Is it proposed to recommit the Bill in order to deal with these amendments? Amendment No. 8 is a Government amendment and it might be necessary to debate it at some length. The Parliamentary Secretary will recall that on the last occasion he indicated that he proposed to amend Section 45 by deleting it. For that reason, the section was not debated. I wonder whether, in those circumstances, it might be necessary to have a more prolonged debate than is permissible on Report Stage?
Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1961. - Charities Bill, 1957—Report Stage.
I do not think there is any question of recommitting the Bill.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That question does arise on amendments Nos. 8 and 9 and they may be recommitted, if the House so requests.
It is not my desire to have them recommitted, and I understood on Committee Stage that was made perfectly clear. In fact, a suggestion of recommittal was made and I certainly said that was not my intention.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It applies only to amendments Nos. 8 and 9. It does not apply to the Bill as a whole.
I am in the hands of the House, but I see no reason for recommittal.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Does Senator O'Quigley desire that these amendments be recommitted?
The Parliamentary Secretary is in the hands of the House and, of course, I am in the hands of the Government Party. I do not feel too comfortable in those hands.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 1.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 6, to delete lines 22 to 26 inclusive.
The purpose of this amendment is to get over the difficulty which this section is likely to create. On the last occasion, the Parliamentary Secretary indicated that it was probably unnecessary because he felt reliance could be placed entirely upon the etiquette and ethics of the judiciary, and that a judge would not hear a case which he handled as a Commissioner of Charitable Donations and Bequests which might have an adverse effect on his judicial capacity to hear the case, and that in the last resort, reliance could be placed on the well-established and well-recognised integrity of the judiciary. The Parliamentary Secretary bad it in mind then at any rate to delete the section altogether. He rather indicated that if such an amendment were put down, he would be favourably disposed to consider it.
This section was in the original 1867 Act. This Bill is, in the main, a consolidation of the 1867 Act, but in the light of our experience of our own judiciary since 1922, I do not think there is any necessity to have this section in the Bill. It would be far better to rely on the well-known discretion of the judiciary, and we should not appear to make any inroad on the facilities available, and the absolute impartiality accorded to citizens on trial in relation to a criminal matter.
Let me say first of all that on Committee Stage I did not at any point indicate that I was in favour of deletion of the section. I merely indicated that from what Senator O'Quigley was saying it seemed to me that the difference between us could be more appropriately argued on an amendment to delete the section. Since then I have reconsidered the matter and I am quite convinced and happy in my mind that it would not be wise to delete the section. I have argued in the other House and here— and I observe now that Senator O'Quigley is happy to accept my argument—that we can rely upon the etiquette and traditions of the judiciary in this matter. That is not to say that we should delete the section because, if we were to delete it, it could be argued that membership of the Charity Commissions might in itself be sufficient to disable a judge from hearing one of these cases. That would be so particularly if the Section were in a previous Act and were deliberately omitted from the new Act.
I think there is no question but that it is a wiser course to leave the section in the Bill exactly as it is and to rely on the well settled procedure, practice, traditions and etiquette of the judiciary to see to it that the danger that was envisaged both here and in the other House, that a judge might come to try a case which he had already prejudged as a charity commissioner, would not materialise at all.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 can be taken together, with a separate decision on each.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 8, line 39, to delete "for the benefit of" and substitute "would be advantageous to".
This is a drafting amendment. In subsections (1) and (2) we find that the trustees of a charity may make certain recommendations to the Commission and if these recommendations arising in relation to the claim are to the advantage of the charity there may be a compromise. We find in subsection (3) that when the Board have considered the recommendations, if they think fit and if the recommendations are to the advantage and benefit of the charity, the Board may "make such order in relation to the compromise as they think fit." There does not seem to be any logical reason that I can discover why something which the trustees of a charity think is for the "benefit" of the charity should, when it comes to approval by the Board, be approved of as something which the trustees of the charity recommend to the "advantage" of the charity. By some kind of secret process, when it comes for approval by the Board, it becomes something to the "advantage" of the charity. It would be far better to maintain the one set of words the whole way through and that is the purpose of amendments Nos. 2 and 4.
