|
|
|
|
REPORTPART I1. Since the issue of its Third Report* the Select Committee has examined the two hundred and eighty five instruments which are listed in the Proceedings. The Committee has decided that, of the instruments examined, the special attention of Seanad Éireann should be drawn to the twenty six instruments of which details are given in Part II of this Report. 2. In addition to drawing special attention to specific instruments the Select Committee desires to submit certain general observations on a matter which came to its notice during its deliberations. These observations are contained in Part III of this Report. 3. In accordance with its terms of reference the Select Committee, before reporting, afforded to each Government Department or other authority concerned an opportunity of furnishing such explanations as the instrument making authority thought fit. Copies of the explanations furnished will be found in Appendices I to X to this Report. Oral evidence taken in regard to certain instruments will be found in the Minutes of Evidence. PART II4. The Select Committee has not found it necessary to draw the special attention of Seanad Éireann to any instrument on grounds (i) or (ii) of the Resolution of Reference. 5. On ground (iii), viz., “that it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the Statute under which it is made”, the special attention of Seanad Éireann is drawn to the following eighteen instruments:— Solicitors Accounts Regulations, 1967 [S.I. No. 44 of 1967]. Under these Regulations the Council of the Incorporated Law Society may either on their own motion or on a written complaint require a solicitor to produce his books to see if the Regulations have been complied with. Article 20 (3) enables the Council to require a complainant to lodge “a reasonable sum fixed by the Council to cover the costs and expenses of the inspection and of the solicitor against whom the complaint is made”. It also provides that “the Council may deal with any sum so paid in such manner as they think fit”. According to the Incorporated Law Society (see Appendix 1) the statutory authority for Article 20 (3) is section 66 of the Solicitors Act, 1954 under which regulations dealing with solicitors’ accounts may include provisions “enforcing compliance with the regulations” and “ascertaining whether the regulations have been complied with.” The Committee might regard it as reasonable that a person who makes a groundless complaint should be liable for costs but it considers Article 20 (3), as drafted, objectionable in that it gives a complainant no right to recover the payment made by him or any part of it if in fact his complaint is substantiated. It notes that the provision has never been operated and is not likely to be used in future because of alternative powers available to the Society. It suggests, therefore, that it should be repealed when the opportunity offers. Greyhound Race Track (Racing) Regulations, 1967 [S.I. No. 133 of 1967]. In this instrument Bord na gCon avails of the power conferred on it by section 13 (1) of the Greyhound Industry Act, 1958 to delegate to a Control Committee the power contained in section 43 (1) of investigating and dealing with “any occurrence brought to its notice in relation to any matter connected with the greyhound industry.” Article 3 (3) of the instrument provides:— “(3) Following consideration of the result of any investigation duly made under these regulations, the Committee may, in addition to the powers vested in it by Article 17 of these regulations, take or authorise the taking of disciplinary action (including the imposition of such fines as the Committee thinks appropriate) against persons who appear to them to have been guilty of conduct inimical to the breeding or coursing of greyhounds or to have contravened any provision in these regulations or any other directions or regulations made by the Board and for the time being in force.” It is admitted on behalf of the Board (see Appendix II) that it has not statutory authority to empower the Control Committee to impose fines. The purpose in purporting to do so notwithstanding the absence of such authority is to enable it to deal with misconduct inimical to the greyhound industry but not of sufficient gravity to merit the disciplinary measures authorised by the statute. In the Committee’s view it ought to be self evident that an instrument making authority which finds its statutory powers inappropriate may adopt alternative measures only if so authorised by legislation. Rialacháin Óglaigh na hÉireann. Pay and Allowances (Permanent Defence Force) D.F.R. S. 3—Amendments. Amendment No. 261. This instrument deals with deductions from Army pay of married men who have children living with them in married quarters towards compensation when barrack damage is caused by children of men of an Army unit who cannot be identified. The instrument is made under the authority of section 97 of the Defence Act, 1954 which inter alia empowers the Minister for Defence, with the sanction of the Minister for Finance, to make regulations providing for deduction from Army pay in respect of “public or service property lost, deficient, damaged or destroyed”. The Committee has decided to draw special attention to this instrument because it doubts if the Legislature