Add files using upload-large-folder tool

1922/1922-12-19_mul@.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,699 @@
+<akomaNtoso xmlns="http://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/ns/akn/3.0/CSD13" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/ns/akn/3.0/CSD13 ./akomantoso30.xsd ">
+  <debate name="Official Report">
+    <meta>
+      <identification source="#source">
+        <FRBRWork>
+          <FRBRthis value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1922-12-19/debate/main"/>
+          <FRBRuri value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1922-12-19/debate"/>
+          <FRBRdate date="1922-12-19" name="#generation"/>
+          <FRBRauthor href="/ie/oireachtas/house/dail/3"/>
+          <FRBRcountry value="ie"/>
+          <FRBRname value="debate"/>
+        </FRBRWork>
+        <FRBRExpression>
+          <FRBRthis value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1922-12-19/debate/mul@/main"/>
+          <FRBRuri value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1922-12-19/debate/mul@"/>
+          <FRBRdate date="1922-12-19" name="#reported"/>
+          <FRBRauthor href="/ie/oireachtas/role/debates"/>
+          <FRBRlanguage language="mul"/>
+        </FRBRExpression>
+        <FRBRManifestation>
+          <FRBRthis value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1922-12-19/debate/mul@/main.xml"/>
+          <FRBRuri value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1922-12-19/debate/mul@.akn"/>
+          <FRBRdate date="2020-06-25" name="#publication"/>
+          <FRBRauthor href="/ie/oireachtas/role/debates"/>
+        </FRBRManifestation>
+      </identification>
+      <analysis source="#source">
+        <otherAnalysis xmlns:oir="https://data.oireachtas.ie/ns/1.0" source="#source">
+          <oir:volumeReference href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2" showAs="Vol. 2" eId="#vol_2"/>
+          <oir:numberReference href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/no/9" showAs="No. 9" eId="#no_9"/>
+          <oir:column refersTo="#dbsect_1" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/381" showAs="Col. 381" eId="col_381"/>
+          <oir:column refersTo="#spk_5" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/382" showAs="Col. 382" eId="col_382"/>
+          <oir:column refersTo="#spk_11" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/383" showAs="Col. 383" eId="col_383"/>
+          <oir:column refersTo="#spk_15" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/384" showAs="Col. 384" eId="col_384"/>
+          <oir:column refersTo="#spk_18" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/385" showAs="Col. 385" eId="col_385"/>
+          <oir:column refersTo="#dbsect_10" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/386" showAs="Col. 386" eId="col_386"/>
+          <oir:column refersTo="#spk_32" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/387" showAs="Col. 387" eId="col_387"/>
+          <oir:column refersTo="#spk_35" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/388" showAs="Col. 388" eId="col_388"/>
+          <oir:column refersTo="#dbsect_10" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/389" showAs="Col. 389" eId="col_389"/>
+          <oir:column refersTo="#spk_45" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/390" showAs="Col. 390" eId="col_390"/>
+          <oir:column refersTo="#spk_48" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/391" showAs="Col. 391" eId="col_391"/>
+          <oir:column refersTo="#spk_51" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/392" showAs="Col. 392" eId="col_392"/>
+          <oir:column refersTo="#dbsect_11" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/393" showAs="Col. 393" eId="col_393"/>
+          <oir:column refersTo="#dbsect_11" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/394" showAs="Col. 394" eId="col_394"/>
+          <oir:column refersTo="#dbsect_11" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/395" showAs="Col. 395" eId="col_395"/>
+          <oir:column refersTo="#spk_84" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/396" showAs="Col. 396" eId="col_396"/>
+          <oir:column refersTo="#spk_87" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/397" showAs="Col. 397" eId="col_397"/>
+          <oir:column refersTo="#dbsect_14" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/398" showAs="Col. 398" eId="col_398"/>
+          <oir:column refersTo="#spk_94" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/399" showAs="Col. 399" eId="col_399"/>
+          <oir:column refersTo="#dbsect_14" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/400" showAs="Col. 400" eId="col_400"/>
+          <oir:column refersTo="#spk_114" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/401" showAs="Col. 401" eId="col_401"/>
+          <oir:column refersTo="#spk_116" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/402" showAs="Col. 402" eId="col_402"/>
+        </otherAnalysis>
+      </analysis>
+      <references source="#source">
+        <TLCOrganization eId="source" href="" showAs="Houses of the Oireachtas"/>
+        <TLCConcept eId="generation" href="/ie/oireachtas/ontology#Generation" showAs="Generation"/>
+        <TLCConcept eId="reported" href="/ie/oireachtas/ontology#Reported" showAs="Reported"/>
+        <TLCConcept eId="publication" href="/ie/oireachtas/ontology#Publication" showAs="Publication"/>
+        <TLCEvent eId="bill.1922.2.dail.seanad_amd" href="/ie/oireachtas/bill/1922/2/dail/seanad_amd" showAs="Adaptation of Enactments Bill 1922: Dáil From the Seanad"/>
+        <TLCEvent eId="bill.1922.4.dail.5" href="/ie/oireachtas/bill/1922/4/dail/5" showAs="Local Elections Postponement Bill 1922: Dáil Fifth Stage"/>
+        <TLCEvent eId="bill.1922.5.dail.1" href="/ie/oireachtas/bill/1922/5/dail/1" showAs="Expiring Laws Bill 1922: Dáil First Stage"/>
+        <TLCEvent eId="bill.1922.7.dail.1" href="/ie/oireachtas/bill/1922/7/dail/1" showAs="Criminal and Malicious Injuries (Amendment) Bill 1922: Dáil First Stage"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="ChrisMByrne" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Christopher-Michael-Byrne.D.1921-08-16" showAs="Christopher Michael Byrne"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="DanielMcCarthy" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Daniel-McCarthy.D.1921-08-16" showAs="Daniel McCarthy"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="DarrellFiggis" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Darrell-Figgis.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Darrell Figgis"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="DrVincentJWhite" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Dr-Vincent-Joseph-White.D.1921-08-16" showAs="Dr. Vincent Joseph White"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="ErnestBlythe" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Ernest-Blythe.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Ernest Blythe"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="FionanLynch" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Fionán-Lynch.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Fionán Lynch"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="FrancisMacGuinness" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Francis-MacGuinness.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Francis MacGuinness"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="GeraldFitzgibbon" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Gerald-Fitzgibbon.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Gerald Fitzgibbon"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="JamesJosephWalsh" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/James-Joseph-Walsh.D.1919-01-21" showAs="James Joseph Walsh"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="KevinChristopher" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Kevin-Christopher-O'Higgins.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Kevin Christopher O'Higgins"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="MichaelHayes" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Michael-Hayes.D.1921-08-16" showAs="Michael Hayes"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="MylesKeogh" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Myles-Keogh.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Myles Keogh"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="PatrickJHogan" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Patrick-J-Hogan.D.1921-08-16" showAs="Patrick J. Hogan"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="ProfWilliamEThrift" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Prof-William-E-Thrift.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Prof. William E. Thrift"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="ProfWilliamMagennis" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Professor-William-Magennis.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Professor William Magennis"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="RichardWilson" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Richard-Wilson.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Richard Wilson"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="SeanMilroy" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Seán-Milroy.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Seán Milroy"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="ThomasJohnson" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Thomas-Johnson.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Thomas Johnson"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="TomasOConnell" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Tomas-O'Connell.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Tomas O'Connell"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="WilliamOBrien1922" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/William-O'Brien.D.1922-09-09" showAs="William O'Brien"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="WilliamSears" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/William-Sears.D.1919-01-21" showAs="William Sears"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="WilliamTCosgrave" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/William-T-Cosgrave.D.1919-01-21" showAs="William T. Cosgrave"/>
+        <TLCRole eId="author" href="/ie/oireachtas/role/role/author" showAs="author"/>
+        <TLCRole eId="editor" href="/ie/oireachtas/role/role/editor" showAs="editor"/>
+      </references>
+    </meta>
+    <preface>
+      <block name="title_ga">
+        <docTitle>DÍOSPÓIREACHTAÍ PARLAIMINTE</docTitle>
+      </block>
+      <block name="title_en">
+        <docTitle>PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES</docTitle>
+      </block>
+      <block name="proponent_ga">
+        <docProponent>DÁIL ÉIREANN</docProponent>
+      </block>
+      <block name="status_ga">
+        <docStatus>TUAIRISC OIFIGIÚIL</docStatus>
+      </block>
+      <block name="status_en">
+        <docStatus>(OFFICIAL REPORT)</docStatus>
+      </block>
+      <block name="date_ga">
+        <docDate date="1922-12-19">Dé Máirt, 19 Nollaig 1922</docDate>
+      </block>
+      <block name="date_en">
+        <docDate date="1922-12-19">Tuesday, 19 December 1922</docDate>
+      </block>
+      <block name="volume">
+        <docNumber refersTo="#vol_2">Vol. 2</docNumber>
+      </block>
+      <block name="number">
+        <docNumber refersTo="#no_9">No. 9</docNumber>
+      </block>
+    </preface>
+    <debateBody>
+      <debateSection name="prelude" eId="dbsect_1">
+        <heading>Prelude</heading>
+        <summary eId="sum_1">Do cromadh ar obair an lae ar 3.1 p.m.  Bhí an Ceann Comhairle, Micheál O hAodha, sa Chathaoir.</summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_2">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. - INCOME TAX ON LAND.</heading>
+        <speech by="#GeraldFitzgibbon" eId="spk_1">
+          <from>GEAROID MAC GIOBUIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_1">To ask the Minister for Finance whether the Government have made, or propose to make any arrangements as regards Income Tax, Schedule A, on lands where the owners are unable to collect rents <i>(a)</i> at all; <i>(b)</i> only subject to large abatements; and also as regards Income Tax on lands where the owners have been prevented from using them; and what is the nature of these arrangements, if any such exist.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_2">
+          <from>MINISTER for FINANCE (The President)</from>
+          <p eId="para_2">No new arrangements have been made by the Government, nor is it proposed to make any such arrangements. The existing law and practice enable the Revenue Authorities to deal with cases as they arise.</p>
+          <p eId="para_3">Any claim for relief should be submitted to the Inspector of Taxes for the District in which the property is situated.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#GeraldFitzgibbon" eId="spk_3">
+          <from>Mr. GERALD FITZGIBBON</from>
+          <p eId="para_4">Would the Minister for Finance ascertain whether Form 433, which was the one formerly in use under similar circumstances is still issued by the Inland Revenue?  The Form was one which requested persons to whom the question refers to make a return on the basis of actual receipts rather than valuation.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_4">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_5">I have no information here to put me in a position to answer the Deputy's question, but I shall have enquiries made.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_3">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. - EX-TEACHERS' PENSIONS.</heading>
+        <speech by="#TomasOConnell" eId="spk_5">
+          <from>TOMAS O CONAILL</from>
+          <p eId="para_6">To ask the Minister for Finance if it is true that the  late Minister for Finance, General Michael Collins, agreed last May to give a grant to increase the inadequate pensions now paid to ex-teachers; further, will he explain the extraordinary delay which has taken place in distributing this grant, and if he is now in a position to say when these increases will be paid.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_6">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_7">A draft of the rules to give effect to the increase asked for in May last is now before the Law Officer.  It has been much delayed by reason of legal difficulties.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#TomasOConnell" eId="spk_7">
+          <from>Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL</from>
+          <p eId="para_8">Can the Minister say when these payments are likely to be made?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_8">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_9">No; I have no idea.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_4">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. - VICTIMISED CIVIL SERVANTS.</heading>
+        <speech by="#SeanMilroy" eId="spk_9">
+          <from>SEAN O MAOLRUAIDH</from>
+          <p eId="para_10">To ask the Minister for Finance whether, in view of the fact that nearly two months have elapsed since a previous question was asked on the subject of setting up a committee to investigate the cases of victimised civil servants, he is now in a position to state on what date he proposes to set up this committee, and whether it is a fact that a similar committee in connection with resigned police has for some time been in existence, and does he intend to discriminate between the two classes to the disadvantage of civil servants?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_10">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_11">I am not yet in a position to give the exact date on which the Committee will be set up, but it is hoped that the necessary arrangements will be complete early in the New Year. All the obvious cases, I am informed, have been dealt with.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_5">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. - HOUSE RENTS.</heading>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_11">
+          <from>DARGHAL FIGES</from>
+          <p eId="para_12">To ask the Minister for Home Affairs if he is aware that many householders are receiving Notices to Quit because of their unwillingness to pay the full 40 per cent. increase in excess of standard rents allowed under the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, in some cases, because such householders  have been paying the increase of 15 per cent. allowed under the Decree of the Second Dáil of the year 1920, and in other cases because of assurances given in this Dáil that this matter will receive early attention?  If he will state when the Bill promised by him, dealing with this matter, will be brought before the Oireachtas?  And if, in view of the injustice of the present position, he is prepared to state that such Bill, if and when passed by the Oireachtas, will be made retrospective as from a given date.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#KevinChristopher" eId="spk_12">
+          <from>MINISTER for HOME AFFAIRS (Mr. Kevin O'Higgins)</from>
+          <p eId="para_13">I was not aware that such Notices to Quit were being received by many householders.  The operation of the Rent and Mortgage (Restrictions) Act, 1920, has, however, been receiving my attention for some time, and at the moment a Committee is in process of formation to advise whether the Act should be continued, and if so with what modifications.  When this Committee reports, and I do not see any reason why its work should not be completed in a comparatively short time, I hope to introduce a suitable Bill.  In the meantime I am not prepared to anticipate such report by stating whether the measure to be introduced should be made retrospective as from a given date.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_6">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. - DELIVERY OF LETTERS AND PARCELS (CHRISTMAS EVE).</heading>
+        <speech by="#GeraldFitzgibbon" eId="spk_13">
+          <from>GEAROID MAC GIOBUIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_14">To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can see his way to make provision for a delivery of letters and parcels on Christmas Eve throughout Saorstát Eireann, or at least in the urban districts.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JamesJosephWalsh" eId="spk_14">
+          <from>POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. J.J. Walsh)</from>
+          <p eId="para_15">A general delivery of letters and parcels will be afforded on Sunday, the 24th inst., except in some remote districts where this cannot be arranged owing to limited train facilities, but these districts will share in the general delivery of letters and parcels which will be afforded throughout Saorstát Eireann on Christmas Day.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_7">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. - OIL SUPPLY OF THE WORLD.</heading>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_15">
+          <from>DARGHAL FIGES</from>
+          <p eId="para_16">To ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce if his attention has been drawn to the facts  set out in a recent interview given to the Press Association by Sir E. Mackay Edgar, dealing, among other matters, with a probable shortage in the reasonably near future of the oil supply of the world, and if, having regard to the dependence of this country on oil, and to the considerable amount of national capital now locked, and increasingly being locked, in machinery dependent on oil, he will give particular attention to the recommendations on this matter of the recent Commission of Inquiry into the Resources and Industries of Ireland, in its Report on Industrial Alcohol, with a view to the consideration of legislation necessary to put those recommendations into effect.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PatrickJHogan" eId="spk_16">
+          <from>MINISTER for AGRICULTURE (Mr. P. Hogan), for Minister for Industry and Commerce</from>
+          <p eId="para_17">One of the important matters to be considered by the Commission, of which I announced the early appointment in the Dáil on the 14th inst., will be the development of the power resources of the country.  This will include the possibility of producing, distributing and using industrial alcohol to the advantage of industry and agriculture, and the Commission on Agriculture will, no doubt, also take this question into consideration. I will arrange that both Commissions are referred to the report mentioned in the question.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_8">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. - THE OLD PARLIAMENT HOUSE, COLLEGE GREEN.</heading>
+        <speech by="#RichardWilson" eId="spk_17">
+          <from>Mr. WILSON (for Ailfrid O Broin)</from>
+          <p eId="para_18">To ask the President if any steps have been taken, or if he proposed to take steps, to secure the old Parliament House, College Green, now in possession of the Bank of Ireland; further, if he is aware that canvassing by members of outside organisations is now being carried on for the purpose of securing support for a proposal to transfer the meeting-place of the Oireachtas to the Royal Hospital, Kilmainham.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_18">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_19">The permanent home of the Oireachtas has not yet been decided upon.  I doubt very much whether the old Parliament House, College Green, would be found convenient for the needs of a modern Parliament. The use of the Royal Hospital has been suggested, and is under consideration. I have no knowledge of any canvassing  by members of outside organisations to secure support for this proposal.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_9">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. - CO. LONGFORD MURDERS.</heading>
+        <speech by="#FrancisMacGuinness" eId="spk_19">
+          <from>PROINSIAS MAG AONGHUSA</from>
+          <p eId="para_20">To ask the Minister for Finance whether, on the 10th November, 1922, he received from Mr. C.J.P. Farrell, Solicitor, an application, with original County Court Decrees, for payment of compensation to the relatives of Michael Farrell, deceased, and to the relatives of Margaret Grehan, deceased, of Co. Longford, who were murdered during the "Black and Tan" regime, and whether the Minister in question will arrange payment of these claims immediately.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_20">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_21">I have received the applications referred to and the cases are now being investigated.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_10" refersTo="#bill.1922.2.dail.seanad_amd">
+        <heading>ADAPTATION OF ENACTMENTS BILL—FROM THE SEANAD.</heading>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_21">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_22">The Dáil will now consider the Adaptation of Enactments Bill as amended in the Seanad.  Article 10 is a new Article inserted by the Seanad.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_22">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_23">Is the new Article the Article 10 as printed in the Bill?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_23">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_24">Yes.  It is the Article with the marginal note, "Orders in Council," and is as follows: —"Wherever it is provided in any British Statute that any Act or thing shall or may be made or done by Order in Council, or by the King (or Queen) in Council, or by Proclamation of the King (or Queen) or of the King (or Queen) in Council, then every such act or thing may be made or done in Saorstát Eireann by an Order of the Governor-General of the Irish Free State upon the advice of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State."</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_24">
+          <from>Mr. THOS. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_25">I think it would be of considerable convenience if in future an indication were given of those amendments sent down.  I think this particular Clause is not objected to. I would like to ask whether I would be in order in moving an amendment now to the Bill as sent down.  It is merely a drafting amendment.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_25">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_26">I think the matter to be considered now is only the amendment made by the Seanad. If the Deputy's amendment is merely a verbal amendment which would meet with general agreement perhaps it might be taken without discussion.  But we should first have a Motion that the Bill as amended be passed.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_26">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_27">I beg to move:—"That the Bill as amended in Seanad Eireann be now passed."</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_27">
+          <from>MINISTER for LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Mr. E. Blythe)</from>
+          <p eId="para_28">I beg to second that motion.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_28">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_29">May I ask as a matter of guidance, and for general convenience, what is the general procedure at a stage like this.  Has the Bill, having been amended, to be passed through its entire five stages again?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_29">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_30">Oh, no. The Motion is that the Bill as amended by the Seanad be passed.  Standing Orders are being drawn up bearing upon this matter.  But I think, at the moment, there is no occasion for debate; perhaps we could go into committee on this amendment.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_30">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_31">The Standing Orders say the Dáil may accept or reject amendments made when they come down from the Seanad.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_31">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_32">It is a matter of the procedure to be adopted.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_32">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_33">The amendment that I suggest is in Clause 19, and I may say that was intended to be moved before the Bill left the Dáil on the last occasion and would have been moved but for the rather hurried method of legislating. It was to have been moved in the Seanad but for the same excuse.  I do not think there will be any objection to it.  It is to move after the word "order" to insert the word "regulation" so as to read "every order and regulation made by the Executive Council," and to make the necessary consequential amendments at a later stage of the Clause.  I think that is made necessary by the addition of Clause 13, which, as it will be remembered, was brought in by the Minister on the fourth stage of the Bill.  The  effect of the suggestion is that not only every order made under other clauses, but every regulation made under Clause 13 by the Minister for Finance respecting the routes for trading should also be laid upon the Table, and I think that will be conceded as necessary.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_33">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_34">I do not think it is advisable to accept the recommendation, apart from the difficulty that would be involved of again sending the Bill back to the Seanad.  I do not think that that Clause can be regarded in the sense as an order made to which Clause 19 refers. Regulations regarding the importation and exportation of goods are things not very lightly done.  There is no other course to adopt.  One has no selection.  One is, as it were, bound by the circumstances of the case, to the particular routes, that would be most advisable, and I do not know that it would improve the situation, from the point of view of the Dáil, that these regulations be laid upon the Table. At any rate, supposing we were getting close up to the time, 1st of April, or any other period, and that sufficient time would not elapse to allow it to be laid on the Table for 21 days, its usefulness for the first few days would be spent.  I do not think the Deputy ought to press that amendment.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_34">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_35">The argument, I think, lies here, that the Minister for Finance might, by an oversight, propose certain regulations which would hit very severely the constituencies of one or other members of the Dáil, and would be amended on a representation being made by the members.  It is undoubtedly a very important power, and without some kind of supervision and opportunity for representations being made before the Order comes into final operation, injustice or damage might be done to constituents and the Deputies concerned would have no influence or say in the matter. If the Minister insists that it is impracticable, I am not going to press it, but, I think it is rather a pity that we had not an opportunity of discussing the effect of such a regulation more fully.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_35">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_36">No motion has been moved on this matter, and strictly it is out of order, as there is nothing before us but the amendment of the Seanad.  In consideration of the speed at which this was passed, and in the expectation that there might be  agreement, I allowed the matter to come up, but I do not think that we can allow discussion.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_36">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_37">I do not know that it is a matter of order at all, but I wish merely to recall to your mind and the mind of the Minister that this was really consequential upon a certain understanding when the matter was last before the Dáil.  I do not wish to attempt to do anything that might seem to contravene any ruling of yours, but I might carry that reminder a little further and say that in Article 13, the words "the regulations" were brought in as a result of an amendment which I moved, because by turning to the English Act, of which these were an equivalent, it appeared to me, the words "the regulations" had been omitted, and, therefore the two did not tally.  The regulations in the English Act are specifically regulations that are laid on the Table of the English Legislature because they are made by the Customs and Excise, all such regulations requiring ratification, inasmuch as these words were introduced into Clause 13, because they appeared in the counterpart to the entire of that Clause.  It would be implied that the meaning that the words carry should also come in, and it had been my intention of moving an amendment such as that which Deputy Johnson expresses a wish to move. I was not in the Dáil when the last paragraph came up.  I would have made it my business to be here if I thought that he would not deal with it.  I think it was consequential and an amendment we ought to make.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_37">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_38">I think that the question of order in this particular matter does constitute a real difficulty, because the Constitution lays down that after an Act has gone to the Seanad for 270 days it shall become law in the form in which it was last passed by the Dáil. If the Dáil, having received a Bill back from the Seanad, were to be held to be at liberty to make changes in Clauses which had not been touched or amended by the Seanad, and not affected by the Seanad amendments, it might mean that shortly before the expiry of the 270 days some radical changes might be introduced.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_38">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_39">There is no question of allowing that.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_39">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_40">It is a question of establishing precedents now.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_40">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_41">There is no question whatever of allowing it.  The matter of order is quite clear.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_41">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_42">It would obviate any necessity of pressing this matter if the Minister for Finance would give an undertaking that he would interpret regulations in Clause 13 to be within the meaning of the orders as expressed in Clause 19.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_42">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_43">I could not undertake to give a promise of that sort until I looked into the matter.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_2">Motion made and question put:<entity name="reference" refersTo="#dbsect_10"/>
