Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Dec 1939

Vol. 24 No. 3

Public Business. - Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill, 1939—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Finance (Mr. O Ceallaigh)

This Bill provides for the establishment of a Department of Supplies and for certain amendments in the Ministers and Secretaries Acts, 1924 and 1928, which experience has shown to be desirable. The 8th September, 1939, is the date upon which the appointment of a Minister for Supplies was made by the Government.

The new Department has, of course, been set up to meet emergency conditions, and while it may accordingly be regarded as in the nature of a temporary organisation, it will be necessary to have regard to the fact that the Minister for Supplies may find it necessary to enter into contracts and to appear as plaintiff or defendant in the courts. It is desirable, therefore, that the Minister should be established as a corporation sole, with the capacity to sue and be sued in a like manner as other Ministers in charge of Departments of State. Incorporation implies, in law, perpetual succession, and the Government are advised that the establishment of a purely temporary body as a corporation sole would be open to objection on legal grounds. To put a term on the life of the Department in the Bill would leave the liability in law of the Minister and his servants obscure. It is for this reason that the Bill has not been framed on the basis of establishing a temporary Department, and specific amending legislation to wind up the Department and to provide for matters in the nature of commitments, etc., arising out of its activities, will, in due course, be required.

The Bill provides for various other matters not of a temporary nature, including, in particular, the office of Minister without portfolio, the transfer of Departments of State to and from Ministers, the arrangements to be made for the administration of Departments during the temporary inability of Ministers, the right of audience of Parliamentary Secretaries in the Houses of the Oireachtas, and the extension of the existing powers of delegation to Parliamentary Secretaries so as to include powers and duties of a statutory kind.

The Bill repeals Sections 11 and 12 of the Act of 1924 and Section 4 of the Act of 1928, and provides in more suitable form for the powers of the Government under these sections, which relate generally to transfers of what may be termed subordinate functions of Departments, and to changes in the titles of Ministers and Departments. It also gives covering statutory authority to the changes in the names of certain Ministers and Departments which were adopted on the coming into operation of the new Constitution.

It is hardly necessary to deal in detail at this stage with the proposals, which are really self-explanatory.

Mr. M. Hayes

Could the Minister give me a little information? There is no reference to the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures in this Bill. Does that mean that the Ministry must disappear, since there is no authority set out in this Bill or in the Ministers and Secretaries Acts?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

As long as the Minister is not being given certain statutory functions, it is not necessary to have the Ministry specifically named under the Acts the Senator refers to, or under this Bill.

Mr. M. Hayes

This Bill does a great deal more than create a Department of Supplies and give statutory authority for a Department which can make contracts and sue and be sued, and so on. First and foremost, it has retrospective authority; it goes back to the 8th September, 1939. It goes to show, in the first place, that when the emergency arose and the war situation came on, although it had been brewing for at least 12 months, the Government was compelled to do certain things for which it had no statutory authority and about which it had taken no steps to ascertain whether or not it had statutory authority. It is interesting, in spite of the efforts to give us a so-called new Constitution—which is not a new Constitution at all—that, at the very first impact of that so-called new Constitution upon an emergency situation, we had a collapse; we had to have an amendment of the Constitution with regard to a state of war and certain changes in the Ministry for which, apparently, there was no statutory authority in the Constitution or elsewhere.

This Bill, therefore, is a Bill to make good the errors committed in the first few days of the war. It also creates a completely new thing, a Minister without portfolio. I am not sure whether that is within the Constitution, but that is not a point about which we need to worry here. The Minister did not give in the other House, and has not given to-day, any indication of what a Minister without portfolio would be. So far as I can gather from his reply to-day, the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures will now become a Minister without portfolio, because he will not be governing a Department of State with any statutory functions. In other words, when you have a Minister who has made a mess of a particular job over a period and you want to substitute somebody else who may, you hope, do the job better, you make the erring Minister a Minister without portfolio. You continue to pay him his salary, provide him with transport facilities, give him a private secretary and you continue him for all purposes.

