Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 16 Nov 1988

Vol. 121 No. 6

Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust Bill, 1988: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. Manning

I was finishing off a point about the people who were the beneficiaries under the original legislation and how they came back to a very different country from which they were in many ways excluded. It is a great shame that the memory of these people cannot be honoured today in an unambiguous way, in a way which does not bring in all sorts of undertones, imputations and implications. While I do not often find myself in agreement with Mr. Gay Byrne, over the past week or two he has done the public some service by bringing this issue into prominence and at least allowing some sort of rational debate on something which is not a matter of which we can be inordinately proud.

Before coming to the Bill itself, may I say a quick word about the houses that were built under the original scheme? Today many of them are very highly desirable properties. They are often built in quite scenic areas and were of very high quality. They have stood the test of time. I suspect that if many of them come on the market they will become highly desirable in some of the upper reaches of the market, but certainly those houses stood the test of time. They were very well built and generally enhanced the areas in which they were built.

The Bill itself is very straightforward. As the Minister mentioned, it had largely been negotiated by Lord Killanin, the Irish trustee who has held that position for almost 35 years. As in everything else which he touches, he has performed his duties with a great sense of integrity and commitment and a lot of style as well. Our thanks are due to him in all of this.

I have no objections whatsoever, in fact I very warmly welcome the fact that the RNLI is to be the main recipient of the largesse which will now appear and the provision of a new lifeboat on the west coast is to be greatly welcomed. I have no objection either to the rest of the money being used to further cross-Border co-operation, or to have it used for projects of an all-Ireland nature, so long as these projects are real. There is often the danger that when money like this appears people are encouraged to go out and invent projects, or projects of a less than substantial nature being to appear. I hope there will be a fairly rigorous assessment for these projects and that the money is not simply used to rescue organisations who have over-budgeted. One such project was mentioned already by the Minister in his speech in the other House, but I certainly would not like to see it being used in that way. If the money is to be used to promote cross-Border co-operation and projects of reconciliation I hope they are real and genuine ones, substantial in nature, and not just created for the sake of getting money which is available.

The Minister mentioned in his speech the reason the trust did not devote some of its money to what in many ways was its original intention, that is the care of ex-servicemen. I know Dr. Garret FitzGerald explained in the Dáil the reasons as why when the Bill was being negotiated it was thought inappropriate at the time to include some provision for ex-servicemen. Perhaps this was a mistake. I think it would be appropriate and there would be all-party agreement at this stage if some of the money could be provided for the very purpose for which it was originally intended — to cater for the needs of ex-servicemen. I would certainly include ex-servicemen from our own Army. In fact, they would be the main beneficiaries as I see it. There must be many of them indeed there are many of them represented by ONE who are in need of better housing, and help in different ways and who are not being adquately catered for at present. Now the Bill has passed through the Dáil — it is unlikely to be changed, but it is a pity that the opportunity was missed to provide some part of the money for ex-servicemen.

My main point of criticism with the Bill is one which has been partly rectified or addressed by the Minister in the amendment he brought forward in the Dáil. The original draft of the Bill was not sufficiently directional as to how the money should be spent. We were told it would go to the RNLI and that it would be used in ways which would help projects involving co-operation between this State and Northern Ireland, but it would be as the Taoiseach would decide, with the consent of the Minister for Finance. Clearly in the other House it was considered — even though the Minister said very specifically on the record of the House that the moneys would be used in this way — that something stronger was needed and the Minister introduced an amendment which meets part of this case. But it does not, I believe, go sufficiently far. What is missing here is any sense of parliamentary accountability.

We are talking about this on the same day as another political party — not represented in this House — is bringing in a Bill on the national lottery. That Bill also is about accountability of public moneys. I would certainly disagree with a great deal of that Bill because I believe that judges as far as possible should be kept in the courts, they were appointed to administer the law as fairly as possible. I do not subscribe to the view that when in trouble or when a veneer of respectability is needed in public life one rushes for the nearest judge and establishes a board. Judges are just as fallible as the rest of us; they are probably less in touch with the realities of life or public opinion than those who are in politics and so the idea of rushing for a judge is not something which commends itself to me. However, I believe there is, as in all aspects of public life, a great case for strengthening accountability to Parliament.

