Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 23 Mar 1961

Vol. 53 No. 15

Central Bank Bill, 1960 —Committee Stage.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Mr. O'Quigley

I move the following amendment:

In subsection (3), to insert "amending" before "scheme" wherever it occurs in the subsection.

The purpose of the amendment is to clarify beyond doubt the position with regard to the laying of schemes before each House of the Oireachtas under Section 2. It will be observed that the phrase "the scheme" is given a particular meaning in Section 1. "The scheme", according to Section 1, means the scheme made under paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of Section 33 of the Central Bank Act, 1942. Later, we find the same phrase occurring in subsection (3). We find that:

Every scheme under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and if either House, within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the scheme....

that probably refers back to Section 1—

.... is laid before it, passes a resolution annulling the scheme....

the same thing—

.... the scheme shall be annulled accordingly.

I understand it to be a very simple and elementary construction that if you define something for a particular purpose, for the purpose of this Act, then it has the meaning which you give to it in the definition section. Probably the Minister will say it is a technical and legal point. Of course all the law is technical and contains legal phrasing and if we are to make legislation at all, it is my view that we should word it properly and in such a way that there will be no doubt about it. I do not want to have the position again which we had when dealing with Coras Tráchtála, when the Minister for Industry and Commerce is on record as declaring that a section had no meaning. He agreed with me that a section had no meaning, but, as the Dáil had gone into recess for the summer, we would have to put up with it. Accordingly, I recommend this amendment to the House.

Minister for Finance (Dr. Ryan)

I am advised that this amendment is not necessary. In Section 2, the Board of the Central Bank will be limited to making amending schemes to the scheme as brought in, in the Act of 1942. If an amendment is made to the scheme, whether it is an amendment to the scheme or an amending scheme, I do not see what difficulty could arise. The amendment is not necessary and therefore I ask the Seanad to reject it.

Mr. O'Quigley

We had this kind of thing on the Electricity Supply Bill in 1959. There are three references to schemes in this Bill. First there is the Scheme; then "an amending scheme" and then we have a reference to "every scheme" in subsection (3).

I have a recollection that on the Electricity Supply Bill the Minister for Transport and Power put in an amendment to deal with a scheme and an amending scheme because they are different things. We are referring here in subsection (3) to the same thing as is referred to in subsection (1).

I agree with the Minister that the original scheme still stands and that the Board of the Central Bank is given power to amend it. The position is not clear in the Bill. The amendment is designed to clear an ambiguity and to put beyond question that only amending schemes will be required to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.

The amendment makes the position clear. Anybody reading the Bill would have to think many times before deciding what it means.

Dr. O'Donovan

The "Scheme", where it is referred to in Section 1, has a capital letter. When we go down to Section 3, we find "amending Scheme" with a capital letter also. If in Section 3 the phrase "amending Scheme" is used, I think, as a correct piece of drafting, is must also be used in Section 2. There is no question about that.

You might get out of it logically if you said: "There is no reference to any other scheme in Section 2" but Section 2 says "The Scheme may be amended from time to time". Therefore, "Scheme", with a capital "S", comes in in Section 2. With "amending Scheme", with a capital "S", in line 33 even that little piece of logic will not stand.

This amendment is necessary. There is no use in saying the Minister is advised it is not necessary. It is necessary. We are not talking about national income or something like that where one can be bowled out with verbiage, and so on. This is specific. There is no question that all the merits are on the side of the amendment. If the Minister is not prepared on a Bill like this—it is a miserable Bill, anyway—to consider the merits of the amendment, he will not get the Bill today.

Dr. Ryan

Threats of that sort will not make me agree to a ridiculous amendment. It is not necessary. Senator O'Quigley quoted the Electricity Supply Bill. It was different. The Electricity Supply Bill referred to a scheme and amending schemes. We are talking about amending schemes here. This is an amending Bill.

If Senators come with a vexatious amendment it is not logical that we should adopt it just because we are threatened that if we do not, we will not get the Bill.

Dr. O'Donovan

The threats were first issued by the Minister. He said we would sit in Holy Week to get the Bill.

Dr. Ryan

So we can.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

That is not a threat. It is a statement.

