Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 3 Feb 1927

Vol. 8 No. 5

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL, 1926—REPORT STAGE.

Mr. LINEHAN

I move the amendment standing in my name: Section 6, sub-section (4), to delete the sub-section. The sub-section reads:

The council shall make the poor rate for any local financial year in respect of every hereditament and tenement in the county without distinguishing between agricultural and other hereditaments.

I think it is obvious that when the agricultural grant will have to be applied to the relief of rates on lands that it would not be advisable to make a flat rate over land and buildings, and for that reason I move the deletion of the sub-section.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I second. Would the Minister explain if that really was intended? It is an astounding proposal that rates can be levied equally over land and buildings, because if that is so it strikes at the whole principle whereby these grants are made towards the relief of agriculture on account of the extra burdens thrust on the rural occupier.

MINISTER for LOCAL GOVERNMENT and PUBLIC HEALTH (Mr. Burke)

This amendment, combined with the amendment which the Seanad passed yesterday, strikes at the whole root of the Bill at present before the House. The two sections in the Bill which I regard as the vital and important ones are Sections 6 and 7. The putting into operation of these two sections will effect a great simplification in the present system of applotment and, as a result of that simplification, will lead to a saving of something like £30,000 in the country. It was mainly with the object of being able to secure that benefit to the ratepayers this year that I was anxious to get the Bill through before the vital date—the 21st February. That being so, I will find it necessary to advise the Dáil not to accept this amendment or any amendment of the section under any circumstances. These two sections deal with a very intricate and delicate matter. Realising that it was impossible to put into a form of words that would be understood, I had an explanation of the section circularised as a memorandum amongst members of the Dáil and Seanad. It showed how the applotment worked out under the two systems. I thought that Senator Linehan, as a result of considering that document, would have taken a reasonable view of this section. As I say it is vital to the Bill, and the only effect of his amendment is to nullify the section. I have thought for that reason that perhaps before the Seanad comes to a final decision on the matter I should explain in detail the point raised by Senator Linehan's amendment and show the fallacy that is inherent in his argument.

The Agricultural Grant was originally under the Act of 1898 divided into three parts, in relief respectively of the following three kinds of expenditure: Expenditure charged on the whole county; expenditure charged on the rural district, and expenditure charged on the union. The amount of each of these portions was determined for each county, rural district, or union according to the amount of expenditure in the area, which amount was determined by reference to a standard year. The effect was that in the districts or unions in which by reason of low valuation or expensive services the rates would be high, the agricultural grant was larger. The Minister always had power to amalgamate unions, and rural districts in the same county. When this was done the agricultural grant for union and district charges in the amalgamated area was distributed equally over that area. Obviously since the amalgamated area bore all the expenses equally, the benefit of the agricultural grant had to be given equally too.

By the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923, the expenditure which had previously been union charges was made a charge on the whole county. The effect was the same as if the unions in the county were amalgamated and following the old principle, and the only equitable one, the Minister provided for the pooling of the agricultural grant for union charges. This was done in 1924 by the Agricultural Grant (Adaptation) Order, 1924, which Order was laid before both Houses under Section 20 of the Act, and, no resolution annulling it having been passed, became as much law as the original Act. Acting under that Order the agricultural grant for union charges has been pooled in the rates for the last two years.

By the Local Government Act, 1925, all the expenditure which made up the rural district charges at the time when the agricultural grant was fixed, became county charges. Again the effect is exactly the same as where a number of rural districts were amalgamated under the old code. The agricultural grant for rural district charges was therefore dealt with in the same way by an adaptation order—the Local Government (Application and Adaptation of Enactments) Order, 1925—which Order was again laid before both Houses and was allowed to become on statutory force without comment. In the rate for last year all the agricultural grant was legally treated as a grant for all the agricultural land in the county on an equal basis. Subsections (5) and (6) do not purport to make any change in this respect, but only provide a new method of giving the agricultural land this benefit without altering the principle. That new method, which Senator Linehan's amendment makes impossible, would have saved some £30,000 to the rates each year. The Senator cited a number of figures which gave a wholly wrong idea of the change. He has mentioned a number of rural districts in which the agricultural ratepayers will lose by the pooling of the grant. It will be found that in every such case these ratepayers have already benefited to a greater extent by the pooling of the expenditure which the grant is intended to relieve.

