Seanad Éireann - Volume 26 - 14 January, 1942

Architects (Registration) Bill, 1941—Second Stage.

Mr. Douglas: I move that the Architects (Registration) Bill be now read a Second Time. When this Bill was introduced by me I was actuated by two motives and I believe that these were shared by the other Senators whose names appear on the Bill. One of these motives was that of increasing the usefulness of this House as an integral part of the Oireachtas. I have felt for some time that this House could perform a useful service by the discussion in a definite form of proposals for legislative changes in this country which have not been and ought not to be the subject of Party controversy.

Under our present system the Executive Government of the day is chosen from a Party and its time is usually fully occupied with the legislative programme of that Party and by various other measures which may become urgent through the circumstances of the time. I feel strongly that this House, which is rarely overwhelmed with business — I remember occasions when it was, but not recently—should endeavour to bring forward measures designed to improve the law of this country and that it should discuss them fully and leisurely without regard to Party affiliations. The public examination and discussion of such proposals in the form of a Bill is, in my opinion, more likely to be effective than by means of a resolution. Such public discussion may possibly, in some cases, lead to the discovery of a strong opposition in the country which would show that the time was not ripe for legislation. In other cases it might produce a Bill which would be largely an agreed measure and which the [164] Government may with or without amendment adopt if and when the Bill reaches the Dáil.

A good example of what I have in mind is shown by the Town Planning Bill which was passed through this House with the support of members of all Parties some years ago. It was not adopted by the Government, but it was followed by a Government Bill — the Town and Regional Planning Bill, which is now law. When introducing the latter Bill in this House, the then Minister for Local Government, Mr. S. T. O'Kelly, paid a tribute to the preliminary work done in this House.

Another, though less important example, is the Bodies Corporate (Executive) Act of 1928, which was introduced in this House as a Private Members' Bill and passed the Dáil in very much the same form.

It is my intention, if the Bill passes the Second Stage, to ask the House at some stage to refer it to a Select Committee with power to send for persons and papers so that evidence for and against the Bill may be heard and an effort made to make the Bill one which will command pretty general support. I hope that the Government will keep an open mind with reference to the Bill while it is in this House and that no announcement of Government approval or disapproval will be made until the Select Committee has reported to the Seanad or until the Bill reaches the Dáil.

My second, and, of course, the most important motive in introducing this Bill, was my conviction that it would be very much in the public interest if the principle of registration of architects were adopted in this country and I propose to explain my reasons to you as clearly as I can.

Before doing so, I would like to make it clear that this Bill is put forward solely as a measure of public policy and not in the private interests of any person or body of persons.

Doctors and dentists are required by law to be registered, not in their own interests, but to safeguard the health of the public. Since the outbreak of war the Government have, by order, [165] required many manufacturers and traders to be registered for various purposes because they considered it to be in the public interest to do so—not simply in the interests of manufacturers or traders. In my opinion registration of any class of persons by law should be considered on the basis of public interest and on no other grounds. The fact that this Bill has been ruled to be a hybrid Bill does not alter the fact that it is a public Bill and not a private measure, and I ask the House to judge the principle of the Bill solely from the point of view of public interest.

The Bill was not introduced on behalf of the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland or any other body. It was introduced after consultation between the Senators whose names appear on it and a number of leading Irish architects, but the introducers only are responsible for its contents. It is understood that since the Bill was introduced a meeting of the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland has approved the principle of registration but has criticised some of the provisions of the Bill in certain respects. These criticisms can no doubt be considered if the Bill goes to Committee.

For my part, I am not tied to any of the provisions in the Bill. I regard it rather as a draft which will be improved by public discussion and consideration. As long as the principle of registration is accepted, I am open to consider amendments to any part of the Bill, and it is my hope that the Bill will be considerably improved in Committee if the Second Reading is passed.

It is interesting to note that a very large number of States have made legal provisions for the registration of architects. I think it will interest the House if I read a list of the countries in which architects have to be registered by law. They are:— Austria, Australia, Argentine, Brazil, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Cuba, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Yugo-Slavia, Norway, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Roumania, [166] Russia, Spain, Sweden, South Africa, Southern Rhodesia, U.S.A.

There are probably others but I am not certain. I have only given those in which, I am satisfied, architects have to be registered. The fact that these countries have registration does not, of course, prove that we should follow them but it provides a prima facie case for the examination and discussion of the question. The fact that our fellow-countrymen in the Six Counties have to be registered if they wish to practise as architects provides an additional reason.

