MINISTERS AND SECRETARIES BILL, 1923. - DÁIL IN COMMITTEE.

I beg to move Amendment No. 1. In the Title, line 6, page 2, to insert immediately before the word "the" the words "and defining," and in line 8 to delete the word "for" and to substitute in lieu thereof the following words—"declaring the functions and powers of the Attorney-General and."

It was intended in the Committee Stage to move an amendment of this nature, but it was overlooked, and that is why it becomes necessary now.

Amendment put and agreed to.
SECTION I.

I beg to move Amendment No. 2. In Section 1 (ii), page 3, line 37, after the word "law" to insert the words "and the supervision and control of all purchases made for or on behalf of and all supplies of commodities and goods held by any Department of State and the disposal thereof."

It was thought that the words in the Section were not sufficiently clear, and that is the reason for the introduction of this amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I beg to move Amendment No. 3. In Section 1 (iii), line 54, to delete the words "um Dlí agus Cheart" and to insert in lieu thereof the words "Dlí agus Cirt."

This is the first of a series of amendments providing for the titles in Irish of the various Departments of State. They have been carefully considered, and they are now proposed in this definite form. For what is now known as the Ministry of Home Affairs it is proposed to have the Irish title "Dlí agus Cirt."

Amendment put and agreed to.

I beg to move Amendment No. 4:

In Section 1 (iv), lines 3 and 4, page 4, to delete the words "um Rialtas Aitiúil" and insert in lieu thereof the words "Rialtais Aitiúla agus Sláinte Phuiblí."

This amendment is of the same kind as the last one. It refers to the Department of Local Government and Public Health, and it is proposed that the name for the future shall be "Rialtais Aitiúla agus Sláinte Phuiblí."

Amendment put and agreed to.

I beg to move Amendment No. 5:

In Section 1 (vi), page 4, line 26, to insert before the word "forestry" the words "promotion of agriculture by means of educational grants, agricultural statistics."

This is an amendment to give effect to an undertaking of mine in answer, I think, to Deputy Cooper. It provides that the Department of Agriculture may promote agriculture by means of educational grants, and it also provides that that Department may deal with agricultural statistics. The Minister for Agriculture has mentioned to me that his Department now sends out instructors to give specialised instruction in agricultural matters, and he has suggested to me to insert in the amendment, after the word "grants,""and also by means of lectures in special subjects." If the Dáil is agreeable, I would ask to amend the amendment by the insertion of these words. The amendment would then read: "Promotion of agriculture by means of educational grants and of lectures on special subjects, agricultural statistics."

On this question of agricultural statistics, I do not know what this involves. I think there was a decision recently to transfer the production and compilation of statistics from the Ministry of Agriculture to the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, and I do not know whether that decision is being revoked.

Does it mean that both Ministries are to be engaged in the production and compilation of statistics?

It is not intended to interfere with the decision to have statistics generally, industrial and commercial, under the Department of Industry and Commerce, but the Minister for Agriculture has mentioned to me his doubts as to whether his Department would still be in a position to prepare their specialised statistics which, to a large extent, would be handed over to Industry and Commerce and worked up from the industrial and commercial point of view. The Department of Agriculture want to be in a position to have their agricultural staffs engaged, as they might be required, to prepare specialised statistics regarding agriculture and land.

I think I understand the necessity for an agricultural Department to have authority to prepare statistics in connection with agriculture and lands, but I am wondering whether the intention is to have two Statistical Departments, one dealing with Industry and Commerce exclusively, and the other dealing with Agriculture and Lands exclusively. I was under the impression that the judgement of the Ministry was that there should be one authority compiling and publishing all statistics. I do not want to make any comments antagonistic to this amendment, but I would like to have an understanding with regard to what is in the mind of the Ministry as to this.

I would point out that Sub-Section (7) gives the Ministry of Industry and Commerce specified powers in connection with industrial and commercial statistics. I take it that you would call the price of bacon, pigs, cattle or butter commercial statistics, and that, on the other hand, you would not call the amount of land under tillage commercial statistics. That would come under the heading of agricultural statistics, and if this amendment is not carried I take it the result would be to transfer agricultural statistics to the President, because any powers not specified in this Bill go to the President's Department. I think, with all deference to Deputy Johnson, that such a course as that would be very undesirable. I certainly do not think that the President's Department is one that should be concerned with the amount of land growing flax, or anything of that kind, in the country at any particular date.