+                </summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_3">"That the Adaptation of Enactments Bill as amended in Seanad Eireann be now passed"</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_4">Agreed.</summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_11" refersTo="#bill.1922.4.dail.5">
+        <heading>LOCAL ELECTIONS POSTPONEMENT BILL.</heading>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_43">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_44">I move: "That the Local Elections Postponement Bill be received for final consideration."  I need not, I think, say anything in moving that this Bill be received for final consideration, except to say that after an amendment of which notice has been given by Deputy Milroy, has been considered, I will move a verbal amendment in Section 5 to substitute the word "may" for "shall," and add the words "not otherwise" after the word "vacancy" following the suggestion of Deputy Johnson.  In regard to the definition Clause, I find that the actual definition as it stands would include the Dublin Port and Docks Board, but I do not know whether it would meet Deputy O'Brien's point, if I undertook that no order would issue postponing the election, rather than try to discover a new definition.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamOBrien1922" eId="spk_44">
+          <from>Mr. WM. O'BRIEN</from>
+          <p eId="para_45">Yes.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#SeanMilroy" eId="spk_45">
+          <from>Mr. SEAN MILROY</from>
+          <p eId="para_46">I beg to propose the following amendment:—"To add to Sub-section 5, Clause 4, the following words: `Save that no election for the Lord Mayor, Mayors, Chairmen, or Vice-Chairmen shall be held until after the elections held under this Act.' " I do not think that this amendment will excite any very serious controversy, and I think the object of it is fairly obvious,  that is, to avoid further elections to the offices mentioned until after the Franchise Act of 1923 takes effect.  The wisdom of deferring these elections until then, I think, is fairly obvious, but this amendment was drafted very hurriedly last evening after the discussion, and since looking over it I see that it is not worded exactly to meet all that is intended.  I think the amendment itself will require amendment, because it seems to me that if it were passed as it stands it would preclude an election to one of these positions in case a person at present holding the office resigned or died.  I think there will have to be some modification in order to meet that.  A further alteration will be required in the amendment to make it read instead of "after an election held under this Act."  As far as I know the election will not be held under this Act, but under the Act termed the Franchise Act, 1923.  I do not think there is any controversy about that.  The amendment is simply moved in order to obviate unnecessary elections pending the operation of the new Franchise Act, but, as I say, it requires some slight alteration in order to meet the exact purpose for which it was intended.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ChrisMByrne" eId="spk_46">
+          <from>Mr. C. BYRNE</from>
+          <p eId="para_47">I second the amendment.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_47">
+          <from>Mr. THOMAS JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_48">I wonder does Deputy Milroy suggest that this should be put forward as an amendment to Clause 4, Sub-section 5, as it seems to me the whole object he has in mind would be attained if he altered Sub-section 4 on the fourth line to read: "may be continued in office."  Would not that meet the case, as it leaves a certain option to the local Council as to whether it will have an election or not?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_48">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_49">This amendment is one on which I have no particular feeling, and which I would be inclined to leave entirely to the Dáil.  As a matter of fact when the first draft of this Bill was made it provided that the election of Mayors and Chairmen should not be held in January, but should be postponed. Then it was thought perhaps that it would be just as well, in case there was any Chairman who was not liked by a Council, that his Council should have an opportunity of getting rid of him in January, and so the Bill was presented  in the form in which it is.  As I said, it is a matter on which I have no feeling, and would leave absolutely free to the Dáil to decide.  In case the Dáil is prepared to adopt the principle of Deputy Milroy's amendment, I got an amendment drafted this morning, after receiving a copy of Deputy Milroy's amendment, which would, perhaps, meet the case better than Deputy Milroy's actual amendment.  If the Dáil is inclined to adopt the principle I would suggest wording which would stand the test.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_49">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_50">Give us your suggestion.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_50">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_51">To substitute for Sub-section 5, Clause 4, which provides that the business of these statutory meetings shall not be abridged, as really the only business they are bound to transact at such meetings is the election of a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman or a Lord Mayor. Now, I propose, if the Dáil were disposed to adopt the principle of the amendment, to substitute words so that Sub-section 4 would read:—"Every Lord Mayor, Mayor, Chairman and Vice-Chairman of or appointed by any Council, body of Commissioners or other local body, the statutory elections to which are postponed by or under this Act, who is in office at the passing of this Act, or on the prescribed date shall continue in office until, but not after his successor shall have been duly elected at the first meeting of such Council, body of Commissioners or other local body after the statutory elections thereto, and shall have made the declaration accepting office." That means that Sub-section 4 terminates after the election the term of office of any Chairman, whenever elected, who may happen to hold office when the election takes place.  Section 5, which was designed to meet the purposes of Deputy Milroy's amendment, would continue in office any Mayor or Chairman until the prescribed date.  One would meet the case of, say, a Mayor who is elected in January next, owing to a casual vacancy, or owing to the resignation of the existing Mayor.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#GeraldFitzgibbon" eId="spk_51">
+          <from>Mr. G. FITZGIBBON</from>
+          <p eId="para_52">Would not the introduction of the words in Clause 4 after the words "who is in Office""at the passing of this Act or on the prescribed date" meet the case and save another sub-section, because as I understand the Minister, Clause 5 is identical  with Clause 4, except for the words "passing of the Act"?  And therefore if you introduce in Clause 4 the words I suggest "who is in office at the passing of this Act on the prescribed date" that hits both of them—the man who was coming in and the man who was in office when the prescribed date arrives.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_52">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_53">That would meet it. In Sub-section 5, you would have to cut out that Clause?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#GeraldFitzgibbon" eId="spk_53">
+          <from>Mr. FITZGIBBON</from>
+          <p eId="para_54">Yes.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ProfWilliamMagennis" eId="spk_54">
+          <from>Professor WM. MAGENNIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_55">On the first occasion we debated this the Minister pointed out to me that the cases which we wanted to provide for were provided for in Sub-section 5.  Certain County Councils are obliged to elect representatives of the Governing Body of the three University Colleges constituting the National University of Ireland, and if 5 was left out a difficulty would be created.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_55">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_56">That is not one of the statutory acts that they must do at the statutory meetings.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ProfWilliamMagennis" eId="spk_56">
+          <from>Professor MAGENNIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_57">But there is no other provision, you see.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#SeanMilroy" eId="spk_57">
+          <from>Mr. S. MILROY</from>
+          <p eId="para_58">I am in a little bit of a fog about this whole business.  I think it was understood that before there are any further elections for these positions this new Franchise Act was to operate.  Would it not clarify the matter if this was added also in addition to what Deputy Fitzgibbon has suggested, after the words "Statutory Declaration,""Statutory Elections under the Franchise Act of 1923"?  I am not clear that it is fully defined that the operation of this is contingent upon the operation of the Franchise.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_58">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_59">The whole purpose of this Act is to postpone elections until the Franchise Act is ready.  This then postpones the elections of Chairmen and Mayors until the elections to the Councils have taken place.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#SeanMilroy" eId="spk_59">
+          <from>Mr. MILROY</from>
+          <p eId="para_60">That is understood then, that it means after the new Franchise Act.  In view of that I withdraw my amendment if the suggested alterations are carried into effect.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_60">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_61">Is the Minister's amendment accepted?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ProfWilliamEThrift" eId="spk_61">
+          <from>Professor W. THRIFT</from>
+          <p eId="para_62">If this amendment is accepted I would like to ask is there anything in the Act which would give a Council power to appoint a new Mayor or Chairman in the event of a casual vacancy occurring after the New Year.  I think there might easily be an omission there.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_62">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_63">This deals only with the term of office and I do not think it would affect the power.  You see, a casual vacancy could be filled at any time.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ProfWilliamEThrift" eId="spk_63">
+          <from>Professor THRIFT</from>
+          <p eId="para_64">Could it be filled any time during office?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_64">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_65">Any time, yes.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_65">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_66">I would like to ask one question on this matter as to the effect of the change.  Would it be to make the retention of such office optional or would it be to make it obligatory? I interpret it to make it obligatory.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_66">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_67">It would be to make it obligatory.  I will move to insert in line 38, after the word "office,""At the passing of this Act or," and to delete Section 5.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#GeraldFitzgibbon" eId="spk_67">
+          <from>Mr. FITZGIBBON</from>
+          <p eId="para_68">I think this ought to be taken separately, because I am not at all sure about the deletion of Clause 5.  You see Clause 5 refers to an annual meeting or a quarterly meeting, and it seems to me quite possible that the second quarterly meeting might fall due before the statutory election would take place.  The annual meeting takes place in January, but the quarterly meetings would come in the ordinary course in March.  I am not sufficiently familiar with the Local Government Acts to say what it might be necessary for them to do at the quarterly meetings, and Clause 5 preserves the right to hold quarterly meetings when they fall due.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_68">
+          <from>Mr. T. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_69">I think it might be well to clear the point raised by Deputy Figgis about the obligatory effect of this amendment.  As I understand it—I would like to be corrected if I am wrong—there is no obligation upon the holder of the office to retain that office. He may resign without penalty.  The obligation is on the Council to retain him if he does not resign that position?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_69">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_70">Yes.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_70">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_71">The amendment proposed is to amend Clause 4, Sub-section 4, in this way.  It is proposed by the Minister for Local Government, and seconded by Mr. Fitzgibbon.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_5" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Amendment agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#dbsect_11"/>
+                </summary>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_71">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_72">I move to delete Sub-section 5.  This Sub-section was put in for the purpose of making it quite clear that the elections of Lord Mayors, Mayors, Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen would take place in January as usual and would not be postponed, as it is not intended that the election should take place.  The clause has no longer any purpose in remaining in the Bill.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamOBrien1922" eId="spk_72">
+          <from>Mr. WM. O'BRIEN</from>
+          <p eId="para_73">I would like to ask the Minister will that amendment affect the other duties usually performed at these statutory meetings, such as the election of committees?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_73">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_74">No.  There are practically no other statutory duties.  There is the nomination for High Sheriffs, but that will not affect this.  Then there is only the elections of committees, and so on.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamOBrien1922" eId="spk_74">
+          <from>Mr. W. O'BRIEN</from>
+          <p eId="para_75">It will not affect this?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DanielMcCarthy" eId="spk_75">
+          <from>Mr. D. McCARTHY</from>
+          <p eId="para_76">The previous one you have passed refers to Lord Mayors, Mayors and Vice-Chairmen, but all the other work of the Council can be done at the quarterly meeting.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_6" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Motion agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#dbsect_11"/>
+                </summary>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_76">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p title="motionProposal" eId="para_77">I move that in Section 5, Sub-section 1, in line 5, to substitute "may" for "shall."  The amendment suggested is to substitute "may" for "shall," and make it read:—"May be filled by means of the choice of such Council or Commissioners of a person to fill the vacancy, but not otherwise."</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_77">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_78">Therefore there are two amendments.  In line 5 to substitute "may" for "shall," and in line 7 to add at the end of the line, "but not otherwise."</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_7" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Amendment agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#dbsect_11"/>
+                </summary>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_78">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p title="motionProposal" eId="para_79">I move a similar amendment to Sub-section 2, "may" for "shall," and "but not otherwise."</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_79">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_80">In line 14 to substitute "may" for "shall," and in line 16, after the word "vacancies,""but not otherwise."  That is consequential on the other.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_8" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Amendment agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#dbsect_11"/>
+                </summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_9">Motion made and question put: "That Section 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_10">Agreed.</summary>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_80">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_81">Now, we could take the motion that the Bill be received for final consideration.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_11">Motion made, and question put:—<entity name="reference" refersTo="#dbsect_11"/>
+                </summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_12">"That the Postponement of Elections Bill be received for final consideration."</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_13">Agreed.</summary>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_81">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_82">I move that the Bill be now passed.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#FionanLynch" eId="spk_82">
+          <from>Mr. FINIAN LYNCH</from>
+          <p eId="para_83">I second the motion.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_14">Motion made, and question put:—<entity name="reference" refersTo="#dbsect_11"/>
+                </summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_15">"That the Postponement of Elections Bill be now passed."</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_16">Agreed.</summary>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_83">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_84">The Bill is now ordered to be sent to the Seanad.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_12" refersTo="#bill.1922.5.dail.1">
+        <heading>EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.</heading>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_84">
+          <from>Mr. O'HIGGINS</from>
+          <p eId="para_85">I move that the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill be received for final consideration.  There was a question yesterday of an item in the First Schedule, Section 42 of the National Insurance Act, 1911.  Now, the National Insurance Act of 1911 is not an expiring Act.  It is not temporary, but that particular section of it when the Bill was moved read "until the first day of January, 1915," and so on.  It went on to provide for the cases of insured persons who have not joined an Approved Society within the prescribed time or who having been members of an Approved Society have resigned or been expelled therefrom, and have not within the prescribed time joined another Approved Society.  It enabled them to use the Post Office in a certain way, and the amounts standing to their credit were credited to a special fund in the Post Office, and were made available from time to time as required.  That was an experiment, and consequently it was thought better to give it a trial  until the 1st January, 1915.  Evidently the experiment was satisfactory and gave good results, because this particular section of the Act has been continued from year to year ever since.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_17">Motion made and question put:<entity name="reference" refersTo="#dbsect_12"/>
+                </summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_18">"That the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill be received for final consideration."</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_19">Agreed.</summary>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_85">
+          <from>Mr. O'HIGGINS</from>
+          <p eId="para_86">I move that the Bill do now pass and be sent to Seanad Eireann.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#FionanLynch" eId="spk_86">
+          <from>Mr. FINIAN LYNCH</from>
+          <p eId="para_87">I beg to second the motion.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_20">Motion made and question put:<entity name="reference" refersTo="#dbsect_12"/>
+                </summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_21">"That the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill do now pass and be sent to Seanad Eireann."</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_22">Agreed.</summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_13" refersTo="#bill.1922.7.dail.1">
+        <heading>CRIMINAL AND MALICIOUS INJURIES (AMENDMENT) BILL.</heading>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_87">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_88">I move for permission to introduce a Bill for Criminal and Malicious Injuries.  The final draft of the Bill is not yet ready; it is under consideration.  It might be possible to circulate the Bill before Christmas, but it would not be possible, I think, to print and circulate it to-morrow.  As I have already explained, the Criminal and Malicious Injuries Acts go too far in some particulars and not quite far enough in other particulars, and those are the things that we are endeavouring to reconcile.  We have had several meetings discussing the various proposals and getting advice on them.  It is intricate. As can be readily understood where such a huge sum of money is involved every possible precaution must be taken that the taxpayers are not mulcted beyond what is fair.  We mean also to deal as fairly as we can with the persons affected, and this Act will specify what compensation is to be paid, or at least the lines upon which compensation will have to be paid.  We also have to deal with particular clauses of the Criminal and Malicious Injury Act which are at present inoperative, which would be oppressive if they were operative, and which at no time could be justified on any modern principles.  I refer to such things as the payment of 5 per cent. interest from the date of the award.  There would be no necessity for including that in the future. But should a person have had a decree  for some months, the 5 per cent. would run if we did not bring in a clause to prevent it running.  A person having secured a decree would be in a superior position to a person who did not take a case into court, since July, 1921, until now.  There are other clauses; in fact, we intend to repeal the whole, I think, of the Criminal and Malicious Injuries Act of 1919 and 1920.  As the law stands at the present moment, a person getting a decree against the local authority under the Criminal and Malicious Injury Act is entitled to go to the treasurer of the local authority and get paid the full amount of that decree, even though not even one single penny has been levied in that area under that particular service.  In other words a place like the City of Dublin may, in the early part of the year—let us say July or August—have altogether on hands five or six thousand pounds, and they would be liable to discharge all the Criminal and Malicious Injury claims which would come in, out of that five or six thousand pounds, which may be required for doing such work as cleansing of streets, keeping the sewers running, or maintaining a public water supply, or electric light, or any other service such as that. Obviously that could not be allowed to continue, and in addition to making regulations or laws in connection with compensation it is necessary to take into consideration such things as those.  I do not anticipate that the Bill can be printed before a couple of days.  We may possibly have it within a couple of days, but I do not think it would be possible that it would be in your hands to-morrow.  I formally move for permission to introduce the Criminal and Malicious Injuries (Amendment) Bill.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PatrickJHogan" eId="spk_88">
+          <from>Mr. P. HOGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_89">I beg to second the motion.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_23" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Motion agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#dbsect_13"/>
+                </summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_14">
+        <heading>COISTE AR THURASTAIL AGUS LIÚNTAISÍ.  (COMMITTEE ON SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES).</heading>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_89">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_90">I understand this matter of a Committee on Salaries and Allowances is necessary.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_90">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_91">Yes.  I understand that it will be necessary to introduce a Bill to deal with this matter, and I ask that the Dáil would re-appoint the Committee which dealt with Salaries and Allowances so that the Ministry might be in a position to consult with that Committee, and to enable us to bring in a Bill dealing with this matter, which would be in the main, at any rate, an agreed measure.  Since this Committee sat we have set up the Seanad, and it would be necessary according to the Constitution to make provision for the discharge of our obligations to the members constituting the Seanad.  The payment of members and Ministers sanctioned by the Provisional Government or by the Dáil lapsed on the 6th December. An Act of this kind should, as far as possible, be an agreed measure.  I think that from the report of the Seanad which I have seen, that much the same terms were agreed to there for Senators as were fixed for Deputies here.  There are minor points on which it might be necessary to have the benefit of the advice of this Committee before bringing in the Bill.  I think that if the Committee which dealt with this matter before were re-appointed, or should the Dáil decide to appoint another Committee, we would be able to bring in the Bill immediately after the re-assembling of the Oireachtas somewhere about the first week in January.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_91">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_92">Is there any urgency about the salaries and allowances for this month?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_92">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_93">I think I will be able to make arrangements to have payments made, on the understanding, of course, that the Dáil would not reject the Bill afterwards and place responsibility for the payment on my shoulders.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_93">
+          <from>Mr. THOMAS JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_94">I think if there was a resolution moved that there be a preliminary authorisation that might meet the situation.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_94">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_95">There are two matters.  The idea would be to continue the arrangements made in the Provisional Parliament for the month of December in regard to the payment of salaries, allowances, travelling facilities, and so on.  We are at present issuing travelling vouchers, but I have been  told—I have not investigated the matter myself—that we have no legal authority to do so.  I think a resolution would meet the case.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_95">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_96">The resolution will be something like this: "That pending the introduction of a Bill dealing with salaries and allowances of members and Ministers similar payments to those passed by the Provisional Parliament be approved."</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_96">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_97">Do you mean similar payments to those made by the Provisional Parliament?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_97">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_98">Yes.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_98">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_99">Is there not a formal method by which moneys can be paid pending the passing of a Finance Act? You have a form—I think it is called the Ways and Means—and I think it will probably have to be adopted very often. There is the resolution approving of the payment of certain charges pending the passing of an Act.  I take it that that is the procedure which ought to be adopted in this case.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_99">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_100">I take it that the resolution which has been proposed will cover the matter.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_100">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_101">It is a Ways and Means resolution.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_101">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_102">Yes.  It allocates moneys for a specific purpose.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MylesKeogh" eId="spk_102">
+          <from>Dr. MYLES KEOGH</from>
+          <p eId="para_103">I beg to second the President's motion.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_103">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_104">The matter that was first mentioned by the President as to the names of the Committee; does that arise still?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_104">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_105">I suggest the appointment of the previous Committee.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_105">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_106">The previous Committee was appointed to consider and report on salaries and payments suitable for the various offices held by Ministers, the Ceann Comhairle, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and Teachtai of Dáil Eireann.  The Committee consisted of the following:—Micheál O Dubhghaill, Cathal O Seanain, Tomas O Conail, Seamus O Dolain, Seoirse MacNíocaill, Micheal de Staineas, Seosamh O Faoileachain, Domhnall MacCartaigh, Criostoir O Broin, agus Liam de Roiste.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_106">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_107">Some members of that Committee are not members of the Dáil as yet, as far as the necessity for taking the Oath is concerned.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#SeanMilroy" eId="spk_107">