Figures are available of the reduction and increase of the rates in the various unions caused by the charging of the union expenditure on the county. To take cases mentioned by the Senator:—

	Rate in the £ on Union of expen- diture by Guardians in 1914.	Rate in the £ on Co. of expen- diture by B. of H. last year.
Castletownbere	3/9¾	2/7
Dunmanway	2/2¾	2/7
Clonakilty	1/10	2/7

It will be seen that whereas the Unions of Dunmanway and Clonakilty have to bear a greatly increased expenditure for Castletown, the Senator wishes to preserve to Castletown their large share of the grant. The same applies in the other two cases and to the pooling of the expenditure which was charged on the rural district. It would be better to postpone the benefits of the Bill for a year than to introduce such a change. It would completely destroy the whole value of the two sections, and accordingly it would be necessary for me, if the Bill passes the Seanad in this form, to ask the Dáil to throw it out.

Sir JOHN KEANE

After that explanation the whole subject assumes a different complexion, but I think the Minister is largely responsible for our failure to understand the position. He gave no explanation whatever yesterday on this amendment. It is only now, when his officials have got to work and briefed him, that we have got the facts of the case. If the Minister had been fully instructed yesterday and stated the facts the House might have taken a different view.

Mr. BURKE

I stated in a brief form yesterday substantially what I have stated here to-day. You will find it in the official report.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Probably the Minister in his anxiety to be brief was a little obscure.

Mr. LINEHAN

I think the Minister's statement has no bearing on the amendment I have proposed now. It deals with the amendment that was carried yesterday.

CATHAOIRLEACH

But is it not a fact, Senator—I have followed the statement made by the Minister to-day and it is very clear—that the sub-section you are proposing to delete is a corollary to the preceding section?

Mr. LINEHAN

The sub-section I am proposing to delete refers to the direction not to make any change in the original agricultural grant and hereditaments.

CATHAOIRLEACH

That is consequential on the other one?

Mr. LINEHAN

That is so.

CATHAOIRLEACH

In other words, the deletion of any one of these subsections neutralises the whole section?

Mr. LINEHAN

That is right. In this matter the Minister has been legislating by Order up to the present. He has repealed a very important section of the 1898 Act by simply laying an Order on the Table of the House. As you know, sir, several of these Orders are not noticed by Senators. The titles of some of them would not indicate what they really contained. I take up the Order that was made on the Local Government Act of 1925, and the heading of that Order which deals with the agricultural grants as it appeared in the Agenda sent to Senators was simply this: "The Local Government (Application and Adaptation of Enactments) Order, 1925." There is not a word about making a change in the agricultural grant. I hold that if it is necessary to make a change in any Act of Parliament the proper thing to do is to bring forward a Bill and let it be discussed by the House. In making this Order it is very doubtful whether the Minister had full legal power to do so, because the section under which he has that power says that the Minister for Local Government and Public Health may by order do amongst other matters the following: that is to say, apply to the boards of health any existing enactment relating to the county councils or district councils with such modifications as he shall deem necessary. It appears now that when we gave power to the Minister in any of the Acts that have been passed to make Orders, surely we did not intend these Orders to mean a repeal of very important enactments without notice to the House?

CATHAOIRLEACH

I am afraid it comes to that, Senator. I may say it has been the subject of very grave concern and complaint on the part of people in England—this growing tendency of giving Ministers this carte blanche in the making of Orders, for it is largely doing away with the necessity for legislation, and it is very difficult, as you yourself have found, to pick out a piece of legislation in one of these Orders which otherwise seems innocuous. That, however, is not the fault of the Minister but of the Seanad, if they do not restrict his power of making Orders. As long as the Minister has the power he is entitled to exercise it.

Mr. LINEHAN

The agricultural grant fixed at that date now forms the basis of several other matters, such as the fixing of the judicial rents, and the annuities which are based on the judicial rents. It is a very serious thing to make a change in the amount of the agricultural grant given to any rural district. I think it would be quite easy for the Minister to work out a simple scheme of keeping the accounts of the county councils without interfering with the existing rights of ratepayers in certain rural districts to the agricultural grants which were allotted to them in 1898.

Amendment put, and on a show of hands declared lost.

Mr. BURKE

A Chathaoirlí, can you give a ruling as to how the section stands at present?

