possibly be criminal. Even if the figures in the Shanley Report seem to some members of the Seanad to be liberal, it is, I think, wiser to err on that side than to err on the side of parsimony. Therefore, I propose Recommendation (1).
I should like to state as briefly as possible the reason why I put down my name as sponsoring the first six recommendations, particularly the first four. It seems to me that all matters of remuneration, whether they be concerned with allowances for Deputies or Senators, or salaries for Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries, must always, of necessity, be matters of considerable delicacy and difficulty, and that they are not matters which should be frequently discussed: that is, that as far as possible there should be a maximum amount of agreement— no attempt to make any Party capital one way or the other—and that there should be a very considerable period between the date on which the matter is discussed at length and the date on which it may have to be raised again. The difficulty always is: Who is to decide what is to be the figure? Yesterday, while I did not question the right or the necessity of either House of the Oireachtas criticising and giving their views on such a matter, I stated the opinion that, in the matter of allowances to Deputies and Senators, the Executive Council was the body which, ultimately, should make up its mind as to what should be given, and that it should stand or fall on it. Now, when it comes to the matter of Ministers' remuneration, the position is somewhat different. You could say that, if the Oireachtas could make up its mind, or the Dáil, at any rate—because the Dáil has the power of voting on such a matter—that that is a matter to be dealt with by them. It seems to me, however, that that is a particular case where the persons who hold the office for the time being are not necessarily the best persons to judge what should be the remuneration over a long period for a particular post, which, after all, is not particularly referred to them or to their immediate successors, but, as I said, might have reference to a period of 10, 12, or 20 years, and perhaps very much longer.
Now, a committee was set up. That committee was representative. It was quite fallible. It was just as likely to make a mistake as any of us, but it did give considered judgment and it gave that considered judgment without having any particular Party interest to serve. That committee was not going to be re-elected in the next general election. It was not going to stand for the Seanad or the Dáil in the next election, and there were no political interests to influence its report. The committee made a considered recommendation with regard to the salaries which should be paid to Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries. The Government, at the present moment, for reasons best known to themselves—I say that advisedly because, although I have read the discussion, they seem to be mainly keeping their reasons to themselves—have decided not to adopt that recommendation, but to adopt a rate of remuneration that was decided upon some 20 years ago after considerable consideration by a committee, certainly, but one with very much less experience. Now, I believe that it would be a wise thing for this House to recommend, not particular items as our considered judgment, but to recommend to the Dáil that if there is one matter which should take precedence, or which they should press at any rate on the particular Executive of the day, in the matter of accepting the report of an outside committee, it is the matter of Ministers' salaries.
I hold the view very strongly that you can be penny wise and pound foolish and that, possibly, disastrous results may follow in the future as a result of such a policy. Such a matter must be looked at from the point of view of a long period of, let us say, 50 years, or even 100 years, hence, and disastrous results may follow from setting too low a standard. I am not going to attempt to argue that you are going to get a more honest Minister after 20 or 30 years than, say, after 10 or 15 years, any more than I would attempt to argue that you could get a more honest Minister after 2,000 years than after 1,500 years. I do say, however, that you cannot expect to get the type of character and ability which, ultimately, we must have in this State, regularly, as Government succeeds Government, in the position of Ministers of the State, unless we are going to base the standard of emolument on what we would expect to pay—and would have to pay in any case—for a competent managing director of a company. We have been discussing the new industries of this country. I wonder how many Senators have tried, by advertisement, to get an experienced managing director for an industry that would employ, let us say, 500 people.
If they have, and if they have had to go outside this country, as, in most cases, they would have to, in order to get the experience, at any rate, at present, they will find it extremely difficult to get a person to take up such a position at the rate of remuneration proposed in this Bill for a Minister of State. If, in addition, the person concerned is liable to be dismissed at any moment because of some mistake or some action about which the directors disagree—and, in this case, the directors are the Dáil—if, as I say, the person concerned may be dismissed at short notice, and that his pension will be nothing if he is dismissed within the first three years, and a quite small pension if he has served that period, and that the maximum pension for a certain period is £500, you will not get a competent managing director for £1,700 at all under those conditions.