+          <from>Mr. SEAN MILROY</from>
+          <p eId="para_108">Deputy de Roiste is on the Continent, and I propose Deputy William Sears as a substitute.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DrVincentJWhite" eId="spk_108">
+          <from>Dr. V. WHITE</from>
+          <p eId="para_109">I beg to second that proposal.</p>
+          <p eId="para_110">Agreed.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_24" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Question: "That five members of the Committee form a quorum," put and agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#para_86"/>
+                </summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_15">
+        <heading>ADJOURNMENT OF THE DÁIL.</heading>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_109">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_111">I would suggest that the Dáil adjourns until January the 2nd or 3rd.  We are very much pressed for time; until 12 o'clock last night, and also for three hours this morning we were engaged on the Criminal and Malicious Injuries (Amendment) Bill, and it will take some time to get through with it.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamOBrien1922" eId="spk_110">
+          <from>Mr. W. O'BRIEN</from>
+          <p eId="para_112">Perhaps some of these Bills may come back from the Seanad to be further amended?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_111">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_113">That is the only thing I fear.  I have been told it is quite possible attention may be drawn to one Act omitted from the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.  If that were the case we could early in January run through a short Bill re-enacting that particular one.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_112">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_114">It would be better to meet again rather than follow the precedent we adopted yesterday.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_113">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_115">Very well; we can agree to meet to-morrow evening.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#GeraldFitzgibbon" eId="spk_114">
+          <from>Mr. G. FITZGIBBON</from>
+          <p eId="para_116">Before the motion for the adjournment has been put, it occurs to me that the President might be able to make some statement on a certain matter.  The Criminal Injuries Act has just been introduced and read for the first time.  It appears to me it cannot possibly be passed into law before the end of January.  The Government have stated that it will require careful consideration and will contain a good deal of new legislation.  I know professionally that many cases have been adjourned from the October Sessions until the January Sessions for the introduction of this Bill.  The Legal representatives  of the Government said that as they were going to be represented at the future hearing of any of these Malicious Injury Claims, the claims ought not to be taken up by the Recorder of Dublin or other Judicial Officers until this Bill had passed into law.  The cases were all adjourned until the January Sessions.  I know that in October many people attended with their witnesses hoping their cases might come on.  They were bound to attend as they were duly summoned. The same thing will happen in January, and it seems to me absolutely impossible that this Bill could pass into law in time to meet the January Sessions.  I venture to suggest that possibly the Ministry might be able to make a statement to-morrow, to the effect that these cases will not be taken up at the January Sessions, but will be further adjourned. That will save large expense to many people who would in the ordinary course be attending there.  If such a statement could be made it would be an enormous convenience.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_115">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_117">We had that point under consideration and it was our intention to insert in the Bill the date upon which these Courts would be assembled to hear cases.  I think it would be about the first week in February, but we will consider the point mentioned by the Deputy, and see whether a statement can be made here in the Dáil, or whether we can publish a notice to meet the case for litigants who have already been disappointed on one occasion and whom we do not wish to disappoint again.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#GeraldFitzgibbon" eId="spk_116">
+          <from>Mr. G. FITZGIBBON</from>
+          <p eId="para_118">The President's statement entirely meets the case.  Any further statement would be most gratefully received by the people who otherwise would be put to considerable expense.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamSears" eId="spk_117">
+          <from>Mr. WM. SEARS</from>
+          <p eId="para_119">Can you tell us, A Chinn Chomhairle, what is to be on the Agenda for to-morrow?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_118">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_120">The Agenda to-morrow will contain nothing except Bills from the Seanad and Questions if there be any.  Should the Seanad make any amendments to Bills sent up to them it will be necessary for the Dáil to consider these amendments, and it is to provide for that contingency that we are meeting.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamSears" eId="spk_119">
+          <from>Mr. SEARS</from>
+          <p eId="para_121">I take it that the debate on the Address stands over until after Christmas?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_120">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_122">Yes.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_121">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_123">We intend also, if possible, to have the First Reading of the Amnesty Bill to-morrow.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_122">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_124">That is also a formal matter which involves no debate.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamSears" eId="spk_123">
+          <from>Mr. SEARS</from>
+          <p eId="para_125">There is the important question of the land, which many of us wish to raise on the debate on the Address of the Governor-General.  That would require a great deal of time and we are satisfied that it should stand over.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_25" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Question:—"That the Dáil do now adjourn till to-morrow evening at 6 p.m.," put and agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#para_82"/>
+                </summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_26">The Dáil adjourned at 4.20 p.m.</summary>
+      </debateSection>
+    </debateBody>
+  </debate>
+</akomaNtoso>

1925/1925-02-13_mul@.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,698 @@
+<akomaNtoso xmlns="http://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/ns/akn/3.0/CSD13" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/ns/akn/3.0/CSD13 ./akomantoso30.xsd ">
+  <debate name="Official Report">
+    <meta>
+      <identification source="#source">
+        <FRBRWork>
+          <FRBRthis value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1925-02-13/debate/main"/>
+          <FRBRuri value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1925-02-13/debate"/>
+          <FRBRdate date="1925-02-13" name="#generation"/>
+          <FRBRauthor href="/ie/oireachtas/house/dail/4"/>
+          <FRBRcountry value="ie"/>
+          <FRBRname value="debate"/>
+        </FRBRWork>
+        <FRBRExpression>
+          <FRBRthis value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1925-02-13/debate/mul@/main"/>
+          <FRBRuri value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1925-02-13/debate/mul@"/>
+          <FRBRdate date="1925-02-13" name="#reported"/>
+          <FRBRauthor href="/ie/oireachtas/role/debates"/>
+          <FRBRlanguage language="mul"/>
+        </FRBRExpression>
+        <FRBRManifestation>
+          <FRBRthis value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1925-02-13/debate/mul@/main.xml"/>
+          <FRBRuri value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1925-02-13/debate/mul@.akn"/>
+          <FRBRdate date="2020-06-25" name="#publication"/>
+          <FRBRauthor href="/ie/oireachtas/role/debates"/>
+        </FRBRManifestation>
+      </identification>
+      <analysis source="#source">
+        <otherAnalysis xmlns:oir="https://data.oireachtas.ie/ns/1.0" source="#source">
+          <oir:volumeReference showAs="Vol. 10" eId="#vol_10" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10"/>
+          <oir:numberReference showAs="No. 3" eId="#no_3" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/no/3"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 193" eId="col_193" refersTo="#dbsect_1" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/193"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 194" eId="col_194" refersTo="#dbsect_2" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/194"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 195" eId="col_195" refersTo="#spk_14" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/195"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 196" eId="col_196" refersTo="#spk_18" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/196"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 197" eId="col_197" refersTo="#spk_21" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/197"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 198" eId="col_198" refersTo="#spk_27" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/198"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 199" eId="col_199" refersTo="#spk_35" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/199"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 200" eId="col_200" refersTo="#spk_45" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/200"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 201" eId="col_201" refersTo="#spk_51" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/201"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 202" eId="col_202" refersTo="#dbsect_13" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/202"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 203" eId="col_203" refersTo="#spk_65" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/203"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 204" eId="col_204" refersTo="#dbsect_21" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/204"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 205" eId="col_205" refersTo="#spk_114" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/205"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 206" eId="col_206" refersTo="#dbsect_15" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/206"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 207" eId="col_207" refersTo="#spk_72" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/207"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 208" eId="col_208" refersTo="#spk_72" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/208"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 209" eId="col_209" refersTo="#spk_75" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/209"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 210" eId="col_210" refersTo="#spk_83" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/210"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 211" eId="col_211" refersTo="#spk_87" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/211"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 212" eId="col_212" refersTo="#spk_87" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/212"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 213" eId="col_213" refersTo="#spk_88" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/213"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 214" eId="col_214" refersTo="#spk_89" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/214"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 215" eId="col_215" refersTo="#spk_89" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/215"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 216" eId="col_216" refersTo="#spk_89" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/216"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 217" eId="col_217" refersTo="#spk_89" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/217"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 218" eId="col_218" refersTo="#spk_90" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/218"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 219" eId="col_219" refersTo="#spk_91" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/219"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 220" eId="col_220" refersTo="#spk_91" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/220"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 221" eId="col_221" refersTo="#spk_93" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/221"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 222" eId="col_222" refersTo="#spk_93" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/222"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 223" eId="col_223" refersTo="#spk_96" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/223"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 224" eId="col_224" refersTo="#dbsect_19" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/224"/>
+        </otherAnalysis>
+      </analysis>
+      <references source="#source">
+        <TLCOrganization eId="source" href="" showAs="Houses of the Oireachtas"/>
+        <TLCEvent eId="bill.1924.45.dail.seanad_amd" href="/ie/oireachtas/bill/1924/45/dail/seanad_amd" showAs="Medical Bill 1924: Dáil From the Seanad"/>
+        <TLCConcept eId="generation" href="/ie/oireachtas/ontology#Generation" showAs="Generation"/>
+        <TLCConcept eId="publication" href="/ie/oireachtas/ontology#Publication" showAs="Publication"/>
+        <TLCConcept eId="reported" href="/ie/oireachtas/ontology#Reported" showAs="Reported"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="BryanRiccoCooper" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Major-Bryan-Ricco-Cooper.D.1923-09-19" showAs="Major Bryan Ricco Cooper"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="DanielMorrissey" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Daniel-Morrissey.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Daniel Morrissey"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="DarrellFiggis" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Darrell-Figgis.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Darrell Figgis"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="DavidHall" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/David-Hall.D.1923-09-19" showAs="David Hall"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="DesmondFitzgerald" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Desmond-FitzGerald.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Desmond FitzGerald"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="EdwardDoyle" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Edward-Doyle.D.1923-09-19" showAs="Edward Doyle"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="ErnestBlythe" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Ernest-Blythe.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Ernest Blythe"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="HughColohan" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Hugh-Colohan.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Hugh Colohan"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="JamesJosephWalsh" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/James-Joseph-Walsh.D.1919-01-21" showAs="James Joseph Walsh"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="JohnDaly" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/John-Daly.D.1923-09-19" showAs="John Daly"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="KevinChristopher" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Kevin-Christopher-O'Higgins.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Kevin Christopher O'Higgins"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="MartinMNally" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Martin-M-Nally.D.1923-09-19" showAs="Martin M. Nally"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="MichaelHayes" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Michael-Hayes.D.1921-08-16" showAs="Michael Hayes"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="OsmondGrattanEsmonde" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Osmond-T-Grattan-Esmonde.D.1923-09-19" showAs="Osmond T. Grattan Esmonde"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="PadraicOMaille" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Pádraic-Ó-Maille.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Pádraic Ó Maille"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="PatrickJHogan" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Patrick-J-Hogan.D.1921-08-16" showAs="Patrick J. Hogan"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="PatrickKHogan" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Patrick-K-Hogan.D.1923-09-19" showAs="Patrick K. Hogan"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="PatrickMcFadden" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Patrick-McFadden.D.1923-09-19" showAs="Patrick McFadden"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="PatrickMcGilligan" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Patrick-McGilligan.D.1923-11-03" showAs="Patrick McGilligan"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="PeterHughes" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Peter-Hughes.D.1921-08-16" showAs="Peter Hughes"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="ProfWilliamEThrift" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Prof-William-E-Thrift.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Prof. William E. Thrift"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="RichardCorish" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Richard-Corish.D.1921-08-16" showAs="Richard Corish"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="SeamusAloysiusBourke" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Séamus-Aloysius-Bourke.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Séamus Aloysius Bourke"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="ThomasJohnson" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Thomas-Johnson.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Thomas Johnson"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="WilliamDavin" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/William-Davin.D.1922-09-09" showAs="William Davin"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="WilliamTCosgrave" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/William-T-Cosgrave.D.1919-01-21" showAs="William T. Cosgrave"/>
+        <TLCRole eId="author" href="/ie/oireachtas/role/role/author" showAs="author"/>
+        <TLCRole eId="editor" href="/ie/oireachtas/role/role/editor" showAs="editor"/>
+      </references>
+    </meta>
+    <preface>
+      <block name="title_ga">
+        <docTitle>DÍOSPÓIREACHTAÍ PARLAIMINTE</docTitle>
+      </block>
+      <block name="title_en">
+        <docTitle>PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES</docTitle>
+      </block>
+      <block name="proponent_ga">
+        <docProponent>DÁIL ÉIREANN</docProponent>
+      </block>
+      <block name="status_ga">
+        <docStatus>TUAIRISC OIFIGIÚIL</docStatus>
+      </block>
+      <block name="status_en">
+        <docStatus>(OFFICIAL REPORT)</docStatus>
+      </block>
+      <block name="date_ga">
+        <docDate date="1925-02-13">Dé hAoine, 13 Feabhra 1925</docDate>
+      </block>
+      <block name="date_en">
+        <docDate date="1925-02-13">Friday, 13 February 1925</docDate>
+      </block>
+      <block name="volume">
+        <docNumber refersTo="#vol_10">Vol. 10</docNumber>
+      </block>
+      <block name="number">
+        <docNumber refersTo="#no_3">No. 3</docNumber>
+      </block>
+    </preface>
+    <debateBody>
+      <debateSection name="prelude" eId="dbsect_1">
+        <heading>Prelude</heading>
+        <summary eId="sum_1">Do chuaidh an Ceann Comhairle i geeannas ar a dhó a clog.</summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_2">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - REPORT OF REVENUE COMMISSIONERS.</heading>
+        <speech by="#BryanRiccoCooper" eId="spk_1">
+          <from>Major COOPER</from>
+          <p eId="para_1">asked the Minister for Finance whether the Report of the Revenue Commissioners for the year 1923-24 is to be presented to the Oireachtas, and, if so, if he can state when it will be laid on the Table.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_2">
+          <from>MINISTER for FINANCE (Mr. Blythe)</from>
+          <p eId="para_2">The report of the Revenue Commissioners for the year 1923-24 is being prepared, but it is not possible to state precisely when it will be ready for presentation to the Oireachtas.  It is hoped, however, that it will be ready by August.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#BryanRiccoCooper" eId="spk_3">
+          <from>Major COOPER</from>
+          <p eId="para_3">Is there any possibility of getting this return before the Budget, because, until we have it, it is very hard to know our precise financial situation and how much of the money collected for income tax is revenue and how much arrears?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_4">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_4">I shall not have any possibility of getting the latter information for fifteen months.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_5">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_5">Will the Minister supply the information as to the aggregate amount collected or, alternatively, the aggregate assessments under the various separate schedules without subdivisions.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_6">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_6">I dealt with this matter pretty fully the last evening the Dáil met, and I have nothing to add to what I then said.  We cannot be expected, with our new machinery, to be fifteen months or, at any rate, a considerable period, earlier than the British Government with figures.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_7">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_7">How is the Minister going to consider the question of remission?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_8">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_8">Is the Minister going to consider the question of remission?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#BryanRiccoCooper" eId="spk_9">
+          <from>Major COOPER</from>
+          <p eId="para_9">In view of the fact that these figures are available in Cork and nowhere else, will the Minister have them confirmed or otherwise?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_10">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_10">I do not know what figures are available in Cork, but certainly they were not got from any official of my department.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_3">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - LATE GUARD NOLAN (WIDOW'S CLAIM).</heading>
+        <speech by="#HughColohan" eId="spk_11">
+          <from>AODH O CULACHAIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_11">asked the Minister for Finance whether the result of enquiries promised on the 27th November, 1924, in respect of the claim for financial assistance of Mrs. T. Nolan, Nurney, Kildare, widow of the late Guard Nolan, No. 1645, Gárda Síochána, forwarded to him by the Minister for Defence some eighteen weeks ago, is yet available, and if he can state when Mrs. Nolan may expect settlement of her claim.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_12">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_12">I have under consideration at present the draft Pensions Order proposed to be made under Section 8 of the Gárda Síochána Act, 1924, and I trust that at an early date it will be possible for me to grant in pursuance thereof some relief in this and other similar cases.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_4">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - JUNIOR ADMINISTRATIVE POSTS (1925 EXAMINATIONS).</heading>
+        <speech by="#ProfWilliamEThrift" eId="spk_13">
+          <from>Professor LIAM THRIFT</from>
+          <p eId="para_13">asked the Minister for Finance if three distinct Press announcements and three sets of regulations in connection with the examination to be held in 1925 for Junior Administrative Posts were issued; and if so, whether he can state why the various changes were necessary, and if he will take steps to prevent in the future the necessity for changing regulations as issued, and the expense incurred in making such changes.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_14">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_14">The Press announcements  and regulations for this examination were reissued as stated in the question.  The first reissue was made in order to remove a doubt on the part of some intending candidates as to the conditions of eligibility for admission to the examination.  A further modification became necessary because of a decision to admit women as well as men to the competition.  The circumstances were exceptional, and I do not anticipate that the need for similar changes in regulations issued will arise again.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_5">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - BURNING OF HAY (COMPENSATION AWARD).</heading>
+        <speech by="#PatrickKHogan" eId="spk_15">
+          <from>PADRAIG O hOGAIN (Luimneach)</from>
+          <p eId="para_15">asked the Minister for Finance whether he is aware that an award of £210 for the burning of hay was made in favour of James O'Callaghan, Ballintubber, Kilfinane, Co. Limerick, by the Courts in October, 1921, and whether payment of same will be expedited.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_16">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_16">This claim was not opposed when originally heard.  The award is considered excessive and an application for a rehearing was made on my behalf under Section 2 (3) of the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, 1923, and an offer of £150 was made to and refused by the applicant. If an agreement is not arrived at the claim must be brought before the Circuit Judge for adjudication.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_6">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - SECONDARY TEACHERS' SALARIES.</heading>
+        <speech by="#ProfWilliamEThrift" eId="spk_17">
+          <from>Professor LIAM THRIFT</from>
+          <p eId="para_17">asked the Minister for Education if he is in a position to supplement the statement made in the Press with reference to the salaries of secondary teachers and to make a full statement as to the proposed scheme of salaries, increments, and grants to schools.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PatrickMcGilligan" eId="spk_18">
+          <from>MINISTER for INDUSTRY and COMMERCE (Mr. McGilligan) (on behalf of the Minister for Education)</from>
+          <p eId="para_18">The rules for the payment of increments of salary to secondary teachers are being printed and will be available  shortly.  I am not yet in a position to make a complete statement as to the new system of grants for secondary schools or the salaries which these schools will be required to pay to their teachers, as certain details are not settled.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ProfWilliamEThrift" eId="spk_19">
+          <from>Professor THRIFT</from>
+          <p eId="para_19">It is hardly fair to press the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who is only answering on behalf of the Minister for Education, but I would like to ask is he aware of the length of time these details have been awaited and the importance of having these details known as early as possible.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_7">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - EMIGRATION—(MEDICAL INSPECTION).</heading>
+        <speech by="#BryanRiccoCooper" eId="spk_20">
+          <from>Major COOPER</from>
+          <p eId="para_20">asked the Minister for External Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that passengers embarking on vessels of the Cunard-Anchor line at Moville are obliged to undergo a very much stricter medical examination and inspection than those embarking at Glasgow and Greenock; whether the United States Immigration Regulations discriminate between passengers coming from different countries; whether these regulations as to medical inspection should be applied to American citizens, and whether, in view of the fact that the character of this examination may deter Americans from visiting the Saorstát, he will instruct the Saorstát representatives in Washington and New York to approach the companies concerned with regard to this matter.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DesmondFitzgerald" eId="spk_21">
+          <from>MINISTER for EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (Mr. Desmond Fitzgerald)</from>
+          <p eId="para_21">The Steamship Companies as well as being heavily fined in each instance are obliged by the United States Government to bring back to the port of departure, at their own expense, all immigrants suffering from disease or ill-health who have been carried on their vessels to American ports.  The examination is therefore necessarily a strict one, and if the character of the examination varies from one port to another it arises only from the varying interpretations put on their instructions by the doctors employed.</p>
+          <p eId="para_22">American citizens, for whom the companies have no particular responsibility, are either examined cursorily or not examined at all, and consequently the examination is not such as would deter Americans from visiting this country.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#BryanRiccoCooper" eId="spk_22">
+          <from>Major COOPER</from>
+          <p eId="para_23">Is the Minister aware that American citizens are being put through exactly the same examination as anybody else, and that on one occasion after two immigrants' hair was examined with a comb the same comb, without being cleaned, was put through the hair of an American lady? And is he aware that at Glasgow people simply walk on the boat showing a card; while at Moville the examination is of a particularly drastic character?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DesmondFitzgerald" eId="spk_23">
+          <from>Mr. FITZGERALD</from>