Since the Committee Stage, I have examined this phraseology and the use of the words "with advantage,""advantageous,""for the benefit of" and "beneficial" in Sections 22, 34, 35, 36 and 37. There is a pattern clearly discernible and the House will notice that, where it is the trustees who are involved, and we are speaking of an opinion the trustees may hold, we use the words "advantage" or "advantageous." When it is a question of the Board doing something, however, we use the words "beneficial" or "for the benefit of." That pattern is preserved throughout these sections.
I have consulted the draftsman and he is quite satisfied that the drafting is perfectly all right. That is not to say that Senator O'Quigley could not justifiably argue that his particular pattern of phraseology might not be better from the point of view of uniform phrasing. There is, however, one consideration to be taken into account in this matter. If you change the words, in the circumstances in which you are consolidating the old Acts and carrying them forward, there is an implication that you are also changing the meaning. We do not want to change the meaning. For that reason alone I think it is desirable to leave the words as they are, particularly when there is a logical pattern to be observed running through the various sections.
As to why the particular pattern of phraseology was introduced in the first instance, I cannot say, but it might be no more than an attempt by the original draftsman to avoid irksome repetition of words or phrases. It may be that, or it may be some reason that escapes me at the moment. On the whole, I think the Senator might agree that there is really no difference between us except a difference in our choice of phraseology and, from that point of view, I think it would be wiser to leave the phraseology as it is.
With regard to amendment No. 4, the Parliamentary Secretary makes the case that we are consolidating and that this is something in the old Acts we are incorporating in this measure. Let us recollect, however, that the mistakes contained in the old Acts have not been carried into this new Bill. We had that the last day when we found on Section 21, that the careful draftsman of 1867——
1844 also.
He was there in 1844, but I am referring to 1867. The trustees may comply with opinions, advice and directions; later on in the section he forgot all about the word "directions." The Parliamentary Secretary says there is no logical reason or justification for that and the word "directions" was left out completely in subsection (1) of Section 21. Equally, there is no logic for saying something is of advantage and then, through some kind of unexplained process, in the jump from subsection (2) to subsection (3) the "advantage" becomes a "benefit." That does not seem to me to be logical or clean drafting, or justifiable drafting, in a measure of this kind. The Parliamentary Secretary is one of the more youthful members of the Government and I regret that he has not got the dash and sense of adventure to take the small jump required from the notion of "benefit" to the notion of "advantage." I do not think it need stir him out of his chair at all.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In page 8, line 56, after "recovery" to add "and the same shall, as far as it is practicable so to do and where it would be advantageous to the charity, be paid out of the income of the charity."
The purpose of this amendment is more in the nature of a policy directive rather than a direction to the Board as to the manner in which the costs involved in the recovery of a gift shall be paid by the Commissioners. As far as practicable, and where it would be advantageous to the charity, the costs should be paid out of the income of the charity. It is preferable to keep the corpus of any charitable gift intact. It is well-known that solicitor's costs remain outstanding for years, despite what people may think, and in the case of charitable gifts where solicitors are employed by a body like the Board, money of that kind is as good as money saved. It is certain. It will come. I think it would be right and proper to incorporate this amendment in the Bill as a directive to the Board as to the manner in which, where practicable, costs should be provided in these cases.
It may be asked what is the use of giving a directive to the Board? I recollect that in the Transport Act of 1958 a directive on the lines of the one I suggest here was given to the Board of C.I.E.; as far as possible they were to do certain things in relation to the operation of transport services, ancillary services, pay, etc., and were to have due regard to certain requirements. That was a policy directive in the Transport Act of 1958 to the Board of Coras Iompair Éireann. Inasmuch as the directive contained in the amendment might be followed, then on that ground I certainly think it is as justifiable as the directive to which I have referred in the Transport Act of 1958.
I promised on Committee Stage that I would have another look at this. I made inquiries from the Board, though I had an idea in advance what the answer would be. I ascertained, beyond any doubt, that the normal practice of the Board is to do the best they possibly can for a charity in any given circumstances. If it were possible that costs of this nature, or any other expenses, could in fact be paid out of income, thereby preserving intact the corpus of the trust or charity, that would be done. It is unnecessary, I think, to give a directive of this sort to the Board. Indeed, it might be undesirable. I know enough about these matters from my own personal knowledge to know that when people are entrusted with a difficult and complex task, such as looking after charitable funds, the less they are tied the better, provided one has complete confidence in their capacity and in their integrity. I have no doubt we have that in the Board of the Charity Commissioners.