envisaged deductions being made from Army pay except where the recipients were themselves personally or legally responsible for the loss of or damage to property. The Department of Defence has been advised (see Appendix III) that these deductions from soldiers’ pay “cannot be regarded as penalties but are non-penal deductions” and “are more in the nature of a malicious injury compensation assessment”. Nevertheless it is admitted that “the responsibility of married men of the defence forces to suffer deductions under the regulation in question is fixed by it without regard to whether they can be shown to be the parents of the children involved and also, without regard to whether those involved, being children of men of the unit, could be proved to have committed a crime or a malicious act or not, or to have the capacity to commit a crime” and it is conceded, therefore, that “the analogy with a malicious injury rate is not an exact one”. Foot and Mouth Disease (Restriction of Exhibition and Sale of Bovine Animals) Order, 1967 [S.I. No. 263 of 1967]. Foot and Mouth Disease (Restriction of Exhibition and Sale of Sheep and Pigs) Order, 1967 [S.I. No. 295 of 1967]. Foot and Mouth Disease (Restriction on Entry of Persons into the State) Order, 1967 [S.I. No. 287 of 1967]. Foot and Mouth Disease (Restriction on the Movement of Persons) Order, 1967 [S.I. No. 266 of 1967]. Foot and Mouth Disease (Restriction on the Movement of Persons) Order, 1968 [S.I. No. 25 of 1968]. Foot and Mouth Disease (Merchant Shipping) Order, 1967 [S.I. No. 264 of 1967] Foot and Mouth Disease (Restriction of Sports and Sales) Order, 1968 [S.I. No. 30 of 1968]. Foot and Mouth Disease (Restriction of Sports and Sales (No. 2) Order, 1968 [S.I. No. 37 of 1968]. The purpose of these Orders was to prevent the recent epidemic of foot and mouth disease in Great Britain spreading to this country and the Committee has no doubt that the measures prescribed were necessary for that purpose. The Committee has, however, come to the conclusion that in achieving a laudable purpose the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries made an unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred on him by the parent statute. Before reaching its decision the Committee considered memoranda submitted on behalf of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (see Appendix IV) and the oral evidence given by a representative of the Department (see Minutes of Evidence, Questions 1 to 15). The Orders were made under section 3 (1) of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1966 which states:— “The Minister may make orders, subject and according to the provisions of this Act— (a) generally, for the due execution of this Act or for the prevention of the spreading of disease;” Of the fifty-eight sections in the Act twenty-five empower the Minister specifically to make orders dealing with stated matters of which almost all can be seen to be directly concerned with the prevention of the spreading of disease. The Department is legally advised that section 3 (1) (a) enables him to make orders which he is not empowered elsewhere in the Act to make if such are necessary for the prevention of the spreading of disease provided such orders do not contravene the provisions of the Act and comply with its procedural requirements. The Committee notes that the Act specifically empowers the Minister to make orders prohibiting, except under licence, or regulating the importation of animals or poultry (section 30), prescribing and regulating the movement of imported animals or poultry (section 33) and prescribing the ports and aerodromes at which alone imported animals and poultry may be handled (section 34). There is no specific mention of people entering the country except in section 30 (1) (b) which enables the Minister to make orders “requiring and regulating the disinfection of persons entering the State, of their clothing and baggage and the giving of such information concerning their occupation and previous movements as the Minister may reasonably require”. Nevertheless it is contended that in relation to persons entering the State the general words of section 3 enable orders to be made limiting the numbers entering at a time [S.I. No. 287 of 1967], prohibiting their entry except at designated ports, harbours and airports [S.I. No. 287 of 1967] and restricting their movements within the State [S.I. No. 266 of 1967 and S.I. No. 25 of 1968]. The Committee cannot believe, notwithstanding the apparent legal consequences of its action that the Legislature, when it spelled out what the Minister could do in relation to animals being imported, can have contemplated similar powers being exercised in relation to persons under the general delegation of authority given in section 3. Indeed it seems to the Committee that to justify the orders made under section 3 generally the scope of that section must be so wide as to render superfluous most of the other twenty-five sections of the Act under which orders may be made. Foot and Mouth Disease (Restriction of Import of Vehicles, Machinery and other Equipment) Order, 1967 [S.I. No 243 of 1967]. Foot and Mouth Disease (Restriction of Import of Vehicles, Machinery and other Equipment) (Amendment) Order, 1967 [S.I. No. 252 of 1967]. Foot and Mouth