I suggest, therefore, that, when we have a committee which has given careful consideration to this matter, and when we know something of the requirements of the case, we should forget altogether the particular merits or demerits of the gentlemen who happen to be Ministers at the present moment. Some people here hope that these gentlemen will remain in that position for a very long time, while other people here, for similar political reasons, hope that they will remain in office only for a short period, but the fact remains that we are not considering what is a proper remuneration for the gentlemen who hold these positions at the present moment, but what is the proper remuneration to provide, not alone for these Ministers, but for those who may succeed them in the future. We must proceed on the assumption that we have to provide for to-morrow. That, in my mind, is the only consideration on which to approach a matter of this kind. If the Seanad agrees with me with regard to the sum that I suggest is the proper sum for, shall we say, an unknown Minister to whom you are looking for proper service in his capacity as Minister, then they should make a recommendation to that effect. It is not a matter of personalities, as I have said. We must look to the future.
If the Seanad disagrees with me, then there should be no such recommendation; but I think that, so far as our views are concerned, whether or not the Seanad agrees with me, we should not be influenced by the question of bringing the Dáil back, because, if we are going to consider any Bills merely from the point of view of bringing the Dáil back or not, we could have saved a lot of talk.
Now, I have put down a further amendment, to be added to these amendments, if considered desirable. I am not particularly enamoured of it. I only ask for the first six amendments, but I think that this amendment is relevant, and in any case it could not be moved at all unless the six are carried. The effect of the amendment would be that, if the Government had made up their minds that it is not politic or wise that Ministers should be paid this additional amount at the moment, we should make it clear that this has nothing to do with personalities and that the increased amount should come into effect after the next general election, when, of course, Ministers would have to be found and when nobody, however optimistic he might be, could foretell who would be Minister. I am not moving that at the moment. It will come on afterwards. But if the House believes that you should take the present Government at their word when they do say, "We do not want it," then we could get over that difficulty in the way I suggest. I only mention that because it is the best way out for those in favour of it. That particular point does not arise now, but it would arise afterwards if these recommendations were adopted by the House.
I do not intend to say much on this recommendation but merely to support what has been said by Senator Douglas and the others in favour of it. I regard this as a very important matter. I hope the Seanad will pass all these recommendations and that during the interval allowed by this festive period Ministers will reconsider the point of view put before us last night by the Minister for Finance with regard to Ministerial emoluments. I regard this as a most important matter, and I now put forward these recommendations. We are not considering them at all from the point of view of the present Ministers or any particular set of Ministers, but from the point of view of the country as a whole. I believe most sincerely that it is not for the good of the country as a whole that we should fix too low a standard of remuneration for the men who in the future are going to be the leaders of the Irish people.
It is open, of course, to the Government, if they like to make what they consider to be a virtuous gesture on this matter, to reject this decision if the Seanad chooses to come to it, and to say that they will not accept these increases for themselves. I believe if they come to that decision they are acting on a sort of false virtue, and they are coming to a very wrong and a very unwise decision, not merely for themselves, but for all those who will come after them, and indeed for the interests of the Irish people as a whole. I urge very strongly that though a gesture of that kind might have immediate attraction from the viewpoint of securing popularity, yet in the long run it will turn out to be an injurious gesture to the best interests of the country.
I do not believe that the salaries of the Ministers and the salary of the Taoiseach, as fixed in the Bill before us, will in the long run prove to be adequate. I believe that it will be found in a very few years that Ministers will see that they cannot maintain any proper standard on the salaries set up in this Bill, and they will be compelled by force of circumstances, whether they like it or not, to come again before the Oireachtas and ask to have these salaries raised. It is most injudicious and most unwise for us in a matter like this to take action which in our hearts we all know will have to be gone back on and changed in the course of a few short years. I am sure the Minister for Finance himself will admit that the salaries as fixed in this Bill are not adequate. Whom does it benefit then to have these salaries solemnly passed into law, and laid down as a standard and considered adequate by this House or the Oireachtas as a whole? Who is to benefit? We say there is no benefit attaching to that sort of gesture. It is a mistake to believe that you can acquire any real popularity or any support which is worth getting in the country by a gesture of that kind.
Last night, on the Second Reading of this Bill, I said a good deal about our social standards and I was taken to task by Senator MacDermot and Senator Sir John Keane for, as they said, riding my favourite hobby horse. I admit it is a matter which I take very seriously and I regard it as one of the most important issues that could be considered by a body like this. We do not realise in this country—because most of us have not had experience—that our standards in this respect are probably the lowest in the whole civilised world and that in every other country you will find that Ministers and other high representatives of the State, no matter what are the figures of their salaries, are placed in a position to represent their country in the eyes of the world and to live lives in the eyes of the world out of all proportion to the lives which our Ministers lead here. That is entirely owing to the false puritanical standards that have been adopted and which are again being put into practice under this Bill here. It is all very well for Senator Sir John Keane to say that these are matters of the heart and that money does not enter into it. Everyone knows that the heart may be all——
——gold.