The general arguments in favour of registration were expressed in an interesting way in the Preamble to a Bill for the regulation of the profession of architects when it was introduced into the French Chamber of Deputies. I obtained the quotation from an article in the International Labour Review, January, 1940, and I propose to read it to the House as translated into English in that article:—

“Architecture is rightly considered the greatest and most useful of the arts because it can provide such a variety of solutions to the multifarious problems with which it deals, because it steadily builds up a harmonious background for the life of the community, because it directly influences industrial activity, and because it contributes to the comfort and health of the population. Its field of action covers all buildings required for human occupation in any given territory.

“The architect has therefore a social mission which can be extremely beneficial if it is carried out with talent and competence. If, on the other hand, it is badly carried out, whether through ignorance or through carelessness, it may en-endanger the safety and health of the architect's fellow citizens, and at the same time considerably reduce the æsthetic value of the urban or rural scene.

“It therefore seems only right to require the architect to prove that he has the necessary knowledge before permitting him to exercise his art.

[167] “This knowledge can be acquired only by a course of specialised education enabling him to develop his artistic gifts by suitable artistic training, to learn the technical means available for carrying out his ideas, to assimilate a sufficient knowledge of public and administrative law, social and economic science, and general culture, to enable him to fulfil his duties, and finally to acquire experience of his profession by practical training.

“If it is admitted that the architect should also possess sufficient authority and sense of professional duty to defend the often important interests entrusted to him and to carry out satisfactorily the duties as an adviser or arbitrator with which he is often entrusted, it will be realised that it is only by suitable training that he can reach the desired intellectual standard, and that no mere tests of ability can guarantee his possession of these qualities.

“At present, anyone in any place is free to exercise this profession in any way, and it must be recognised as undesirable that activities of such importance for the public welfare should be entrusted to anyone prepared to undertake them without some previous check on his abilities.”

The French Parliament, apparently, accepted those views and made provision for the registration of architects. I agree generally with the arguments in this document which I have just read, and it is my conviction that the passing of this Bill or a similar Bill into law would assist the public generally who may be responsible for the erection of buildings in this country in the future by enabling them to recognise a qualified architect and by preventing them from employing a person in the belief that he (or she) is a qualified architect when in fact he is not. There is nothing in the Bill which makes it obligatory on any person to employ an architect if he does not desire to do so. Some persons will regard this as a defect in the Bill, but I feel that the time is not yet ripe for more drastic provisions, and that it [168] would be going too far at present to interfere with the legal right of an individual to employ a person not an architect to advise him in the building of a house. At the same time I do believe that the registration of architects will in itself call attention to the importance of having qualified advice where the erection of buildings is concerned, and I believe that, in time, few if any buildings will be erected except from plans prepared by an architect.

The case for registration may be said to rest upon three main propositions: (a) that the establishment and maintenance of a high architectural standard is not only of national importance but of public concern also from the point of view of health and general well being; (b) that if a high standard of architecture is to be established and maintained, architects must be trained and educated, and (c) that it is in the public interest that a clear distinction be drawn between the trained and untrained practitioner.

We have some very fine buildings in Eire of which we are justly proud, but we have also, unfortunately, a number of buildings which, at best, can only be styled mediocre, and a very considerable number which, to put it mildly, are inferior. There are too many places where our beautiful landscape has been defiled by ill-planned and badly constructed buildings. Slowly, but I hope surely, people are beginning to appreciate the value of a beautiful building. The bad as well as the good that architects do lives after them, and I feel that the Legislature has a duty to future generations to see that those who are to be entrusted with the planning and elevation of our buildings should be equipped in every possible way to give of their best.