I was trying to visualise for myself whether the directive that Senator O'Quigley wishes to give might in some cases have a positive disadvantage. I think that in one case, indeed, it might have. You could possibly have a situation arising where the income from a charity was payable to some beneficiary or other and it might be vitally important to the beneficiary to get that income. If we directed the Commissioners in all cases to pay these costs out of income, in some cases hardship might result. I admit that that is a remote possibility but it could happen. I am just giving it as an illustration of the fact that it is undesirable to give a direction when it is not necessary. I am quite convinced that it is not necessary to give any such direction here because the practice of the Board has always been, and we can be assured it always will be, to act in the best interests of the charity. The directive therefore, is not necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
Government amendment No. 5:
In page 17, lines 40 and 41, to delete "appearing to the Board to have" and to insert "having".
As the House will recall, this point was discussed on Committee Stage. I have since had the wording of this section reconsidered. I am still of the opinion that the wording as it is is perfectly all right, but once the doubt was raised, I felt it would be better to remove it. So, I am proposing to delete the words "appearing to the Board to have" and simply to substitute the word "having".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 18, to delete lines 24 to 30 inclusive and substitute:—
"Any person claiming to have an interest may, within twenty-one days after the date of the making of an order under this section, appeal to the High Court against the making of the order and on such appeal the High Court may make such order confirming, annulling or varying the order under this section and such order as to costs as it thinks fit."
This is an amendment which was discussed at some length on Committee Stage. It is, again, a question of drafting. The suggestion in subsection (5) (a) as it stands, that a person must establish in the High Court that he has an interest before being allowed to take an appeal, which is implicit in this section, seems to be——
Would the Senator be agreeable to having amendments Nos. 6 and 7 discussed together?
Apparently, a Chathaoirligh, amendment No. 7 meets the difficulty. I do not think there is any need to proceed further. It is only a matter of wording as between the two amendments.
I think amendment No 7 meets the point raised by Senator O'Quigley in amendment No. 6 and then amendment No. 5 has been inserted to bring the earlier part of the section into line with what is done in amendment No. 7.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 7:
In page 18, line 24, to delete "appearing to the High Court to have" and to insert "having".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 might be discussed together. Amendment No. 9 is consequential on No. 8.
Government amendment No. 8:
In page 20, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following subsection:
"( ) For the avoidance of the difficulties which arise in giving effect to the intentions of donors of certain gifts for the purpose of the advancement of religion and in order not to frustrate those intentions and notwithstanding that certain gifts for the purpose aforesaid, including gifts for the celebration of Masses, whether in public or in private, are valid charitable gifts, it is hereby enacted that a valid charitable gift for the purpose of the advancement of religion shall have effect and, as respects its having effect, shall be construed in accordance with the laws, canons, ordinances and tenets of the religion concerned."
Amendment No. 8 is in substitution for Section 45. The provision in the amendment will apply irrespective of the religion concerned. The House will recall that I dealt on Second Stage with the difficulty about Foundation Masses. Gifts for these Masses are only acceptable in accordance with Canon Law. In order not to frustrate the intentions of donors, we want to provide that a valid charitable gift that is for the advancement of religion shall have effect according to the laws, canons, ordinances and tenets of that religion. In the case of Foundation Masses, as long as the Canon Law remains as at present, this will mean that the Masses will be said for a period of 50 years unless the founder has determined a shorter period. The capital and income remaining thereafter will be applied for the celebration of Manual Masses. If no stipend is provided or if the one sum is provided for Foundation Masses and other religious purposes, the stipend or the apportionment of the particular sum will be settled in accordance with Canon Law.
On the whole, I think that the House will agree that this broader provision is better than the former Section 45. I regard it myself as a particularly valuable piece of reform and one which should do a lot of good and which, I am sure, will be widely welcomed by the various religions.
Do I take it that the whole of Section 45—the four subsections—is being deleted?