CATHAOIRLEACH

I cannot. I do not think it stands at all. I suggest, in view of the explanation that has been given by the Minister, if it is satisfactory to the Senator in reference to the previous sub-section of this Section 6, that he might agree that the amendment should be deleted.

Mr. LINEHAN

I certainly would not agree with the Minister's view. I cannot see where the £30,000 comes in.

CATHAOIRLEACH

It is very unfortunate, I think, in view of the attitude the Minister has taken in regard to the destructive character not only of this amendment, but of the amendment of a similar character passed yesterday that the Minister did not put down a motion at this stage to reverse and restore the sub-section deleted yesterday. His explanation, given to me across the floor of the House, was that he thought it would be open to him to raise that on this amendment, and possibly the House will now permit him to move the amendment?

SENATORS

No.

CATHAOIRLEACH

For the sake of the dignity and position of the House I ask Senators to consider the position they are in, for it would seem to me to follow as a logical conclusion that if they were right in accepting the amendment proposed yesterday by the Senator they should have accepted the amendment proposed to-day. I think the House has put itself in a false position. If the House is satisfied that the amendment moved to-day is wrong, as they seem to think it is, they ought to restore themselves to a position of logic and good sense by going back on what they did yesterday. I am concerned with the position that this House will be looked on when this Bill goes back to the Dáil, in view of the fact that we passed an amendment yesterday and rejected to-day a consequential amendment to the same amendment.

Sir THOMAS ESMONDE

It seems to me that all we can do is to re-commit this Bill in relation to this amendment we passed yesterday.

CATHAOIRLEACH

That could only be done by motion.

Mr. DOUGLAS

Is not this a clear case of the necessity for having a Government leader in the House?

CATHAOIRLEACH

I cannot have present members of the Executive Council if they will not come. I may call spirits from the vasty deep but will they come?

Sir THOMAS ESMONDE

I move that this Bill be now re-committed in respect of Section 6.

Mr. BROWN

I second.

Question put and agreed to.

CATHAOIRLEACH

The re-committal of this Bill will appear on the Order Paper for Wednesday next. Might I suggest in the interval that the Minister would circulate amongst the members of this House the statement he read to-day, for even listening to that statement it is not a simple matter and not at all easy to follow.

SECTION II.

Mr. FARREN

I move:

To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—

(9) Sub-section 3 of Section 69 of the Principal Act shall be amended by the deletion of the words "the Housing of the Working-Classes (Ireland) Acts, 1883-1919," and the sub-section as so amended shall apply as from the passing of this Act to any house erected under the aforesaid Acts."

This amendment is for the purpose of dealing equitably with people who occupy similar types of houses. There seemed to be some confusion in the minds of members of the House yesterday when I spoke on this particular subject. In order to try and make myself perfectly clear in the matter it will be necessary for me to go into some details. First I have to call the attention of Senators to the Housing (Building Facilities) Act, 1924. Under Section 2 of that Act provision was made that the Minister for Finance would have power to grant from moneys out of the Exchequer a sum of £100 to a local authority, or to a private individual, or to a public utility society, who would build houses of a certain type. In addition to that under Section 6 of the Act the local authorities were empowered to make a grant equivalent to the grant that was made by the Minister for Finance to a private individual, or to a public utility society, for the purpose of erecting houses that would comply with the requirements of the Act.

In addition to that, under Section 7 of that Act, power was given to the local authority to grant remission of rates spread over a period of twenty years, commencing with the payment of five per cent. of the total rates in the first year, and increasing by five per cent. each year, until at the end of the twentieth year the remission of rates disappeared. Under Section 3 of the 1925 Act provision was made to make similar grants by the State to a local authority, a private individual, or a public utility society to build houses. Under the second schedule of the Act the amounts stated were: to a local authority, £100, for the building of a five-roomed house; to a private individual, or speculative builder, £75, for a five-roomed house; to a public utility society, £100, for a five-roomed house. Under the 1925 Act, as under the 1924 Act, local authorities were empowered to make similar grants to private individuals, speculative builders and public utility societies, as those given by the State. In addition, under the 1925 Act the remission of rates was continued over a period of 20 years. Then we come to the Local Government Act of 1925, and as was explained yesterday, on the Report Stage of this Bill a section was introduced which gave power for the remission of rates on new buildings, but it deliberately cut out houses built under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, and the Building Facilities Acts. I am afraid that Senators yesterday did not clearly understand the position or the sense of my amendment, and I want to state clearly and frankly what I seek to achieve—that there shall be the same equity and justice for the class of people I am pleading for as is being given to others. Before I sit down I hope to be able to convince the House of the reasonableness and justice of the case I am putting forward.