The benefit to this country of the Bill, should it become law, may not be realised for many years to come. As I have said, it was not considered practicable or desirable to include any provision which might have the effect of removing from any person his present means of earning a livelihood. The Bill, therefore, gives a right to registration to every person now practising [169] as an architect in the Twenty-Six Counties. Fully qualified architects at present enjoying a good practice have nothing to gain from the Bill. On the contrary, from their point of view, the Bill has the objectionable feature of admitting to the register possibly unqualified persons who are at present engaged in practice. I realise that those people, who would possibly get a better standing than they may have at the moment, may be the only people who will gain an immediate advantage on the day on which the council is set up should the Bill be passed, but the architects whom I have consulted recognise that that situation will have to be faced, and are prepared to accept it for the general good. After all, if the registration of architects were postponed until a later date, the same situation would have to be faced; you would have to decide whether or not you were going to deprive of their livelihood people who had been perhaps depending upon that profession, although not fully qualified, and you would be simply that much further back. That is inevitable, I think, in any scheme of this kind—you have had a similar position in other countries, and they have had to face it—but that simply means that the sooner we act the better. If the registration of architects is postponed to a later date we will have to face the same situation, and the towns and countryside may have suffered further disfigurement in the meantime. Registration, as proposed in this Bill, will not debar anyone from entering the profession, but it will ensure that persons who enter it in future cannot practise until they have obtained a definite standard of efficiency.

The Bill itself proposes a very considerable measure of State control of registration. The majority of the members of the proposed Architects Registration Board will be nominated by the Minister responsible, and regulations made by it will require Ministerial approval before they can take effect. Although not provided in the Bill as introduced it is my intention, should the Bill go to Committee, to propose an amendment providing that after a few years the President and [170] Vice-President of the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland shall cease to be ex-officio members of the board, and that their places should be taken by elected representatives of registered architects. Obviously, that could not take place immediately, because you would have to get your register established and checked before you could have a proper system of election. The Bill, though in no sense identical with the British Acts of 1931, 1934 and 1938, embodies such provisions of those Acts as appear to be suitable to this country. It should be clearly understood that the Bill is intended to do nothing more and nothing less than restrict the use of the title “architect” to people at present engaged in the pursuit of architecture, and to those in future who attain the qualifying standard.

I think I have made a reasonably good case for the acceptance of the principle underlying the Bill, but I have not stated why I consider it urgent that a Bill providing for State registration of architects should become law at an early date. It may be suggested that the whole question should be allowed to stand over until after the period of emergency caused by the war. Even if this argument were to be accepted, I would say that that is no reason why the Seanad should not proceed with the Bill in preparation for after the war. In my opinion, it is highly desirable that some system of registration of architects should be in force at whatever date the war comes to an end. It may well prove to be an essential in dealing with other countries for the purpose of obtaining reciprocity, so that degrees and qualifications recognised here may be accepted for registration outside Eire. I have already read to the House a list of countries where registration is in force, and I need scarcely point out that in several of those countries, including our nearest neighbour, Great Britain, there has been widespread destruction of buildings as a result of enemy action. After the war, there must be extensive rebuilding in those countries, with the probable result that many opportunities may occur for temporary work for young architects [171] from Ireland. If, as is quite possible, the shortage of building supplies in this country continues for a period after the war, many of our young architects may find themselves without work for several years. If they could obtain temporary work in countries which are repairing the damage of war, it would be to their advantage, and the experience which they would gain would benefit this country when they return, as no doubt very many of them would.

At the present time the examinations qualifying for membership of the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland are not recognised for the purpose of admission to the register in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland. The position, therefore, is that a student who qualifies for admission to the Irish institute is debarred from practising as an architect in either Great Britain or Northern Ireland— unless he takes those examinations which are recognised—while anyone who resides or who may take up residence in the Twenty-Six Counties, whether qualified or not, is free to practise as an architect.

The Degree of Bachelor of Architecture of the National University likewise is not recognised for registration, and a holder of that degree desiring to practise in Great Britain must first become an associate of the Royal Institute of British Architects. Before his name can be submitted for election to that body he is required to pass a further examination which, if my information is correct, is in one subject only.

The existence of a board such as that proposed to be set up by Section 2 of the Bill with the powers set out in Section 3 would place this country in a position to negotiate for reciprocal recognition with, I believe, good prospect of success. This is my reason for considering it important that the consideration of this Bill should take place this year, and a bona fide effort made to work out a Bill which the Government can reasonably be asked to accept if and when it reaches Dáil Eireann.