Disease (Restriction of Import of Vehicles, Machinery and other Equipment) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order, 1967 [S.I. No. 267 of 1967]. These Orders were made to prohibit the importation from Great Britain, except under licence, of agricultural or horticultural machinery, vehicles and containers used to transport animals, pedal cycles, used mechanically propelled vehicles, machinery and equipment, used caravans, trailers and horse drawn vehicles and used tyres. The authority for the instruments is stated to be sections 3 and 30 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1966. In so far as the instruments depend for authority on section 30 their validity seems to depend on the subsection 1 (a) of the section which enables the Minister to prohibit, except under licence, or regulate the importation “of animals or poultry or of any specified kind of animal or poultry or of carcases, eggs, animal or poultry products (including products made from or containing animal or poultry products, carcasses or eggs), fodder, litter, dung or other thing, either generally or from any specified country or part of any such country.” The Committee cannot accept that the phrase “other thing” in this context was intended to comprehend machinery, vehicles, equipment and tyres. Its view is not based on an automatic application of the ejusdem generis rule as the Attorney General’s Office suggests (see Appendix IV) but on the belief that the phrase no matter how liberally interpreted cannot be given the meaning claimed. The Attorney General’s Office appears to share the Committee’s doubts about section 30 (1) (a) to some extent but suggests that section 3 (1) (a) alone is wide enough in any event to cover the Orders. If this is so the Orders are open to the same objection as those made under the authority of section 3 (1) (a) alone because it seems to the Committee that if section 3 (1) (a) gives the power claimed then section 30 (1) (a) is superfluous. It cannot see what the purpose was of enumerating various items in section 30 (1) (a), the importation of which the Minister may control, if he has already been given power in section 3 to control the importation of any item whatsoever. Foot and Mouth Disease (Restriction of Sports and Sales) Order, 1967 [S.I. No. 253 of 1967]. Foot and Mouth Disease (Importation of Animals) (Amendment) Order, 1967 [S.I. No. 282 of 1967]. Diseases of Animals (Restriction of Movement of Cattle, Sheep and Swine) Order, 1967 [S.I. No. 283 of 1967]. These instruments are expressed to be made under the authority of section 48 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1966 as well as under the authority of section 3 and, in the case of S.I. Nos. 282 and 283 of 1967, section 30 of that Act. The Committee is drawing special attention to the three instruments separately because of the references to section 48 in the citation of authority. It is claimed on behalf of the Department (see Appendix IV) that “section 48 (1) (c) gives the Minister power to declare by order offences”. Section 48 (1) (c) reads— “48 (1) If a person without lawful authority or excuse, proof of which shall lie upon him, does any of the following things, he shall be guilty of an offence— (c) if he fails to give, produce, observe, or do any notice, licence, rule or thing which by this Act, or by an order of the Minister, or by a regulation of a local authority or by an authorised person he is required to give, produce, observe, or do.” If section 48 (1) (c) is regarded as giving the Minister power to make orders it must be interpreted as giving a local authority power to make regulations. Yet it would seem that a local authority may make regulations only to the extent that the Minister, by order made under section 38, directs or authorises. The Committee would have thought that section 48 (1) (c) was intended to provide that failure to observe provisions of any order made under any other section of the Act would constitute an offence and not to give the Minister a power to make orders independent of the authority delegated to him elsewhere in the Act. In the Department’s minute of 8th May, 1968 it is stated that the reference to section 30 in the citation of authority in S.I. No. 283 of 1967 was a drafting error and that the reference should be to section 27. As section 27 deals with the movement of animals and poultry, section 30 with their importation and the instrument with their movement from the Dublin Cattle Market or from a livestock mart or for export the Committee accepted the Department’s explanation. It was, therefore, surprised to find quoted in the Department’s later minute of 26th July, 1968 advice from the Attorney General’s Office justifying the inclusion of section 30 in the citation of authority. This advice was to the effect that the power to regulate “the importation or landing or bringing into any port or aerodrome in the State of animals or poultry” includes the power to restrict movement of animals “into any port” for export as distinct from importing or landing. It does not seem to the Committee that so strained an interpretation of section 30 is called for when the desired powers are clearly available in section 27, which the Department had already stated should have been cited instead of section 