Yes. We hope to achieve the same thing in a more general and better way.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary in a position to say whether the various religious denominations that might be concerned in this have indicated any viewpoint on it?
I am perfectly satisfied that they will all be very pleased about it.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 45 deleted.
Government amendment No. 9:
In page 20, to delete lines 5 and 6 and substitute the following subsection:
"( ) The foregoing subsections shall not apply in the case of a gift which takes effect before the 1st day of January, 1960."
What is involved in this amendment?
Amendment No. 9 is to bring this particular provision into line with the various other changes which we are making. It is consequential. Elsewhere the date is also the first day of January, 1960. We do not want to go back beyond that date. I think the House will readily appreciate why. Various interests could be affected. Distributions of property could have been made on the basis of the old law and it would be most undesirable to come along and upset them later.
Amendment agreed to.
I suggest that amendments Nos. 10 to 13, inclusive, could be discussed together.
They are all related amendments. I move amendment No. 10:
In page 21, lines 32 and 33, to delete "to the spirit of the gift" and substitute "the intentions of the donor."
There was a fairly lengthy discussion on this on Committee Stage and since that I have discussed this matter with people who are interested and knowledgeable in this particular branch of the law. It is quite clear from the discussion, or it should be clear, that it is the intention of the donor that should apply. That is beyond question. In the circumstances where a gift is applied other than what was intended by the donor, where you apply the gift cy-près, you then apply it in accordance with the spirit of the gift. It is as plain as that.
I must disagree with Senator O'Quigley in this. I am afraid if we were to adopt these amendments we would almost certainly nullify the effects of Section 48 and render nugatory what we are trying to achieve in it. We are dealing here with the circumstances in which a cy-près scheme can arise and the circumstances in which the original purposes of the gift shall be deemed to have failed. It is important that we have the two aspects incorporated in this provision. In the first case we say that the purposes must have failed in accordance with the directions given and the spirit of the gift. Let me explain that.
There could be a case where it would be possible to comply with the directions given, in other words, with the intentions of the donor as envisaged by Senator O'Quigley, but where strict compliance with those intentions would not achieve what the donor would intend in the changed circumstances.
For instance, take the case of Re Robinson (1923) 2 Chancery Reports where this is very clearly brought out. That case was concerned with a gift for a certain church on condition that the preacher wore a gown. At the time the condition was made, that was perfectly in order and the preacher would in the ordinary way wear a gown; but when the gift came to take effect, it would have been detrimental to the teaching for the preacher to wear a gown. In that case, it would have been possible to comply with the intentions of the donor, with the directions given, namely, that the preacher should wear a gown, but the spirit of the gift was that the religion should be advanced and the very wearing of the gown would have defeated the donor's object because it would have been detrimental to the services.
The case brings out clearly the two concepts. Firstly, you have the directions given and, secondly, you have the spirit of the gift. The gift might survive on one ground but not on the other. It is important that we should incorporate both ideas in the wording of the section, and that we have tried to do.
There is a further consideration in relation to the use of the phrase in Senator O'Quigley's amendment. It is that direct parol or external evidence cannot be introduced to prove what the intentions of a testator were. This objection does not apply to a phrase like "the spirit of the gift." I direct the attention of the House to the case In re Julian O'Brien and Others in the 1950 Irish Reports where Judge Kingsmill Moore pointed out that evidence he had excluded would have convinced him to a moral certainty as to what the testatrix intended but that the particular evidence had to be excluded from consideration. That case strongly supports my view. Apart from that case, however, the Senator's wording is open to the general objection which I have outlined, namely, that if the phrase “spirit of the gift” is not used, there are certain circumstances where the pure mechanical compliance with the terms of the gift could be achieved, and where at the same time, the spirit of the gift would be ignored.
It is a bit too early in the morning to be debating on the difference between "the intentions of the donor" and "the spirit of the gift."
The atmosphere is cooler.
Yes, cooler than the atmosphere of chancery courts. Nothing will convince me that the phrase which it is sought to amend is a correct one. I never heard or read of construing a will or gathering the intentions of a testator except through construing and giving effect to the intentions of the donor. I never heard of such a concept as gathering the spirit of the donor or the deceased testator from reading the will.