[172] From information supplied to me I understand we have at present in Eire 267 students in architecture; 92 of these are studying in the National University and 175 are preparing for the examinations of the Institute of Architecture. Some of these will drop out, but a very substantial number are likely to qualify. If we believe that the principle of registration of architects is bad or that the circumstances in this country are such that registration would be undesirable then we can do little or nothing to help these students. If, on the other hand, this House shares my view that the principle of registration of architects is good, and if there is a probability that work will not be available for them here after the war and for the large number at present qualified but without jobs, then I feel strongly that we should make an endeavour to make arrangements with other countries by which Irish qualifications will obtain full recognition, especially in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain. Leading architects whom I have consulted are of the opinion that a necessary step to pave the way for any negotiations for reciprocity would be the passing into law of this Bill or some similar Bill embodying the principle of registration.

I have explained the general provisions of the Bill and the principle underlying it, but I have not considered it necessary or desirable to explain the Bill in detail at this stage. I may mention, however, that one or two small errors will be found in the Bill as printed. These are typing errors and not due to a mistake on the part of the printer. On page 3, line 55, the words “Section 4 or 8” should read “Section 3 or 7”. On page 7, line 48, the words “Section 8 or 9” should read “Section 7 or 8”. I must apologise for these errors, which I regret. If there are any parts of the Bill which are not clear to Senators I will endeavour to explain them in more detail when replying to the debate.

In conclusion, I would like to say that I recognise that no Bill of this character could properly become law without careful consideration by the Government of the day. I ask this House to approve the principle by [173] passing the Second Stage and then, in Committee, to do the necessary spade work with a view to presenting to the Dáil a Bill which is worthy of its serious consideration. The responsibility of deciding whether or not it should become law and the most suitable time for its enactment would then rest on the majority of the other House, guided, no doubt, by the Government.

Professor Tierney: It is a great pleasure to me to second the motion that this Bill be read a Second Time. As Senator Douglas has explained, the Bill has not been put forward with a view to trying to secure legislation on this important matter in any hasty or ill-considered fashion. It is put forward principally in order to have the matter fully and carefully examined. The promoters of the Bill are in no wise tied to its provisions. All they wish is to have the principle of registration for the architectural profession accepted by the Seanad and they will be quite ready to welcome a most complete and searching examination of all the details of the Bill in Committee afterwards.

In bringing forward this Bill, we consider that the Seanad is an especially suitable place for it to begin its course. In the first place, the Seanad has been created specifically as a vocational Seanad and therefore it should take a very special interest in the question of organising the various vocations in the country. In the second place, the Seanad is so constituted that it can give a great deal more time than the Dáil to the consideration of exactly this sort of constructive, non-contentious measure. It would be quite possible for the Seanad to do a great deal of most useful work if it could even go beyond this Bill at a later stage and proceed to assist a good many other professions in the country which are anxious to be allowed to organise themselves and to set up registers for themselves. It is very doubtful if any better body could be devised for such a purpose than this Seanad might be if it decided to devote the time and the attention to the [174] matter, and there is hardly any work which would be of greater value to the country in the long run than the systematisation and better arrangement of all those professions, which are striving at present under difficulties to achieve a certain measure of organisation.

Personally, I felt bound to support this Bill, first of all because I am generally interested in this question of vocational organisation and have devoted a good deal of attention to the subject and because I know that this particular profession is one which is probably most in need of some measure of this kind. Secondly, because, as a representative of the National University, I am keenly interested in the future welfare of our school of architecture in University College, which is the only school of its kind in Ireland, and its graduates will be most intimately affected by the passage of legislation of this kind. It will be of the greatest importance to those large numbers of young men and women now studying architecture in University College if, on graduating, they can find themselves entitled to enter a properly recognised and properly organised profession. Senator Douglas pointed out that we have 92 students in University College at the moment. We are turning out young Bachelors of Architecture in great numbers. Unfortunately the Bill, as it stands, owing to the circumstances of the moment, can hardly go as far as many of us would like to see it go in the direction of giving these graduates of the University School the full recognition to which their studies and their attainments will entitle them, but it will go a certain distance, at any rate, in this direction, and, as a representative of the National University, I take a very great interest in that aspect of the matter.

One argument which may perhaps be advanced against proceeding with the Bill is the argument I have heard mentioned outside and that is, that we have a commission sitting at present to deal with this whole question of vocational organisation. I have actually heard it suggested that to go [175] on with this Bill at present would be an insult to the commission. As a member of that commission, I can assure the House that there is no danger whatever of its being taken in that light. There is no danger whatever that the commission will consider that its work will be interfered with if the Seanad should decide to go on with this measure and give it the full examination and consideration that it deserves.