I believe that politicians for the very great part are honest and do their best, that Parliament is the place to which they should be accountable, because in almost every case there is accountability and the case can be explained in detail. I believe it would strengthen Parliament itself — only in a very small way in this case — if the moneys to be disbursed under this scheme were to be made directly accountable to the Dáil rather than simply left to the discretion and the wisdom of the Taoiseach of the day in consultation with the Minister for Finance.

For that reason I have tabled an amendment to section 2 of the Bill which would introduce this element of parliamentary accountability. I can tell the Minister it is not because I believe there will be anything untoward in the way in which the allocations will be made, but I believe that it would strengthen the overall effect of the Bill if this element of accountability were built into the legislation. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment which I will be putting forward. I am quite sure if he does, there will be very little difficulty in having the other House agree to it.

I welcome this Bill. It is useful, and with the small amendment I am proposing it could be an even better Bill.

Mr. Fallon

The Bill is short and has received a great deal of debate in the other House. In fact, the Bill was amended in the other House and for that reason my contribution will be quite brief. The original purpose of the trust was to build houses for Irish ex-servicemen who fought in the First World War. There is evidence of those houses right across the country and I am sure at the time there was a great need for building those houses. As I understand it, the trust took on the work of what was then a local government board and in all something like 2,000 houses were built. The problem of housing national ex-servicemen has reduced and we have a mere 15 tenants in this country at present, so obviously the problem is not very great.

At present, as we all know, our Army personnel occupy many of our local authority houses throughout the country. In addition, the Department of Defence have built many fine housing schemes for Army personnel. They have always been, as far as the local authority is concerned, excellent tenants. They have got involved in the community life and in the various tenant purchase schemes. They have brought their houses, as is right and, indeed at one stage in my town of Athlone, something like 25 per cent of the tenants of the local authority were Army personnel. That, in itself, is an indication that all Governments over the years have shown concern for the Army personnel in the provision of houses for them.

There is one problem I would like to refer to. Indeed, I noted what the Minister has said when he made the point that following the enactment of this measure it will be necessary to pass legislation to enable the trust funds to be received into the Irish Exchequer and to be disposed of. In the next sentence says: "I will stress that the trust is not being wound up at this point". This sentence has prompted me to refer to many Army men I have known over the years, who were single and whose life centred around the barracks where they lived. They had no families and when they retired or were about to retire they found themselves in a dilemma about where they would live. Indeed, I can recall a case not very long ago of one Army bandsman with whom I was friendly. His big problem at the time was where would he go when he retired. Within the barracks there was a very real move by both the NCOs and officers to provide a little place where he might continue to reside, so that he could stay in the old surroundings, even though at that stage he was a civilian.

The Minister might look at this matter in the light of the fact that the trust is not being wound up at this point. It would be in keeping with the spirit of the Bill if this could be entertained. I do not think it would cost a lot of money as there are not too many of those people in the Army at the moment. If a sum could be left aside to provide for the kind of situation I have outlined, we would all welcome it very much. If possible, perhaps the Minister will see what can be done, but if he cannot do anything I am sure he will tell us.

The meat of the Bill is contained in section 2, which provides for the disposal of the money that would be paid into the Exchequer. Like the previous speakers, I think there would be very widespread support for the purchase by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, of a relief lifeboat which would serve the entire coastline and which would provide search and rescue facilities on the west and north-west coast. It is very commendable and has received widespread support.

The other aspects of the Bill are in keeping with the thoughts of Lord Killanin. Indeed, I join with Senator Manning in paying tribute to Lord Killanin — he was the Irish Government's representative on this trust — not only for his work on the trust but for his work with the Olympic movement and with the bloodstock industry. Recently we had a fairly important debate in this House on his report on the bloodstock industry and I would like to compliment and congratulate him for his great work over the years.

Section 2, which was discussed at length in the Dáil, specifies that funds will be disposed of for projects in the North-South and, for Anglo-Irish co-operation projects or co-operation projects relating to the island as a whole. That is very commendable and I support it.

Few of us disagree with the Bill. I welcome it and wish it well.

Professor Murphy

A Chathaoirligh, I will not detain the House long. Senator Manning has ably evoked the historical context of this Bill and the House will be glad to hear that I feel that dispenses me from having to give the mandatory historical lecture.