Dr. O'Donovan

We are quite within our rights. This is not a question of a threat. We are absolutely within our rights in refusing to give this Bill today.

Dr. Ryan

It is still a threat.

Dr. O'Donovan

If the Minister wants to impose the closure, let him do so and put it through in that way but we are within our rights. This amendment is perfectly in order and is perfectly correct. The Minister has not given a single reason to indicate why he is not prepared to accept it, except that he is advised it is not necessary. We have had Bills in this House on which, as Senator O'Quigley pointed out, it had to be admitted that certain things meant nothing. In a Bill yesterday, we had a word repeated.

This amendment is necessary. It is an example of the managers being always right. The managers have to be right. They have to be vindicated even in Parliament. I do not want to denigrate anybody. I know the difficulties of drafting legislation. If a necessary alteration in a Bill is pointed out in this House and the Minister says: "If you do not agree with me, I will make it worse for you", that will not go down with us. That is the gist of what he said.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Any threats of that nature came from your side of the House.

Dr. O'Donovan

It did not. It came from the Minister yesterday. He said we would meet in Holy Week.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

We shall have to, if the Senator continues with this obstruction.

Dr. O'Donovan

If we must meet on Easter Sunday to insert it, it is necessary to the Bill.

Mr. Carter

I do not think it is necessary. The Senator is introducing heat into this matter. I do not think he is being too logical. We are dealing with serious legislation. The Senator may have an objection to it. It is not a question of the pleasure of the Minister. This is a necessary Bill. It has to have the sanction of the Houses of the Oireachtas. I do not think it is quite fair to say that it is necessary to insert the word "amending" before "scheme".

The Minister pointed out that Section 2 is more or less the executive section in regard to that part of the Bill and that the scheme is already made. It follows therefore that any amendment of the scheme will be taken as an amendment. Therefore, I believe it is completely superfluous, to say the least of it, to insert "amending" before "scheme". I do not think the Senator is being logical in his argument.

Dr. O'Donovan

I am being logical; that is the trouble.

Mr. O'Quigley

It is refreshing to hear from Senator Carter a recognition or an acknowledgment of the fact that we are dealing with legislation, because most of the Bills which come into this House are treated by members on the Government side as if they were not legislation. The idea is that anyone who speaks on any Bill for any length of time is obstructing and, of course, he is being a super-obstructionist if he puts down amendments. I am glad to see that Senator Carter appreciates that we are dealing with legislation. If he bears that in mind, he might appreciate that what we are enacting will be the permanent law until it is amended again and should not, therefore, leave this House in the condition in which some legislation has left the House. We heard one Minister saying: "I agree it does not mean anything; it does not make sense."

Mr. Carter

That is not relevant in this case.

Mr. O'Quigley

I am merely saying that I take the view that this amendment is necessary. I shall press that point of view upon the House and I shall try to get the Minister to agree to accept it.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

We think the amendment is not necessary. Have we not got the right to think, too?

Mr. O'Quigley

I agree.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The Senator should not try to ram it down our necks that he is the only person with brains. We have our views, too.

Mr. O'Quigley

You have——

Tomás Ó Maoláin

And we are entitled to them.

Mr. O'Quigley

You have not views; you have only one view.

(Interruptions).

Mr. O'Quigley

This amendment becomes more necessary in view of what is contained in subsection (1) of Section 3. Apparently there is some virtue in using a capital letter for the word "Scheme." In Section 1, a capital letter is used; in subsection (1) of Section 2 a capital letter is used; in subsection (2) of Section 2, which deals with an amending scheme, ordinary letters are used, but when we come down to line 33, we find the words "amending Scheme" and a capital letter is used for "Scheme." I do not think that is what is called good draftsmanship; I do not think it is the kind of thing that should appear in a Bill; I think it is the kind of thing that causes confusion, and lawyers have to spend time trying to puzzle out what the Oireachtas meant by using a capital letter for "Scheme" in one section, a small letter in another section, and then a capital letter in different circumstances altogether. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Justice would say that was wasting time in court, and carrying on with a lot of tomfoolery.