Yes, gold. It may be said it would be difficult for us to provide against extravagance in the sort of men we should have at the head of the State in this country. We ought to trust the Irish people not to put men in these positions who would act extravagantly. But I hope we will have less charges bandied about of Ministers not being worth their salaries and so on. That sort of talk does more harm to Ireland in the long run than anything else. It saps the morale of the people. It contains the germs of a sort of false Puritanism unfair to this country, a sort of Puritanism which our history in the last couple of centuries has made possible. Everybody knows that I take that point seriously and regard it as of the utmost importance.
I wish to refer briefly to the argument that Senator Quirke put forward last night, an argument that, to my mind, was most astonishingly naive, but it had its value. In apologising for the discrepancy between his words a few years ago and his words in the Seanad during these debates, he suggested that he was entitled to say what he said seven or eight years ago, because at that time there were very few incomes over £500 a year. He was adopting a sort of Marxian doctrine. He said that because there were few incomes over £500 a year, seven or eight years ago, nobody was worth more than £500. He proceeded then to make the further point that now, owing to the intensive activities of the present Minister for Industry and Commerce, we have had numerous incomes amounting to over £2,000 a year derived from his activities; whereas he said at the present time and in the recent past it was true to say that there are quite a considerable number of new men, private persons, in this country who have incomes that rise above that figure of £2,000.
I think it is a very bad thing for us to say that the heads of this State are going to be deliberately kept at a figure that is lower than would be earned by quite a number of ordinary professional or business men. It is not at all uncommon for an able lawyer here in Dublin to make far more than £2,000 a year. It is not at all uncommon for a specialist in medicine or surgery to make more than that income. If it is possible for men who devote themselves to their own business to make large incomes like that, why should it not be possible for the leaders, the men who are chosen to represent the country in its public objects to live lives of equal comfort to those attained by successful business and professional men in their own country? Why should there be that discrepancy? I say the standards we should set for our Ministers and for the Taoiseach should not be far below what a good professional man can earn.
I do believe that in this Bill the standards we are setting are considerably below what good professional men can earn, while the calls upon Ministers are enormously above the calls that fall upon one of those private individuals. We heard a good deal about the calls that fall upon Deputies; they are nothing to the calls which fall upon Ministers. We have taken the step of raising the allowances of Deputies. It is not a matter that I think is worth having all the arguments we had about it, but we raised the allowances of Deputies and we kept the allowances of Ministers—whose work and duties are out of all proportion to the work of Deputies—at a figure which was originally too low to my mind, and which will certainly prove too low in the near future.
I have heard it said that the making of provision for Ministers' pensions in this Bill was to some extent raising their emoluments above the figure actually set out, the figure of £1,700 a year. I think we should consider those two questions as entirely separate ones. It is one thing to make provision for individuals who may find themselves in difficulties once they have ceased to be Ministers. That is, I think, a duty which falls upon the Oireachtas, and which ought to be met. But that is one question. The question of seeing that our Ministers here are put in a position fittingly to represent this old and noble country, with all the traditions that it has, not as private individuals but as leaders of this country, is an entirely different question, and should be considered not from the point of view of what a particular individual will make out of those salaries but from the point of view of what is to the real interest and the real honour and dignity of our people as a whole. I urge most sincerely on the Minister for Finance that he should accept those amendments. If he does not accept them, I urge the Seanad to accept them over his head, and to see that the Dáil is called back even during the Christmas holidays in order to give this very serious and far-reaching question the deliberation it requires.
It is very interesting to see recommendations of this sort coming from the people who have put their names to this amendment. I personally join with them in asking this House to send those recommendations to the Dáil. I might further say I do not think it is right that in this debate the Minister for Finance should in any way be a party to influencing the independent decision of this House in a matter which concerns him for perhaps only a few years, but which concerns the whole future of the administration of this country. I have always held the view that a Minister of State should not get a lesser income than those whom he is directing in the carrying out of the business of his Department. It is illogical that he should do so. I always held the view that a Minister of State should have such an income that he need have no feeling of uneasiness as to the future of himself or his family; that for him no sacrifice ought to be necessary in order to make it possible to serve his country efficiently. I also feel that no man is better able properly to perform his duties than the man who is highly paid. That applies to every one from the highest to the lowest in the land.