In the first place, the commission is very unlikely to present its report for a considerable time. It certainly will be at least six months more, and very likely longer than that, before its report is ready. It has to cover a very wide field and investigate the conditions in a great number of professions and would-be professions in the country, and it would be quite impossible for it to have its report ready before the end of next summer or thereabouts. When its report is ready, it will have to be considered by the Government and its recommendations will have to be very carefully thought over. Then these recommendations probably will have to be put into effect piecemeal, by the passage of a whole series of Acts of Parliament — if the Government of the day thinks fit to put them into effect. For that reason, to offer the report of the commission to any particular profession which is anxious for registration is really beside the point.

The question of any particular profession being registered will be affected by the report of the commission only at a very distant date indeed; and, in any case, the report of the commission will deal with the whole matter in such general terms that it is quite legitimate for any profession that feels that it needs organisation urgently at this particular moment to press for such organisation. In fact, of course, the real object, or one of the principal objects, of the commission will be to secure or suggest means by which the various professions which require organisation and registration shall be enabled to get that more cheaply and [176] less cumbrously than it is possible for them to get it at present.

The great difficulty that faces quite a series of vocations in this country which would like to be organised in that way and be given the power of registration and so on, is that at present it costs a considerable sum of money and takes a great deal of time and trouble to secure registration by way of a Private Bill through Parliament. This measure is an attempt to test whether that work cannot be done more expeditiously and in less costly fashion by means of ordinary legislation. It is because it will test the capacity of the Seanad to live up to its vocational character and to do this work for the many vocations anxious to get registration, that we are so anxious to have it considered.

The case of the architectural profession, as Senator Douglas has emphasised, is for several reasons more urgent than that of most other professions. First of all, there is a great need in the country itself, and secondly, there is the question of our relations with other countries in this matter of qualifications of architects. Everybody knows that we have been very sadly wanting in the matter of architecture for a long time back, that there is nothing almost that we need more, from the civilised point of view, than men who will be highly trained and have greater artistic skill and greater capacity in this matter of building than we have had. An immense amount of building has been done in Ireland in the past 30 or 40 years, but I think it is not invidious to say—and that everyone will agree— that a large part of it has been unfortunate, and unfortunate precisely because we have not had the trained and qualified architects to look after it, to see that it was carried out properly and that some standard was applied far more thoroughly to it than has been the case.

There is another aspect of the question of urgency that I would like to stress. Senator Douglas has referred to it already. It is that, whereas English architects can come [177] over here and practise quite freely, because we have no system of registration at all, our architects cannot go to Northern Ireland or England and practise there. If they do, they have to submit themselves to a further examination and undergo various tests. If we had a proper system of registration in this country, they would not have to undergo those tests at all. If our architects had a system of registration there could be some reciprocity between these three areas and our architects could get the same opportunities in Northern Ireland and England which English architects freely and readily get here. In that way, this Bill would do something to put this country on equality with Northern Ireland and England, and if only from that point of view I think it important that the fullest consideration should be given to this Bill. It is really rather ridiculous, at this time of day—after 20 years of self-government — that, in the case of this most important profession, we should allow ourselves to continue in an inferior position with regard to England and Northern Ireland, that we should have our training and qualifications in this country regarded as something below the standard which applies in England. If for that one reason alone, it would be well worth while to give the Bill a Second Reading and let it go before a committee.

Senator Douglas has already stressed the ultimate value of the Bill in producing a higher standard of architecture in Ireland, and it is unnecessary to go into that point at any greater length. We have a duty to ourselves and to the country generally, to see that a profession like this — which is of such immense importance, not only for the present, but for the whole future of the country—should be of the highest possible status and given the utmost opportunity so to organise and develop itself that it will be on a level with that most important profession in any other country in the world. It is only fair and right that we should be interested in taking measures to see that this is done, and it is one of the duties we owe both to ourselves and to the future of the country to see that the profession of architecture—one of [178] the most important of the arts and one of the arts which makes the most impression on everybody—will be put on a proper level, and that we will not lag behind Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which organised this profession many years ago, and behind a great number of civilised countries all over the world which have done the same thing. It is for all these reasons that I am interested in trying to have this Bill put through, and I sincerely hope the Seanad will give it full, patient and careful consideration.