+          <p eId="para_24">I am not aware of the facts and, even if I accept them as facts, I think it comes from the doctors not quite understanding what the regulations are.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#BryanRiccoCooper" eId="spk_24">
+          <from>Major COOPER</from>
+          <p eId="para_25">If I send the Minister information on this matter will he inform the doctors?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DesmondFitzgerald" eId="spk_25">
+          <from>Mr. FITZGERALD</from>
+          <p eId="para_26">I will take some steps.  Possibly the doctors read the papers and, if so, they will learn what the Deputy has said.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_8">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - SICK PAY TO CORPORATION EMPLOYEES.</heading>
+        <speech by="#EdwardDoyle" eId="spk_26">
+          <from>EAMON O DUBHGHAILL</from>
+          <p eId="para_27">asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health whether he is aware that the Kilkenny Corporation have recently discontinued the practice of paying wages to employees absent from work on account of sickness; whether a similar change has occurred in the case of roadmen employed by the Dublin County Council, and whether this is in accordance with instructions issued by the Minister or is approved by him.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#SeamusAloysiusBourke" eId="spk_27">
+          <from>MINISTER for LOCAL GOVERNMENT and PUBLIC HEALTH (Mr. Burke)</from>
+          <p eId="para_28">While I have not definite information it is not unlikely that wages have been discontinued during absence owing to illness.  On a recent inquiry from Kilkenny I advised that there appeared to be no statutory authority  for such payments.  Such workmen are entitled to benefit under the National Health Insurance Act.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#RichardCorish" eId="spk_28">
+          <from>Mr. CORISH</from>
+          <p eId="para_29">Is the Minister aware that this was permissive by the authority of the old Local Government Board?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#SeamusAloysiusBourke" eId="spk_29">
+          <from>Mr. BURKE</from>
+          <p eId="para_30">I am not aware of that fact.  The question was never put to the old Local Government Board for decision.  It has been put up to us and we have to go on the legal facts of the position.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#RichardCorish" eId="spk_30">
+          <from>Mr. CORISH</from>
+          <p eId="para_31">By whom was the decision asked for?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#SeamusAloysiusBourke" eId="spk_31">
+          <from>Mr. BURKE</from>
+          <p eId="para_32">The request came from a Kilkenny local authority.  I am not sure at the moment which.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_32">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_33">Is this another illustration of the more drastic methods of administration by this Government than the old Local Government Board adopted in respect of working men?</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_9">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - BLIND PENSION (KILCULLEN CLAIMANT).</heading>
+        <speech by="#HughColohan" eId="spk_33">
+          <from>AODH O CULACHAIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_34">asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health whether he is aware that Patrick McGann, Greenhills, Brownstown, Kilcullen, Co. Kildare, who was awarded a blind pension of 10s. per week on the 12th May, 1924, by the Naas South Sub-Committee, has not yet received any payment, and whether he will give instructions to expedite sanction of pension.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#SeamusAloysiusBourke" eId="spk_34">
+          <from>Mr. BURKE</from>
+          <p eId="para_35">The facts are as stated by the Deputy.  The case was, with others, awaiting medical inspection on appeal.  An additional temporary medical inspector was recently appointed and every effort will be made to clear off arrears of inspection in Blind Pension appeal cases.  The Deputy's representations have been noted and this claim will be dealt with at the earliest possible date.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DanielMorrissey" eId="spk_35">
+          <from>Mr. MORRISSEY</from>
+          <p eId="para_36">Is the Minister aware that there is quite a large number of claims for old age pensions waiting, some of them for two years, for  this medical inspection, and will he take steps to have a sufficient number of doctors appointed to have these cases cleared off?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#SeamusAloysiusBourke" eId="spk_36">
+          <from>Mr. BURKE</from>
+          <p eId="para_37">I have said I have appointed an additional man who, it is considered, will be quite adequate to deal with the additional claimants.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#RichardCorish" eId="spk_37">
+          <from>Mr. CORISH</from>
+          <p eId="para_38">Is the Minister aware that it was suggested to one applicant that he should present himself in Dublin?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#SeamusAloysiusBourke" eId="spk_38">
+          <from>Mr. BURKE</from>
+          <p eId="para_39">The Deputy has not informed me where the applicant comes from.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#RichardCorish" eId="spk_39">
+          <from>Mr. CORISH</from>
+          <p eId="para_40">I will give you the particulars.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_40">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_41">Will the Minister say how far the additional doctor has got through the arrears?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#SeamusAloysiusBourke" eId="spk_41">
+          <from>Mr. BURKE</from>
+          <p eId="para_42">I think that should be a new question.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_10">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - RATE FOR 1926.</heading>
+        <speech by="#PatrickKHogan" eId="spk_42">
+          <from>PADRAIG O hOGAIN (Luimneach)</from>
+          <p eId="para_43">asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health whether he has considered the postponement of the striking of the rate for next year until after the Local Government elections, and, if so, what he proposes to do in the matter.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#SeamusAloysiusBourke" eId="spk_43">
+          <from>Mr. BURKE</from>
+          <p eId="para_44">The question implies that I have power to postpone the striking of local rates.  I have no such authority.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PatrickKHogan" eId="spk_44">
+          <from>Mr. HOGAN (Limerick)</from>
+          <p eId="para_45">Is the Minister aware of the great anxiety of the ratepayers to have the elections over before the striking of the rates, and will he, owing to that anxiety, give the approximate date when the elections will take place?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#SeamusAloysiusBourke" eId="spk_45">
+          <from>Mr. BURKE</from>
+          <p eId="para_46">I am aware of the fact, and I have been very anxious all along to have the Bill passed in time to have the new Councils in, for the striking of the rates, but, owing to the length of time it took the Bill to get through this, and the other House, I am afraid it will not be possible to have the elections in  time for that.  Provision has been inserted in the Local Government Bill in the Seanad requiring me to hold the elections within two months after the passing of the Act, and I expect that will be upheld in the Dáil.  I am of course in the hands of the Dáil.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MartinMNally" eId="spk_46">
+          <from>Mr. NALLY</from>
+          <p eId="para_47">Is the Minister aware that the rate is already struck in many counties?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#RichardCorish" eId="spk_47">
+          <from>Mr. CORISH</from>
+          <p eId="para_48">Is the Minister aware that extravagance has been employed by the old councils, as Deputy Hogan implied?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_48">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_49">That certainly is a new point.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_11">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - LIFFEY BRIDGE, DROICHEAD NUA.</heading>
+        <speech by="#HughColohan" eId="spk_49">
+          <from>AODH O CULACHAIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_50">asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health whether he is aware that several motor accidents have occurred at the Liffey Bridge, Droicead Nua, on the Dublin-Cork trunk road, owing to insufficient width between the parapet walls and the awkward approaches on both sides of the river; whether, owing to the danger and inconvenience to the public arising from the proximity of the Parish Church and the National Schools to the bridge he will, to ensure the safety of motorists and pedestrians, and to provide for this increasing through traffic, instruct the Roads Board to prepare plans and specifications for the widening of the carriage way, and the construction of projecting footpaths, and request them to have this work carried out as soon as possible, the whole cost of reconstruction to be borne by the Road Fund.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#SeamusAloysiusBourke" eId="spk_50">
+          <from>Mr. BURKE</from>
+          <p eId="para_51">I am making inquiries into this matter, as at the moment I have no information in regard to it. The chief engineer is at present in the district and I have asked him for a full report.  I will then consider what action it may be possible to take and I will inform the Deputy of the result.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_12">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - CROSSAKIEL AND TELEPHONE SERVICE.</heading>
+        <speech by="#DavidHall" eId="spk_51">
+          <from>Mr. DAVID HALL</from>
+          <p eId="para_52">asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs whether  he is aware that over forty business men in and around Crossakiel, Co. Meath, have signed a petition to have the telephone system extended to Crossakiel, and whether he is prepared to grant these facilities to residents in that district.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JamesJosephWalsh" eId="spk_52">
+          <from>MINISTER for POSTS and TELEGRAPHS (Mr. Walsh)</from>
+          <p eId="para_53">A copy of a memorial asking for the establishment of a telegraph office or a telephone call office at Crossakiel was recently received.  As it was found that the working expenses would far exceed the estimated revenue either from a telegraph office or a call office the memorialists were informed that compliance with their request was not warranted. I regret that in the circumstances I am unable to alter this decision.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_13">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - DOMINIONS PRODUCE (GRANT FOR MARKETING).</heading>
+        <speech by="#BryanRiccoCooper" eId="spk_53">
+          <from>Major COOPER</from>
+          <p eId="para_54">asked the Minister for Lands and Agriculture whether he is aware that the British Government proposes to make available a sum of £1,000,000 to develop the marketing of agricultural produce from the Dominions; whether any estimate has been made as to the portion of this sum which will be allotted to the Saorstát, and whether any scheme for its expenditure has yet been framed.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PatrickJHogan" eId="spk_54">
+          <from>MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE (Mr. Hogan)</from>
+          <p eId="para_55">The British Prime Minister, in a statement to the House of Commons on 17th December last, indicated that it was the intention of the British Government to devote £1,000,000 per annum for the development of markets in the United Kingdom for the products of the Dominions; he also stated that an Imperial Economic Committee was being set up to consider how this development might best be achieved, and that the first subjects to which it was desired the attention of the Committee should be given were meat and fruit.</p>
+          <p eId="para_56">The Committee, on which Saorstát Eireann will be represented, has not yet met and, accordingly, the allocation of the sum referred to does not appear to arise at the moment.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#BryanRiccoCooper" eId="spk_55">
+          <from>Major COOPER</from>
+          <p eId="para_57">Will the Minister keep a watchful eye on this matter to see that we get our fair share of any money that may be given?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_56">
+          <from>Mr. HOGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_58">Certainly.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_57">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_59">Would the Minister not prefer to be self-reliant in this matter?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_58">
+          <from>Mr. HOGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_60">I do not understand the question.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_59">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_61">The proposition which the Minister does not understand is this: That instead of relying on the resources of the country to advertise the country's produce in other markets we should look to the taxpayers of other countries to subsidise the sale of Irish produce in the English markets?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_60">
+          <from>Mr. HOGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_62">I still do not understand the Deputy's question.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_14">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - COUNTY MEATH CONGESTS.</heading>
+        <speech by="#DavidHall" eId="spk_61">
+          <from>Mr. DAVID HALL</from>
+          <p eId="para_63">asked the Minister for Lands and Agriculture whether he is aware that representation has been made to the Land Commission on behalf of twenty-five congests at Barleyhill.  Kingscourt, Co. Meath, who, because of flooding on their uneconomic holdings during the past twelve months, are in a very serious position as a result of the loss of agricultural produce; whether he is aware that one month ago the Land Commission stated that the matter would receive attention, and whether he will see that relief measures are expedited.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_62">
+          <from>Mr. HOGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_64">The notice given of this question was too short to enable the Land Commission to make the necessary enquiries.  I shall be glad, therefore, if the Deputy will postpone the question until the next meeting of the Dáil.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DavidHall" eId="spk_63">
+          <from>Mr. HALL</from>
+          <p eId="para_65">Is four weeks' notice not sufficient for the Land Commission? They have had this matter for four weeks and that should be satisfactory notice.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_64">
+          <from>Mr. HOGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_66">The question is not on the paper for four weeks.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DavidHall" eId="spk_65">
+          <from>Mr. HALL</from>
+          <p eId="para_67">No, but the Land Commission  is in possession of the facts for four weeks.  I have been in communication with them myself.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_66">
+          <from>Mr. HOGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_68">The Land Commission, I assure the Deputy, gets a very considerable amount of correspondence every day.  I am not assuming that the correspondence they receive in every case gives them the facts.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_67">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_69">The question can be repeated on Thursday.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_15">
+        <heading>DEBATE ON THE ADJOURNMENT. - DISTRESS IN IRELAND.</heading>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_68">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_70">I beg to give notice that on the motion for the adjournment I propose to raise the question of the distress in Ireland, generally, owing to the failure of the crops, food and fuel, and the measures taken by the Ministry to deal with that distress.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_16" refersTo="#bill.1924.45.dail.seanad_amd">
+        <heading>DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - MEDICAL BILL, 1924—FROM THE SEANAD.</heading>
+        <speech by="#PatrickMcGilligan" eId="spk_69">
+          <from>MINISTER for INDUSTRY and COMMERCE (Mr. McGilligan)</from>
+          <p eId="para_71">The only amendment made in this Bill in the Seanad was in Clause 4, the Citation Clause.  As it went to the Seanad this clause read: "This Act may be cited as the Medical Act, 1924." The necessary change to "1925" was made by an amendment in the Seanad.  I am moving to accept that amendment.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_2" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Question—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the said amendment"—put and agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#dbsect_16"/>
+                </summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_17">
+        <heading>DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - DAIL RESUMES.</heading>
+        <summary eId="sum_3">Agreement with amendment reported.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_4" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Question—"That the Dáil agree with the Committee in their report"—put and agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#dbsect_17"/>
+                </summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_18">
+        <heading>DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - BUSINESS OF THE DAIL.</heading>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_70">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p title="motionProposal" eId="para_72">I move the adjournment until Wednesday at 3 o'clock.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#OsmondGrattanEsmonde" eId="spk_71">
+          <from>Mr. ESMONDE</from>
+          <p eId="para_73">Is the President prepared to make any statement to-day as regards the business for the rest of the Session until Easter?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#KevinChristopher" eId="spk_72">
+          <from>MINISTER for JUSTICE (Mr. O'Higgins)</from>
+          <p eId="para_74">The President has asked me to make the following statement to the Dáil.  At present before the Oireachtas there are the following Bills:— The Local Government Bill, which is in the Seanad (Report Stage), the Live Stock Breeding Bill in the Seanad (Report  Stage), the Police Forces Amalgamation Bill, Final Stage in the Dáil; the Local Authorities Combined Purchasing Bill, Committee Stage in the Dáil; Dáil Eireann Courts (Winding Up) Bill, Third Stage; Defence Forces Bill, Second Stage; Sedition and Treason Bill, Second Stage; Prisons Visiting Bill, Second Stage; and Pensions of Judges (Dáil Eireann Supreme Court) Bill, Second Stage.  The shortage of work in the Dáil at present is due to the fact that we have not as yet reached the Committee Stage of Bills introduced since the opening of the Session.  When we get to this Stage we will probably find that there will be full business. The only way to prevent a recurrence of this in the future is to have Bills passed through their Second Readings before the adjournment of the Dáil, so that these Bills may come up on Committee immediately the House reassembles. We have this object in view for future adjournments.  It is probable that the Dáil will have completed the consideration of all the above Bills by the end of March.</p>
+          <p eId="para_75">In addition to these there are four Bills of an urgent nature which have not yet been introduced, but which it is very desirable should become law before that date.  They are:—The Central Fund Bill, which is essential, but which will not be ready for introduction until about the 20th March; The Firearms Bill, the urgency of which is due to the fact that the temporary Bill expires on the 5th April; the Summer Time Bill, and the Land Bonds Guarantee Bill.  We cannot at the moment specify the exact date of the introduction of the three last named measures, but it will probably be next week.  We have also in various stages of progress a number of Bills which will probably be ready for introduction about the 31st March, but which it is not anticipated can be completed in the Dáil at that date.  They are as follows:—The Army Pensions (Amendment) Bill, the draft of which is now being considered by the Finance Department; the Documentary Evidence Bill, the Statutory Rules and Orders (Publication) Bill, the Censorship of Films Bill, the Civil Service Regulation (Amendment) Bill,  the Cork Reconstruction Bill, the Dublin Emergency Provisions (Amendment) Bill, the Street Trading Bill, the Fisheries Bill, the Industrial and Commercial Property Protection Bill, the Barrow and Owenmore Drainage Bill, and the School Attendance Bill.  A number of these will be introduced shortly, and only require final touching up before their introduction.</p>
+          <p eId="para_76">It is the intention in future so far as possible to devote the Summer Session almost entirely to financial business.  We will not be able to follow this course altogether in the present year.  The three finance matters that will be before the Dáil after the 1st April will be (a) Budget Resolutions, which we hope to introduce immediately after the Easter Recess; (b) the Finance Bill, and (c) the Estimates and the Appropriation Bill.  The proposal regarding Estimates would be to allocate two days a week for them, which would give about ninety hours.  We will ask the Dáil to indicate in what order they desire the Estimates to be taken, and we will ask them to agree that when the time allowed for the Estimates has been used up any remaining Estimates will be put from the Chair.  The Budget Resolutions and the Finance Bill, judging from previous experience, will take about thirty-five hours of Parliamentary time.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_73">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_77">The Minister has apparently omitted to realise the necessity for another Bill to be passed before the end of March dealing with Unemployment Insurance.  I think that the Minister for Industry and Commerce will realise that such a Bill will be essential and I would hope that it would be ready for introduction almost at once.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PatrickMcGilligan" eId="spk_74">
+          <from>MINISTER for INDUSTRY and COMMERCE (Mr. McGilligan)</from>
+          <p eId="para_78">I cannot by my silence allow it to be assumed that there will be such a Bill, but I can say that such a Bill takes very little time to prepare, and is ordinarily got through this House with great speed.  I have no fears on either of these two points if the necessity arises.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_75">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_79">But it is not in the  Minister's list, and I think we should realise that such a Bill will be necessary, unless by some magic wand the Minister is able to ensure pretty general employment for the present unemployed between now and the middle of March.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#KevinChristopher" eId="spk_76">
+          <from>Mr. O'HIGGINS</from>
+          <p eId="para_80">With regard to adjournments, I should add that the intention is to adjourn from the 3rd of April to the 21st for the Easter Recess, and to conclude the summer sitting, if possible, in the last week of June.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamDavin" eId="spk_77">
+          <from>Mr. DAVIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_81">There is just one point arising out of the statement made by the Minister for Justice.  He indicated that it was the intention of the Executive Council to introduce a Bill dealing with the Barrow and Owenmore Drainage.  I take it from what he has read that it will not be possible to introduce that Bill before the 31st March, and from the 3rd April to the 21st there will be an adjournment.  If the Bill is not dealt with before the 21st April, there will be very little time to do the work, which must be done at a time when these rivers are not flooded. Do I take it, therefore, that it is the intention of the Executive Council to proceed in any serious way to deal with that question during the coming year? That is not what I take from the statement read by the Minister, and I would like that to be contradicted if I am wrong.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#KevinChristopher" eId="spk_78">
+          <from>Mr. O'HIGGINS</from>
+          <p eId="para_82">The Deputy is wrong.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamDavin" eId="spk_79">
+          <from>Mr. DAVIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_83">I take it I am correct in assuming that the Bill will not be introduced before the 31st March?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_80">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_84">I cannot say that for certain.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamDavin" eId="spk_81">
+          <from>Mr. DAVIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_85">That is the purport of the statement read by the Minister for Justice, and we will have an adjournment from the 3rd to the 21st April.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#KevinChristopher" eId="spk_82">
+          <from>Mr. O'HIGGINS</from>
+          <p eId="para_86">I read it out amongst a series of Bills, regarding which the remark was that these Bills would probably be ready for introduction before the 31st March.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamDavin" eId="spk_83">
+          <from>Mr. DAVIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_87">I put it to the Minister definitely: does he propose to pass that Bill in sufficient time to get the drainage  works started before the early summer?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#KevinChristopher" eId="spk_84">
+          <from>Mr. O'HIGGINS</from>
+          <p eId="para_88">I hope so, with the assistance of the Deputy.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamDavin" eId="spk_85">
+          <from>Mr. DAVIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_89">The Minister can have a guarantee from the Deputy that there will not be very much obstruction to it.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#KevinChristopher" eId="spk_86">
+          <from>Mr. O'HIGGINS</from>
+          <p eId="para_90">That is very gratifying.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_19">
+        <heading>DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - DISTRESS IN IRELAND.</heading>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_87">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_91">I have raised this question in the hope that we shall be able to get from the Minister responsible a complete statement of the position in the Saorstát in regard to the exceptional distress arising from failure of the harvest, in some respects, and shortage of fuel, and also to obtain from Ministers as far as possible, a complete statement regarding the steps that have been taken to meet that exceptional distress.  The matter, of course, has been brought to the attention of the Dáil, to the attention of Ministers and the country by Deputies since it began in September or October last, and it is known to members of the Dáil that the Government has been attending to this matter, inquiring and making provision to some degree at least to meet it.  Despite the information that Deputies have had from the Ministers, we are all aware of the fact that there has been in the last three or four weeks, a very widespread and persistent campaign in the English newspapers and also in Irish newspapers in regard to this exceptional distress in the West.  Counter statements of a kind rather minimising some of the scare reports of special correspondents, who are adepts at this kind of thing, have been issued by people in responsible positions in the areas affected to show that while there is want and need there is no justification for the rather exaggerated, or apparently exaggerated, reports which special correspondents have published.  This conflict rather creates in our minds some question as to whether the Ministry is taking adequate steps in the direction of co-ordination of such voluntary agencies as have been acting—and acting, as I understand, with some effect— to relieve distress, and whether there is any need for a special vote to add to the work which the Government is doing in this matter.  I think it will be generally accepted that if that distress is exceptional—and we all agree and know that it is—that the resources of the country should be made available to deal with it.</p>
+          <p eId="para_92">It is not, I think, a very happy thing to find that the sufferings of the people are being exploited, even for purposes of charity, and possibly for other purposes besides charity, in other countries.  We are all aware to our sorrow that distress in many of these areas is endemic, continuous and ever-present, and we believe from statements made by Ministers and by Deputies from the areas affected, and from our own knowledge, that the failure of fuel and potatoes has, as a matter of fact, increased in a very sad degree the ever-present semi-hunger and poverty of these areas. I want to suggest that the steps that have been taken by the Ministry may not have been sufficient, and that an increase in the amount available for distribution for immediate cases of need especially amongst children, and an increase in the amount available for the provision of work, should be made at once.  I think that Ministers should tell us, in as detailed a manner as is possible on short notice, what kind of organisation they are using to assist in alleviating the distress in those areas, and further, whether they are attempting to co-ordinate the work of the voluntary agencies which are actively engaged in giving assistance.</p>
+          <p eId="para_93">Special correspondents of newspapers and others who are more or less expert, if not professional, in such matters, usually find two or three districts upon which to concentrate, and they all concentrate on the same districts, usually with evil results, leaving perhaps more needed cases in other districts without assistance.  I have the view that notwithstanding all one's criticism of State organisation in many respects, where we have the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Local Government acting together and in touch with voluntary agencies, there ought to be a possibility of completely covering in a satisfactory way all the cases of need arising  from this exceptional poverty.  It would be a satisfaction to us all, I am sure, if we could have some information from the Ministry which could be tested by Deputies from the areas concerned, that the work of relief and assistance, public work for the relief of unemployment, is being promoted, and that the possibilities of still further distress in the coming two or three months will be obviated entirely.  It would be, I am sure, a satisfaction to every Deputy and to the country generally, to know that the Ministers are taking such steps as will avoid the necessity for this propaganda, the showing forth to the world the sores of Ireland, when possibly in many places to which appeal is being made, equally horrible and lamentable distress might be found.  I hope the Minister will be able to give us a full and complete statement which will satisfy all Deputies in this matter.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PadraicOMaille" eId="spk_88">