It is not easy to see what functions the Minister without portfolio could perform. One Government did very well without any such thing for ten years, and the present Government has done without one for seven years. It is difficult to know what his functions will be. I can imagine members of this House who, under no circumstances, should be made Ministers in charge of a Department, but you could say of them that they were nice people and you could make them Ministers without portfolio and give them the full salary. The Minister without portfolio, it must be remembered, will have no administrative work to do, and will never have to face either House of the Oireachtas, or the public, with regard to what he has done in a particular Department. He will never be up against any problem, so as to give members of the Dáil or Seanad an opportunity of judging how he deals with the problem. But he will be in the enjoyment of all the amenities of Ministerial office. I do not understand how that will work out.

There is a point that I am not quite clear about. In Section 5, the Taoiseach gets power to transfer Departments to and from Ministers, but in Section 7, during the temporary inability of a Minister to carry out his duties, it is the Government must make the change. I do not see why it is the Taoiseach in one case and the Government in another. Perhaps it is the Taoiseach without a difference, a colleague of mine suggests to me—that the Government and the Taoiseach are one, and, instead of collective responsibility, we have the doctrine of collective faith. That may very well be.

There is another point with which perhaps we could deal on the Schedule, that is the changes in Irish spelling. Certain spelling was adopted. A certain amount of work was done under the authority of a very accurate, very learned and very scholarly civil servant and apparently other spellings are being adopted now which are by no means an improvement, some of them to bring the Irish names of Ministers into harmony with the Constitution and some of them, apparently, purely for the sake of change—a part, I presume, of the Fianna Fáil mentality, that you want to enjoy the benefit of the Treaty and keep on pretending that you are not in the Free State, that you are in something entirely different and even calling yourself by a different name or when you are calling yourself by the same name spelling it after a different fashion. I find it difficult to understand that. Probably we will be able to deal with that in Committee.

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

I would like to protest against a Bill of this nature which is to a great extent increasing the expenses in this country to which we referred on the Finance Bill last week. It seems to me entirely unnecessary and unjustifiable to make all these new Departments in a very small country like this —26 counties. What our expenses will be once the North join us is almost incredible if we go on on this scale. We are forming now a Ministry of Supplies, a Ministry for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures, and a Minister without portfolio. In effect, whatever the British do we immediately copy them. I really cannot understand what room there is in this country to copy the functions of Lord Chatfield in England who is dealing with the Air Force, the Navy and the Army as well. I cannot believe that the public will understand it either. There is no war here at all. As far as I can understand, in other countries, the Government Departments are working from 9 o'clock in the morning and just take time off for their meals and come back after dinner. That is going on in belligerent countries. I cannot see why some effort in that direction should not be made here rather than saddle the taxpayers with the extra expense which is now being put on them. I cannot see at all why the Minister for Industry and Commerce should not divide himself between two Departments—there would be certain personal inconvenience, I admit—to cover the question of supplies as well.

There was no suggestion about these new Departments in last year's Estimates. How will the money be found for all these new Departments? How is the money to be found for wages, salaries, office equipment and the various expenses? I would suggest that before there are any new commitments in this country we should have some definite indication of what economies the Minister proposes to make. He told us a fortnight or three weeks ago that there was going to be a saving of £400,000. Up to this day we have no idea where the savings are going to be. In any case, in the present emergency, they are to my mind practically infinitesimal.

There is also no indication whatever as to whether the Minister is going to close down some of these non-paying industries which are an enormous drain at the present moment and in many cases do not give an adequate return even in wages for the labour employed.

So far as I can see, everything the Government are doing at the present time is based on the British scale. Soon we will have probably more officials than there are ratepayers. In regard to the loan that is being floated at the present moment: I noticed in the Dáil the other day that we have got a floating debt of £4,000,000 against our £7,000,000 loan. That is not going very far. I think in these circumstances we should be very careful before we agree willingly to have new Departments of State created at a moment's notice in the way we are doing it in this country.

Mr. Douglas

This is not a Bill which lends itself to very much debate on the Second Stage. To a considerable extent the position is there at the present moment and I suppose the Bill is to a large extent rectifying it. I do not suppose that it is practical politics to defeat it. Most of the points, so far as I can see, are ones which would be raised more properly on the Committee Stage. I would be glad if the Minister would indicate when he is replying to the debate on this stage whether it is intended that the Minister without portfolio is to be a permanent institution or whether it is only intended because of abnormal circumstances during this crisis. If the latter, I think the Bill should have a limitation in it so far as Section 4 is concerned. Other things have been done and agreed to with a definite limitation or with power to extend them. As a general principle, I think it is not a desirable thing in a country of our size to have a Minister without portfolio. In most other countries where it exists it is provided for some old experienced politicians whose advice is wanted and who is too old or for various reasons unable to take charge of a Department. I take it that this is really to deal with the present position. If so, I think there should be a limit in Section 4. I mention that now because if I were going to put an amendment to Section 4 I would like first to hear what the Minister has got to say.