My real concern in this matter is to get statistics, and so long as someone is given power to collect them I shall be fairly well satisfied. I think, by the way, that if the Department of Industry and Commerce desires to publish agricultural statistics, that they might do so under the term "Industrial," because agriculture is an industry, according to our farmer friends.

I am really anxious that one or other Department should realise its responsibility regarding the production of statistics, and that we should be supplied with at least as satisfactory a return as we have been in the habit of getting.

The Minister for Agriculture tells me that Industry and Commerce can make no progress unless his Department supplies specialised figures and statistics that Industry and Commerce require to work into the general mass.

If the Attorney-General is suggesting that the effect of the amendment will be to secure that the figures which have hitherto been compiled under his Department will continue to be so compiled it will be quite satisfactory.

That is the intention.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

I move, in Section 1 (vi.), line 32, to delete the words "um Thalmhuíocht" and to insert in lieu thereof the words "Tailte agus Talmhuíochta."

I am not greatly concerned with the Attorney-General's attempt to correct the President's Irish, but I would like an explanation of this, because there is one word, "Tailte," which raises a certain amount of apprehension in my mind. Is it intended to transfer any responsibility for the Tailteann Games to the Minister for Agriculture? Because, if so, I am sure they will be very different games from those controlled by the Postmaster-General.

I am sure that Deputy O'Connell will support me in reassuring Deputy Cooper that there is no connection between the solemn pastime of land culture and the Tailteann Games.

Tailte is merely the plural form of the word.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move, in Section 1 (vii.), page 4, line 40, to insert after the words "with the same" the words "including the promotion of trade and commerce by means of educational grants." This gives effect to an undertaking of mine to Deputy Cooper and, I think, Deputy Thrift, to include under the powers of the Department of Industry and Commerce power to include the promotion of trade and commerce by means of educational grants.

Will the Attorney-General give us some guidance as to what is meant by this? I want to try to guard against too much risk of overlapping. I can understand educational grants being grants, for instance, for "Daily Mirror" Exhibitions, and being called "educational," but under the term "educational grants" we might have overlapping and the deprivation of supervision of the Minister for Education. I do not think it is desirable that we should recede from the attitude that has generally been approved of unifying the control of education in all its aspects, and if this term "educational grants" would allow a Minister for Industry and Commerce to promote educational schemes, apart from the Ministry of Education, I think that is a defect. I know that Deputy Cooper, and I think Deputy Thrift, rather urged that the commerce side should be specially dealt with, and that it should not be under the control of the Minister for Education. I do not know whether the Ministry has conceded that position. They did indicate, at earlier stages, that the intention was that education, as a whole, should be under one direction, one general supervision, and I would like to know at this stage what is the position taken by the Government on that matter.

There is no intention to disturb the unification, and the hoped-for co-ordination of education. The intention of this—and it is analogous to the amendment in the case of agriculture—is that it should be in the power of the Department if it saw that, say, a certain class of trade school or a certain class of trade or craft should be encouraged, to make grants, strictly limited, to promoting training and education in the particular trade school. We certainly had certain trade schools in mind in relation to this, or it may be in crafts, or it may be in commerce. But this particular Ministry would be in the position of approving of a grant and would be able to say to Education: "We want that applied for the promotion of a particular line of trade, craft, handicraft or commercial education."

Mr. O'CONNELL

Would the Attorney-General say with whom the supervision would rest? Would the Education Department come into it at all, and would they have supervision?

In regard to that point, I desire to ask a question which I think is a matter of moment, and is also a question of drafting. I assume, and I take it from the Attorney-General's answer to Deputy O'Connell, that when the grant has been made on the suggestion of the Minister for Industry and Commerce that grant will actually be administered by the Minister for Education. But if that grant is going to be administered by the Minister for Education and if he is going to take the actual supervision of it, then surely in such a Bill as this the allocation of that particular matter might more particularly lie with the Department of Education than with the Department of Industry and Commerce, who merely suggest the money. The Minister for Finance, with his customary reluctance, hands it over, but the actual administration lies with the Minister for Education.

In answer to Deputy O'Connell, if the Deputy refers to No. 5 he will see that the Department of Education controls all education including vocational and technical training, but the fact that a particular class of teaching or training was provided might depend on the grant having been made for that particular purpose.