The Bill evokes battles long ago and boyhood memories of the soldiers' houses being pointed out, with the slight implication — growing up as I did in a republican house — that somehow these were less than perfect Irishmen. As Senator Manning has said, the Bill now before us reminds us of those people who went off to fight for all kinds of reasons, many of them for the motivation so nobly expressed by the poet: "for a dream born in a herdsman's hut and the secret scriptures of the poor". No doubt most of them were not so heroically inspired as that but whatever their motivation they came back to an Ireland in which everything was changed utterly and in which they were judged harshly by the very narrow criteria of nationalism which came to be established in this country. The RIC, together with the ex-servicemen, became regarded as not quite perfect Irishmen, as by other criteria people who did not speak Irish or people who did not practice Catholicism and so on were denied the full credentials of nationality. In passing this Bill let us spare a thought for the people who are the subject of the original trust.

I should say in passing that if our defintion of Irishness were too narrow, the definition of Britishness or Ulsterness were also too narrow. Please God, we are moving towards a better accommodation in that regard.

The Bill reminds us that in this, as in many other areas, there is a great deal of good sense and welcome co-operation in everyday matters between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland and for that we can only be truly grateful. On the Bill itself I, like Senator Manning, was wondering to what extent the disposal of the moneys will involve approval by the Oreachtas? The dimensions of the fund are not great but that does not diminish the principle of parliamentary representation.

Looking at the Minister's speech I also wonder to what extent the Taoiseach's office would accept representations from Members of the Oireachtas on behalf of causes which they deemed to be worthy? My own deductions from the Minister's statement are that the funds so far total £1.6 million of which £1.1 million will be given to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, but there is a further £740,000 and were will be further sums to come. Therefore, we are talking about another £1.5 million?

Mr. R. Burke

The maximum will be £300,000 extra.

Professor Murphy

The dimensions are not large by comparison with the disposal of other funds, but it is entirely appropriate that their disposal should be subject to parliamentary sanction. I also think that worthy as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution cause is, and no one can quarrel with the decision in that regard, the remaining funds should be earmarked for organisations which are devoted to peaceful purposes, cross-Border co-operation, British-Irish co-operation, peace studies, the work carried on by the School of Ecumenics — all of these could be said to come under the general rubric of co-operation between North and South or on an all-Ireland basis.

It is entirely appropriate that funds which originally arose out of providing for war-like men should in their ultimate disposal be devoted to peaceful purposes. That is an entirely appropriate paradox and is what these ex-servicemen themselves would have wished.

I support the Bill and I support Senator Manning's reservations on that one point about parliamentary sanction.

Mr. Farrell

I join with other speakers in welcoming the Bill. I would like to pay tribute to Lord Killanin for his work in getting us a portion of this money for use in this country. As a small boy I knew many ex-servicemen, because I lived on that narrow passageway between North and South, now known as the N15. Convenient to where I lived was a pub owned by a big farmer. There was always a loft or a barn available for those men to stay overnight. They were very entertaining and they told tales, yarns and so on. When asked, many men said they went because they genuinely believed they were fighting for the freedom of small nations, while more went for adventure. However, when those people left the Army they had a choice of a pension of a half crown a week or a lump sum of £20. They were sold the idea of taking the lump sum, which needless to say left them on the road in very poor circumstances. When they got their £20, which was a lot of money in those days, most of them were fond of a drink and they had lots of company: "in times of bounty friends are plenty, but in times of adversity not one in twenty".

This trust was set up to alleviate that type of problem. These men were called knights of the road and many of them had no home to go to. I remember one poor man whose name I do not know — I am sure he must be a saint in Heaven today — who travelled along the road. He had no legs, but he had an old bacon box with four wheels and two little short bits of sticks. He propelled himself a couple of miles a day. He travelled between Donegal and Sligo and back again. There were always plenty of people walking on the roads in those days and children would push him uphill. Some of those men fared out very badly. I always remember a poem I heard a man reciting. He quoted the Robbie Burns poem "Man was made to Mourn" and I never forgot the lines: "When man is useful to his kind, supported is his right, see him on the edge of life, all cares and sorrows worn, for age and want a well matched pair shows man was made to mourn."