In the past we have heard criticisms of the amounts paid to the Judiciary. Those salaries were allocated on the basis of their responsibilities, on the basis of making them independent in their judgments, on the basis of raising that profession to such a high standard that it would not be possible to influence their judgments by any means. I think what applies to that profession applies with even greater force to Ministers of State. I do not think a Minister of State would be able to set a very high standard of life for himself and his family, even on the suggested salary, when we consider the type of home that a Minister of State in this country should have when he is in office. After all, a Minister of State is not expected to live in a bungalow. I have always been of opinion that a Minister of State should be in a position not alone to provide a house for himself and his family, but to provide the type of house to which, if need be, he could bring foreign diplomats to discuss matters of importance directly affecting this country. It used to be said in the past that the breakfast table of Downing Street won many a good bargain for England. In this country, I should like to see the breakfast table of Dublin used for the purpose of driving a hard bargain for Ireland.
I am not altogether in agreement with Senator Tierney's views as to the development of the cultural and social aspects of this country. I should like to see him tabling a motion some time, and giving the House the benefit of his views on this subject. Perhaps I would have something more to say then. I am satisfied that Government administration here could very well imitate the administration, the domestic arrangements and standards set up in Downing Street and in other countries. All that could be done by having a higher ideal of those who might be in a position to lead the people along lines that would ultimately be for the common good. When a Minister of State assumes the responsibilities of his Department, he has to relinquish all his commercial connections and any revenues he derives from them. That being so, it seems to me that he is making a great sacrifice. As a general rule he has no guarantee, after relinquishing a commercial post, and serving for a number of years as a Minister, that he can go back to a commercial career. I am not too sure that any commercial career could afford to release people like that, and to take them back later. Generally speaking, when laying down a basis for the future conduct of the affairs of the country, I hope the standard will be reasonable; one that would help a Minister to do his duty freely and with the utmost discretion, without any financial misgivings or without regard to any other motives. The only way to do that is to pay Ministers properly. The better they are paid the better it will be ultimately for the country. Under these circumstances I hope Senators will take a very strong and an independent stand on this question. I hope the Minister for Finance will let the House come to a decision in its own way. The House is not going to be impressed because of the difficulty there might be in having to bring back the Dáil or otherwise. The decision we are going to take is an important one and is well worthy of capable consideration.
I concede right off that the arguments in favour of the amendment have been put very strongly and very logically. If there were not other considerations that, apparently, have not been taken into account by the various speakers, the House would have no other alternative but to accept the amendment. I agree absolutely with those who said that the country should get the very best people available to manage its business. Writing in the daily papers yesterday a Doctor of Philosophy said that from the point of view of the Church—the Catholic Church—it was of first rate importance that the country should have the most efficient Government it was possible to have. That is so. I admit that in the commercial and professional life of this country there must be quite a number of people whose incomes are considerably above what is at present being paid to Ministers. Perhaps the Minister would be able to tell us how many people, for instance, are paying super-tax, or give some idea of what the position is in that respect. I agree that it is essential, from the point of view of getting work efficiently done, and wise decisions taken by Ministers, that considerations with regard to the maintenance of their homes, and provision for their families, ought not to be of such a character as to influence or pervert their views, so to speak, towards life; that they ought to occupy a position, in relation to other members of the community, so as to be able to exercise a balanced judgment on problems which they have to solve, and which are of overwhelming importance to the country; I accept all that.
I think, however, that any decision of this House on the question before it must have relation to conditions in the country at the present time. I realise, of course, that many arguments have been advanced with regard to the future. I have no desire to relate them to particular individuals. That would be a wrong and an unjustifiable line to take, and would be a fault on the part of the Seanad. Let us, however, realise that, in my judgment, a more inopportune moment could not have been chosen by the Government for the introduction of these two measures. That is my opinion. I believe there has been very considerable criticism of these measures; criticism that they would not have experienced if we had not passed through, as far as rural Ireland is concerned, the unfortunate season we had this year.