Mr. O'CONNELL

Then it would be open to the Ministry of Industry and Commerce to attach certain conditions to the grant?

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

"In Section 1 (vii), page 4, lines 44 and 45, to delete the words "um Thiúscal agus Thráchtáil" and insert in lieu thereof the words "Tionnscail agus Tráchtála."

The amendment provides the Irish title under which my friend, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, shall be known in future.

I see the present Minister is described as the Hon. Joseph McGrath in some official publications. I wonder could we have a translation of that?

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

"In Section 1 (viii), page 4, line 57, to delete the words "um Iasgach" and to insert in lieu thereof the word "Iascaigh."

This is a similar amendment fixing the title of the Minister for Fisheries.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

"In Section 1 (ix), page 4 line 67, to delete the words "an Phuist" and insert in lieu thereof the words "Puist agus Telegrafa."

This provides the title for the future of the Minister now known as the Postmaster-General.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

In Section 1 (x), page 5, line 8, to delete the words "um Chosaint" and to insert in lieu thereof the word "Cosanta."

This fixes the title for the Minister for Defence.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

In Section 1 (xi), page 5, line 20, to delete the words "um Ghnóthaí" and insert in lieu thereof the word "Gnóthaí."

This fixes the title of the Minister for External Affairs.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

"In page 5, Section 2 (1), line 31, to delete the words "and hold" and to insert in lieu thereof the words "hold and dispose of."

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move—

"In Section 2 (2), page 5, line 39, to add after the word "determine" the words "but every appointment made under this sub-section shall be subject to the provisions of the Civil Service Regulation Act, 1923 (No 35 of 1923) or of any Act for the time being in force replacing or amending that Act."

This is an amendment which I agreed at the suggestion of Deputy Heffernan to bring forward to make certain that the powers of appointment of Ministers who would be limited by the Civil Service Regulation Act, 1923.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

In Section 3 (1), page 5, to delete lines 57 and 58.

This is an amendment to give effect to a suggestion of Deputy Johnson that the last two lines of Sub-section (1), Section 3, should be omitted.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

In Section 6, page 6, line 12, to delete the expression "Príomh-Aithne" and to insert in lieu thereof the words "an Príomh-Atúrnae."

This amendment fixes the Irish title of the holder of the office of Attorney-General.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

In Section 6 (2), page 6, line 36, to delete the word "appointed" and insert in lieu thereof the word "nominated."

This is a mere drafting amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

In Section 7 (6), page 7, line 7, to insert after the word "any" the word "one."

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

In Section 7 (7), page 7, line 11, to insert after the word "powers" the word "responsibilities" and in line 14 to insert after the word "delegate" the words "or assign."

This is to give effect to an undertaking.

As amended, the paragraph would read: "Each of the Parliamentary Secretaries appointed under this Section shall by his appointment be assigned to act as Parliamentary Secretary to the Executive Council, or to a Minister, and shall have such powers and responsibilities and perform such duties as the Executive Council for such Minister, with the consent of the Executive Council, as the case may be, from time to time delegate or assign to him." The acceptance of this amendment seems to me to throw on the Executive Council, or the Minister, the power to delegate his responsibilities, and that, I think, is weakening the responsibilities of the Minister. If we, by legislation, appoint, or allow to be appointed, Parliamentary Secretaries, and we allow the Minister to whom that Parliamentary Secretary is assigned, or to whom powers may be delegated, also to take upon himself the responsibilities of the office, then that is weakening the responsibilities of the Minister. A Parliamentary Secretary may be a Secretary, but he should not be responsible to the Dáil, and it should not lessen the responsibilities of the Minister. I think the insertion of this word "responsibilities" tends to remove responsibilities from the Minister to the Secretary, and will give statutory effect to that removal. I think we should have some more justification for this change than we have had, and I would ask the Attorney-General to meet that point.

I think there is a great deal in what Deputy Johnson has said, that there is a danger, but as far as I can recollect, it was suggested in the debate in Committee that something of this kind should be inserted in the section. I would withdraw the amendment in so far as it suggests the insertion of the words "and responsibilities."

The second part remains, and the Amendment, as amended, reads: "In Section 7, line 14, to insert after the word `delegate' the words `or assign.' "

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.