I agree you do not. That is part of my argument.
No. What is always done is to find out the intentions of the donor. Effect can be given to that or it cannot. That is what we are saying here. If effect cannot be given to the intentions of the donor cy-près can be applied. When cy-près is applied you have regard to the spirit——
Does the Senator not agree it would be desirable, in a case in which you can comply with the directions given but not with the spirit to apply the gift cy-près?
I do not think you can do that because there are two considerations: Subsection (1) says:
(a) where the original purposes, in whole or in part—(i) have been as far as may be fulfilled; or (ii) cannot be carried out, or cannot be carried out according to the directions given and——
"And."
You must have a failure under both. If you do not have a failure under both headings, cy-près does not fall be be applied. That is my understanding.
Amendment No. 10 withdrawn?
Before we proceed beyond that, may I say I do not wish to be committed to anything while I am half asleep.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment Nos. 11, 12 and 13 not moved.
Government amendment No. 14.
In page 24, line 37, to insert "morning" before "newspaper" and to insert "on every week-day" before "in Dublin."
Again the House will recall that we had a discussion on this matter in Committee. I think the proposal which I now make should meet any difficulties which were mentioned on the Committee Stage. We are now proposing that where the charity is applicable in a locality and where there is a local newspaper circulating in that locality, the advertisement will be inserted in the local newspaper. Failing that, it is to be inserted in a morning daily newspaper published in Dublin; in other words, in one of the national dailies.
I do not agree with this amendment and I have another amendment, No. 15, to a different effect where I want to have substituted some newspaper published "every weekday in the State." I am wondering what is the justification for confining this to the three Dublin newspapers when, in fact, a daily newspaper circulating in the south of Ireland, the Cork Examiner has a much higher circulation by almost one-third, than the newspaper with the lowest circulation of the three daily newspapers published each morning in Dublin.
If there is an effort to get information as widely diffused as possible, there is no justification for including a newspaper with the third lowest circulation in Dublin and excluding the Cork Examiner. Let it be said that in most small towns there are only three papers to be got in the South of Ireland. I will not mention them because it would be invidious.
The very use of the phrase "south of Ireland" gives it away.
It does not. Where, may I ask, in County Mayo would you get copies of the third newspaper to which I refer?
Do not forget that the third newspaper has a certain significance.
This section takes over, holus bolus, Section 19 of the 1867 Act and Section 16 of the 1871 Act. We discovered them to be quite unworkable. The reference could be to any of the three newspapers published in Dublin city.
I am quite prepared to give the Senator full credit for drawing our attention to this matter.
I want to see justice done. The Parliamentary Secretary might amend it in a decent way and amend it to the four daily newspapers, since we have four circulating in this country.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 15 not moved.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 25, section 55, between lines 21 and 22 to insert a new subsection as follows:
"(2) Notice of the making of regulations under subsection (1) of this section shall be published in Iris Oifigiúil and in such newspapers published within the State as the Board shall consider proper.”
Section 55 provides:
It shall be lawful for trustees or other persons having the custody of any deeds or muniments of or relating to a charity to deposit them for security in a repository which may be provided by the Board, subject to any regulations made by the Board under this Act.
I am suggesting in the amendment that if these regulations are to be made, we do not go to the length of laying them before either House of the Oireachtas but, from the point of view of safeguarding the commissioners themselves, if anybody complains afterwards about not knowing that these facilities were available they would be in a position to say: "We put them in Iris Oifigiúil and in the newspapers at the time they were made.” That is as far as a body such as the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests can be expected to go in advertising a facility. If regulations are to be made there should be some public notice of the fact. The customary way, as far as I know, is to advertise the making of the regulations in Iris Oifigiúil, saying where copies can be bought, and in the advertising columns of the daily papers. If that is done it gives effect to the section and it requires to be done, I imagine, only once or twice in every 25 or 30 years because the same regulations will all the time apply to the custody of these documents.