When the new section was being introduced into the Local Government Act of 1925, I tried to make a case that justice was not being done all round. There was misapprehension on the part of some Senators with regard to the point I endeavoured to make. Apparently, Senators at that time thought, and are still of the opinion, that the people who occupy the houses built by the local authority under these Building Facilities Acts, are in a similar position to that of tenants prior to 1922. I want to point out that people in occupation of houses built by the local authority since 1922 are not in the position of tenants at all, but of owner-occupiers. They are in an identical position with the tenant farmers who bought their holdings under the various Land Acts. They did not enter their houses as weekly tenants, but they entered after signing an agreement to purchase the house for a specified sum, and whether they pay weekly or monthly or annually their payments are annuities and not rents. The Dublin Corporation, before the Commissioners came into being, fixed the price of those houses and told the tenants they would have to pay so much per week or per month or per annum for repayment of principal and interest, and, in addition, the current rates on the proper valuation of the houses, as well as the ground rents, and also be responsible for maintenance. After 40 years they will be the owners of those houses, just like the tenant farmers who bought under the Land Acts, when they have their annuities paid.

Under the 1924 and 1925 Acts the local authorities were given power, and it was mandatory if the Minister so desired, to grant remission of rates, and I venture to say that in every case, practically, since 1924, where a house has been built either by a building speculator, a private individual or a public utility society, the remission of rates has been given, as well as the subsidy. I want Senators to get out of their minds that the occupier of a house built by the local authority has got the subsidy and that that is his share. I want to point out the distinction that was made in connection with the occupier of a house built by a private individual, a building speculator, or a public utility society, who also got the subsidy. The public utility society houses got their subsidy of £200. The tenants of houses built by a local authority got the benefit of the subsidy when the purchase price was being fixed. The argument is that if you give to one set of tenants a remission of rates for twenty years on a similar type of house built under similar Acts, it is unjust if you do not give the occupiers of the houses built by the local authority the same remission.

I shall give the Seanad a concrete case. At Marino the municipality have built over a thousand houses and the occupiers of those houses have got the benefit of the subsidy, but have not got the benefit of the remission of rates. A public utility society, with the establishment of which I had something to do, and which was formed by a trade union, has also built houses at Marino, and got the subsidy for them, and the occupiers of those houses get the benefit of the remission of rates. So that you have on one side of the road occupiers of houses getting the remission of rates as well as the subsidy, and on the other side occupiers who got the subsidy but do not get the remission of rates.

Mr. BURKE

Will the Senator give particulars of the rents of these two classes of houses?

Mr. FARREN

There is no rent for either type of house.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Any money that issues in consideration of the possession of land—you may call it an instalment or anything else—is treated as rent and recovered as rent. The point is that your analogy is incomplete if the rents or instalments, or whatever you call them, are larger in one case than in the other for the same accommodation.

Mr. FARREN

I am coming to that. The position is somewhat different in these cases. In one case the houses were built by the municipality out of a grant given under the Building Facilities Acts under which a subsidy was given. On the other hand, you have houses built by a public utility society, each member of which, in order to get a house, had to find a certain amount of money. They have paid in a certain amount of capital into the funds of the society. Their case is not on all-fours with the other. In the other case the purchase price is fixed by the municipality and instalments have to be paid over a period of forty years to pay off the principal and interest. In addition to that, they have to pay the current rates and ground rent. What arrangement the society is making I do not know. In the case of the tenants I speak of, at Marino, the instalments are as high as 17/3 per week—I do not know that the instalments on the other houses are so high, but I have no hesitation in saying that they are entitled to the remission of rates.

Mr. MOLLOY

Are the rates included in that or are they separate?

Mr. FARREN

They are separate, but they are paid in bulk. To prove that the rates are paid by the occupiers, I may say that when the reduction in the rates took place the instalments were reduced. Is not that clear evidence that they pay their full rates?

CATHAOIRLEACH

It looks like it.