In regard to Section 8, I would like very much also before putting down a possible amendment to have an indication from the Minister as to why Section 8 has got to come into this Bill at all. It seems to me to be very largely outside the scope of the Bill and to infringe on the constitutional provisions—that is if any Bill can do so, which I doubt—in relation to both Houses. At the present time, by courtesy, a Parliamentary Secretary is always allowed to attend here and I have never heard anyone on any side of the House object on principle. But the Constitution did not—and I think very properly did not—think it right to make a Constitutional provision that the right of attending and being heard should apply to Parliamentary Secretaries. When it was necessary to provide the right for Ministers in the Constitution it seems to me undesirable and improper to try and do this by a Bill. Personally I do not think it does achieve it, because it is made perfectly clear in the Constitution that each House shall make its own Standing Orders. The question of the attendance of any person who is not a member, unless specifically provided in the Constitution, is clearly a matter for the Standing Orders. We are not now dealing with any individuals. Obviously, we are dealing with a principle. When a person who is not a member of a House has a right to attend he does not automatically come under the rules of the House and the House has not the same control over him. In this case the House has control because it can withdraw the permission to attend. If this Section 8 were passed and if it were valid— which, frankly, I do not think it would be—it would remove from the House the right to deal with a case in which, say—a very unlikely event—a Parliamentary Secretary refused to obey the Chairman, whereas the Chairman would be well able to deal with any member of the House.

This may seem problematical, but I think it is well to watch the privileges of the Houses of Parliament. Personally, I think this section is utterly unnecessary. There is no reason whatever to think that the Dáil would refuse permission to attend to a member of the Seanad who happened to be a Parliamentary Secretary or that the Seanad would refuse permission to a member of the Dáil, provided he behaved himself, which is always a reasonable assumption. If that section is to stand, I think it should say, "unless there is provision in the Standing Orders to the contrary, a Parliamentary Secretary who is a member of Dáil Eireann shall have the right to attend and be heard in Seanad Eireann." It should further say that when attending he should be subject to the Standing Orders of the House which he attends. Unless there is good reason given, I intend to put down an amendment to make some such provision, but I still cannot see why that has got to be there at all.

Mr. Baxter

Perhaps the Minister in replying will tell us what does a Minister cost to-day? I am not going to say whether he is value for the money or not but it is very relevant, particularly relevant, in view of the line taken by Senator The McGillycuddy. We pay him £1,700 per annum. There have been so many changes in the remuneration from time to time that people have lost touch, and are not quite clear as to the amount. Ministers as I say are paid £1,700 a year, and in 1937 the figure given before the committee which enquired into the question of salaries and pensions, indicated that the cost of a Minister's car was at that time somewhere about £650 or £630. It would be very interesting to know what a Minister does cost to-day. Perhaps the Minister would let us know.

Mr. E. Lynch

I should like to know what exactly is meant by the statement in Section 2:—

"The regulation and control of supplies and services essential to the life of the community."

Are not these supplies to-day being regulated and controlled by private individuals? As far as I understand, the supplies and services essential to the life of the community are under private control. I would invite the Minister to say in what way the Minister to be set up under this Act will take to himself the functions now being performed by private individuals in relation to the regulation and control of supplies and services. If there should be a conflict in regard to supplies or the provision of services, do I understand that the authority and rights of private individuals, who provide these supplies or give these services to the community to-day, will stand or shall they be overridden under this Act by the authority of the Minister to be set up under the Act?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

It is true as Senator Hayes said that when the emergency came upon us there were certain things done, for instance, the establishment of the Ministry of Supplies, for which there was not definite statutory authority. To that extent this Bill is retrospective. I do not know that there is any great blame to be attached to anybody for not having foreseen that a Ministry of Supplies might be necessary when the new Constitution was brought in and accepted by the country. I do not know that the very wise people who drafted the Constitution for which Senator Hayes has such an abiding affection were any wiser than those who drafted the new Constitution. It is a new one—quite new.