30. Redundancy (Resettlement Assistance) Regulations, 1968 [S.I. No. 8 of 1968] Article 9 of these Regulations deals with travel expenses incurred by a redundant or unemployed worker seeking or obtaining employment in a place other than where he has his normal place of residence. Article 9 (2) enables the Minister for Labour to “recoup to that person and to his dependants” expenses incurred in travelling to the place of new employment. This provision suggests that the Minister may make payments directly to the dependants. In this respect it differs from Article 9 (1) which authorises the Minister “to recoup to that person” expenses incurred by himself and/or his wife in attending for interview in connection with possible new employment. Section 46 (1) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 enables regulations to be made to provide financial assistance “to unemployed persons or to persons about to be declared redundant”. In the Committee’s view payments to persons other than the redundant worker are not covered by the statutory provision although there would be nothing objectionable in paying him expenses incurred by him in respect of his dependants. The Department of Labour accepts this view (see Appendix V) and proposes to avail of a suitable occasion to amend the Regulations. No payment has been or is intended to be made to any person other than the redundant or unemployed person. Special attention is also drawn to this instrument in section 6 of this Report. 6. On ground (iv), viz., “that it purports to have retrospective effect where the parent Statute confers no express authority so to provide,” the special attention of Seanad Éireann is drawn to the following two intruments:— Redundancy (Resettlement Assistance) Regulations, 1968 [S.I. No. 8 of 1968]. These Regulations were made by the Minister for Labour on 5th January, 1968 and the consent of the Minister for Finance to the instrument as required by section 46 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 was endorsed thereon on 25th January, 1968. Normally instruments of this type which require the signature of two Ministers bear, in accordance with standing instructions, a common date of signature. In this particular case the instructions were inadvertently overlooked (see Appendix V) but as the consent of the Minister for Finance had been obtained to the detailed provisions before the instrument was made the Regulations were in fact implemented as from 5th January, 1968. In Part III of this Report the Select Committee refers to doubts which may arise as to the operative date of instruments made by one Minister with the later approval of another. Notwithstanding any such doubts that may exist in the case of the instrument under reference the Committee has decided to draw special attention to it as it does not appear to the Committee that the parent statute contemplates the consent of the Minister for Finance being given retrospectively. Special attention has also been drawn to this instrument in section 5 of this Report. Foyle Area (Licensing of Fishing Engines) (Amendment) Regulations, 1968. Regulations such as this one made by the Foyle Fisheries Commission under section 13 of the Foyle Fisheries Act, 1952 require to be approved both by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and the Ministry of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. Article 1 of the instrument in question provides that the regulations “shall come into force on the twenty-sixth day of February, 1968”. The instrument was approved by the Ministry on 21st February, 1968 and by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries on 6th March, 1968. According to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (see Appendix VI) the operative date prescribed in the instrument was necessary because it was intended to include provisions dealing with a new application form but when these provisions were dropped an operative date in advance of 1st April was not necessary. Due to an oversight the original date was allowed to stand although it had apparently no effect in practice. The Committee is drawing special attention to the instrument, however, because it does not consider that the parent statute contemplates Ministerial approval being given retrospectively. Special attention is also drawn to this instrument in section 7 of this Report. 7. On ground (v) viz., “that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay either in the laying of it before Seanad Éireann or in its publication,” the special attention of Seanad Éireann is drawn to the following seven instruments:— Turf Development Act, 1953 (General Employees) Superannuation (Amendment) (No. 3) Scheme, 1967. Order made: 29th December, 1967; Laid: 30th January, 1968. The explanation furnished by the Department of Transport and Power is given in Appendix VII. Special attention is also drawn to this instrument on other grounds in section 8 of this Report. Trade Marks Rules, 1963 (Amendment) Rules, 1968 [S.I. No. 64 of 1968]. Order made: 8th March, 1968; Laid: 21st March, 1968. The explanation furnished by the Department of Industry and Commerce is given in Appendix VIII. Foyle Area (Rivers Finn and Foyle) (Close Season for Angling) Regulations, 1968. Order made: 21st February, 1968; Laid: 27th March, 1968. Foyle Area (Weekly Close Time) Regulations, 1968. Order made: 21st February, 1968; Laid: 27th March, 1968. Foyle Area (Close Season for Angling) (Mourne System) Regulations, 1968. Order made: 21st February, 1968; Laid: 27th March, 1968. Foyle Area (Licensing of Fishing Engines) (Amendment) Regulations, 1968. Order made: 6th March, 1968; Laid: 27th March, 1968. Foyle Area (River Finn Angling Authorisation) Regulations, 1968. Order made: 13th March, 1968; Laid: 27th March, 1968. The explanation furnished by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries is given in Appendix VI. Special attention is also drawn to the Foyle Area (Licensing of Fishing Engines) (Amendment) Regulations, 1968 on other grounds in section 6 of this Report. 