I beg to propose the following amendment:—

"To add to Section 8 the following sub-section:—

Provided that every Order made by such Council of Defence shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas within four days after the next sitting of that House, and if either House shall within fifteen days pass a resolution annulling such Order, such Order shall be annulled, but such annulment shall not prejudice or invalidate any matter or thing previously done under such Order."

The wording of the amendment is the ordinary manner of wording adopted in amendments of this kind, and has been adopted in a large number of Bills. I urge that this is the place where it is especially necessary. When speaking to an amendment to this Section when the Bill was in Committee, it was argued against me by Deputy Milroy, I think, that the effect of deleting the entire section would mean that the Army would cease to function. That, of course, was an absurd argument, and I refer to it now in order to mention that I stated that it was entirely within the power of the Minister for Defence to create any such Council of Defence at any moment he desired, and that it required no statutory power to enable him to do so. In reply to that, an argument was put forward from the Ministerial side that statutory powers were required in order that a Council of Defence should be constituted, and that the purpose of having the Section in the Bill was to allow such Council of Defence to be created, there being a need for such a Council. I had not at that time in my hand what I have had since, that is, the Defence Order No. 38, which is dated the 1st of December. The date is important, because it is prior to the consideration of Section 8 by the Dáil at all. It is dated before the consideration of this Section, by which statutory powers were sought for the creation of this Council of Defence. Yet this Order, No. 38, signed by the Minister for Defence, creates and constitutes the Council of Defence, saying who shall form it, allocating to each of the persons the functions he has to serve, and saying further that this action has been taken pursuant, not to this piece of legislation, but to an Order of the Executive Council. This Order states that the command of the National Forces is vested in the Executive Council, and exercised through the Minister for Defence, and it then quotes from the provisions of the Defence Forces Temporary Provisions Act.

Paragraph 2 states:—

"A Council of Defence has been created for the purpose of assisting the Minister for Defence in accordance with the following paragraph 2 of Executive Council Order No. 11 of 1923. There shall be and there is hereby constituted a Council of Defence to assist the Minister for Defence in the administration of the business of Defence, but without derogating from the responsibility of the Minister for Defence to the Executive Council and to the Oireachtas respectively, for all the administration of the Department of Defence and for the exercise and performance of all the powers, duties, and functions connected therewith."

Now, we have not had an opportunity of having that before the Dáil, and I frankly confess that I learned for the first time there were such things as Executive Orders in this form. This is numbered No. 11 of 1923. I do not know exactly how late or early in the year No. 11 appeared, but I would assume that it argued a very early date in last year, and it certainly was prior to the introduction of this Bill into the Dáil. It empowers the Minister for Defence to do a certain thing and he proceeds to do it under another Order, which is Defence Order No. 38. It treats the matter, not as though there were to be some Council of Defence in the future, but as if the matter had already been dealt with, irrespective of sanction being required. We get, in this case, two procedures. It is proved by this Order No. 38 that legislative sanction certainly was not required, because here is in existence before, a legislative instrument. The Minister proceeded to issue his Order. There is no other Council of Defence in this Bill, according to this Order, but it is clear that Orders like this are to be issued, dispensing with legislative sanction. A clear case is set up for all Orders hereafter to be issued to be laid before the legislature, in order that it may be privy to all that the Council of Defence does in its name. The Minister for Defence is Chairman of the Council of Defence, and is responsible to the Dáil. Everything that he does will have to be answered for by him here, he having sat as Chairman of the Council. It is necessary that the Dáil should know what Orders are being issued, and if a point were needed to press the case to a conclusion, it is furnished by the very Order of the Minister for Defence in which he cites an Order of the Executive Council, both of which were not within the knowledge of the Dáil and were not placed before it, when considering this Section of the Bill, though they were material to it.

If I may refer first to this mare's nest, it was expressly stated here, when Section 8 was under discussion, both by the Minister for Defence and myself, that a Council of Defence had, as an administrative expedient, been already created. Up to that point it consisted only of military people, but it was certainly expressly stated that as a matter of military administration such Council had come into existence. Therefore the enlightenment that suddenly came to the Deputy last evening in discovering an Order issued last December must be due to his absence from the Dáil during the debate in Committee. What the purpose of the amendment could be one is very much puzzled to learn, because the Deputy quotes an Order made by the Minister as showing the necessity for having Orders made by the Army Council dealt with in the way he proposes. Under the Section, the Army Council has no authority to make Orders. Under the Temporary Defence Forces Act all Orders must be made by the Minister, and the Act provides for laying all such Orders on the Table of the Dáil.