Sir John Keane: I do not intend to oppose the principle of this Bill, but I cannot arouse myself to the enthusiasm we have had from its proposer and seconder. The proposer of the Bill says that because it is good we should support it. I would not think it is good, I think it is harmless, that it is innocuous. When I hear the Seantor talking of highly-trained, artistic skill, I begin to wonder at the mental approach to the whole problem. Artistic skill cannot be obtained by training: it is born in the man. You will get some people trained as highly as you like and they will produce some prosaic building which may be suitable and which will stand up in an honest fashion and contain the necessary number of bathrooms and so on, but which will not be a work of beauty. To think you can get more beautiful buildings by these people would be the greatest mistake in the world.

Look at the work of architects in the past. Look at some of the terrible neo-Gothic houses of the Georgian period. I have no doubt that they are the work of highly-qualified people and yet they must be considered atrocious. They are dark and inconvenient inside and undignified in elevation. Look at the Albert Memorial which, I imagine, was designed by an architect. Can anyone say it is a work of beauty? Do not let us go away with the belief that, by this measure, we are going to get more beautiful buildings. We may get safer buildings and we may prevent a certain number of unqualified persons from calling themselves architects. But let [179] us realise that this Bill is not going to effect very much.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass): It is, I think, desirable that I should inform the Seanad of the attitude of the Government to this Bill. Senator Douglas asked that I should not express an opinion on its merits at this stage. To some extent, I propose to comply with his wishes. While I, personally, found a number of the arguments advanced in favour of the Bill by Senator Douglas entirely unconvincing and the claims made for it by Senator Tierney preposterously extravagant, I think a case might be made, at some stage, for legislation of this kind. But the case must be one based upon the public interest. I do not think that we should have legislation of this kind providing for registration of persons practising a particular profession or calling unless it is clear, beyond doubt, that the public interest requires it. The obligation of making that clear and removing any doubts rests upon the promoters of the measure. It is not sufficient to make the case that the interests of the particular class of persons mentioned in the Bill will be enhanced. If we are to proceed to give protection in this manner to persons following a particular profession, it must be clear that not merely their interests but, much more, the interests of the public require that it be done. I do not think that that case has been made here.

It is desirable that the Seanad and the promoters of the Bill should know that the Government is not prepared to facilitate the enactment of this measure at this time. Senator Tierney gave some indication of the reason for that attitude. There is in existence a Commission on Vocational Organisation. That commission is preparing its report and that report will, I understand, be available this year. Senator Tierney says that it will be available in about six months. I think I read in the newspapers that the Royal Institute of Architects in Ireland gave evidence before that commission and submitted [180] proposals to it. I think we should wait and see what observations the commission have to make on these representations. We should be aware of the general character of their report before facilitating the enactment of legislation of this kind. The Government desire that this measure should not be proceeded with until they shall have had an opportunity of examining and considering in full whatever recommendations the Commission on Vocational Organisation may have to make in regard to the architects' profession. It is contended that there is some element of urgency which requires the enactment of this Bill now — even before the report of the Commission on Vocational Organisation is available.

Personally, I do not believe that any problem affecting the architects' profession in Ireland is so urgent that it cannot await the presentation of the commission's report, even if it takes the commission six months to conclude its deliberations. For these reasons, the Government cannot agree to facilitate the passage of this Bill. It will be clear that these reasons are independent of any opinion the Government may hold upon the merits of the Bill, as such. Those who are responsible for its promotion, and who may be involved in expense if they proceed with it, should, I think, know at this stage that that is the attitude of the Government.

Mr. Fitzgerald: I am rather disappointed at the line taken by the Minister. He seems to base his objection to the Bill largely upon the existence of the Vocational Commission. Senator Tierney spoke of the special suitability of this legislative body for dealing with a matter like this, on the ground that we are, or purport to be, a vocational body. To talk of the Seanad as a vocational body is, to my mind, merely silly. We are an ordinary Second House. We have very limited powers, and these powers relate to every aspect of government, not being limited to vocational matters, as they should be. I believe that the Vocational Commission owed its genesis to [181] the idea of exploring the means which would bring about a different system of organisation of society in relation to its political life. I think that the Vocational Commission may be doing good work, but its report will have only a slightly educational significance. To suggest that anything should be postponed until that report is available and is being acted upon, seems to me to be a very easy and unconvincing means of side-stepping a proposal.