+          <from>PADRAIC O MAILLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_94">Is maith an rud gur tharraing Tomás Mac Eoin an ceist seo os comhair na Dála.  Tá fhios againn uilig gurab é an Iarthair an ceanntar is lugha saibhreais 'san tír agus bheadh muinntir na h-áite sin i geruadh-gcas ar fád imbliadhna da mbadh rud é nar chuidigh an Riaghaltas leo.  Admuighim go ndearn an Riagaltas a lán ar a son agus tá na daoine buidheach doibh, mar gheall air. Ach in a theannta sin, bá mhaith an rud da dtiochfadh leis an Riagaltas a thuilleadh oibre a sholathar doibh.  I think Deputy Johnson has done a public service in raising this question.  We, especially Deputies coming from the West of Ireland, are well aware of the great distress that exists in that part of the country, and I must say that matters would be very bad indeed at the present time except for the prompt way in which the Government came to the assistance of the people.  There is, on the whole, pretty general satisfaction throughout the districts in the West at the way the Government is coping with this problem of distress.  There are, no doubt, districts here and there where the people think those works of relief might be more extended.  I have received complaints from two Islands along the West Coast of Galway, the islands of Lettermore and Inishnain.  It has been explained to me that while  work has been started for the benefit of people in surrounding districts no special works have been started to relieve the distress in those two islands. I have brought this matter before the Land Commission, and I must say the Land Commission act very promptly on representations coming from myself and other Deputies as regards distress along the western seaboard.  I hope that the grants made available for the Land Commission will be largely increased, because I think it is necessary that this work of relief should be carried on into the summer months, and I would add a word of praise on my own behalf and on behalf of the people of Galway to the Land Commission for the very prompt way in which they have come forward to meet this question of distress.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PatrickJHogan" eId="spk_89">
+          <from>MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE (Mr. Hogan)</from>
+          <p eId="para_95">I agree entirely with the tenor of Deputy Johnson's remarks, and I will try to give whatever information I can give at such short notice, but possibly there will be some details which I am not in a position to fill in.  It is an undoubted fact that Press correspondents are exploiting this question for their own reasons.  That has been done for a long time and is still continuing.  I do not know what those reasons are, but that it is a fact is perfectly clear.  There is no abnormal distress in the West this year.  I say that definitely and deliberately. There is always distress in the West, as Deputy Johnson has pointed out, but the distress this year is not, taking the whole congested districts into account, particularly unique. There might be perhaps small areas this year within the congested districts in the West in a worse condition than they were last year.  On the other hand there are areas in a better condition than they were last year, but on the whole the distress this year is nothing more acute than the normal distress in those areas.</p>
+          <p eId="para_96">We tried to envisage this problem as a whole at the beginning and we endeavoured, when tackling the problem some months ago, to co-ordinate the work of the various departments.  For that reason the Minister for Local Government  and myself summoned all our officials here to Dublin, got them all into the same room and got exact information as to the various districts which needed relief for one reason or another.  We prepared maps showing acute poverty.  On the same map we coloured in the failure of potatoes and the turf supply.  Moreover, we prepared other maps shaded differently showing whether there was partial or three-quarters or one one-quarter failure of turf, potatoes and of crops generally.  We did the same for poverty where there was acute poverty, poverty less than acute and something which you could hardly describe as poverty and could not describe as comfort.  We had that information and we are satisfied that that information is accurate and that the areas were defined accurately, and that we had reliable information on all those questions.  We knew exactly where there was real poverty and acute poverty, where the turf and potatoes failed, and where there was unusual distress.  We then, on that information, made definite schemes, first, to provide work, second, to provide fuel, coal and timber as an alternative to turf, and third, to provide seed potatoes.</p>
+          <p eId="para_97">There is never real famine in the West unless there is a failure of potatoes, and there was no failure of potatoes this year, except in one or two limited areas, and in those limited areas because Champions were sown. The only potatoes that failed this year were the Champion and the Irish Queen. We have been trying for years to get the people in the congested districts to grow other potatoes than Champions and Irish Queens.  We took full advantage of the fact that the Champion had failed to get in other varieties.  The failure of the Champion did more to change the mind of the small farmer who is fond of that variety than any propaganda our Department could do. We spent practically £30,000 on the best of seed, and that seed is being distributed where it should be distributed, first of all in the areas where potatoes have failed, in a small part of Mayo and limited districts in Kerry and all over the congested districts.  £30,000 worth of the best varieties of potatoes,  Kerr's Pink and Arran Victory, will go a very long way, and has resulted in productive work.  They will increase and multiply, moreover, and be there the year after.  It will bring large supplies of fresh imported seed into those districts, and will do a considerable amount towards preventing famine and distress in so far as it can be prevented in future years.  The only regret I have is that we are not able to get in bigger supplies.  It is not an easy matter because Government buying puts up prices, and you had to buy carefully and distribute carefully.  Potatoes were bought and sold at very reduced prices indeed, especially in cases where there was real poverty.  A similar amount of money was spent on fuel.  We have not provided fuel for every district where turf had failed.  We could not do it, and it was not necessary.  In some districts where turf failed there was not acute poverty, and in some there was no poverty at all.  We took out the districts where there was acute poverty, and at the same time where the turf failed.  We provided fuel for those districts. We bought fuel reasonably, resold it at a small price, and gave credit wherever credit was necessary.  The arrangements for the distribution of seed have been made by the Department of Agriculture in those areas, and the arrangements for the distribution of fuel are in the hands of a small committee under the supervision of an officer of the Department of Local Government.</p>
+          <p eId="para_98">One hundred and seventy thousand pounds approximately was voted for relief works in those districts.  The schedules of those works were not prepared suddenly, they were not a lastmoment decision.  We foresaw this six months ago, and the Land Commission had ready various works which they would have to do in those districts, in any event.  They had them scheduled, and were ready to begin, and they began them promptly. We took into account, in placing those works, the factors that I have mentioned—poverty, failure of fuel, and failure of the potatoes.  We tried not to place those works in areas where we had given relief of another kind.  There  has been co-ordination in regard to those three main varieties of relief, and I say, deliberately, that with the relief given by the State this year, the conditions in those districts are not worse— if anything they are slightly better— than they ordinarily are.  That is the exact position, as far as I know it, and I think my information is accurate. There is never famine in those areas except there is failure of the potato crop, and in some of the really poor districts the potatoes were better this year, strange to say—considering the weather—than they have been for the last five or six or ten years.  There was a better crop than the average in Donegal this year.  I hope there is a Donegal Deputy listening to me.  The crop there was better than the average crop for the last ten years.</p>
+          <p eId="para_99">We had very little difficulty in selecting the counties to be examined.  They were the counties with congested districts, and, in addition, the County of Cavan.  Of course, we had the elections to help us and, judging by the remarks of some Deputies on this question, we should have refrained from doing anything in Connemara this year, because there were no elections.  We should have taken the same course in Kerry and in Donegal, according to these Deputies.  But I pass from that question. We picked out the counties.  They were very well known.  Everybody knows them.  We examined those counties carefully in respect of the three matters I have mentioned—poverty failure of fuel, and failure of potatoes. The work of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Local Government has been co-ordinated, and the work of relief is going ahead promptly.  The money voted is being spent, and it is meeting the case.  In addition, there is, I think, £3,000 set aside for a very useful scheme for providing meals for school children.</p>
+          <p eId="para_100">With that provision for relief, there is less distress in those areas than there was in 1912, 1913 or 1914, when all our Press correspondents were silent and when all the other benevolent people were silent also.  I should say that there are a good many voluntary agencies doing useful work—they have always been doing useful work in those  districts—and the Government has already set up a committee to co-ordinate that work.  But, on the whole and in the nature of the case, the work the Government can do itself through the Land Commission and the Local Government Department is, of course, far more considerable than could be done by the best intentioned and best organised voluntary associations.  At the same time, there is a committee endeavouring to co-ordinate the work of those bodies and I do not think there is any cause for anything like anxiety on this question at the moment.</p>
+          <p eId="para_101">As we are talking about congested districts, what has really happened is that we are spending money on those areas for the purpose of keeping people there next year to spend it on them again.  That has been the position for 30 or 40 or 50 years.  Deputies will have to face the problem and a big decision will have to be taken to deal with certain well-defined portions of the congested districts, which we all know and which we can all envisage at the moment.  They can be dealt with partly by land purchase, but only partly.  If we succeed in dealing with half the congests—I say this as a result of close examination of the figures— by the exercise of the powers we have to acquire land under the Land Act, if half the congests in certain areas adjoining the sea coast can be dealt with, then you will have done as much as you possibly can by land purchase. You can do a lot more, you can go another quarter of the distance towards solving the problem—giving all these men hard work, hard work which will enable them to live decently and rear their families decently—by schemes of drainage and reclamation.  A big lot can be done in that way, but when drainage is finished and land purchase is finished there will still be a residue which will have to be dealt with.  But this is not the time or the place to discuss how it will be dealt with.</p>
+          <p eId="para_102">That generally is the position in regard to the congested districts, and these are the possibilities and the potentialities, as I see them.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_90">
+          <from>Mr. COSGRAVE</from>
+          <p eId="para_103">I would like to ask the Minister what action he has taken with reference to a report forwarded  him early in January last in connection with thirty unfortunate families who were flooded out of their homes along the Shannon banks from Portumna to Shannon Bridge.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#BryanRiccoCooper" eId="spk_91">
+          <from>Major COOPER</from>
+          <p eId="para_104">I do not want to deal with those areas in which, as Deputy Johnson says, poverty is endemic. Any propaganda founded on the condition of those areas reflects not on the Government of the Saorstát but on the British Government, because the British Government had 120 years to cure those conditions and the Government of the Saorstát has had less than three years.  I dislike and I repudiate propaganda of that kind in the strongest possible manner. But I want to call the attention of the Minister to those districts which are normally fairly prosperous and which are now considerably distressed—districts like Sligo, Leitrim and Roscommon, where normally the farmer makes a fairly good living and lives in fairly comfortable conditions. This year the farmer in those districts is suffering not extreme and acute distress but some degree of want and inconvenience. The Minister mentioned three things to be met—want of food, want of fuel, and want of work.  With regard to the first, I think the Government are fulfilling their function admirably. With regard to the second, I will not say the Government are too lavish, but there is not sufficient check on the method of distribution of coal brought into those areas.  There are a great many fairly strong farmers getting coal at 6d. a bag who could afford to pay for it.  They consider they are justified in that, because their fuel has failed.  They are in a worse position than they would normally be, and in some cases they are taking advantage of this distribution of coal.  I know that the Government has had to improvise machinery for this work and that such machinery cannot work perfectly.  In some places, however, there is a lack of supervision over the distribution of this coal, and people have got it who were not entitled to get it.</p>
+          <p eId="para_105">If there is enough coal to spare, I will not quarrel with their getting it, but I hope the Government will see that the poor do not go short of coal in  order that the comparatively prosperous will get coal.  The third need that the Minister spoke of is the greatest and most urgent of all, and that is the need of work.  A director of one of the railway companies, not unified, told me recently that within the last month he had over three hundred men coming to him trying to get work in that railway company.  These were mostly young men and strong men, many of them farm labourers, and some of them of the farming class.  They told him that the farm could not support them under present conditions.  I know very well it is impossible for any private concern to give all the work that is needed, and it is equally impossible for the Government to give the work that is needed, because the Government work in the nature of relief work is, to a large extent, wasteful.  It is such work as consists in the making of roads not urgently wanted, and they have to be maintained when made.  I would urge the Government to look upon this as a problem not only to be solved by the distribution of land, but also by the creating of industries in those areas.  To my certain knowledge, within the last three or four years, a number of mills and factories have been closed down.</p>
+          <p eId="para_106">I would ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce, when administering the Trades Loan Guarantee Act, to be indulgent with regard to the West especially, because one little industry in a district makes an enormous difference. If it does not employ the men it employs the women and it means the circulation of money.  We all regret how recent fashions have turned away from Donegal tweeds and Banada lace. These and other small industries in the congested districts are affected.  If the action of the Government, coupled with the action of private individuals and societies, could result in reviving some of these industries, they would give a living to a great many people and a great deal would have been done to cope with the problem of distress.  I urge that, because in that way you will not be putting all your money on one horse, and so, when the harvest or  potato crop fails, the country will have something else to turn to.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PatrickMcFadden" eId="spk_92">
+          <from>Mr. McFADDEN</from>
+          <p eId="para_107">The Minister has referred to the rosy outlook in Donegal. I will not deny that a great part of Donegal has had a good crop of potatoes. I do deny that there is famine in Donegal.  But there is a long sea-board where there used to be a great deal of fishing in good years, and they have not caught any fish there for the last two years.  I regret to say that the reports of the inspectors sent down have not taken these areas into consideration.  I regret to say that the amount of the grant allocated to Tirconaill is small in proportion to the other counties, that is taking into consideration such a very large area as there is along that sea-board and which is nearly always in distress.  I would therefore appeal to the Minister to increase the grant so that the various parishes along the coast there would have their needs attended to.</p>
+          <p eId="para_108">I deny altogether the reports that have appeared in some of the English newspapers to the effect that there is famine there.  There is want in individual cases, and I know that in these cases the people need work, not relief. They do not want anything for nothing. They want work along this coast until this period of stress has passed over. I sincerely hope the Government will increase the grant and that the Land Commission will carry out the work that they have already started.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_93">
+          <from>Mr. HOGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_109">Deputy Cosgrave asked me what I have done in regard to the cases mentioned by him where distress was caused by the Shannon flooding and where certain people were driven from their homes.  Deputy McFadden spoke of certain areas in Tirconaill where the people were also, in his opinion, in need of relief.  You have the whole problem there.  Everybody thinks that his particular district is the district that should be attended to.  Naturally he sees the conditions in front of him, and he does not compare them with the conditions elsewhere. Everybody will appreciate the difficulties of meeting problems of this sort. You have to do it after getting all the  facts in connection with the distress everywhere.  We have first to give relief where there is the greatest poverty. None of us are millionaires.  Many of us want relief ourselves.  It is a question of dealing first with the cases that are most pressing for relief and where the conditions are the worst, and we have to do that in a rather ruthless, impersonal way.  While everybody appreciates the condition of people who have been driven out of their homes temporarily by the flooding, still you must remember that you cannot divert for that purpose money that has been already voted and allocated for the relief of real chronic distress.  If the Deputy were in my position he would find that he could not do it himself.  You will find here and there people who, as a result of an extremely wet season on the Shannon, are suddenly plunged into distress owing to the flooding.  That may be for a short or for a long period.  These things are inevitable, and no State machinery that could be devised could deal with them.  We find ourselves that we have to deal first with those areas that mostly need relief, and we are trying to deal with these.  There is a certain amount of work done.  There has been seed supplied.  No one will deny that that is money well spent if it will be productive.  There has probably been seed supplied to people who themselves could buy good seed and could afford to buy good seed.  And the same thing applies to the distribution of coal. With regard to coal, that was one of the things in the distribution of which the people co-operated.  We tried to get good working committees in all these districts.  There has been rather a sound scheme devised with a certain amount of supervision, and each of the districts are getting the benefit of that supervision.</p>
+          <p eId="para_110">Deputies will have to make up their minds that in the matter of relief there is certain to be waste, but I can claim with regard to the moneys voted here, that there has been the minimum of waste.  I do not wish to paint a rosy picture of things in Donegal.  What I did say was that the potato crop other years was better than last year.</p>
+          <p eId="para_111">All the people in the West of Ireland are suffering from conditions that are  common, not only to Ireland, but to all other countries.  I really hope that Deputies will remember this problem when we come to deal with the question of land purchase, and I hope that they will agree with me then that the right way in which to administer the Land Act is to deal with the matter of congestion first.  I hope they will agree that it is essential to bring the congests out and place them where we can give them land.  I hope Deputies will not be coming to me heading deputations and saying: "We are not going to allow anybody into our parish."</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_94">
+          <from>Mr. COSGRAVE</from>
+          <p eId="para_112">Why not take them out of the floods?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_95">
+          <from>Mr. HOGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_113">Of course, there is always some reason; there is always some red herring drawn across the trail.  We are frequently told of this terrible problem of people living in small holdings and unable to earn a decent livelihood. I say we can deal with that problem partly by land purchase if we can get the co-operation of every Deputy in his own area, and if every Deputy is not afraid to face the odium in his own district and declare, irrespective of the feeling that may be created: "I stand for the division of the land amongst the congests; but I also stand for the migration of congests after all the local congests have been dealt with."  Unless we have the co-operation of Deputies—the co-operation of members of the Labour Party, the Farmers' Party, the Independents and the Cumann na nGaedheal—we cannot deal with that huge problem.  I hope Deputies will remember all this when they come to me heading deputations and protesting against the bringing of outsiders into their districts.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_96">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_114">I would ask the Minister to let us have a little more information regarding the work of voluntary organisations and their co-ordination with Government organisations. I feel that the appeals being made, if they are going to be responded to, and if the money is to be spent through overlapping agencies, will result in harm, and the good that might be done will not be done.  Can the Minister tell us if there is any provision for the pooling of various funds?  Provided  the associations controlling those funds have confidence in the work that is being done through and by the assistance of the Ministry, I am sure there would be no difficulty in establishing a pooling system.  If the various schemes could be pooled, and a single scheme of assistance could be arranged, then there would be avoided the danger of simply pouring into one area or district, which is well advertised, whatever assistance there may be available.  It would be well if there could be some system of real co-ordination between the voluntary agencies and whatever systems of relief are in progress under the Ministry.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JohnDaly" eId="spk_97">
+          <from>Mr. DALY</from>
+          <p eId="para_115">The Minister for Lands and Agriculture pointed out a few moments ago that Deputies go to him on deputations in connection with the division of land, and he mentioned that they ought not to be jealous if congests are sent to different districts.  It would be an almost impossible situation, in my opinion, for representative from any area to go home and meet people there who are landless, and say to them they permitted, without protest, people coming from other districts into the lands that their own constituents were actually reared on; where their fathers toiled to rear them, and from where perhaps, their forefathers were once evicted.  I have as much sympathy and compassion for those unfortunate people as anybody else.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_98">
+          <from>Mr. HOGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_116">Of course you have.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JohnDaly" eId="spk_99">
+          <from>Mr. DALY</from>
+          <p eId="para_117">Of course I have.  I am sent here by people in an area in which, if there are lands to be divided, they and I claim they have their very first right to be considered.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_100">
+          <from>Mr. COSGRAVE</from>
+          <p eId="para_118">There is one question I would like to put to the Minister. Does he remember meeting Father Leahy, Eyrecourt, and myself, by appointment at Galway a few weeks ago in reference to the floods, and, after the conditions of the people affected were described to him, did he not promise that an inspector would be sent down?  Can the Minister now inform me if an inspector was sent down to inquire into the matters to which I directed attention?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_101">
+          <from>Mr. HOGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_119">The Deputy is really asking me a question, the answer to which he is better aware of than I am.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_102">
+          <from>Mr. COSGRAVE</from>
+          <p eId="para_120">Would the Minister mind repeating that statement?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_103">
+          <from>Mr. HOGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_121">The Deputy has asked me a question, the answer to which he knows better than I do myself.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_104">
+          <from>Mr. COSGRAVE</from>
+          <p eId="para_122">I know nothing of the kind, with all respect.  When I called to the Minister's office yesterday to find out whether an inspector was or was not sent down, the Minister told me I had been written to on the subject.  I told him I got no letter.  He called an official, who informed him I was written to; but when the official was asked to produce a copy of the letter he could not do so.  So now, do I know more about it?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PatrickMcGilligan" eId="spk_105">
+          <from>Mr. McGILLIGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_123">I would like to touch upon one matter that Deputy Johnson has referred to.  A special Committee of the Ministry has been set up to get in touch with the various charitable organisations that have already collected money for the purpose of mollifying distress in the West.  I am not on the Committee myself, and I cannot say if it has actually got into touch with charitable organisations.  It was set up to deal with certain moneys which have come to the hands of the President through one of those outside agencies.  That Committee will endeavour to co-ordinate the work done by those outside charitable organisations. The Minister for Lands and Agriculture asked that Deputies would, in their own constituencies, co-operate in any relief and other works, and particularly in regard to endemic distress in the West.  If I might take a phrase used by Deputy Johnson, I would like to comment upon it.  He spoke of professional agitators of distress in this country, people who agitate distress for their own purposes.  He referred to those who were expert in this matter, although they were not professionals. I would appeal to those who are expert in this matter, if they are Deputies, not to agitate for any purpose other than charitable purposes.</p>
+          <p eId="para_124">The Dáil adjourned at 3.20 p.m., until Wednesday, 18th February, 1925.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="WrittenAnswers" eId="dbsect_20">
+        <heading>WRITTEN ANSWERS. - ARMY ARREARS OF PAY.</heading>
+        <speech by="#BryanRiccoCooper" eId="spk_106">
+          <from>Major COOPER</from>
+          <p eId="para_125">asked the Minister for Defence whether he has received a claim for arrears of pay from Mr. John Whelan, late No. 12662, 22nd Battalion, and, if so, if he can state when that claim will be settled.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PeterHughes" eId="spk_107">
+          <from>MINISTER for DEFENCE (Mr. Hughes)</from>
+          <p eId="para_126">Mr. Whelan's claim appears to be for the issue of the gratuity amounting to fourteen days' pay and allowances formerly granted to soldiers upon discharge.  The order under which this issue was authorised ceased to be effective as from 1st October, 1924.  Soldiers whose discharges were dated on or after that date are therefore ineligible for the allowance.  Mr. Whelan's period of engagement expired on the 24th September, 1924, but on several occasions he made application to have his services extended. Every effort was made to facilitate him. He was, however, rejected on medical grounds and discharged from the Army on 4th November, 1924.</p>
+          <p eId="para_127">It is regretted that the date of discharge precludes the consideration of payment of the gratuity in question.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="WrittenAnswers" eId="dbsect_21">
+        <heading>WRITTEN ANSWERS. - ACQUISITION OF ESTATES.</heading>
+        <speech by="#DavidHall" eId="spk_108">
+          <from>Mr. DAVID HALL</from>
+          <p eId="para_128">asked the Minister for Lands and Agriculture whether the Land Commission have taken any steps to acquire the Donaldson Estate, Hartlands, Crossakiel, Kells, Co. Meath; and whether he can state when this estate will be acquired for distribution among the thirty-five congests residing at Hartlands.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_109">
+          <from>Mr. HOGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_129">The notice given of this question was too short to enable the Land Commission to make the necessary inquiries.  I shall be glad, therefore, if the Deputy will postpone the question until the next meeting of the Dáil.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DavidHall" eId="spk_110">