An Cathaoirleach

Those remarks are not relevant on the amendment. They would be appropriate on the section.

Mr. O'Quigley

I want to avoid an undesirable practice. We ought to ensure that we pass no Bills with patent ambiguities. There is a patent ambiguity in this Bill as it stands. The Minister must agree there is an ambiguity, and there is one way of clearing it up beyond yea or nay, that is, by accepting the amendment to Section 2.

Dr. Ryan

I have just said that I do not agree the amendment is necessary. In my opinion, there is no ambiguity and there cannot be any misunderstanding because these are amending schemes only and not original schemes with power to amend as was the case in the E.S.B. Bill. The fact that a capital "S" is used in one place and a small "s" in another is not rectified by this amendment. The only difference is, as Senator O'Donovan said, that if you carry this amendment, everything is right and if you do not, there is obstruction. That is the difference.

Mr. Cole

I must agree with Senator Carter. I cannot see that it is necessary to repeat the word "amending", and that would be the effect of Senator O'Quigley's amendment. Sections have had to be added previously dealing with a closing scheme or an opening scheme, but I do not think it would be necessary to repeat "closing" or "opening" or "amending" in subsection (3). I must say I cannot see that the amendment is necessary.

Dr. O'Donovan

It seems to me that in Section 2 there are really three items, if I may be arithmetical for a moment. We have first of all "the Scheme" in the original Bill; then we have the amending scheme; and then we have "every scheme under this section ...""Every such amendment" visualises further amendments. If there were to be only one amending scheme, and if subsection (2) of Section 2 started by reading: "The amendment shall be effected by means of an amending scheme ..." the Minister would not have any legal merit at all, but he would have some merit in logic. He has not got any merit in logic either because of the possibility that there may be two or three amending schemes. "Every such amendment ..." clearly visualises that there might be any number of amendments. To my mind, "Every amending scheme under this section shall be laid ..." is clearly necessary in view of the whole tenor of these three sections.

The real reason, of course, the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment is that the Bill would have to go back to Dáil Éireann. That is the background reason, but it is no reason at all, so far as this House is concerned. It is completely nonexistent. I have not the slightest doubt from what I know of the Minister— he is a reasonable man—that if he did not have to take the Bill back to Dáil Éireann, he would accept the amendment straight away. Apparently he wants to get this Bill through before this House adjourns at the end of this session, and he will not, therefore, accept the amendment. It does not matter how small the point is—if it concerned a mere comma—it is not a good parliamentary or legislative reason for the Minister to insist on doing this particular job in this particular way.

An Cathaoirleach

Is the amendment withdrawn?

Mr. O'Quigley

No.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 20.

Tá

• Barry, Anthony.
• Carton, Victor.
• Davidson, Mary F.
• Donegan, Patrick.
• L'Estrange, Gerald.
• McGuire, Edward A.
• Ahern, Liam.
• Brady, Seán.
• Brennan, John J.
• Carter, Frank.
• Cole, John C.
• Colley, Harry.
• Dowdall, Jane.
• Fitzsimons, Patrick.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Hogan, Daniel.
• Murphy, Dominick F.
• O'Donovan, John.
• O'Keeffe, James J.
• O'Quigley, John B.
• O'Sullivan, John L.
• Roddy, Joseph.
• Lahiffe, Robert.
• Ó Ciosáin, Éamon.
• Ó Donnabháin, Seán.
• Ó Grádaigh, Seán.
• Ó Maoláin, Tomás.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• Ruane, Thomas.
• Ryan, Eoin.
• Walsh, Laurence J.
• Walsh, Louis.

Tellers:— Tá: Senators Carton and O'Quigley; Níl: Senators Carter and Seán Ó Donnabháin.

Amendment declared lost.

Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Dr. O'Donovan

Could I ask the Minister why subsection (2) of this section is drafted in the way it is? As far as I understand it, the Minister for Finance is out of this, so far as payment of pensions is concerned. Why is the phrase used, that the Board of Directors of the Central Bank are authorised to make a scheme "subject to the consent of the Minister for Finance," unless the Department of Finance put it in as a matter of habit? What is the relevance of that phrase in this context? The Central Bank of Ireland is the senior banking institution in this country. Surely, subject to legislation of this sort, they might be allowed to arrange for the pensioning of their Governor, without the consent of the Minister for Finance?