Presumably if other powers are given to the Ministry or the Army Council a provision of that kind would be inserted wherever the power of making the Order is contained. It may arise on the Permanent Defence Forces Act, to be introduced at a later date. Under the Section as it stands now, there is nothing whatever about Orders being made by the Council which is an administrative body to assist the Minister.

In answer to the Attorney-General—I am speaking now without the text before me—I want to say that the Minister for Defence, when I pressed him to state whether it was not within his powers to establish a Council of Defence and whether in fact a Council of Defence could not be created by him straight away, said that the Army Council existed, and if the inference of those words is that a Council of Defence did not exist, as distinct from an Army Council to be constituted here by the provisions of the Act and as already stated by him, then I fail to understand the meaning of the reference.

That Order does not provide for civilian membership of an Army Council.

Deputy Figgis finds it difficult to understand certain matters, and he places us in the position of not being able to understand himself. This Bill was ordered to be drafted on 10th October. That, surely, if my idea of the order of the months is correct, was anterior to the 1st December. If it were after that date the Deputy will correct me, and we have not yet arrived at the next October. The Deputy had in his hands on the 10th October this extraordinary conspiracy of setting up a Council of Defence, and he had information before him that it had not diminished in any way the authority of the Minister for Defence. He had also the facts before him that were disclosed to the Dáil. The Deputy's recollection is at fault, and in future he had better acquaint himself with those matters and not take up the time of the Dáil by telling us what came into his possession a month or two after it came into the possession of anybody else. The Deputy objects to the Council of Defence. It was never our intention to make it a legislative body, and its powers and duties are clearly set out here. It was never intended that it should pass Acts of Parliament, and if the Deputy so intended we cannot subscribe to his proposals.

Amendment put and declared lost.

at this stage resumed the chair.

SECTION 9.

I beg to move:—

In Section 9 (4), page 9, line 62, to add at the end of the sub-section the words "but this section shall not apply to or affect any university established by Royal Charter or to any body corporate similarly established for the regulation of the admission, qualification, and conduct of the members of any profession or business notwithstanding that such university or body is in other respects a statutory body."

This amendment is for the purpose of fulfilling a promise I gave to the University Deputies here in the Committee Stage. They were fearful that the provisions of Section 9 as to the power of statutory bodies might, by any stretch of the imagination, be read to apply to the charters of the Universities, and I undertook to make that clear beyond all possibility of doubt.

I think that is a satisfactory carrying out of the Attorney-General's promise to University members, and I am satisfied with it.

I would like to ask the Attorney-General if he would say what would be the position of a statutory body like the General Nursing Council? I do not think it is covered by this amendment, and it should not be subject to the direction and control of the Minister. The powers of the Minister under Sub-section (3) are very great to interfere with any such body as a General Nursing Council. Would the General Nursing Council come under this provision?

I do not know at the moment whether the General Nursing Council is constituted by Charter or Statute?

Statute, I think.

I would not like to make a definite answer, which, on reconsideration, I might regret, but in so far as it takes over any properly Government functions it would possibly fall within the purview of this section. There would be an Order made and laid on the Table of the House affecting it. If it be merely a professional organisation dealing with the profession of nursing, then it would not be within this at all. If the Deputy looks at the bodies to which the section applies he will find that they are statutory bodies and bodies exercising the function of Government or discharging any public duty in relation to public administration. I am not certain whether the General Nursing Council is a professional organisation. If so, it is outside this.

I think it is a professional organisation to which has been granted certain authority which has not yet been given full effect to. It has been recognised, and I think that it is statutory.

I take it the Deputy refers to matters of registration and professional qualification.

Yes, and control.