Section 55 of this Bill replaces Section 11 of the 1867 Act. No regulations have in fact been made under that Act. The Senator's amendment is not necessary because any regulations which would be made by the board come within the provisions of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1947, and such regulations would be a statutory instrument to which that Act, by reason of Section 2, primarily applies. Certain statutory instruments of a particular class may, because of their local or personal application or their temporary operation or for any other reason, be exempted from the operation of Section (3) (1) of the 1947 Act on the direction of the Attorney General. It is clear therefore that the situation is fully covered by the Statutory Instruments Act, 1947, as amended in 1955. Normally they would have to be printed and notified, in accordance with that Act, unless the Attorney General exempted them.
I am quite certain it was never intended that that would apply to them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question: "That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration" put and agreed to.
When is it proposed to take the next Stage?
I should very much like to get the final Stage now as I am anxious to have the Bill passed into law.
Next sitting day. There are certain things I want to say.
Why not now?
I shall not have time. There are certain misunderstandings that need to be cleared up.
May I appeal to the House on this matter? In normal circumstances, I should be quite prepared to wait until next week. Unfortunately, I shall be abroad on official business next week so that, if I do not get the Bill now, it will be delayed for a fortnight. I am particularly anxious to have it passed into law as soon as possible because it has been a long time on the stocks and the various interests concerned are anxious to have the new Act. I make this appeal to the House as I am particularly anxious to get all Stages tonight, if possible.
It is a bit unfair to ask us. I see the difficulty of the Parliamentary Secretary. This Bill has been on the stocks since 1947. It was to come into operation on 1st July, 1961. At this late hour, having sat from 5 p.m. until 1 a.m., it would be unfair to ask us to conclude on a Bill of such importance.
Senator O'Quigley wants to make another speech on the Fifth Stage on Wednesday week next.
If Senator O'Quigley wants to make a speech——
One Senator is holding up the Bill. It is well to have that stated.
He could make the speech now.
I want to put down amendments to it and to put a good deal of work into it.
Any discussion on the Fifth Stage must be concerned with what is in the Bill.
One point that worries me is that amendments have been made to the Bill in the Seanad. That means we have to go back to the Dáil with those amendments. The 1st of July is getting nearer. It would be particularly undesirable that there should be any hitch or hiatus in the passing of the Bill into law at this stage. Senator O'Quigley will be first to admit that it effects valuable and useful reforms and that the sooner we get those reforms passed into law, the better.
I desire to say something on the Fifth Stage. This certainly was not included in the agreement that has been spoken so much about this evening.
I concede that.
The agreement went as far as the Report Stage. Senator Ó Maoláin has had the whole of his pound of flesh out of the agreement and I do not want to be pressed at this stage.
Certainly, one Fine Gael Senator has kept this House in session from 11 p.m. and is now refusing to give the Final Stage, as much as he is interested in charities.
The decision as to the taking of the Stage is a matter for the House.
If the taking of the Final Stage is a matter for the House, I propose we take it now. I do not see why we should allow one Senator to impede the business in this way.
I have never seen a matter like this pressed. Personally, I should like to facilitate the Parliamentary Secretary, particularly as he has to go away on official business next week. Could he get someone to deal with it? All the matters in the Bill, with which he is so conversant, have been dealt with. The concluding Stages of the Bill are purely formal in their nature.
Why could we not have it now if they are formal?
I think Senator O'Quigley is within his rights in making that request. The rights of any Senator, whether he be a member of a Party or an Independent, have not been set aside in this House in the past. We ought not establish a precedent now. In my 14 years in this House, I do not remember this time-honoured custom being set aside.
Can the Chair have the wishes of the House on the matter?
It has been a convention here, always, that we do not press to a vote in a matter of this nature on the Final Stage. I should not like to do it now, but I should like to know if Senator O'Quigley is adamant that he will not permit the Bill to pass in the circumstances.
It is not that I want to be adamant or awkward. The plain fact is that there are certain things I want to deal with on the Final Stage of the Bill and I have to prepare them. I am not in a position to speak on the Final Stage now. If the House wishes to ride roughshod over my wishes, there is nothing I can do about it, but I would not like to see that being done.
Rather than waste any more time, I propose that the next Stage be fixed for Wednesday week.
Fifth Stage ordered for Wednesday, 14th June, 1961.
The Seanad adjournedsine die at 1 a.m.