Dr. Ryan

First of all, as the Senator implied, it is general practice in all these State bodies, where a pension scheme is drawn up, that it shall have the approval of the Minister for Finance. I think in this case there is probably another reason, that the person concerned will have had a certain amount of service in the Civil Service. It is considered necessary, therefore, that the Minister for Finance should see that proper credit is given for that service and no more than proper credit.

Dr. O'Donovan

It is all right. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? This is too good. I can see the Minister is slightly embarrassed by his explanation. It does not make any difference except I think it is a work of supererogation to make a body like the Central Bank subject to the Minister for Finance. I am not sure that this body is correctly described by the Minister as a State body. It is a very doubtful matter. I suppose any body which has a charter might be called a State body, but subject to that, it is very doubtful if the Central Bank is a State body as such. We would be told very quickly that it is an independent body and so on, in certain other connections.

As regards his having a certain amount of service, I think it is right and proper that he should be credited with that amount of service. The Minister's addition of "and no more" was put in jocosely in this connection more than in any other way. I understand all right how this came about but I think, quite frankly, it is just ludicrous.

Mr. O'Quigley

On Section 2, I think there is a fatal defect in the Bill. The Bill authorises the Board of Directors of the Central Bank of Ireland to amend a scheme and that is all it says. If you look at Section 33 of the Central Bank Act, 1942, you will find that the commission—that is, the old Currency Commission—are authorised to make a scheme. You will find in subsection (3) of Section 33 that the bank shall carry into effect the scheme made under the standing provisions of this section. There is no power either in the Central Bank Act of 1942 or in this Bill for the bank to carry into effect the provisions of any amending scheme. I wonder if the Minister agrees with me on that?

All that is contained in this Bill is power to amend the scheme. There is no provision in the parent Act or in this Bill requiring or authorising the bank to carry into effect any amending scheme. I believe this is a fatal defect.

Dr. Ryan

I wonder would the Senator argue that that is necessary? If they amend the scheme, it will be the scheme as amended, and, therefore, covered by the original Act.

Mr. O'Quigley

The Minister may think I am not being co-operative in this matter but where people's superannuation rights are concerned, we ought to put them beyond any doubt. We ought not have the Board of Directors of the Central Bank concerning themselves as to whether, if they may make payments, they may be liable to be surcharged at some stage. If there were statutory provision for the carrying into effect of a scheme and if you amend that scheme, you should have likewise corresponding statutory provision to enable and authorise the Board of Directors to give effect to the amended scheme. I believe that is necessary. Perhaps the Minister may wish to take time to consider this matter further, but it occurs to me that that is a fatal defect. I certainly would not like to think that the superannuation rights of anybody should be prejudiced by the uncertainty which, I believe, exists.

Dr. Ryan

I do not want the Senator to take it that I was accusing him in this instance of raising an unnecessary point. If this scheme is amended, it is the scheme, as amended and, therefore, it is covered by the original Act.

Mr. O'Quigley

There is a great doubt about it.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O'Quigley

I think my remarks on this are more addressed to the Chair than to the Minister. Is there power at this stage to provide that the word "Scheme" appearing in line 33 should be written with a small "s"? It seems to me desirable to avoid any confusion. It is desirable to authorise the House to make the change. It must be borne in mind that the capital "S" in the word "scheme" has a different meaning from a lower case "s". I think the Clerk ought to be specifically authorised to make the change.

An Cathaoirleach

If it is in the nature of a printer's error, then it is usual for a correction to be made; otherwise no. It is a matter for the Minister.

Mr. O'Quigley

I thought it should be addressed to yourself.

An Cathaoirleach

If it is a printer's error and the Minister thinks so, then we will make the alteration here without amendment.

Dr. Ryan

I should not like to pronounce on that at all. The draftsman may have had a reason for putting in a capital "S" or it may be an error, but I do not know.

Dr. O'Donovan

It seems to me that this is a slight discrepancy between Section 2 and Section 3 which I noticed originally. I am inclined to think that "amending Scheme" in line 33 should have a small "s". I agree with Senator O'Quigley.