+          <from>Mr. DAVID HALL</from>
+          <p eId="para_130">asked the Minister for Lands and Agriculture whether the Land Commission have acquired the Spandaw Estate at Gravelstown, Carlanstown, Kells, Co. Meath, and if he can state when said lands will be divided.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_111">
+          <from>Mr. HOGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_131">The lands referred to appear to be the lands of Kilbeg Upper, comprising 47 acres 2 roods 26 perches, and 160 acres 0 roods 22 perches, of Staholmog in the occupation of Miss Julia Rose McCormick as judicial tenant on the Estate of Colonel Jas. Ridgeway Dyas, Co. Meath.</p>
+          <p eId="para_132">As this holding comes within the exceptions mentioned in Section 28 (6) (a) of the Land Act, 1923, a notice that the holding will be a "retained" holding has been published.</p>
+          <p eId="para_133">The estate has not yet been vested in the Land Commission.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DavidHall" eId="spk_112">
+          <from>Mr. DAVID HALL</from>
+          <p eId="para_134">asked the Minister for Lands and Agriculture whether it is the intention of the Land Commission to acquire the estate of Miss Sadlier Bomford, and the Rolley Estate, both at Drumlargan, Kilcock, Co. Meath, for distribution, and, if so, whether he will expedite the acquisition of these estates, and many others in the district.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_113">
+          <from>Mr. HOGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_135">The notice given of this question was too short to enable the Land Commission to make the necessary inquiries.  I shall be gladtherefore, if the Deputy will postpone the question until the next meeting of the Dáil.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="WrittenAnswers" eId="dbsect_22">
+        <heading>WRITTEN ANSWERS. - OLD AGE PENSIONS (CLAIM OF JOSEPH DOORLEY).</heading>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_114">
+          <from>SEAN O LAIDHIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_136">asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health whether he is aware that the application for old age pension of  Joseph Doorley, Cormore, Ballinahown, has been refused owing to the applicant not being able to furnish a birth certificate, as no entry was made in Ballinahown Parish Church of births from 1850 for a number of years later, and whether, as the applicant has furnished a sworn affidavit, signed by two persons older than himself, he will have this case reinvestigated with a view of granting the pension.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#SeamusAloysiusBourke" eId="spk_115">
+          <from>Mr. BURKE</from>
+          <p eId="para_137">The facts are as stated by the Deputy.  The required baptismal certificate is not available, and the claimant was merely recorded as full age at marriage on the 17th October, 1886.  It appeared on the notes on the previous files that his parents were married on the 5th October, 1848. Affidavits from two neighbours were submitted in connection with the last appeal.  The deponents expressed their belief that the claimant was over 70 years of age, but they made no mention of his position in the family as compared with a younger sister or brother, whose birth certificates might possibly be available in the Ballinahown Church, the records of which would appear to have been kept after the year 1855.  If evidence of this nature be now available, it would be open to the claimant to make a new pension claim and forward it with the evidence in the ordinary way to the Pension Officer.  If the case comes to me subsequently on appeal, it will be carefully investigated.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="WrittenAnswers" eId="dbsect_23">
+        <heading>WRITTEN ANSWERS. - COMPENSATION CLAIMS—(MRS. M. BROWNE).</heading>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_116">
+          <from>SEAN O LAIDHIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_138">asked the Minister for Finance if he will expedite payment of £25, amount claimed by Mrs. Margaret Browne, Ballinalee, Co. Longford, in respect of goods destroyed by Irish Volunteers in March, 1921.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_117">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_139">The claim referred to by the Deputy was considered by the Compensation (Ireland) Commission some time ago, and ruled upon as not within the scope of the Commission's Terms of Reference.  No question of payment therefore arises.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+    </debateBody>
+  </debate>
+</akomaNtoso>

1925/1925-03-20_mul@.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,922 @@
+<akomaNtoso xmlns="http://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/ns/akn/3.0/CSD13" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/ns/akn/3.0/CSD13 ./akomantoso30.xsd ">
+  <debate name="Official Report">
+    <meta>
+      <identification source="#source">
+        <FRBRWork>
+          <FRBRthis value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1925-03-20/debate/main"/>
+          <FRBRuri value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1925-03-20/debate"/>
+          <FRBRdate date="1925-03-20" name="#generation"/>
+          <FRBRauthor href="/ie/oireachtas/house/dail/4"/>
+          <FRBRcountry value="ie"/>
+          <FRBRname value="debate"/>
+        </FRBRWork>
+        <FRBRExpression>
+          <FRBRthis value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1925-03-20/debate/mul@/main"/>
+          <FRBRuri value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1925-03-20/debate/mul@"/>
+          <FRBRdate date="1925-03-20" name="#reported"/>
+          <FRBRauthor href="/ie/oireachtas/role/debates"/>
+          <FRBRlanguage language="mul"/>
+        </FRBRExpression>
+        <FRBRManifestation>
+          <FRBRthis value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1925-03-20/debate/mul@/main.xml"/>
+          <FRBRuri value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1925-03-20/debate/mul@.akn"/>
+          <FRBRdate date="2020-06-25" name="#publication"/>
+          <FRBRauthor href="/ie/oireachtas/role/debates"/>
+        </FRBRManifestation>
+      </identification>
+      <analysis source="#source">
+        <parliamentary>
+          <voting eId="vote_1" href="#sum_7" refersTo="#unmatchedBill" outcome="#??">
+            <count eId="vote_1-count_1" value="23" refersTo="#ta" href="#qty_1"/>
+            <count eId="vote_1-count_2" value="12" refersTo="#nil" href="#qty_2"/>
+          </voting>
+          <voting eId="vote_2" href="#sum_24" refersTo="#unmatchedBill" outcome="#??">
+            <count eId="vote_2-count_1" value="23" refersTo="#ta" href="#qty_3"/>
+            <count eId="vote_2-count_2" value="13" refersTo="#nil" href="#qty_4"/>
+          </voting>
+        </parliamentary>
+        <otherAnalysis xmlns:oir="https://data.oireachtas.ie/ns/1.0" source="#source">
+          <oir:volumeReference showAs="Vol. 10" eId="#vol_10" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10"/>
+          <oir:numberReference showAs="No. 16" eId="#no_16" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/no/16"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1317" eId="col_1317" refersTo="#dbsect_1" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/1317"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1318" eId="col_1318" refersTo="#spk_4" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/1318"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1319" eId="col_1319" refersTo="#spk_11" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/1319"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1320" eId="col_1320" refersTo="#spk_14" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/1320"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1321" eId="col_1321" refersTo="#dbsect_6" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/1321"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1322" eId="col_1322" refersTo="#spk_27" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/1322"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1323" eId="col_1323" refersTo="#spk_33" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/1323"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1324" eId="col_1324" refersTo="#spk_36" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/1324"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1325" eId="col_1325" refersTo="#spk_40" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/1325"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1326" eId="col_1326" refersTo="#spk_45" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/1326"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1327" eId="col_1327" refersTo="#spk_50" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/1327"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1328" eId="col_1328" refersTo="#spk_55" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/1328"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1329" eId="col_1329" refersTo="#spk_60" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/1329"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1330" eId="col_1330" refersTo="#dbsect_19" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/1330"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1331" eId="col_1331" refersTo="#spk_70" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/1331"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1332" eId="col_1332" refersTo="#spk_102" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/1332"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1333" eId="col_1333" refersTo="#spk_75" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/1333"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1334" eId="col_1334" refersTo="#spk_77" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/1334"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1335" eId="col_1335" refersTo="#spk_79" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/1335"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1336" eId="col_1336" refersTo="#spk_79" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/1336"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1337" eId="col_1337" refersTo="#spk_82" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/1337"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1338" eId="col_1338" refersTo="#spk_82" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/1338"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1339" eId="col_1339" refersTo="#spk_85" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/1339"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1340" eId="col_1340" refersTo="#spk_88" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/1340"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1341" eId="col_1341" refersTo="#spk_90" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/1341"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1342" eId="col_1342" refersTo="#spk_90" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/1342"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1343" eId="col_1343" refersTo="#spk_91" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/1343"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1344" eId="col_1344" refersTo="#spk_96" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/10/col/1344"/>
+        </otherAnalysis>
+      </analysis>
+      <references source="#source">
+        <TLCOrganization eId="source" href="" showAs="Houses of the Oireachtas"/>
+        <TLCEvent eId="bill.1925.6.dail.3" href="/ie/oireachtas/bill/1925/6/dail/3" showAs="Treasonable and Seditious Offences Bill 1925: Dáil Committee Stage"/>
+        <TLCConcept eId="#nil" href="/ie/oireachtas/ontology#NílVote" showAs="Níl Vote"/>
+        <TLCConcept eId="#ta" href="/ie/oireachtas/ontology#TáVote" showAs="Tá Vote"/>
+        <TLCConcept eId="agreed" href="/ie/oireachtas/ontology#Agreed" showAs="Agreed"/>
+        <TLCConcept eId="carried" href="/ie/oireachtas/ontology#DeclaredCarried" showAs="Declared Carried"/>
+        <TLCConcept eId="generation" href="/ie/oireachtas/ontology#Generation" showAs="Generation"/>
+        <TLCConcept eId="publication" href="/ie/oireachtas/ontology#Publication" showAs="Publication"/>
+        <TLCConcept eId="reported" href="/ie/oireachtas/ontology#Reported" showAs="Reported"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="AlfredByrne" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Alfred-Byrne.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Alfred Byrne"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="DarrellFiggis" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Darrell-Figgis.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Darrell Figgis"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="DenisJohnGorey" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Denis-John-Gorey.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Denis John Gorey"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="DesmondFitzgerald" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Desmond-FitzGerald.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Desmond FitzGerald"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="EdmundJDuggan" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Edmund-John-Duggan.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Edmund John Duggan"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="ErnestBlythe" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Ernest-Blythe.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Ernest Blythe"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="GeorgeWolfe" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/George-Wolfe.D.1923-09-19" showAs="George Wolfe"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="JamesJosephWalsh" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/James-Joseph-Walsh.D.1919-01-21" showAs="James Joseph Walsh"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="JamesSprouleMyles" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Major-James-Sproule-Myles.D.1923-09-19" showAs="Major James Sproule Myles"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="JohnLyons" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/John-Lyons.D.1922-09-09" showAs="John Lyons"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="JohnThomasNolan" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/John-Thomas-Nolan.D.1923-09-19" showAs="John Thomas Nolan"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="KevinChristopher" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Kevin-Christopher-O'Higgins.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Kevin Christopher O'Higgins"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="MichaelHayes" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Michael-Hayes.D.1921-08-16" showAs="Michael Hayes"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="PadraicOMaille" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Pádraic-Ó-Maille.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Pádraic Ó Maille"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="PatrickMcGilligan" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Patrick-McGilligan.D.1923-11-03" showAs="Patrick McGilligan"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="PeadarSeanDoyle" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Peadar-Seán-Doyle.D.1923-09-19" showAs="Peadar Seán Doyle"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="PeterHughes" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Peter-Hughes.D.1921-08-16" showAs="Peter Hughes"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="RichardCorish" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Richard-Corish.D.1921-08-16" showAs="Richard Corish"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="RichardJamesMulcahy" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Richard-James-Mulcahy.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Richard James Mulcahy"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="SeamusAloysiusBourke" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Séamus-Aloysius-Bourke.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Séamus Aloysius Bourke"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="ThomasJohnson" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Thomas-Johnson.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Thomas Johnson"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="WilliamDavin" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/William-Davin.D.1922-09-09" showAs="William Davin"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="WilliamTCosgrave" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/William-T-Cosgrave.D.1919-01-21" showAs="William T. Cosgrave"/>
+        <TLCRole eId="author" href="/ie/oireachtas/role/role/author" showAs="author"/>
+        <TLCRole eId="editor" href="/ie/oireachtas/role/role/editor" showAs="editor"/>
+      </references>
+    </meta>
+    <preface>
+      <block name="title_ga">
+        <docTitle>DÍOSPÓIREACHTAÍ PARLAIMINTE</docTitle>
+      </block>
+      <block name="title_en">
+        <docTitle>PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES</docTitle>
+      </block>
+      <block name="proponent_ga">
+        <docProponent>DÁIL ÉIREANN</docProponent>
+      </block>
+      <block name="status_ga">
+        <docStatus>TUAIRISC OIFIGIÚIL</docStatus>
+      </block>
+      <block name="status_en">
+        <docStatus>(OFFICIAL REPORT)</docStatus>
+      </block>
+      <block name="date_ga">
+        <docDate date="1925-03-20">Dé hAoine, 20 Márta 1925</docDate>
+      </block>
+      <block name="date_en">
+        <docDate date="1925-03-20">Friday, 20 March 1925</docDate>
+      </block>
+      <block name="volume">
+        <docNumber refersTo="#vol_10">Vol. 10</docNumber>
+      </block>
+      <block name="number">
+        <docNumber refersTo="#no_16">No. 16</docNumber>
+      </block>
+    </preface>
+    <debateBody>
+      <debateSection name="prelude" eId="dbsect_1">
+        <heading>Prelude</heading>
+        <summary eId="sum_1">Do chuaidh an Ceann Comhairle i gceannas ar a 12 a clog.</summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_2">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA.—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - REVENUE FROM INCOME TAX.</heading>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_1">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_1">asked the Minister for Finance if he will state, for the last year for which such figures are available, what the revenue to the State amounted to respectively under each of the five schedules of Income Tax.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_2">
+          <from>MINISTER for FINANCE (Mr. E. Blythe)</from>
+          <p eId="para_2">The year 1923-24 was the first year for which assessments were made for the Saorstát.  Until the accounts for that year are closed and detailed schedules of discharge and default are available, it will not be possible to state how much of the revenue collected was attributable to each Schedule.  These schedules are not expected to be ready for at least another year.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_3">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA.—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - ORDNANCE SURVEY INQUIRY.</heading>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_3">
+          <from>TOMAS MacEOIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_3">asked the Minister for Finance whether the Committee to inquire into the Ordnance Survey, the appointment of which he announced on July 25th, 1924, and referred to again on November 5th, has yet held any meetings, and, if so, how many; whether representatives of the various branches of the staff of the Department have been invited to give evidence or have yet done so; and if he can state when the inquiry is expected to be completed.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_4">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_4">Owing to unforeseen difficulties in bringing all the members together at one time, the Committee have not yet held a meeting.  The procedure to be followed in obtaining the evidence, if required, has not, therefore, been settled, but any evidence the staff can usefully give on the subject of the inquiry will, no doubt, be taken.  It is not possible at this stage to state when the inquiry will be completed, but arrangements now being made will, I hope, enable the work to be proceeded with without further delay.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_5">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_5">Has the Minister's attention been called to the statement of the President, made when this matter was first mooted, that it was obviously a matter of urgency, and that the Committee should set to work and bring in its report without delay?  That was in July of last year.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_6">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_6">The Chairman, or one member of the Committee, Deputy Nicholls, who was appointed, found himself unable to act.  He is now resigning, and I hope he will be able to substitute a chairman who will proceed with the work at once.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_7">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_7">In view of the probability of reorganisation, will the Minister reconsider the terms of reference of this Committee, so that it will be able to inquire into larger questions than it can under its present rather narrow terms of reference?  The question raised by ex-Deputy McGarry and Deputy Hogan was of rather more importance and greater consequence than the question raised by the terms of reference.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_8">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_8">I have not given any consideration to that.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_9">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_9">Will the Minister do so immediately, so that there will be no unnecessary delay?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_10">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_10">I will.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_4">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA.—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - STOPPAGE OF BLIND PENSION.</heading>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_11">
+          <from>SEAN O LAIDHIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_11">asked the Minister for Finance whether he can state the grounds on which the blind pension was stopped from Patrick Murray, Brianbeg, Drumraney, Moate; if he is aware that he resides in a labourer's cottage, and has no other income;  that the applicant has been in receipt of the pension since the passing of the original Act; that Murray has furnished doctors' certificates to the effect that he was and is stone blind, and whether he will have payment of pension made forthwith, with the arrears which were withheld since the 6th March, 1925.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#SeamusAloysiusBourke" eId="spk_12">
+          <from>MINISTER for LOCAL GOVERNMENT and PUBLIC HEALTH (Mr. Burke)</from>
+          <p eId="para_12">The pension in this case was discontinued pursuant to the decision given on the 3rd instant on appeal upon a question raised by the pension officer as to whether the pensioner fulfilled the statutory conditions of blindness. One of the Department's medical inspectors made a detailed examination of Mr. Murray's eyesight on the 27th ultimo.  He reported that, in his opinion, the pensioner, who was difficult to examine as he would give no assistance, had useful vision, which debarred him from a pension under the statute.  Mr. Murray obtained the blind pension at the inception of the Act.  The medical certificate of the 15th November last, furnished in connection with the recent appeal, does not state that Mr. Murray is stone blind, but said that he was in the same condition as he had been four years previously, and was incapable of doing anything for himself, as his eyesight was so bad.  In view of the facts, as certified by the Department's inspector, it is regretted that the pension cannot be restored.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JohnLyons" eId="spk_13">
+          <from>Mr. LYONS</from>
+          <p eId="para_13">Is the Minister aware that the applicant can supply doctors' certificates to the effect that he is stone blind?  This man did not receive a pension. He was not all attention to the inspector, and the inspector turned down his claim because he was not all apologies to him.  The man's sister is only getting 14/- a week, home help, and she is also blind.  These two people have to live on the county, and the Minister refuses to give this man his right.  Will the Minister consider fresh evidence in his case?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#SeamusAloysiusBourke" eId="spk_14">
+          <from>Mr. BURKE</from>
+          <p eId="para_14">The medical inspector has a very precise method of ascertaining whether a person is blind or not,  and his decision in a particular case is final.  I am not prepared to accept representations from local doctors who have not the same qualifications to judge those cases as the medical inspector, who is a specialist in this matter, has.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#RichardCorish" eId="spk_15">
+          <from>Mr. CORISH</from>
+          <p eId="para_15">Does it not fulfil the requirements of the Act if a person is sufficiently blind so as not to be able to follow his usual occupation?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#SeamusAloysiusBourke" eId="spk_16">
+          <from>Mr. BURKE</from>
+          <p eId="para_16">That is not the exact wording of the Act.  He must be so blind as to prevent him doing any work for which sight is necessary.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#RichardCorish" eId="spk_17">
+          <from>Mr. CORISH</from>
+          <p eId="para_17">Is this man in that position?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#SeamusAloysiusBourke" eId="spk_18">
+          <from>Mr. BURKE</from>
+          <p eId="para_18">No; he is not so blind.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JohnLyons" eId="spk_19">
+          <from>Mr. LYONS</from>
+          <p eId="para_19">This man has not done a day's work for eight years.  The Minister now refuses to give him his right, and this is supposed to be a democratic Government.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#SeamusAloysiusBourke" eId="spk_20">
+          <from>Mr. BURKE</from>
+          <p eId="para_20">Many a man did not do a day's work for eight years, whose eyes are very far from being closed.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_5">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA.—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - DOG LICENCE FEE.</heading>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_21">
+          <from>SEAN O LAIDHIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_21">asked the Minister for Finance if he will consider reducing the dog licence from five to three shillings, as the present amount is too high for workers; and whether the time for taking out such a licence will be extended.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_22">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_22">The general question of these licences is under consideration at the moment, and will shortly be brought to the notice of the Dáil in connection with proposed legislation, but I regret that I cannot hold out any grounds for hope that a reduction in the present licence fees will result.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JohnLyons" eId="spk_23">
+          <from>Mr. LYONS</from>
+          <p eId="para_23">Is the Minister aware that the wages of workers of the country have been greatly reduced, and that they are not now in a position to pay 5/- for the only little enjoyment they have on Sundays, when they go hunting?  Surely, the Minister should give some facility to these people by reducing the cost of dog licences.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_6">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA.—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - TRANSFER OF INCOME TAX OFFICERS.</heading>
+        <speech by="#JohnThomasNolan" eId="spk_24">
+          <from>Mr. J.T. NOLAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_24">asked the Minister for Finance if he will state whether four Income Tax Officials have been brought over from Great Britain within the past three months to aid in the administration of the Department of the Revenue Commissioners, and, if so, if he will state why this addition to his staff became necessary, and whether it is intended to have these officials permanently transferred to the Saorstát service.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_25">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_25">The facts are as stated in the first part of the question. The Income Tax staff was reduced by six inspectors on 6th December, 1924, by reason of the departure of men who had been on loan since 6th December, 1922.  There were no trained officials available in the Saorstát to replace these men, and it became necessary to arrange for a loan of four inspectors to enable the Revenue Commissioners to carry on the work.  It is not intended to secure these officials for permanent service.  Arrangements were made to obtain permanent staff which is now in course of training.  It may be added that a period of at least three years is necessary for the training of an Inspector of Taxes.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_7">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA.—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - DEDUCTION FROM COMPENSATION AWARD.</heading>
+        <speech by="#GeorgeWolfe" eId="spk_26">
+          <from>SEOIRSE DE BHULBH</from>
+          <p eId="para_26">asked the Minister for Finance if he is aware that the Revenue Commissioners propose retaining £146 from the sum of £550 awarded to Mr. Charles O'Neill, Tinnycross, Ballymore-Eustace, Co. Kildare, for the burning of the former police barrack situated in the above-mentioned town, and if he will state the reason for this course of action, as Mr. O'Neill disputes liability to income tax.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_27">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_27">Mr. O'Neill's liability to income tax was determined on appeal by the Special Commissioners of Income Tax, and is not, therefore, in dispute.  Several applications were made to Mr. O'Neill by the collector of taxes for payment of the tax due by him, but as he failed to pay it became  necessary to deduct portion of the compensation award in satisfaction of Mr. O'Neill's liability.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#GeorgeWolfe" eId="spk_28">
+          <from>Mr. WOLFE</from>
+          <p eId="para_28">Arising out of the Minister's answer, perhaps he is not aware that Mr. O'Neill never paid income tax under the British regime, because he was always in a position to show that he did not come within liability for income tax, and now he has got much less than he had before.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_29">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_29">I think we will have to consider the question of getting arrears out of him.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#GeorgeWolfe" eId="spk_30">