I think psychological reactions on the part of the people generally, and the decisions which Senators Alton, Tierney, Douglas and McEllin would have us take, would be so unfavourable, and would create such difficulties for the Ministry, that no increase in their salaries would compensate them for the problems they would have to solve as a result of such action. I agree that there is nothing sacrosanct about £1,700 or £1,800 a year, but I put it to the House that there is a considerable improvement in the present position regarding Ministers' salaries compared with what it was previously. I am sure members of the present Ministry and ex-Ministers will be the first to recognise that fact.
It is true that Ministers to-day, allowing for the present salary of £1,700, have facilities with regard to cars and drivers that were not enjoyed in the past, and that all Ministers in future are going to be provided with pensions. There was no such provision in the past. That, in itself, must be a very comforting consideration for every Minister. There is the further provision that if—as none of us desire —a Minister should be called to his last account his wife and children will be provided for. All that is a very great improvement on the position that existed in the past, and we have to take it into account. We have also to realise that it is only dawning slowly on the people that they have to pay for the management of the country's affairs. It is only slowly dawning on them. I am quite convinced a great many of the people believe that they could get the country managed without paying anybody at all for doing it; that a crowd of men, for the honour and glory merely, would come along and land little crocks of gold into every house in the country. I suggest that the Minister, and perhaps Senator Quirke, by his confession last night, even more than the Minister, did a certain amount to convince the people that the management of the country was a comparatively inexpensive work and that the people might realise and understand that it was unreasonable to expect that any considerable sums would have to be paid for managing the country's affairs. You cannot run from one extreme to another. Even if you like the people to forget, the people do not.
They should not be allowed to forget, in my opinion.
I could say that some of us would see to it that we are not going to permit them to forget, but I do not think that would be right, and I do not think any responsible Deputy or Senator would think otherwise. I am quite convinced we are not going to benefit our people here by attempting to lower the dignity and the status of the Ministers, or even of ourselves. I do not agree with that at all. I have a great deal of sympathy with the attitude of mind of the Leas-Chathaoirleach and the other Senators who spoke on this matter. I submit that you must relate our actions to the facts of life outside. You cannot get too far away from these conditions suddenly, and you cannot forget that a certain tune—it was not one note but a big long tune—it was played to the people, and the trouble is that they did not forget, and the others do not forget, that that tune was played.
Whatever the reason or whatever the logic that could be advanced for these recommendations, you have such a situation in the country that to accept these recommendations would be definitely unwise. I do not believe they would be in the best interests of the State at the present time and, while I would like to peer as far into the future as Senator Tierney or others, I think in this we have to step very cautiously. Senator McEllin indicated how much has been done over a breakfast table in Downing Street and I, too, am quite convinced that it would be all to the good if the Ministers could afford to collect into their homes a good many sensible people who would talk about the affairs of life outside, not purely the politicians, but the people who have to make their living day after day under the restrictions or regulations, or relieved from the regulations, which the Administration here imposes. If it were possible for Ministers to meet these people and discuss with them the ordinary problems of the day, I believe they would get a great deal of valuable information which they can only get from some of us—and then we are hammered for giving it. It would be beneficial if the Ministry could afford to do something like that.
I know every Minister in this country, and the ex-Ministers, too, have and had responsibilities, and it is comforting that it is so, with regard to wives and families. That is the foundation of Christian life and society here. These must be their first consideration. While it is difficult, I admit, not to concede that the recommendations which are being urged by four Senators who have gone before me should be accepted by the House, while it is difficult for me to oppose them, yet I feel in the country's best interests that the acceptance of them by the House would be unwise. I think the consequences of them would not be healthy. I believe the depression in the country, the disastrous season, has imposed such hardships and disabilities on the bulk of our people that a proposal like this is something you could not stand over with the people in their present plight, and whatever the wisdom of it for the future—in order to get on to the future we must live through the present—I believe the Seanad should not agree to accept these recommendations.
Are we likely to finish this Bill to-night?
Leas-Chathaoirleach
It is fairly certain that this Bill will not be finished to-night.
If there is not a possibility of finishing it to-night, I suggest we adjourn now until to-morrow.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
I am sure Senators will agree that it is practically impossible to finish the Bill to-night.
How many Senators wish to speak on the recommendations?
Leas-Chathaoirleach
There are other recommendations.
There are three or four more, and if we have to meet to-morrow I suggest it would be as well to have something substantial to do. I think we might as well postpone consideration of the remaining recommendations.
I formally move the adjournment until to-morrow.
Progress reported, the Committee to sit again to-morrow.
The Seanad adjourned at 9.45 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 15th December.