I should like to ask the Minister another question in relation to this matter. There is a great deal of provision in the Central Bank Act for representatives of the commercial banks on the Board of Directors— indeed, in my opinion, undue provision for them, in the sense that I regard it as quite unnecessary and, indeed, deleterious sort of legislation. Why is there not similar provision in case somebody, who was a manager of a commercial bank, should by any chance become the Governor of the Central Bank of Ireland?

I hope I am not imagining things, but even though the commercial banks have had peculiar methods of recruiting their staffs, which rather limits the possibility I am envisaging, I cannot understand why there should not be provision in this of a similar kind for any other person who might become Governor of the Central Bank, unless we are to regard it as a prerogative of the Civil Service to supply the Governor every time the position becomes vacant. I cannot see why this provision is put in this way.

It adds to the point I made yesterday that this is not general legislation, which the Minister tried to answer by saying that it has been going on for a long time now and that therefore it is general. Of course it is specific restrictive legislation, and that is obvious from the nature of the Long Title and from this section. It may be that the Minister would answer that that bridge can be crossed when we come to it, but we have not seen an amending Central Bank Act since the 1942 Act. Unless we are to regard it as a kind of perquisite of the Civil Service that all Governors of the Central Bank are to be civil servants, I do not know why this section should be drafted in that way, and why the Central Bank should not be given full power to give any pension they like.

This ties in with the view I expressed yesterday, that if the Central Bank want to pay their Governor £24,000 a year, it is all right with me. That ties in with the views I have expressed on other matters in this House. It would have been far better, if there was any difficulty about a particular Governor. It might happen that the Central Bank in this country would not have to pay anybody £24,000 a year, but I see no reason why he should not be paid £10,000 a year for the five year period of his office. I have serious objection to this kind of legislation. If this kind of legislation is to be carried out, it ought to be put in a general way to govern all kinds of categories of people in all categories of State bodies and bodies that might be doubtfully regarded as State bodies, such as the Central Bank.

Dr. Ryan

It would be very difficult to make it general as suggested by the Senator. You could propose, say, that the Governor of the Bank of Ireland or the chairman of a joint stock bank coming in should be covered, but that would still be restricted because it might be that a university professor would be coming in and we would not have provided for him, so the degree of restriction depends on where you stop. The fact is that so far between the Currency Commission and the Central Bank, they have had three Governors and they were three civil servants. We are dealing therefore with the case of a civil servant becoming a Governor of the Central Bank. If the other thing should occur—and perhaps it will, for I do not see any reason why it should always be a civil servant—then I presume that legislation would be brought in to deal with it.

I should like to tell the Senator that as far as salary is concerned, the Central Bank is free to pay whatever it likes. I have no doubt about that.

Dr. O'Donovan

With respect to the last opinion of the Minister, the Board of the Central Bank are not exactly free, because they are restricted in the original Act by a reference to what is paid by commercial banks in the case of similar positions.

Dr. Ryan

That applies to the Board, but I am not sure about the Governor.

Dr. O'Donovan

My recollection is that it applies to the Governor also. At the same time, that would give plenty of room because this is the main banking institution of the country. I am not making any point that the Minister is not correct. On the whole, I think he is correct, that he has no control over them, but they are restricted under the Act by the reference to what is paid in similar positions by other banks. It is not a very specific restriction, and it is a pity that it has not been approached in that way. I can appreciate that a Governor of the Central Bank might not like to come to his colleagues on the Board and say to them: "In order to make my position reasonable, you ought to pay me, for the five or seven years I am in office, £10,000 a year." This is a way around that kind of situation, but, all the same, it would be a better way to deal with this matter than this Bill.

Dr. Ryan

Section 19 of the Central Bank Act, 1942, says:

The Governor shall be appointed by the President on the advice of the Government and shall receive such remuneration and allowances and be subject to such conditions of service as the Board shall from time to time determine.

Mr. O'Quigley

There is a further reference in the Act.