The trust was originally set up for these people. The trust built a number of houses in Sligo and an option was given some years ago to those people to buy out the houses. I know one family in Sligo who have done a very nice reconstruction job on the house which they bought out. This trust distributed suits of clothes at Christmas. I remember a neighbour of mine used to go to Sligo to the market on Saturday and at Christmas he would come home with a suit of clothes that he had got from the late Councillor John Fallon whom I am sure Senator Manning would have known.

The trust has served its purpose but now it is in surplus. Naturally all of those people have gone to their eternal reward and I sincerely hope they are geting their just reward in heaven. In those days nuns and priests were very kind to those people, despite how some of us might have a go at Catholicism. They looked after those people.

I am delighted that now that the trust is in surplus that the funds are going to be used in this manner. The RNLI is an organisation that deserves our support. We have a very active group in Sligo. Their collection boxes, a plastic boat, are placed throughout the area and make a very good collection. I am delighted they are getting some money out of this fund. It is a very good idea to give it to the lifeboat service. The Minister in his speech said a lifeboat will operate in the west. A lifeboat is certainly needed on the west coast and I am delighted that the money is being put to this use. I agree with Senator Manning when he said we should not run for judges to do everything. People who stand for election, who stand on the platform to be elected from among the ordinary citizens, are appointed to do such work and they should do it. I have no apologies to make to anybody. We are elected. There is an option once every five years to make another decision if people think we are not doing the job properly.

Cross-Border projects are very near and dear to my heart. Political problems will never be solved until we solve the economic problems that exist in that region. On the Border regions, North and South, we must get the economic strategy working and get jobs for people in those ghetto areas. If we do that it will help. I am delighted that some of the money is going towards that purpose.

I see also that some money is going towards educational, cultural and social aspects. When there is money to be spent we all think of the projects nearest to our hearts. I have in mind the physically and mentally handicapped, for whom we are in the process of building a holiday home and an assessment unit in Bundoran. It would be within the heading of co-operation. The Minister might think of giving that section of the community some money towards a project such as this. It is a North-South project. We would be catering for people from the North and providing holiday facilities for them. If some money was allocated to that project no Senator would oppose it.

I am very pleased that something is being done in regard to co-operation between the North and South. Since the pupils of schools in my area started visiting the North and some of the pupils from Northern schools started coming to the South a big change has taken place. There is no doubt about that. I remember a few years ago people did not want to go further than Enniskillen. Now people go to Belfast and have no qualms about it. Co-operation between the North and South helps to break down those barriers. What really causes trouble almost everywhere is fear of the unknown. If we knew what was there I do not think we would be half as much afraid of it. The more we can get people to co-operate with Border projects, tourism and educational projects the more we can help the situation. It is very important.

I am glad that education was mentioned. Many schools at present are running cross-Border co-operation trips. They have to try to raise funds locally. With the present cost of transport, insurance, etc. the schools are finding it harder to run these trips. For that reason I am delighted that education is included. The youth of Ireland is better today than ever before. Given a clear insight of what is happening North and South, they will come together and bring that unity and peace which we all long for and towards which we are all, in our way, working. I believe it can be done and I believe it will be done.

In 1967-68 we had terrific cross Border co-operation. The ESB had to do work across the Border — unfortunately it was interfered with — and there was a tourism drive with great movement of people North and South. The same friendliness and comradeship can again be achieved.

It was encouraging to see both Protestants and Catholics coming together on the issue of the Enniskillen bombing. The more we do in co-operation projects the more we will help to bring peace and harmony to the troubled part of Northern Ireland. I am very pleased that the Bill is before the House and that the money is being used in that way. I give my wholehearted support to it.

Mr. Norris

I have just one principal point to make. I make it in the context of the fact that I am a trustee of a number of organisations. I serve on a number of organisations dealing with funds and I know the kind of machinery, in outline, that is proposed here. Of course, in many ways I welcome it. I welcome clearly the kind of thing that Senator Ferris paid such eloquent tribute to, that is, the capacity of two Governments who have experienced some difficulties over many years to demonstrate their ability to co-operate over a considerable period in the interests of the citizens of both countries.