Mr. FARREN

I think that cannot be contradicted. When the reduction in the rates took place there was a reduction in the weekly or monthly payments made by these people. I may say that I have had considerable difficulty in trying to frame an amendment to cover what I wanted. The whole matter is complicated. You have to deal with the 1924 and 1925 Housing Acts, the Local Government Act of 1925 and the present Bill. I think, however, that the amendment I am proposing will do justice all round. Senator Brown, when moving the insertion of the Section in the 1925 Act, was under a misapprehension with regard to the real position. When he considers the matter I think he will agree with the case I am putting forward, that unless this or a similar amendment is passed, we are doing an injustice to one section of the community. We are all anxious that proper houses should be provided to house the working classes. I believe that practically all the social evils from which we suffer are bound up with this question of housing. In 99.9 per cent. of cases where working-class families have been given decent houses to live in, the whole character of living of those families has been changed for the better. Anyone who has visited any of these new dwellings in Dublin will be amazed at the change that has taken place in the manner in which these families live now as compared with the time when they lived in the slums. I am one of the pioneers in this question of the purchasing of these houses by occupiers. I believe it is a good thing to have these people purchasing the houses and owning them, because it tends to make them good citizens. If, however, investigations are made by the Local Government Department it will be found that even the best of these people find themselves unable to meet the payments for the houses because of the high rates they have to pay. The people who inhabit these houses have all very large families and the wages they receive at present are not sufficient to enable them to pay 17/3 per week. I am endeavouring to ease that burden a little for the sake of everybody concerned. I hope I have made the position quite clear—it is full of complications and technicalities— but I have endeavoured to explain it as well as I could. I think Senators will understand my point, that I want the same facilities for people living in houses built by the municipality as regards the remission of rates as are given to people living in other houses that got a similar subsidy and are also getting the remission of rates.

Mr. DUFFY

I second the amendment.

Mr. BROWN

I have a great deal of sympathy and I believe a number of Senators have great sympathy with what Senator Farren wants to do but I would like to call attention to the form of his amendment. It is to delete from Section 69 (3) of the Act of 1925 the words "the Housing of the Working-Classes (Ireland) Acts." That does not touch what we did yesterday when we inserted a new Section 12 in the present Bill. The exclusion of the Housing of the Working-Classes Acts appears in that Clause 12 as well as in Section 69 of the Act of 1925. So far as the amendment is concerned, in its present shape what it would really do would be to give retrospective effect to what the Senator is so anxious to have done in Section 69 of the Act of 1925 while not affecting the clause inserted in the Bill yesterday which also excludes houses built under the Housing of the Working-Classes Acts from the benefit of this Act. The only benefit they will get in the section that we passed yesterday is in the case of houses built after the passing of this Act and before the 30th October, 1930, and also any houses at present in existence that may have been improved or enlarged in that period. I do not know whether I have made myself clear. What I want the Senator to understand is that I think the form of his amendment is defective. I think it would create a great deal of confusion if you try to give retrospective effect to this relief; that is, to try to carry it back.

Mr. DOUGLAS

The amendment says "from the passing of this Act."

Mr. BROWN

I see the Senator has a date in his amendment as from the passing of this Act.

CATHAOIRLEACH

What the Senator does is he preserves the rights he wishes to insert in the Act in the case of houses erected under previous Acts. He limits it to relief subsequent to the date of the passing of this Act.

Mr. BROWN

So that he would not create any confusion in rating?

Mr. FARREN

I do not intend that; it is the 1925 Act I meant.

Mr. BROWN

All the same if this amendment is to go to the House it ought to go in its widest form, and it ought to include Section 12 which we passed yesterday.

CATHAOIRLEACH

The way to do that is: If the House is satisfied to accept Senator Farren's amendment to Clause 11 I then will allow him to move a second amendment to omit the exclusion of these particular words in the new Section 12.

Mr. BROWN

I wanted to call attention to that.

CATHAOIRLEACH

We will hear first what the Minister has to say on the present proposal.