Mr. M. Hayes

They were wiser to this extent, that they were able to keep in prisoners when they arrested them.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

There were other things that they were not able to do. There were other things they tried and which they found impossible. I doubt that even if the 12 Apostles, who were as wise men as ever walked this earth, drafted a Constitution there would not be some court or some lawyer who would not find his way around it. I think anybody will have to admit that. What are lawyers there for, if they cannot drive a coach and four, as I think Daniel O'Connell once remarked, through any Act of Parliament? Of course, nobody ever drove a coach and four through Senator Hayes' Constitution. The fact is that the new Constitution did not foresee the necessity for a Ministry of Supplies. Senator Hayes can make as much as he likes out of it. He is welcome to all the glory he can take out of it, and I am sure he will take as much as he can. Senator Hayes talked about errors committed. There may have been an error in this but non nostra culpa.

Mr. Baxter

This is only one added to the others.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

These are human instruments, and human nature and human intelligence are not almighty. Errare humanum est. Senator Hayes talked about a Minister who made a mess of his Department and who is now to be made Minister without portfolio. No Minister that I am aware of made a mess of his Department. Nobody can prove such a proposition, even a member of this House. All I can say is—and I can say it with greater knowledge now after seven years' experience as a member of the Government—that there are jobs in which a Minister without portfolio could be very helpful and very serviceable. I have known occasions when it would have been a God-send to the Government to have at least one man who was not tied down by administrative duties. Every Minister in the last Government and in this Government had enough work for an ordinary man to do in administering his Department. I do not care what Department is concerned, all Ministers have got a sufficient amount of work to do—some of them more than others, it is true. I think, therefore, it would be useful if there were in the Government two or three men who were not attached to any particular Department and who were not tied down by administrative duties, men who would have the job of co-ordinating the work of various Departments and acting as a thinking machine, in addition to the thinking that the ordinary members of the Government have to do every day.

The problems that arise are sometimes problems of a very urgent nature and if you had two or three men whose hours were not taken up by administrative problems, they could perform the job of thinking out solutions of the problems that arise very frequently in the administration of the country. That would be very useful. Even, if you had one man who could be turned to thinking out solutions for these problems it might be a help. He might act as chairman of a sub-committee of the Cabinet. Such a Minister would be of very great value and help in any Government.

Mr. MacDermot

Would he not be usurping the functions of the Prime Minister?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I do not think so. It does not exactly follow. The Taoiseach, as we call the Prime Minister, in this particular case happens to be very fully occupied with Departmental and administrative work.

Mr. MacDermot

Why should that be?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That is his own choice. I quite agree with Senator MacDermot that he should not try to do so much, but he does. That is his choice and in my opinion he has altogether too much to do.

Mr. Baxter

And it is impossible to do it right.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

It is a very heavy task for one man to take on himself. It means that he is in his office from 9.30 a.m. in the morning until 11 and 11.30 p.m. at night. It is a very heavy burden for any one man to carry. The burden of responsibility attached to the office of Taoiseach, or Prime Minister, is heavy enough in itself.

Mr. Hayes

Can the Minister tell us how a Minister without portfolio can do a job which the Taoiseach is not doing, because he has not time? I do not understand it.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

As I say, there are many tasks that he could, with advantage, do to help the Government as a whole, and to help individual Ministers. A member of the Government of that kind would be very useful.

Mr. Crosbie

Will the Minister name one job that he could do?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I would rather not, but I could mention a number that have actually arisen.

Mr. MacDermot

Is there not the danger that, if one roving Minister is given the special function of thinking, all the Departmental Ministers will think themselves dispensed from thought?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Whatever may happen here in the Seanad in regard to that, it is not likely to happen in the Government. We are all so built, including Senator MacDermot, that we cannot absolve ourselves from thinking, whether we like it or not.

Mr. MacDermot

Not even at the Ard-Fheis.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Least of all there. If you are a member of the Government and have to answer in the Dáil and Seanad, and to the public, you will get plenty to think about. You will be made think, or else you will not be in in your job very long. There was a necessity for a Minister for Supplies. Indeed, it might very well happen that if the Minister for Industry and Commerce had on him the responsibility of dealing with the difficulties that arise in connection with supplies, especially in a time like the present, along with his other functions, sections of his Department would be at war with each other. Difficulties would arise between sections of the Department of Industry and Commerce if the Supplies Department were under the one Minister. I think it is for the benefit of the nation as a whole that a Department of Supplies has been set up. The arrangement has worked out advantageously. Speaking as Minister for Finance, I am not enthusiastic about the cost of a Minister for this Department, whatever the cost will be. I am sorry that I am not able to tell Senator Baxter what the cost is. To be able to do so, I should require notice of the question.