+          <from>Mr. WOLFE</from>
+          <p eId="para_30">If he would be allowed to explain the matter to somebody in authority, he could do it quite simply. He says that he would have no difficulty in doing that.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_31">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_31">He explained it to the Special Commissioners, and he did not satisfy them, and he failed to take advantage of the opportunity he had of explaining to the Circuit Judge.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_8">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA.—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - WEXFORD MAN'S UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFIT.</heading>
+        <speech by="#RichardCorish" eId="spk_32">
+          <from>RISTEARD MAC FHEORAIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_32">asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state why unemployment insurance benefit is not being paid to John Jones, Upper John Street, Wexford.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PatrickMcGilligan" eId="spk_33">
+          <from>MINISTER for INDUSTRY and COMMERCE (Mr. McGilligan)</from>
+          <p eId="para_33">Only 45 contributions have been paid up to the present for John Jones, of Upper John Street, Wexford.  In respect of these contributions he has been paid in the current benefit year benefit for 45 days on a claim made by him on the 30th October.  Under existing legislation, there is no power to pay him further benefit unless and until further contributions have been paid for him. Contributions under the Unemployment Insurance Acts become payable in respect of employed persons when they reach 16 years of age.  It appears that there was doubt as to the exact date on which John Jones reached insurable age, and in consequence it may have happened that his last employers should have commenced to pay contributions  in respect of his employment earlier than they did.  It is understood that they are willing to pay any contributions that may be due when Jones satisfies them as to his age.  If further contributions are paid, it will be open to Jones to renew his claim for benefit.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_9">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA.—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - REOPENING OF WEXFORD CEMENT WORKS.</heading>
+        <speech by="#RichardCorish" eId="spk_34">
+          <from>RISTEARD MAC FHEORAIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_34">asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if his Department is making any effort to induce the Cement Marketing Company to reopen their works at Wexford; if he is aware that consignments of cement were leaving the works daily by rail until the railway siding there was broken, and if he can say who is responsible for the repair of this siding.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PatrickMcGilligan" eId="spk_35">
+          <from>Mr. McGILLIGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_35">Various Government Departments have, during the past few years, continually taken such action as they could to secure a market for the cement produced in the Drinagh Cement Works, and these efforts have achieved a considerable measure of success.  At present, I understand, the works are closed, while accumulated stocks are being disposed of, when I presume, the works will be re-opened.  The siding referred to is, according to my information, the property of the Cement Company and will no doubt be repaired when the Company requires the siding for  orders received.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#RichardCorish" eId="spk_36">
+          <from>Mr. CORISH</from>
+          <p eId="para_36">Is the Minister aware that it is apparent that the Cement Works require the siding at the moment; that up to the time the sleepers were broken, cement was being removed daily and that now it has stopped; is he aware that there has been a conference between the Railway Company and the Cement Company with a view to finding out who is responsible for the repair of the line, and if not, will he make inquires into the matter?  I would also like to ask the Minister if he is aware that the Dublin Corporation were taking a certain amount of this product up to the time the Commissioners were appointed  and that since then the supply has ceased?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_37">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_37">Is the Minister aware that cement supplied by the same Company from its Northern Ireland works is coming into this city for houses which are receiving the Government subsidy?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PatrickMcGilligan" eId="spk_38">
+          <from>Mr. McGILLIGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_38">With regard to what Deputy Corish has asked, supplementary to his original question, if the Cement Company require the immediate use of the siding, which, according to the best of my information, is their property, it is up to them to repair the siding and make use of it.  I am not aware as to the conference between the Railway Company and the Cement Company on the question of ownership. To the best of my information, the siding is the property of the Cement Company.  I understand that, prior to the advent of the Dublin Commissioners, cement was taken from the Drinagh Cement Works, when the Drinagh Cement Company had not sent in the lowest tender.  I personally endeavoured to secure a further contract for the Drinagh Cement Company, even though the same circumstances obtained.  I cannot say whether or not that contract was given to them.  I have no information on the point raised by Deputy Johnson.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#RichardCorish" eId="spk_39">
+          <from>Mr. CORISH</from>
+          <p eId="para_39">Does the Minister remember that, in connection with this matter some time ago, he promised that his Department would make inquires as to whether there was dumping from Belgium and France of cement into this country?  I would like to know the result of that inquiry.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PatrickMcGilligan" eId="spk_40">
+          <from>Mr. McGILLIGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_40">This is a point which Deputy Corish has raised by way of Parliamentary Question and in the course of debate here and it is very difficult for me to state whether or not there was any promise made as to making inquiries into allegations of dumping.  I have always said, in reply to that, that there was no definition of what "dumping" was and, while inquires were made, I cannot state for the satisfaction of the Deputy whether or not there is proof of "dumping" because, his idea of what "dumping" means and my idea of what it means may be quite different.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#RichardCorish" eId="spk_41">
+          <from>Mr. CORISH</from>
+          <p eId="para_41">Would the Minister consider the advisability of taking the matter up with the Cement Marketing Company, with a view to the holding of another conference?  I think the Minister will admit that matters have charged considerably in this connection since the amalgamation of railways was brought about.  He will remember that on the last occasion that we discussed this matter, there was a question of the cement passing over two lines, with consequent transfer and other charges, which militated against the best interests of the Cement Company. Would the Minister not think that this would be an opportune time for the holding of a conference, with a view to having the Cement Works opened and providing employment for the 60 men there?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PatrickMcGilligan" eId="spk_42">
+          <from>Mr. McGILLIGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_42">The reduction of the terminal charges is one of the economies to be looked for under the amalgamation scheme.  I will consider the suggestion as to a further conference.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_43">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_43">Would the Minister consult with the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Finance with regard to contracts for housing material, such as cement, coming from outside the Saorstát, when the works belonging to the same company, within the Saorstát, are closed down?</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_10">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA.—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - SUSPENSION OF POSTS ON ST. PATRICK'S DAY.</heading>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_44">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_44">asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs if he will state why all the outward and inward posts, including those ordinarily maintained on Sundays, were suspended on St. Patrick's Day, to the inconvenience of many citizens.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JamesJosephWalsh" eId="spk_45">
+          <from>MINISTER for POSTS and TELEGRAPHS (Mr. J.J. Walsh)</from>
+          <p eId="para_45">Deliveries and despatches of mails on Bank Holidays were suspended in An Saorstát as far back as March, 1923, but on Bank Holidays which follow a Sunday or  other public holiday night mail despatches take place where the train service permits.  St. Patrick's Day of this year did not follow a Sunday or other public holiday, and consequently there was a complete suspension of services, except in Dublin, where a delivery of correspondence for commercial houses was afforded to callers (which is not afforded on Sundays) and a special late evening collection was made as on Sundays.  The fact of the day being the National Holiday rendered restriction of labour desirable as far as possible.  It is not considered that any real public inconvenience was caused by the absence of deliveries and despatches.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_46">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_46">Arising out of the Minister's answer, is it not a fact that, whether there was public inconvenience or not, there was a great deal of inconvenience in the service, owing to congestion on the subsequent days, and will he consider whether in future there should not be some degree of service on Bank Holidays, if not in respect of delivery, then in respect of collection of mails?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JamesJosephWalsh" eId="spk_47">
+          <from>Mr. WALSH</from>
+          <p eId="para_47">I am prepared to consider the matter.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_11">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA.—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - THE PEACE PROTOCOL.</heading>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_48">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_48">asked the Minister for External Affairs if, and when, he proposes to make a statement to the Dáil respecting the recent Peace Protocol and the Security Pact that has now been proposed in its stead.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_49">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_49">The question of the Protocol is still being considered by the Executive Council.  When a decision has been arrived at, it will be communicated to the Oireachtas.  So far as I am aware, no definite alternative proposals have yet been formulated.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_50">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_50">Arising out of that answer, would the Minister state exactly what he means when he says, "when a decision has been arrived at"?  Does it mean that the Executive Council will decide and intimate its decision to the Oireachtas, or will it lay its decision before the Oireachtas for confirmation, and will  there be an opportunity for debate on the matter?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_51">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_51">Any decision taken by the Executive Council in a matter of that kind has been invariably brought before the Oireachtas.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_12">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA.—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - RELIEF OF CONGESTION.</heading>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_52">
+          <from>SEAN O LAIDHIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_52">asked the Minister for Lands and Agriculture whether the Land Commission will, for the relief of congestion, take over the farm on the Eustace, Kilgarvan Estate, situated at Ballinahown, Westmeath, consisting of one hundred Irish acres, which was sold by the former owner, Mrs. Johnson, Newtown, Moate, on the 14th February, 1925, to Mr. Thomas Dolan, Shannonbridge, Offaly, who already held two hundred and eighty acres, in view of the large number of uneconomic holding in the Ballinahown district.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PatrickMcGilligan" eId="spk_53">
+          <from>Mr. McGILLIGAN (for Minister for Lands and Agriculture)</from>
+          <p eId="para_53">In the schedule of particulars lodged by the owner of the Eustace estates with the Land Commission for the purpose of the Land Act, 1923, Mrs. Anne Johnson is shown as tenant of a holding in the townland of Kilgarven Glebe containing 180 acres 1 rood 23 perches held under a judicial tenancy.</p>
+          <p eId="para_54">When dealing with the estate the matter will be considered.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_13">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA.—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - ACQUISITION OF FARM—MULLINGAR.</heading>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_54">
+          <from>SEAN O LAIDHIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_55">asked the Minister for Lands and Agriculture if it is the intention of the Land Commission to acquire the farm of Tenelick, Colehill, Mullingar, consisting of seventy Irish acres, the property of George Miller, for distribution amongst the uneconomic holders in the district.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PatrickMcGilligan" eId="spk_55">
+          <from>Mr. McGILLIGAN (for Minister for Lands and Agriculture)</from>
+          <p eId="para_56">The lands referred to appear to be a holding in the townland of Tennalick comprising 133 acres 30 perches on the estate of Lord Annaly; these lands were purchased in the year 1902 by the  tenant, Mrs. Kate Miller, under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Acts, 1891-6.  The Commissioners do not propose to take any action as regards these lands.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_14">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA.—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION—CASE OF JAMES DOYLE.</heading>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_56">
+          <from>TOMAS MAC EOIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_57">asked the Minister for Defence whether his attention has been drawn to the case of James Doyle, who sustained the loss of a thumb as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his duties as Army butcher in Collins Barracks on 15th January, 1924, but who, being a soldier, is debarred from claiming compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, and whether it is proposed to make provision for compensation in such cases by amendment of the Army Pensions Act, 1923, or otherwise.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PeterHughes" eId="spk_57">
+          <from>MINISTER for DEFENCE (Mr. P. Hughes)</from>
+          <p eId="para_58">My attention has been drawn to Mr. Doyle's case, which does not come within the provisions of the Army Pensions Act, 1923.  I am, however, at  considering proposals for dealing with this and similar cases.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_15">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA.—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - ARREARS OF SOLDIERS' PAY.</heading>
+        <speech by="#JamesSprouleMyles" eId="spk_58">
+          <from>Major J.S. MYLES</from>
+          <p eId="para_59">asked the Minister for Defence whether grade pay at the rate of 3s. per day for the period from 29th March, 1924, to the 2nd July, 1924, is due to Sergeant Charles Quinn, 8415, Transport Section; if he will state what is the cause of delay in payment, and when payment may be expected.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PeterHughes" eId="spk_59">
+          <from>Mr. HUGHES</from>
+          <p eId="para_60">Mr. Quinn's claim is under consideration at the moment. Delay was occasioned, I regret to say, by his pay-book being mislaid.  An early decision will be arrived at, which I will communicate to the Deputy.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_16">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA.—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - INCORRECTLY FILLED CHEQUE.</heading>
+        <speech by="#JamesSprouleMyles" eId="spk_60">
+          <from>Major J.S. MYLES</from>
+          <p eId="para_61">asked the Minister for Defence whether he has completed inquiries in the case of the cheque issued to Mr. John Cameron, of Bundoran; whether the cheque was incorrectly  filled, and whether he is aware that payment was refused by the bank; that this cheque was returned to the Department, and that the amount is still due to Mr. Cameron.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PeterHughes" eId="spk_61">
+          <from>Mr. HUGHES</from>
+          <p eId="para_62">The cheque in question was returned by the bank for the reason that there was a discrepancy between the amount as written in words and in figures.  A fresh cheque was sent to Mr. Cameron on the 11th instant.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_17">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA.—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - CLAIM AGAINST ARMY.</heading>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_62">
+          <from>SEAN O LAIDHIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_63">asked the Minister for Defence whether he is aware that the wound pension granted to William Greene, Castlemaine Street, Athlone, amounting to £1 0s. 9d. per week, has been stopped; that the claimant's arm is powerless, owing to bullet wounds in the wrist, which prevents him from occupying any position; and whether, as the claimant has a wife and two children, payment of arrears of pension will be expedited.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PeterHughes" eId="spk_63">
+          <from>Mr. HUGHES</from>
+          <p eId="para_64">Payment of Mr. Greene's pension was suspended in connection with the sentence passed on him at the District Court, Athlone, in April last.  It has now been decided to issue the arrears due and to continue the pension.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_18">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA.—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - RUMOURED DEMOBILISATION OF OFFICERS.</heading>
+        <speech by="#PeadarSeanDoyle" eId="spk_64">
+          <from>PEADAR O DUBHGHAILL</from>
+          <p eId="para_65">asked the Minister for Defence whether five hundred officers of the National Army are about to be demobilised, and, if so, whether he will state the reasons for such demobilisation.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PeterHughes" eId="spk_65">
+          <from>Mr. HUGHES</from>
+          <p eId="para_66">There is absolutely no foundation for the suggestion contained in the question that five hundred—or any other number of officers are about to be demobilised.  I should say, sir, that rumours are circulated from time to time which, if they were to go uncontradicted, would be to the detriment of the Army.  Those rumours are circulated for the purpose of destroying the morale of the Army, which, I am glad to say, is at a very high pitch at the present time.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_19">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA.—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - MILITARY MOTOR ACCIDENT.</heading>
+        <speech by="#AlfredByrne" eId="spk_66">
+          <from>Mr. A. BYRNE</from>
+          <p eId="para_67">asked the Minister for Defence if he is aware that Mr. Patrick Nolan, 48D, Drumcondra, was seriously injured by being knocked down by a military motor car on September 27th, 1923; that on March 5th, 1924, in an action against Colonel M. Gilheaney, the occupant of the car, the Lord Chief Justice awarded Nolan £200 damages, and stated that Sergeant Clarke, the driver of the car, was guilty of negligence, and that he was not the agent of Colonel Gilheany; that, in reply to inquiries on Nolan's behalf, the Army Finance Officer stated that his claim could not be admitted, and a careful investigation showed that the driver of the car was in no way to blame for the accident; that the injured persons or his witnesses were not represented at this investigation; and if, in view of the comment of the Lord Chief Justice as to Sergeant Clarke's negligence, an <i>ex gratia</i> payment would be made in this case.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PeterHughes" eId="spk_67">
+          <from>Mr. HUGHES</from>
+          <p eId="para_68">I am not aware of any award or comments stated to have been made by a Lord Chief Justice in this case, but I am making inquiries in this connection and will communicate with the Deputy as soon as possible.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#AlfredByrne" eId="spk_68">
+          <from>Mr. A. BYRNE</from>
+          <p eId="para_69">Would the Minister state whether any Army officer has the right to override the decision of a High Court Judge?  I might also ask the Minister for Justice if he would pay attention to the two statements in this question regarding the statement of the Lord Chief Justice that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the car, and awarding damages, while a military inquiry tries to reverse that decision without calling witnesses for the plaintiff—a private inquiry held to reverse a High Court Judge's decision.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PeterHughes" eId="spk_69">
+          <from>Mr. HUGHES</from>
+          <p eId="para_70">I have no knowledge of the decision given.  I have promised the Deputy that I will make inquiries into the matter and let him know the result.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#AlfredByrne" eId="spk_70">
+          <from>Mr. A. BYRNE</from>
+          <p eId="para_71">I asked the Minister whether he is not aware that the case was defended in the High Courts  by the Colonel who occupied the car, on Wednesday, March 5th, 1924, and in giving the decision the Lord Chief Justice said that Sergeant Clarke was guilty of negligence in the driving of the car and the plaintiff sustained damages to the extent of £200.  What I want to get at is, what protection have civilians against interference by a military dictatorship which endeavours to reverse a decision of the High Court?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PeterHughes" eId="spk_71">
+          <from>Mr. HUGHES</from>
+          <p eId="para_72">I do not know about any military dictatorship, and if the gentleman in question got a decree for £200 he can levy it off the person concerned.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#AlfredByrne" eId="spk_72">
+          <from>Mr. A. BYRNE</from>
+          <p eId="para_73">I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the motion for the Adjournment.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_20">
+        <heading>APPROPRIATION ACCOUNTS, 1924.</heading>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_73">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_74">Before the business of the day is taken up I would like, with the leave of the House, to move a formal motion.  I move:—</p>
+          <p eId="para_75">That the Appropriation Accounts of the sums granted by the Oireachtas for public services for the year ended 31st March, 1924, together with the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon and his report on certain store accounts be printed and circulated.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_2" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Motion put and agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#dbsect_20"/>
+                </summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_21">
+        <heading>DUNDALK HARBOUR BILL.</heading>
+        <speech by="#PadraicOMaille" eId="spk_74">
+          <from>PADRAIC O MAILLE</from>
+          <p title="motionProposal" eId="para_76">I move:—</p>
+          <p eId="para_77">That the report of the Joint Committee on the Dundalk Harbour and Port Bill be received and a copy laid on the Table of the Dáil.</p>
+          <p eId="para_78">A copy of this report has been sent to each Deputy.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_3">Ordered that the report be received and laid on the Table of the Dáil.</summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_22" refersTo="#bill.1925.6.dail.3">
+        <heading>DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - TREASONABLE AND SEDITIOUS OFFENCES BILL, 1925—THIRD STAGE.</heading>
+        <summary eId="sum_4">Debate resumed on amendment 17 to Section 9.</summary>
+        <speech by="#WilliamDavin" eId="spk_75">
+          <from>Mr. DAVIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_79">The Minister for Justice, in moving the Second Reading of this Mussolini measure, stated that he was prepared to give the most careful consideration in Committee to any amendments that were brought forward. Yesterday he endeavoured to throw dust in the eyes of the Deputies by asking them to accept the view that this Bill was the main issue in the recent elections and that it had received an overwhelming endorsement  from the people.  Well, if the Minister's speeches in the many parts of the country that he visited to support his candidates are to be taken as any indication of what the real issue was, the real issue certainly was not the Treason Bill.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_76">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_80">What was it?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamDavin" eId="spk_77">
+          <from>Mr. DAVIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_81">The real issue, as I understand it, was the extinction of the State.  The non-recognition of the existing Constitution was the issue raised by the Minister's political opponents. Peculiar to relate, however—and it is a remarkable fact—in one of the constituencies in which a supporter of the Minister was seeking election the people were so inactive or so ignorant in realising that that was the issue that they elected a man who was not prepared to recognise the Constitution or this House in preference to a man who, if elected, would have come into the House.  I sincerely hope that this big issue that means nothing to the people, but is only blindfolding them, the issue of the Treaty <i>versus</i> a visionary Republic, will be dropped; that issues, like the present Bill, and other measures for which the Minister and his colleagues are responsible, will be put to the electors, that they will have an opportunity of voting on these issues, and not on blind issues and others which the people who were opposing the Minister have been raising for the past three years.  I am prepared, and have always been willing, to vote for the giving of the widest possible discretion to the judges appointed by the Executive Council in interpreting and administering the Acts that are passed here, but I am not prepared as a layman to allow to go through in a Bill like this words which it is not possible even for a judge to understand if he should be called upon to interpret them.  It states:</p>
+          <p eId="para_82">In this section the expression "secret society" means an association, society or other body, the members of which are required by the regulations thereof to take or enter into, or do in fact take or enter into, an oath or other engagement not to  disclose the proceedings or some part of the proceedings of the association, society or body.</p>
+          <p eId="para_83">I think it is not an exaggeration to say that many men before joining the Army belonged to or were associated or connected with tontine societies, insurance societies, and other bodies of that kind, that from the clause as it stands could properly be interpreted as being undesirable associations.  I also know that members of the police forces belong to tontine and sick fund societies, so that to allow the sub-section to remain as it is, without any explanation from the Minister as to what is in his mind when he asked the Dáil to include such vague wording, is something I do not stand over.  Any person who joins any organisation composed of six or more individuals can be said to belong to a society, association or body. Most organisations of such a nature have some kind of written constitution. Surely it is going beyond all reason for the Minister to include in a Bill like this words that would prevent a policeman or a soldier from belonging to a tontine, a burial, or an insurance society, or even a football club or the Cumann na nGaedheal organisation. Perhaps even hurling clubs, athletic clubs and coursing clubs might be brought within the meaning of the sub-section as it stands.  I hope the Minister will explain to the Dáil what he had in mind when he inserted these words.  I also hope that Deputy Gorey will support me in asking for the deletion of the words in view of the strong language he used yesterday evening, and that he will not walk into the lobby and not vote, but show what his convictions are by voting on this amendment.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DenisJohnGorey" eId="spk_78">
+          <from>Mr. GOREY</from>
+          <p eId="para_84">I want to correct the Deputy's impression; I did not go into the lobby and refuse to vote.  The thing was so long drawn out that I had to leave for another engagement.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#KevinChristopher" eId="spk_79">
+          <from>MINISTER for JUSTICE (Mr. O'Higgins)</from>
+          <p eId="para_85">The definition of a secret society has been criticised on the grounds that it is too broad.  I am prepared to meet that view by inserting instead of the words "or other engagement," the words "affirmation or  declaration," so that the definition would read:—</p>
+          <p eId="para_86">In this section the expression "secret society" means an associaciation, society, or other body, the members of which are required by the regulations thereof to take or enter into, or do in fact take or enter into, an oath, affirmation or declaration not to disclose the proceedings or some part of the proceedings of the association, society or body.</p>
+          <p eId="para_87">I think that is as near as I can go to a satisfactory definition, while I am open to consider any alternative definition that may be proposed.  As I pointed out yesterday, the gist of the objection is that people might enter into commitments and obligations that from the nature of the position cannot be known to the general public, and may conflict with their obligations to the general public.  It is easy to criticise the definition in the Bill on the grounds that it is too broad, and that it embraces, or might be held to  embrace, bodies which there is no need in fact to cover, and which are not in themselves objectionable.  I will consider any alternative definition which any ingenious Deputy may put forward, and if it is considered more satisfactory than the definition in this Bill, I will certainly insert it.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamDavin" eId="spk_80">