As at present advised, I believe those are outside this section. I have not actually studied the provisions.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move to "delete in page 9 section 9 (5)." This amendment is to excise a subsection which is redundant by reason of the Interpretation Act.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I beg to move:—

To insert immediately before Section 10, page 10, a new section as follows:—

"10.—Wherever the expenses or any part of the expenses of any public service assigned by or under this Act to any Department of State are now payable out of any specific departmental or other public funds other than the central fund or moneys provided by the Oireachtas, or any specific departmental or other public funds other than as aforesaid are now applicable to or towards the discharge of the expenses or any part of the expenses of any such public service, it shall be lawful for the Executive Council by Order to do all or any of the following things:—

(a) to provide for the continued discharge of any such expenses as aforesaid or any part thereof out of the funds out of which the same are now payable or which are now applicable to or towards the discharge thereof,

(b) to make all such apportionments of public funds as may be rendered necessary by reason of the allotment by this Act of different portions of any such public service to different Departments of State,

(c) to provide for the winding-up and the payment into or disposal for the benefit of the Exchequer, in such manner as the Minister for Finance may appoint, of the whole or any part of the specific departmental or other public funds out of which such expenses or any part thereof have heretofore been payable or which have heretofore been applicable in or towards the discharge of such expenses or any part thereof as aforesaid, and to declare that such expenses shall hereafter be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas."

The object of this proposed new Section is this:—There are in many departments special funds out of which payment for public services is made. During the British regime there were various reasons why it was desirable, or thought desirable by them or others, to have these peculiar methods of providing funds for the discharge of certain services. Take for instance the way in which the Dog Tax was pooled for the purpose of the remuneration of Petty Sessions Clerks. The object of this new Section is to get rid of these special funds wherever possible which, to a certain extent, cloak charges and prevent the proper understanding of expenditure, and to transfer the expenditure so that it will appear in the Estimates and will be paid out of the Central Fund like any other item of public administration. In that way all this expenditure which now does not properly come into view on the Estimates on this class of expenditure will appear as ordinary items of public expenditure on the Estimates.

Mr. O'CONNELL

May I ask whether the Teachers' Pensions Fund will come under this Section?

As I understand, the Teacher's Pension Fund is built up on contributions by the teachers. I do not think that could be dealt with.

Mr. O'CONNELL

Partly built up.

Built up partly. I do not think that would be touched under this. If the Deputy has any proposals in that direction, I am sure they will receive the consideration of the Minister for Finance.

Mr. O'CONNELL

I have several proposals, but I do not propose to make them now. I rather thought when the Attorney-General was pointing to the necessity of all payments coming under review here that he was referring to that particular fund among others. There is a small contribution made to the Teachers' Pensions Fund which appears on the Estimates each year, but the Fund itself has been largely built up in contributions from the teachers, as well as from a certain capital sum which was set aside so far back as 1879. I was wondering if the Government were going to take it under this Regulation.

I do not think that would be possible, because that could hardly be described as a Departmental or Public Fund. It is largely a Fund in which private persons are interested, constituted by private contributions, even though they are under some statutory authority. I think if it were proposed to deal with that Fund, there would certainly be need for very special legislation, and certainly very careful consideration. I do not think, as at present advised, that it would come within this.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Question:—"That the new Section be added to the Bill," put and agreed to.
SECTION 14.

I move:

In Section 14 (2), page 10, line 53, to insert after the word "aforesaid" the words "or to be signed by such Minister," and to add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—

(4) Nothing in this Act shall render the affixing of the official seal of a Minister who is the head of a Department of State established by this Act to any order or other instrument (not being a deed, conveyance or other instrument, which if made by a person other than a corporation would be required by law to be sealed with the seal of such person) made by such Minister necessary to the validity of such order or other instrument and any such order or other instrument, unless expressly required by any statute to be under seal, shall be sufficiently authenticated by the signature of such Minister or of the secretary or other officer of such Department of State duly authorised by such Minister to authenticate such orders and instruments.

This proposed new Section is for the purpose of facilitating Ministers in the execution of Departmental documents.

Amendment put and agreed to.
SECTION 15.

I move: "To delete in page 11, Section 15 (5)." This is to delete sub-section (5) which is redundant by reason of the Interpretation Act.

Amendment put and agreed to.

As to the next amendment I think we could agree to the deletions first, and take each of the new schedules separately.

Would it not be desirable to deal with each part of the schedule separately, and take the deletions as they come? Taking the whole schedule would involve a very confused discussion.

I am not sure if that is not almost the same thing as I was suggesting myself, to agree to make the deletions and then discuss each part separately. How would that affect Amendments 26, 27, 28, 29?

The main object of having the new complete schedules is that I have had the official designations of all these various Departments carefully checked with the Statutes. The new schedule is largely an insertion of the correct legal designations.

There are four other amendments.

I take it that we could deal with them to-morrow first thing.

Progress ordered to be reported.