Mr. Baxter

Then you are a very bad Minister for Finance if you are paying out money and do not know what it is for.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I am not a bit ashamed to confess that I do not know what the cost is, but if the Senator wants to put the question seriously I shall have it examined.

Mr. Baxter

I think the Minister should be able to give the House the information.

Mr. MacDermot

Would it not be one of the functions of the Minister without portfolio to find that out?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

No. I would give him serious work to do. What Senator Baxter asks is work for a clerk.

Mr. Baxter

Surely, when the Minister is asked a question like that in the House be ought to be able to give the information.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I could not answer a question like that right off without notice, and I do not agree that I am at fault at all in not being able to answer it without notice.

Mr. Baxter

The Minister has a very happy conscience.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I have, thanks be to God; a very tender one and a very happy one. In answer to Senator Douglas' question, it is intended that this provision for a Minister without portfolio should be a permanent one in case this Government, or any Government that should come along in the future, may find it an advantage to have a man in that position.

Mr. Douglas

But there is no limit to the number. This could mean two or three.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Yes, but I think that is unlikely. Senator Douglas suggested that an old experienced man might be useful in this position. I often think that a young, inexperienced man might be equally useful in the position.

Mr. Douglas

I did not really express an opinion on it. I simply mentioned what I noticed had usually happened in other countries. I really do not know myself.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Sometimes I think a new inexperienced man might be just as valuable as an old man in a position of the kind. Senator Lynch asked a question about the control of supplies by private individuals. Control will not be in the hands of private individuals. It will be in the hands of the Minister for Supplies. He has, in certain cases, set up machinery to assist in obtaining those supplies. As I understand it, companies, not profit-making companies, have been set up, first of all to search for supplies, and then, when found, to make purchases, probably in a hurry. The procedure associated with that kind of business, when done through a Government Department, is rather slow. First of all, the Department concerned would have to examine the matter. Then it would go to the Minister for Finance. His Department would then examine it, and, if approved of, would provide the cash. All that, as I say, is very slow. Those who buy supplies of wheat, flour, timber, manures and things of that kind have to make up their minds quickly as to price and methods of transportation. Therefore, I take it that it is for the purpose of securing supplies quickly from the various markets, and arranging for their transport, that this special machinery that I have referred to has been set up by the Minister for Supplies. It will assist him in endeavouring to secure that supplies will be made available for the people here.

Mr. E. Lynch

Is this statutory machinery or is it merely some effort on the part of the Minister to co-ordinate the activities of certain private firms in relation to certain commodities required in the country? Paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 2 speaks of

"the maintenance and provision by or on behalf of the State of such supplies as aforesaid."

I do not see where the "supplies as aforesaid" are mentioned in the Bill at all. Take the case of petrol. As far as I understand it, the importation of petrol is in the hands of private individuals. They may, for their own private reasons, refuse to import petrol. In that event, what authority has the Minister for Supplies to bring in petrol if he has not statutory authority to do so?

Mr. Douglas

Is it not true to say that all the authority exercised by the Minister for Supplies is by virtue of the powers given under the emergency legislation?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That is so. I know that the machinery I have referred to has been utilised in one or two cases to get in supplies. The Minister for Supplies has set up this special machinery to make certain that supplies, when offered on the markets, will be bought quickly and transported here so that we may be certain of having the use of them.

Mr. E. Lynch

What I want to know is, will public money be available to the Minister to do that?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

No.

Mr. E. Lynch

Therefore, it seems to me that the Minister for Supplies has no statutory authority to do what the Minister suggests.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That is so. I said it was a matter of machinery—of arranging that supplies will be got.

Mr. Douglas

Is it not a fact——

Mr. E. Lynch

I think we all realise that the Minister is quite capable of answering for himself. We were getting along quite happily until Senator Douglas intervened.

Mr. M. Hayes

Maybe he is not.