However, I am surprised at one thing. The Minister may be able to reassure me on this matter. Section 2 provides for the disposal of the moneys paid into the Exchequer. They are sums of some moderate size. There are certainly some hundreds of thousands of pounds — up to £750,000. It is a substantial sum of money but it is not the kind of money that is going to make a huge impact in terms of large policy areas, such as the co-operation between North and South. That is unrealistic. This amount of money in a matter like that would, to use a good Dublin expression "get lost in a hole in your tooth". It is not going to have any impact whatever, so let us be realistic about it. I have no doubt that there is an economic aspect to the situation in the North. If the Americans, for example, were serious about it then they should do something in terms of massive investment, and the same with the British. A couple of hundred thousand pounds here or there is just simply irrelevant.

However, if you put it into context there is a clear obligation on people who fulfil the role of trustees or members of a board of a fund to see that the intentions behind the original setting up of that fund are fulfilled. In some ways I can see that the Minister has lived up to his obligation. It is perfectly appropriate to spend money on a lifeboat — not perfectly, because nothing in this life is perfect and I could even quibble about the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, worthy although it is — but at least a very clear argument could be raised to suggest that this was in a direct and proper line of inheritance from the original intention of the trust.

I am less and less happy as I go down the list. I am not particularly happy that in this instance the application of these comparatively small funds to North-South co-operation is within the specific intention of the framers of the measure. I do not think it has anything whatever to do with the sea, for example. When we get down to the exceedingly worthy causes mentioned by Senator Farrell, I agree 100 per cent that these holiday homes for the mentally handicapped are very important, indeed. In fact, I am involved in fundraising in precisely this area over the next couple of weeks. It is something that is desperately necessary but I do not think it is germane to this issue, particularly when there is an outstanding matter to be resolved.

I would look to the Minister to satisfy the House that he is sensitive on this issue. There is a clear obligation. I am speaking, of course, of the rights and interests of the former employees and pensioners of Irish Shipping. Surely, the Minister will agree with me that if the disbursal of these funds were to go anywhere they ought to go to those people who are so clearly covered by the words of the poet, Robbie Burns, quoted so eloquently by Senator Farrell. These are the people who have given their service sometimes, over, 40 years to an institution of this State, which gave great service to the State in the merchant navy of this country. They have picketed both Houses of the Oireachtas in recent months, looking for their just rights and deserts. They have been chiselled and swindled out of their pensions with what I can only describe as State connivance. Here we have a golden opportunity to provide for these people to whom we owe the most serious debt of honour and responsibility, and yet there is no mention of them.

There is all this waffle of North-South co-operation. Applications were made from the floor of the House on behalf of very worthy causes. I would say to the Minister, as somebody who has acted responsibly in terms of honouring a commitment to a trust, and to a foundation, and so on, that he must be aware that there is, in most cases, a legal requirement that the bodies which inherit the fruits of this should be something of clear consonance with the original intention of the framers. I am not at all happy that this is indicated in all the aspects of what is laid out here in the Bill.

I strongly urge the Minister to make a statement that a substantial proportion of these funds will be allocated to honour the obligations. This is the case. We, as a people, have an obligation to the former employees of Irish Shipping which was would up in an outrageous fashion. I would like to feel that rather than creating a rag-bag of worthy causes which would each have a kind of lottery allocation made to them, that this matter which is so clearly within the intentions and in line with the purpose of the trust that is being broken up and having its funds dispersed, will be settled. I hope that the Minister who is a humane, sensitive man will be able to make this commitment.

This is a wonderful opportunity. It is a golden opportunity. There can be no question but that this is an appropriate use of the funds and I am sure the Minister will be able to assure me that this will be considered.

Minister for Energy and Minister for Communications (Mr. R. Burke)

I would like to thank the Members who have contributed to the debate, and to Senator Manning for putting the Bill in its historic context, going back to the time of Ernest Blythe and the situation where he made a comment that there would be no contribution by the Free State. The situation is that the Irish Free State transferred lands and houses to the trust after 1922 without seeking repayment for them. There were 1,508 houses involved at that time. The trustees, through Lord Killanin's good offices, gave the Government credit for these houses. The share worked out at 32 per cent. The British share was 68 per cent including credit for their grants of £1.3 million and houses in Northern Ireland, which numbered about 652 at the time. That is the situation.

The point was raised both by Senators Manning and Murphy in relation to accountability. It is appropriate to the amendment to be put down by Senator Manning. What is happening here is that the trust's money will be transferred into a subhead within the Taoiseach's Department and the Taoiseach's Department subhead and Estimate is the subject of annual debate within the Dáil. All public moneys, no matter which Department they come under, are the subject of annual review and debate by the Dáil. If there is anything that Dáil Members feel is incorrect in relation to any subhead or the allocation of money under any subhead it is the right of the Dáil to vote against the Estimate. There is total accountability under the terms of the normal practices and procedures of the Oireachtas.