8. On ground (vi) viz., “that for any reason its form or purport calls for elucidation”, the special attention of Seanad Éireann is drawn to the following two instruments:— Housing Authorities (Loan Charges Contributions and Management) Regulations, 1967 [S.I. No. 71 of 1967]. Article 6 of these Regulations deals with the conditions to which lettings of houses by housing authorities are to be subject. Under paragraph (p) of sub-Article (1) the housing authority is given a right “to re-enter upon and resume possession of the dwelling for breach, non-performance or non-observance of any of the provisions of the letting agreement.” It is conceded by the Department of Local Government (see Appendix IX) that the provision is subject to section 14 (1) of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, as amended, which provides that such a right of re-entry is not “enforceable, by action or otherwise, unless and until the lessor serves on the lessee a notice specifying the particular breach complained of and, if the breach is capable of remedy, requiring the lessee to remedy the breach and, in any case, requiring the lessee to make compensation in money for the breach, and the lessee fails, within a reasonable time thereafter, to remedy the breach, if it is capable of remedy, and to make reasonable compensation in money, to the satisfaction of the lessor, for the breach.” The Department states that the condition prescribed by Article 6 (1) (p) confers on a housing authority a “right to obtain compensation” but admits that “the right to claim it is rarely exercised”. It also claims that the condition makes clear to the tenant the right of the local authority to resume possession in the stated circumstances. In practice, however, the local authority when recovering possession follows the procedure prescribed by Sections 3 and 62 of the Housing Act, 1966 and Articles 6 (1) (q) and 6 (1) (r) of the Regulations. This procedure involves terminating the tenancy by notice given in the manner prescribed and applying to the District Court for the issue of a warrant if the tenent neglects or refuses to surrender possession. This procedure seems to owe nothing either to Article 6 (1) (p) of the Regulations or to the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881. The correspondence which it has had with the Department in the matter has not elucidated for the Committee what purpose Article 6 (1) (p) serves and for this reason special attention is drawn to it. Turf Development Act, 1953 (General Employees) Superannuation (Amendment) (No. 3) Scheme, 1967. This instrument is stated to have been made by the Minister for Transport and Power in exercise of powers conferred on him by section 6 of the Turf Development Act, 1953. It approves with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance the amendments to the Turf Development Act, 1953 (General Employees) Superannuation Scheme, 1956 (as amended) which are included in the schedule to the instrument. Section 6 (6) of the Act provides that Bord na Móna “may at any time, with the approval of the Minister, amend a scheme under this section” and that such amending scheme requires the concurrence of the Minister for Finance. Commenting on the absence of any indication in the instrument that the amending scheme being approved was made by Bord na Móna (see Appendix VII) the Department of Transport and Power states that the Minister was satisfied that the scheme was one made by Bord na Móna. In the Department’s view the Minister’s approval does not have to be given by means of an instrument but if so given it is not legally necessary for the instrument to contain any particular statement for information. It is noted (see Appendix X) that the format of a further amending scheme recently made by Bord na Móna has been changed to show on the face of it that it was in fact made by Bord na Móna. Section 6 (7) of the Turf Development Act, 1953 requires that “every scheme submitted and approved of under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is approved”. In the Committee’s view this provision requires the actual scheme made by Bord na Móna to be laid before each House and this requirement is not satisfied by laying an instrument made by the Minister for Transport and Power embodying the terms of any such scheme. PART IIIInstruments requiring Approval, Concurrence or Consent.9. In the case of each statutory instrument considered by it the Select Committee must determine on what date the instrument comes into operation for it is obliged by its terms of