Mr. Douglas

I understood the Minister to say that no public money was being made available, but is it not a fact that, in some cases, the Government have guaranteed to pay for goods coming in until they were resold?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That is not exactly what I had in mind. I am not in a position to say whether it was at the Minister's suggestion or not that guarantees were given to pay for goods in certain cases. Certainly, private non-profit-making companies were set up by people connected with certain trades, by merchants, importers and others. Those companies were set up to purchase supplies—probably at the instigation of the Minister, though of that I am not certain. At any rate, they were set up with the Minister's full knowledge and consent, with the idea of watching the markets, seeing where supplies could be got, purchasing them and having them delivered here. I take it that the Minister will see to it, when the supplies are landed here, that suitable arrangements will be made for their purchase and distribution.

Mr. MacDermot

The Minister has said a good deal about the Department of Supplies, though I think we would be still inclined to doubt the necessity for it; but he has said nothing about the Department of Co-ordination of Defence, although Senator The McGillycuddy commented on that Department and suggested that it served no useful purpose in this country. I wonder if the Minister would be inclined to develop a little the question of the utility of that Department, if he sees any utility in it.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I am sorry I did not take a note of all the points raised by Senator The McGillycuddy: evidently that one escaped my notice. I had a note of those relating to the necessity for the Department of Supplies, to the question of economies, and to that of non-paying industries. There was need for the Department of Co-ordination of Defence; there were certain functions which were outside the ordinary work of the Minister for Defence and it was found advisable to have somebody to do them. It is for that reason that this work has been given to the former Minister for Defence, Mr. Aiken. I believe that, during his period there, he has satisfied the members of the Government that the functions performed by his office have been of national service.

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

On that point, could I ask the Minister whom he is co-ordinating? He has only got one coastal vessel, the airport at Baldonnel, and the airport at Rhynana. Is the Minister for Defence under his orders? The whole position seems to be most extraordinary.

Mr. MacDermot

I should like to make it plain that I did not put that question in a spirit of criticism of the occupier of the post; yet, in spite of what the Minister says, I cannot see the smallest likelihood of the existence of such a post doing anything but causing confusion.

Question put and agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

When will the Committe Stage be taken?

Mr. Quirke

As far as I can find out from various Senators, there would be no objection to taking the various stages now.

Mr. Douglas

What is the position of amendments?

Mr. Counihan

I think it is a bad practice to rush this Bill through, and if we are meeting to-morrow I would suggest that its further consideration be postponed until then.

Mr. Quirke

I agree with that, if we are meeting to-morrow. I am sure the Minister has no desire to rush this Bill through the House; it was in the likelihood that we would not be meeting to-morrow that I suggested taking the remaining stages to-day.

Mr. E. Lynch

If this Bill is to be taken to-morrow, I would like if the Minister could give some detailed in formation regarding the work of those companies that have been set up by the Minister for Supplies.

Cathaoirleach

That point could be raised on the section.

Mr. E. Lynch

I would be glad if the Minister would give some detailed information as to what actually has been done in this regard, as I personally attach very great importance to such information.

Mr. MacDermot

I would strongly protest against the Bill being disposed of without time being given for the introduction of amendments.

Mr. M. Hayes

If the Committee Stage is taken to-day, would the Chair not be willing to take amendments without notice?

Cathaoirleach

Yes, if that meets the convenience of Senators, but the procedure may not prove satisfactory.

Mr. Douglas

To have a Committee Stage and not take amendments would be the height of absurdity. We should take the Pigs and Bacon Bill now and take the other later.

Mr. Lynch

What is the reaction of Senators to the suggestion to take the Bill to-morrow? Will the Minister be in a position to give to the House the information which has been requested this afternoon?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I am entirely in the hands of the House.

Mr. Lynch

If the Minister says that the information can be given satisfactorily to-morrow there is no reason why the Bill should be taken now.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That is entirely a matter for the House to decide. Even if we are meeting to-morrow, I do not know that I would have all the information which might satisfy Senator Lynch.

Mr. Lynch

Surely, regarding the Department of Supplies, there should be no difficulty in supplying the information.

Cathaoirleach

Unless the Seanad is agreeable to taking the remaining stages to-day, nothing much would be gained, and it would be more satisfactory, to my mind, to defer the Committee Stage until to-morrow.

Agreed to take the remaining stages to-morrow.