+          <from>Mr. DAVIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_88">I am prepared to accept the Minister's assurance that he will bring forward the sub-section with the altered wording on the Report Stage.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_81">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_89">It can be put in now if Deputy Davin alters his amendment so that in sub-section 2, line 24, the words "or other engagement" are deleted and "affirmation or declaration" inserted in lieu thereof.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamDavin" eId="spk_82">
+          <from>Mr. DAVIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_90">I agree.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_5" title="decision" refersTo="#agreed">Amendment, as altered, put and agreed to.<entity refersTo="#unmatchedBill" name="section"/>
+                </summary>
+        <debateSection name="division" eId="dbsect_23">
+          <summary eId="sum_6">Question:—"That Section 9, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#sum_4"/>
+                    </summary>
+          <summary class="Center" title="division" eId="sum_7">The Committee divided: Tá, <quantity normalized="23" refersTo="#ta" eId="qty_1">23</quantity>; Níl, <quantity normalized="12" refersTo="#nil" eId="qty_2">12</quantity>.</summary>
+          <debateSection name="ta" eId="dbsect_24">
+            <p class="Center" eId="para_91">Tá</p>
+            <p eId="para_92">
+              <person refersTo="#">Pádraig F. Baxter.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_93">
+              <person refersTo="#">Earnán de Blaghd.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_94">
+              <person refersTo="#">Thomas Bolger.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_95">
+              <person refersTo="#">Séamus Breathnach.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_96">
+              <person refersTo="#">Seoirse de Bhulbh.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_97">
+              <person refersTo="#">Séamus de Búrca.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_98">
+              <person refersTo="#">Patrick J. Egan.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_99">
+              <person refersTo="#">Connor Hogan.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_100">
+              <person refersTo="#">Liam Mac Cosgair.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_101">
+              <person refersTo="#">Patrick McGilligan.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_102">
+              <person refersTo="#">Seoirse Mac Niocaill.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_103">
+              <person refersTo="#">Liam Mac Sioghaird.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_104">
+              <person refersTo="#">Michael K. Noonan.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_105">
+              <person refersTo="#">Mícheál O hAonghusa.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_106">
+              <person refersTo="#">Eoghan O Dochartaigh.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_107">
+              <person refersTo="#">Séamus O Dóláin.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_108">
+              <person refersTo="#">Peadar O Dubhghaill.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_109">
+              <person refersTo="#">Eamon O Dúgáin.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_110">
+              <person refersTo="#">Donnchadh O Guaire.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_111">
+              <person refersTo="#">Aindriú O Láimhín.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_112">
+              <person refersTo="#">Fionán O Loingsigh.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_113">
+              <person refersTo="#">Risteárd O Maolchatha.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_114">
+              <person refersTo="#">Caoimhghín O hUigín.</person>
+            </p>
+          </debateSection>
+          <debateSection name="nil" eId="dbsect_25">
+            <p class="Center" eId="para_115">Níl</p>
+            <p eId="para_116">
+              <person refersTo="#">John Daly.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_117">
+              <person refersTo="#">Osmond Grattan Esmonde.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_118">
+              <person refersTo="#">Séamus Mac Cosgair.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_119">
+              <person refersTo="#">Tomás Mac Eoin.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_120">
+              <person refersTo="#">Risteárd Mac Fheorais.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_121">
+              <person refersTo="#">Tomás de Nógla.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_122">
+              <person refersTo="#">Ailfrid O Broin.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_123">
+              <person refersTo="#">Liam O Daimhín.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_124">
+              <person refersTo="#">Eamon O Dubhghaill.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_125">
+              <person refersTo="#">Pádraic O Máille.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_126">
+              <person refersTo="#">Domhnall O Muirgheasa.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_127">
+              <person refersTo="#">Tadhg O Murchadha.</person>
+            </p>
+          </debateSection>
+          <summary class="Center" title="tellers" eId="sum_8">Tellers:—Tá: Séamus O Dóláin, Liam Mac Sioghaird.  Níl: Domhnall O Muirgheasa, Tomás de Nógla.</summary>
+          <summary eId="sum_9" title="decision" refersTo="#carried">Motion declared carried.<entity refersTo="#unmatchedBill" name="section"/>
+                    </summary>
+        </debateSection>
+        <summary class="Center" eId="sum_10">SECTION 10.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_11">(1)  Every person who shall administer or cause to be administered or take part in, be present at, or consent to the administering or taking in any form or manner of any oath, declaration, or engagement purporting or intended to bind the person taking the same to do all or any of the following things, that is to say:—</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_12">(a)  to commit or to plan, contrive, promote, assist, or conceal the commission of any crime or any breach of the peace or any other unlawful act, or  (b)  to join or become a member of or associated with any organisation, association, or other body having for its object or one of its objects the commission of any crime, or breach of the peace, or other unlawful act, or</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_13">(c)  to abstain from disclosing or giving information of the existence or formation or proposed or intended formation of any such organisation, association, or other body as aforesaid or from informing or giving evidence against any member of or person concerned in the formation of any such organisation, association, or other body, or</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_14">(d)  to obey the orders of any committee, council or body of men not lawfully constituted or of any leader or commander or other person not having authority by law for that purpose, or</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_15">(e)  to abstain from disclosing or giving information of the commission or intended or proposed commission of any crime, breach of the peace, or other unlawful act or from informing or giving evidence against the person who committed such an act,</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_16">shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and shall be liable on conviction thereof to suffer imprisonment with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding two years.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_17">(2)  Every person who shall take any such oath as is mentioned in the foregoing sub-section shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and be liable on conviction thereof to suffer imprisonment with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding two years unless he shall show—</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_18">(a)  that he was compelled by force or duress to take such oath, and</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_19">(b)  that within four days after the taking of such oath if not prevented by actual force or sickness, or where so prevented then within four days after the cessor of the hindrance caused by such force or sickness, he declared to a Justice of the District Court or to an officer of the Dublin Metropolitan  Police or the Gárda Síochána the fact of his having taken such oath and all the circumstances connected therewith and the names and descriptions of all persons concerned in the administering of such oath so far as such circumstances, names, and descriptions were known to him.</summary>
+        <speech by="#EdmundJDuggan" eId="spk_83">
+          <from>Mr. DUGGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_128">I beg to move:—</p>
+          <p eId="para_129">In sub-section (1), page 6, line 45, to delete the words "or any other unlawful act," and on page 6, line 49, and page 7, line 2, to delete the words "or other unlawful act."</p>
+          <p eId="para_130">It was stated on the Second Reading that the words referred to caused a certain amount of ambiguity and uncertainty. On reconsidering the matter it was found that the intention to be covered by the section is really covered without the inclusion of those words.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_20" title="decision" refersTo="#agreed">Amendment put and agreed to.<entity refersTo="#unmatchedBill" name="section"/>
+                </summary>
+        <speech by="#RichardJamesMulcahy" eId="spk_84">
+          <from>General MULCAHY</from>
+          <p eId="para_131">I beg to move:</p>
+          <p eId="para_132">To delete sub-section (1) (d), lines 57-60.</p>
+          <p eId="para_133">That paragraph seems to be out of keeping with paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (e).  These paragraphs deal with questions of crime or a breach of the peace, but there is no specific reference to crime or breach of the peace in paragraph (d).  As it stands it would mean that a person present at any affirmation or declaration to obey the orders of any committee, council, or body of men not lawfully constituted, or of any leader or commander or other person not having authority by law for that purpose, is guilty of a misdemeanour. That is, to obey the orders of any such people, beyond what snag there may be in the words "not lawfully constituted," is a misdemeanour. It seems to me the paragraph would hit against the Cumann na nGaedheal party, or might hit against many an ordinary group of business people who would be associated for the purpose of transacting their own business.  It seems to be out of keeping with the section as a whole.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#KevinChristopher" eId="spk_85">
+          <from>Mr. O'HIGGINS</from>
+          <p eId="para_134">The object of the sub-head was to prevent people from simply making a neat parcel of their  wills and intellects and handing them over to the custody of some other citizen or citizens, undertaking implicit obedience to any instructions that might come from a particular quarter. One can see the objection to that unless we are to assume that in any such engagement there is at all times the mental reservation that such instructions must be in accordance with law.  The instructions over a period may be perfectly harmless and lawful, but at some other time they may become of a different character.  That was the idea in which the sub-head was written in.  It has ocurred to me that possibly it is too broad and that it might, for instance, be held to cover such things as vows of obedience by religious orders, and so on.  I am willing to accept the Deputy's amendment.  As a matter of fact, I do not believe any prosecution will ever be brought under this section. I regard the section as of very little practical value.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_86">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_135">Delete it.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#KevinChristopher" eId="spk_87">
+          <from>Mr. O'HIGGINS</from>
+          <p eId="para_136">If any Deputy seeks immortality by putting down a motion to have this section deleted I will give very careful consideration to it.  It is largely <i>in terrorem.</i> Undoubtedly the things that are sought to be guarded against by the section are objectionable and dangerous, but one could scarcely ever visualise sufficient evidence being forthcoming to support a prosecution under the section.  I do not undertake absolutely that if a motion is put down to delete the section, I will accept it automatically, but I will consider it very carefully, because I attach very little value or importance to the entire section.  For present purposes I am prepared to accept the Deputy's amendment to delete sub-section (1) (d).</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_21" title="decision" refersTo="#agreed">Amendment put and agreed to.<entity refersTo="#unmatchedBill" name="section"/>
+                </summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_22">Question proposed: "That Section 10, as amended, stand part of the Bill."</summary>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_88">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_137">I hope the Minister has had time since he spoke a moment ago to consider whether he will press  his motion to include the section.  It is quite clear from the Minister's own statement that it is a useless section. It is not going to be ever enforced.  It is merely to be in keeping with the rest of the Bill, largely <i>in terrorem,</i> to be held over the people as a terror so that you make people good citizens by holding over them the big stick of five, ten, fifteen or twenty years' penal servitude. That is the conception behind the Bill as a whole, but in this case it is quite clear the Minister is not enamoured of the section, and I think in view of what he said that the House should vote against the inclusion of the section in the Bill.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#KevinChristopher" eId="spk_89">
+          <from>Mr. O'HIGGINS</from>
+          <p eId="para_138">I wish the Deputy had made a better case for its deletion. In any case I have not had time to consider all the profound things he said on that point.  The things that are sought to be guarded against here are, beyond question, wrong and dangerous, and perhaps that is a sufficient reason why they should be formally prohibited in an Act.  I repeat what I said, that I think the practical value of the section will be small because it is a kind of offence regarding which it is very difficult, if not impossible, to substantiate a prosecution from the very nature of it.  If, by chance, evidence were to come into the possession of the Executive regarding this offence, it would be an eminently proper thing to have a prosecution, and for that reason, and in the absence of anything more substantial urged against the section, I will stand for its inclusion.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_90">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_139">Can the Minister say, as one who must have considered these questions, whether or not there is at present on the Statute Book laws dealing with the administration of unlawful oaths?  I think he will find there is such a Statute, and all that now remains in this section, after the amendments have been accepted, is a prohibition against the administration of unlawful oaths.  If that is already prohibited by law, and a penalty imposed by law, why add another section to the Bill when it is entirely redundant?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <debateSection name="division" eId="dbsect_26">
+          <summary eId="sum_23">Question put.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#sum_22"/>
+                    </summary>
+          <summary class="Center" title="division" eId="sum_24">The Committee divided: Tá, <quantity normalized="23" refersTo="#ta" eId="qty_3">23</quantity>; Níl, <quantity normalized="13" refersTo="#nil" eId="qty_4">13</quantity>.</summary>
+          <debateSection name="ta" eId="dbsect_27">
+            <p class="Center" eId="para_140">Tá</p>
+            <p eId="para_141">
+              <person refersTo="#">Earnán de Blaghd.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_142">
+              <person refersTo="#">Thomas Bolger.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_143">
+              <person refersTo="#">Seoirse de Bhulbh.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_144">
+              <person refersTo="#">Séamus de Búrca.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_145">
+              <person refersTo="#">Patrick J. Egan.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_146">
+              <person refersTo="#">Osmond Grattan Esmonde.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_147">
+              <person refersTo="#">Connor Hogan.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_148">
+              <person refersTo="#">Liam Mac Cosgair.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_149">
+              <person refersTo="#">Patrick McGilligan.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_150">
+              <person refersTo="#">Seoirse Mac Niocaill.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_151">
+              <person refersTo="#">Liam Mac Sioghaird.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_152">
+              <person refersTo="#">Michael K. Noonan.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_153">
+              <person refersTo="#">Peadar O hAodha.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_154">
+              <person refersTo="#">Mícheál O hAonghusa.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_155">
+              <person refersTo="#">Partholán O Conchubhair.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_156">
+              <person refersTo="#">Eoghan O Dochartaigh.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_157">
+              <person refersTo="#">Séamus O Dóláin.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_158">
+              <person refersTo="#">Peadar O Dubhghaill.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_159">
+              <person refersTo="#">Eamon O Dúgáin.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_160">
+              <person refersTo="#">Donnchadh O Guaire.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_161">
+              <person refersTo="#">Fionán O Loingsigh.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_162">
+              <person refersTo="#">Risteárd O Maolchatha.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_163">
+              <person refersTo="#">Caoimhgíh O hUigín.</person>
+            </p>
+          </debateSection>
+          <debateSection name="nil" eId="dbsect_28">
+            <p class="Center" eId="para_164">Níl</p>
+            <p eId="para_165">
+              <person refersTo="#">Pádraig F. Baxter.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_166">
+              <person refersTo="#">John Daly.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_167">
+              <person refersTo="#">Séamus Mac Cosgair.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_168">
+              <person refersTo="#">Tomás Mac Eoin.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_169">
+              <person refersTo="#">Risteárd Mac Fheorais.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_170">
+              <person refersTo="#">Tomás de Nógla.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_171">
+              <person refersTo="#">Ailfrid O Broin.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_172">
+              <person refersTo="#">Aodh O Cúlacháin.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_173">
+              <person refersTo="#">Liam O Daimhín.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_174">
+              <person refersTo="#">Eamon O Dubhghaill.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_175">
+              <person refersTo="#">Pádraic O Máille.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_176">
+              <person refersTo="#">Domhnall O Muirgheasa.</person>
+            </p>
+            <p eId="para_177">
+              <person refersTo="#">Tadhg O Murchadha.</person>
+            </p>
+          </debateSection>
+          <summary class="Center" title="tellers" eId="sum_25">Tellers.—Tá: Séamus O Dóláin, Liam Mac Sioghaird.  Níl: Domhnall O Muirgheasa, Tomás de Nógla.</summary>
+          <summary eId="sum_26" title="decision" refersTo="#carried">Motion declared carried.<entity refersTo="#unmatchedBill" name="section"/>
+                    </summary>
+        </debateSection>
+        <summary class="Center" eId="sum_27">SECTION 11.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_28">(1)  Where a Justice of the District Court is satisfied on the information on oath of an officer of the Dublin Metropolitan Police or the Gárda Síochána not below the rank of chief superintendent that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that there are treasonable or seditious documents in any specified building, land, premises, or other place, such Justice may issue to such officer such search warrant as is mentioned in this section.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_29">(2)  A search warrant issued by a Justice of the District Court under this section shall be expressed and shall operate to authorise a named officer of the Dublin Metropolitan Police or the Gárda Síochána not below the rank of superintendent, accompanied by such other members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police or the Gárda Síochána (as the case may require) as such officer shall think proper, at any time within forty-eight hours after the issue of the search warrant, and if needs be by force, to enter and search the specified building, land, premises, or other place aforesaid (which place shall be also specified in the warrant) for treasonable or seditious documents and to seize and remove all documents found on such search which appear to such officer to be treasonable or seditious.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_30">(3)  The officer conducting the search of a place under such search warrant as aforesaid may demand the name and address of any person found in such place during such search and (without prejudice to any other power of arrest vested in him by law or by virtue of any lawful warrant) may arrest without warrant any such person who refuses to give his name or his address to such officer or gives a name or address which such officer knows or suspects to be false or misleading.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_31">(4)  In this section the expression "treasonable or seditious document" includes any document which relates, directly or indirectly, to the commission of any act which is by this Act declared to be treason or to be a felony or a misdemeanour and any document which is a seditious libel.</summary>
+        <speech by="#RichardJamesMulcahy" eId="spk_91">
+          <from>General MULCAHY</from>
+          <p eId="para_178">I beg to move the following amendments:—</p>
+          <p eId="para_179">In sub-section (1), line 30, sub-section (2). lines 43 and 45, sub-section (4) line 54, to delete the words "or seditious."</p>
+          <p eId="para_180">In sub-section (4), lines 57-58, to  delete the words "and any document which is a seditious libel."</p>
+          <p eId="para_181">These amendments seem to be consequential on the deletion of Section 5.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#KevinChristopher" eId="spk_92">
+          <from>Mr. O'HIGGINS</from>
+          <p eId="para_182">At first sight these amendments would seem to be almost consequential and to follow naturally on the dropping of Section 5, but the Deputy will remember that I said that certain offences of sedition would still be indictable in common law, and consequently it could be argued that the words sought to be deleted have their value in this section.  At the same time I do not propose to oppose these amendments.  I am willing to accept them and to confine the power of search to search for documents of a definitely treasonable nature.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_32" title="decision" refersTo="#agreed">Amendments put and agreed to.<entity refersTo="#unmatchedBill" name="section"/>
+                </summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_33">Question proposed:—"That Section 11, as amended, stand part of the Bill."</summary>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_93">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_183">I would like the Minister to tell us, if he can, what is the present power of search regarding treasonable or seditious documents and whether there is any justification for enacting new legislation.  I would imagine from the experience of the last 25 years that police officers have ample power to make searches where they may believe documents relating to unlawful conspiracy, sedition, or treason may be.  Searches of that kind have been made and I assume that they have been made under law.  Perhaps the Minister would tell us what is the need for a section of this kind.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#KevinChristopher" eId="spk_94">
+          <from>Mr. O'HIGGINS</from>
+          <p eId="para_184">The section really bears its meaning and its reason on its face.  There is no power of search for documents at the moment.  While the Deputy could, of course, remember many cases where such searches were carried out by military and police in the past, they were carried out simply in a forced situation and had no statutory authority.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_95">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_185">I mean pre-1914, pre-D.O.R.A.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#KevinChristopher" eId="spk_96">
+          <from>Mr. O'HIGGINS</from>
+          <p eId="para_186">Pre-1914 there was, so far as I have been able to find out, no power or right of search for documents.  There are many rights of search in the police.  There is, of course, the right of search for arms under certain Acts.  There is the right of search under certain of the customs and excise regulations and so on.  But there is, so far as I have been able to find out, no specific right of search for documents, and I think it is proper that there should be such a right and that the police should not be in a position of resorting to the subterfuge of saying that they visit a house in search of arms when, in reality, they visit in search of treasonable documents.  I think there ought to be a definite right of search to cover this particular matter, but it is new legislation.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_34" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Question put and agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#sum_33"/>
+                </summary>
+        <summary class="Center" eId="sum_35">SECTION 12.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_36">Question proposed—"That Section 12 stand part of the Bill."</summary>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_97">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_187">With regard to Section 12 is an amendment necessary, or in the title?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#KevinChristopher" eId="spk_98">
+          <from>Mr. O'HIGGINS</from>
+          <p eId="para_188">I will consider that. I do not propose any amendment at this stage.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_37" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Question put and agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#sum_36"/>
+                </summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_38" title="decision" refersTo="#agreed">Title put and agreed to.<entity refersTo="#bill.1925.6.dail.3.title.agreed" name="section"/>
+                </summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_39">Bill ordered to be reported with amendments.</summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_29">
+        <heading>DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - DAIL RESUMES.</heading>
+        <summary eId="sum_40">Bill reported, with amendments.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_41">Fourth Stage ordered for Thursday next.</summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_30">
+        <heading>DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - ADJOURNMENT OF THE DAIL.</heading>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_99">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p title="motionProposal" eId="para_189">I move that the Dáil adjourn until Wednesday next at 3 o'clock.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_100">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_190">Deputy Byrne gave notice of raising a matter on the Adjournment, but we cannot take it as he is not here.</p>
+          <p eId="para_191">The Dáil adjourned at 1.20 p.m.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="WrittenAnswers" eId="dbsect_31">
+        <heading>WRITTEN ANSWER. - DONEGAL RESIDENTS AND AMERICAN PASSPORTS.</heading>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_101">
+          <from>TOMAS MAC EOIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_192">asked the Minister for External Affairs whether he is aware that citizens of the Saorstát resident in Donegal seeking passports to or having other Consular business to transact with the United States of America are required to go to Belfast for the purpose; if so, whether he will make representations to the United States Government with a view to obviating the necessity for Saorstát citizens to travel outside the jurisdiction of the Saorstát for the transaction of such business.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DesmondFitzgerald" eId="spk_102">
+          <from>MINISTER for EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (Mr. D. Fitzgerald)</from>
+          <p eId="para_193">Citizens of Saorstát Eireann resident in County Donegal obtain their passports from Dublin, through the local Superintendents of the Gárda Síochána in the same way as citizens resident in any other part of the Saorstát.</p>
+          <p eId="para_194">Consular districts are based on considerations of administrative convenience, and Donegal is included in the United States Consular District of Belfast, to which residents of that county must go to obtain a U.S. Visa or to transact other American Consular business. The alteration of the Consular  district involves a redistribution as between Consular district of the emigration quota and of other Consular functions, and it is not considered desirable to request the United States Government to make such alteration until the boundaries of Saorstát Eireann have been settled.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+    </debateBody>
+  </debate>
+</akomaNtoso>