We argued and debated in the Dáil the amendment the Senator has proposed and at a later stage I will not be able to accept it. I will not be able to accept it for another reason apart from accountability. If we accept it as it is — I accept the worthy motives of Senator Manning — it means that if we want to allocate a sum of £50, £100, £200 or £1,000 it has to be brought back to the Dáil every time to get the approval of the Dáil for that sum of money, which would make a nonsense of the way this trust will work.

I wish to assure the House as to the manner in which this trust will work and the allocation of the funds. What is happening is that an interdepartmental committee is being established between the Taoiseach's office, the Department of Finance and the Department of Foreign Affairs because they were the three Departments involved. The Taoiseach's Office was involved mainly because it was the Taoiseach's Department which appointed the trustee of the fund. This matter was always handled in the Taoiseach's Department. The Taoiseach and succeeding Taoisigh appointed Lord Killanin and re-appointed him to the trust and it was through the good offices of Lord Killanin that this money has been negotiated for us. The Department of Finance were involved because of accountability of public finances. The Department of Foreign Affairs were involved because of the terms of the agreement that was arrived at between the United Kingdom Government and ourselves. The agreement was that the money would be spent for such purposes as were laid out for North-South projects for Anglo-Irish co-operation or for projects with an all-Ireland dimension. That is the reality of it.

To answer Senator Norris' point on this, the reason that it is being done in this manner of North-South, Anglo-Irish co-operation or in the context of all-Ireland co-operation is because of the terms of the agreement that was hammered out by Lord Killanin after a lot of difficult negotiations. The reality is that if he had not agreed it in this manner, subject to the approval of the previous Administration — I do not criticise them; I applaud them for the agreement and that is why we are bringing it through in this legislation — we would not have got our 32 per cent share. It is as clear and as simple as that. It would have been taken by the British Exchequer.

With regard to Senator Fallon's point in relation to houses for soldiers, the main responsibility for housing of former members of the Defence Forces who are unable to house themselves is primarily a matter for local authorities. However, the Government are very conscious of the needs regarding living acommodation for our Army personnel. The provision made in 1988 for accommodation was £6 million for capital works and £2.8 million for refurbishment and maintenance. The allocation for 1989 comprises £7 million for capital works and £2.8 million for refurbishment and maintenance, an increase of £1 million on this year's figure. Significant improvements have been made in standards of accommodation available in many barracks and progress in continuing.

I agree with Senator Murphy's point. It is nice to see this level of co-operation between two Governments that have in the past been accused of megaphone diplomacy rather than getting down to ordinary day-to-day business. This is a classic example of what can be done and should be done on a regular basis. For example, the RNLI proposal we have is something where there will be a new lifeboat on the west coast which can be used, and will be used, in the future to save the lives of people off the north and west coast.

Professor Murphy

Which is both royal and national.

Mr. R. Burke

Yes, both royal and national. With regard to Senator Farrell's comment, I have no doubt that the physically and mentally handicapped are entitled to apply to the interdepartmental committee and their applications can be considered.

With regard to Senator Norris' point in relation to the trustees, it is important that the intentions of the trustees should be seen out. That is what is written into the Bill. The trustees' intention was that the money would be spent on the three areas mentioned, North-South, Anglo-Irish and the whole of Ireland projects and clearly Irish Shipping staff would be outside that framework. That is not to make any judgment on the point made by Senator Norris in relation to the State's responsibility to the Irish Shipping staff. I do not make a judgment one way or the other on that. I merely say that in the context of what the trustees, and our trustee, Lord Killanin, who is doing an excellent job for us have negotiated.

I thank the Members for their co-operation and their contributions.

Question put and agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach

When will we take Committee Stage?

Mr. W. Ryan

. I know the Minister is anxious to get through all Stages of the Bill but I understand there are amendments and there will be divisions. I would prefer if we adjourned it until next Wednesday, and take it first thing next Wednesday, 23 November, 1988.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 23 November 1988.

Sitting suspended at 5.25 p.m. and resumed at 6.30 p.m.