Mr. BURKE

The main point that the Senator made and the one that impressed me at the outset as rather important was that you had houses apparently of the same kind erected side by side at Marino and that in the one case the remission of rates applied and in the other it did not, and that that was a very inequitable proceeding. The Senator omitted to inform us that the provisions under which they were constructed were quite different. In one case where the Corporation had constructed the houses they did so at a cost of £750. They were sold on a basis of £440, which meant that the purchase price was only four-sevenths of the cost. In the other case the houses only came in under the ordinary Building Acts and only got a grant of £100 with the remission of the rates. I think anybody will see that, if anything the houses built by the local authority were much the better bargain, and why put them in a still more favourable position——

Mr. FARREN

Does the Minister seriously state that the Public Utility Society have not got £100 from the municipality as well as from the State?

Mr. BROWN

They got £200.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Apparently, as I understand it, in the one case there was an allowance made that reduced the cost price to four-sevenths of the cost; in the other case there was only a grant of £100.

Mr. BROWN

No, £200.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I gave the Minister's statement as I understood it.

Mr. FARREN

They got the grant of £100 from the municipality as well and further facilities were also given.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Did these facilities reduce the cost to four-sevenths of the cost price?

Mr. FARREN

I do not know what the cost price was of the houses built by the Public Utility Society, but I know that in the case of St. Barnabas's Utility Society they received in addition to the £100 from the State £100 from the municipality. I state that definitely. I state, further, that some of the societies having got £100 from the State, plus £100 from the municipality, also got facilities in the way of loans from the municipality. They got roadways made and things like that, and they got their drainage constructed. So I think if you count the whole lot up there will not be much difference between the two sets of houses, considering that the one in addition to everything else got their roads and drains.

Mr. BARRINGTON

It is not so much just the assistance they got as what they are paying now. I wonder if the Senator could give us the exact figures of the instalment on the Corporation houses and on the Public Utility Society houses.

Mr. FARREN

I do not think that would assist you in the matter because the period of repayment may be different. There are different periods although they are almost similar types of houses. One may be slightly better than the others but I do not think that the amount of the repayment would explain. Some of the payments may be spread over a thirty or thirty-five year period and the payments in the case of the municipal houses are spread over 40 years. If a person was able to put £50 down it might alter the price. The whole thing is complicated but the amount of the instalment does not affect the question.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I have very great sympathy for the case as Senator Farren presented it, but, as the Senator said, it is very complicated and certainly as a layman I think he presented it and explained it with remarkable lucidity. At the same time if it would do no harm it would be well if this clause were included in the re-committal for next Wednesday. By that time the Senator probably could find out all the figures.

Mr. FARREN

I agree to that, and I suggest that some of the legal minds in this assembly might give consideration to the amendment. It does not accomplish exactly what I want it does not give remission of rates on all fours to the houses built under the Acts. I could not frame an amendment that would get that in.

CATHAOIRLEACH

The re-committal will give the Department a reasonable opportunity for looking into the matter.

Mr. BARRINGTON

Would the Senator tell us whether the definite figure that he quoted of 17s. 3d. referred to the houses built by the public utility society or the municipality.

Mr. FARREN

To the houses built by the municipality.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I took a great interest in the Linen Hall Buildings. The houses there are a revolution in dwelling houses and my impression was that for the four roomed houses the rent was 14s. a week and for the five roomed houses 18s. a week.

Mr. FARREN

The houses at Marino are five roomed houses.

CATHAOIRLEACH

You can ascertain the figures and I think it would be to your advantage in the interval if you could have them all ready for Wednesday.

Mr. BROWN

Might I suggest to the Minister that he should tell us definitely next Wednesday what is the substantial difference between the cost of the houses that Senator Farren is pleading for now and the other houses.

CATHAOIRLEACH

In other words justify the exclusion.

Mr. BROWN

Exactly. It is suggested that the Corporation houses built under the Housing of the Working Class Acts are let at an uneconomic rent. That is what I want the Minister to explain. It would be a very serious point if a fact. In a sense they are not let at rents at all; they are let at instalments.

CATHAOIRLEACH

In the case of houses built by utility societies, the payments are instalments.

Mr. BURKE

I understand that the difference is——

CATHAOIRLEACH

I suggest that the Minister should take my advice and, as we are to recommit the Bill, not to make any statement just now upon this complicated matter. He will have leisure to go into this whole matter between this and Wednesday. I would ask Senator Farren to move that the re-committal of the Bill includes Section 11 and the new Clause 12.

Mr. FARREN

I beg to move.

Mr. BARRINGTON

I beg to second.

Question put and agreed to.

House rose at 4.30 p.m. until Wednesday, 9th February.