reference to consider if the instrument purports to have retrospective effect where the parent statute confers no express authority so to provide. The date on which an instrument comes into operation is determined either by an express provision in the instrument itself or by section 9 (2) of the Interpretation Act, 1937 which provides that, unless a contrary intention is expressed therein, the instrument is “deemed to be in operation as from the end of the day before the day on which such instrument is made.” Some statutory instruments can only be made by one Minister with the approval, concurrence or consent of another or by a statutory body with the approval of one Minister and the concurrence of a second Minister. If such instruments depend on section 9 (2) of the Interpretation Act, 1937 it may be a matter of doubt whether the date of commencement is determined by the date the instrument is made by the initiating Minister or by the date of the relevant approval, concurrence or consent. The result of an examination of this question by a previous Select Committee suggests that the position may vary with different instruments. That Committee had to consider section 3 (2) (a) of the Local Government (Dublin) (Temporary) Act, 1948 (now repealed) which provided that the Minister for Local Government “may, by order made before the 30th day of June, 1949, continue Part II of this Act in force for six months from 1st day of July, 1949”. Section 3 (2) (b) provided that every such order “shall be made with the consent of the Minister for Health”. The Committee was informed by the Legal Adviser to the Department of Local Government (see T. 152; Minutes of Evidence, Question 15) that the validity of such orders was tested by reference to date of the consent of the Minister for Health. On the other hand, that Committee was informed (see T. 154; Minutes of Evidence, Question 1) that the “critical date” for the purposes of an Order which the Minister for Justice was empowered by section 13 of the Police Forces Amalgamation Act, 1925, to make “with the sanction of the Minister for Finance” was the date the Order was made by the Minister for Justice and not the later date of sanction of the Minister for Finance. At this point it is relevant to refer to the comments of the Parliamentary Draftsman submitted to this Committee by the Department of Finance (see Appendix X) on the superannuation schemes which Bord na Móna are empowered to make under section 6 of the Turf Development Act, 1953. Such schemes may be made with the approval of the Minister for Transport and Power and the concurrence of the Minister for Finance. In the Draftsman’s view “it would obviously be necessary that Bord na Móna be informed of the approval so that it could proceed to carry out the scheme.” In practice the difficulties referred to in the preceding paragraph seldom arise (but see section 6 of the Report) as it has been the practice since 1956 to ensure that instruments made by one Minister with the approval of another bear a common date of signature by the Ministers concerned. Furthermore, a great many instruments include a date of commencement clause and this is usually the case where instruments are made by statutory bodies with the approval or concurrence of one or more Ministers. This Committee is not fully satisfied with the appropriateness of the common date of signature procedure. In the Committee’s view it avoids rather than solves a difficulty and it cannot be adopted in case of some instruments made by statutory bodies with Ministerial approval as, for example, the Foyle Area (Licensing of Fishing Engines) (Amendment) Regulations, 1968, which are referred to in section 6. For these reasons the Committee has been considering whether to make a recommendation that every statutory instrument should contain a date of commencement clause. In deference to the views expressed to it by the Department of Finance (see Appendix X), however, it has decided not to make any general recommendation. The Committee is, nevertheless, strongly of opinion that varying dates of signatures should not be permitted to give rise to doubts as to the date of commencement of any instrument and it does recommend that in particular cases where there may be any possibility of such doubts arising the instrument should contain an appropriate clause providing for its coming into operation on a stated date. There remains one other aspect of this type of instrument to which the Committee wishes to refer. It will be noted (see Appendices VII and X) that, where Ministerial approval of an instrument made by another authority is required, the approval need not, as a matter of law, be endorsed on the instrument at all unless the parent statute so provides. In practice the Ministerial approval is given by making the appropriate endorsement on the instrument and the Committee is pleased to learn from the Department of Finance that it is proposed to continue that practice. The Committee is drawing attention to the matter, however, in case the Seanad may wish, in considering future proposals for legislation, to make this present practice a matter of statutory obligation. (Signed) W. A. W. SHELDON, Chairman. 19th March, 1969. * T.212-Pr. 9648, 7th June, 1967. |
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