Dr. Ryan

I do not think so. As far as the Board are concerned, I know they must have regard to similar positions.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O'Quigley

It may seem odd to raise Section 4, but it strikes me on this section that it should be provided that this Bill should be read with the 1942 Act. There is no such provision in the section and consequently it makes all the more telling the point I made earlier, that there is no provision made in this Bill, and certainly not in the Act, and no nexus between the two of them, for the giving of authority to the Central Bank to carry into effect the provisions of any amending scheme they may make.

Dr. Ryan

I am not exactly sure what the Senator is getting at, but it says here that they may be cited together. We have to go back to the Currency Act when the original scheme which the 1942 Act was authorised to carry out was prepared, and this Bill goes further again.

Mr. O'Quigley

The Minister misconstrues the position. There was a Currency Commission in the 1942 Act that introduced the scheme for future Central Bank directors, and if they did not introduce such a scheme before their appointments terminated, the Minister was empowered to introduce such a scheme, but the scheme was made under the 1942 Act for the benefit of the Central Bank directors and there is no doubt in my mind that there is no nexus between this Bill and the 1942 Act which gives any authority to the Board of Directors of the present Central Bank to carry into operation and effect any amending scheme. I would urge the Minister to review this matter in the interests of the Board of Directors or the persons intended to benefit under this legislation, and the Bill should not go through today.

Question put and agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without recommendation.

An Cathaoirleach

Next Stage?

Mr. O'Quigley

On Report Stage, I am sure the Minister would be glad of the opportunity of having a second look at the provisions in relation to Section 3 to give authority, and at Section 4 to provide that this Bill shall be read as one with the 1942 Act, for the simple reason that the definitions in the 1942 Act do not apply to this Bill before us because it is not provided in this Bill that it shall be read as one with the 1942 Act. I think that other members of the House who follow the same occupation as I do will agree with me on that. We believe this Bill in its present form will not benefit the people it is intended to benefit. I would urge that on the Minister.

Dr. O'Donovan

I do not think it makes much difference whether the Bill passes today or not. The Minister may have thought that we were being obstructive about this Bill, but in fact we were being logical in so far as what has happened previously in this House affects this Bill. I think it might be desirable that the Minister should have another look at the Bill. It will not be the first time that a Minister had a second look at a Bill, by any means.

Mr. O'Quigley

With advantage.

An Cathaoirleach

The taking of the next Stage is a matter for the House. Perhaps the Minister would care to express a view?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

We would like the remaining Stages now.

Mr. O'Quigley

I have the gravest doubts about the wisdom of that course.

An Cathaoirleach

It is a matter for the House.

Mr. O'Quigley

I do not know how it is to be resolved, but I hope we do not have to divide upon it.

An Cathaoirleach

What is the view of the House with regard to the next Stage? Shall it be taken now?

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

Yes, now.

Mr. O'Quigley

On the next sitting day.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

On the next sitting day? Why not now?

Mr. O'Quigley

Because I think the Minister should have another look at it. I believe the Minister will find I am right.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Are we to take it that the Fine Gael Opposition object to giving the remaining Stages now?

Mr. O'Quigley

That is so, for the reasons stated.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

You want it fixed for the next sitting day? You have that on the record?

Mr. O'Quigley

Yes.

Dr. O'Donovan

We shall give the Minister all Stages on the next sitting day. There is no question about that. In fact, only that these matters have arisen——

Tomás Ó Maoláin

It is quite obvious that this whole discussion was deliberately intended to keep the debate going for the purposes of obstruction. That is quite clear and anybody who reads Senator O'Quigley's remarks on Section 4 will get no idea other than that. Now that we know where we stand, it is quite satisfactory.

Mr. O'Quigley

In fairness to myself, if the Minister brings this back to his advisers and if they read what I have said on Section 4, I am certain the Minister will bring in an amendment to provide that this Bill shall be read as one with the Central Bank Act, 1942. I have no doubt about that. That is not obstruction.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

May I suggest, a Chathaoirleach, that we have now agreed on the next sitting day?

An Cathaoirleach

The Report and Final Stages to be taken on next sitting day.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The remaining Stages.

Dr. O'Donovan

The remaining Stages, yes.

Report Stage ordered for next sitting day.