Although I listened attentively to Senator Douglas, it seemed to me that the real point of such an enactment as this was not stressed by him. He pointed out that there are students in the National University going through what one must assume to be an extremely arduous discipline to prepare themselves for a certain activity. At present, I can take a cheap office and put a plate outside announcing myself as an architect. Being perfectly free, and not tied down by any professional rules, I can work a publicity and advertising campaign which will convince the simple-minded people of this country that I belong to that body of distinguished architects to which Senator Douglas referred. So long as you have a position in which one man may voluntarily undergo an arduous preparation and another man achieve the same position in society without doing that, you discourage people from taking the more difficult course. You cannot expect every simple-minded person who wants to build a house to make an elaborate examination of the qualifications of the person who describes himself as an architect. Yet, one man can describe himself as an architect, without qualification, while another man who has, at great expense and labour, submitted himself to discipline, is only in the same position as he is. It is in the public interest that there should be some label whereby a person would know that an architect was possessed of the proper qualifications.

Senator Sir John Keane spoke about artistic skill and said that it was either born with one or it was not. That is the old-fashioned, romantic idea. It is shared by young men who go around labelling themselves as great poets and feeling that the mere label demands [182] that they should be exempt from the ordinary rules of society. Nobody is born with the capacity to do great things. That is possible only after discipline. Nobody is born with great artistic skill. The greatest musicians and the greatest painters in the world realised that they had constantly to be laboriously applying themselves to their work in order to make, what they were producing, perfect. Senator Sir John Keane also seemed to assume that you merely sat through a certain period in the National University and then received a diploma as an architect. I presume that, in any academic institution such as that, you must undergo training before you receive the diploma, and that you must demonstrate to the satisfaction of those in charge that you have acquired the artistic skill necessary. It is time that this bubble was pricked regarding people being born with the ability to do great things.

Some of Senator Douglas's arguments did not seem to me to carry weight. What I want is that no man be allowed to practise architecture unless the public have the assurance that he possesses a certain degree of competence. If you pass this Bill, you will have a certain awkward condition, as is always the case under such legislation. There are men without qualifications practising as architects. It would be unjust if you suddenly said to a man who had been earning his living for 20 years by architecture that he would no longer be at liberty to carry on his work. In all these cases, the quacks, or non-qualified men, are allowed to continue. That would have to be done in the case of this Bill, too. I was not convinced by Senator Douglas as to the effect of this Bill in enabling our qualified students to practise in England. I understand that the degree in architecture given by the National University is accepted in England as equivalent to the final examination of the R.I.B.A., subject to those who receive the diploma here passing an examination in professional practice. I think that that is the case, though I am not quite sure. I do not think that this Bill will do much to [183] alter that. I was struck by the fact— here I speak without knowledge— mentioned by Senator Douglas that there are about 92 students pursuing the course in architecture in the National University, and a very much larger number in the Institute. With my, unfortunately, cynical mind I began to suspect that the discipline required of those in that other institution is less rigid than in that with the lesser number. That opinion may be due to my mind becoming a bit distorted through having lived so long. I think that any architect qualified in the National University is able, by showing that he is aware of what is required in professional practice, to practise in England. In the case of medicine and dentistry, the position is, I think, rather different. I can purport to treat a sick person. If I were qualified as a doctor and the person I was treating died under my care, I would not be chargeable with manslaughter. If I, in my unqualified condition, performed an operation on Senator Quirke and he succumbed I should suffer the disadvantage of being chargeable with manslaughter.

There is a certain analogy with regard to houses. I remember when the then Minister for Local Government admitted here that certain houses built for the vulgarising of the landscape in Kildare should never have been allowed to be built. They have been a waste of public money, detrimental to the unfortunate people condemned to live in them and they have helped to make the landscape more hideous than it need be. That does not apply only to those houses in Kildare. I could say a lot about the houses I have seen built around the country. It would be a good thing for the people of the country, as a whole, if you had qualified men and a body governing their activities to whom you could refer. If we could turn to the National University or the Institute of Architects and say: “You have let loose on the unfortunate people a body of men, with your seal, purporting to be qualified and they have built these houses in Kildare, robbing the public by doing so, and destroying the landscape,” [184] it would be very much in the national interest.

Mr. Lemass: What could they do about it?

Mr. Fitzgerald: In the case of trade unions, it is perfectly ridiculous that you can employ only a plumber who has been apprenticed to his father and who is, therefore, eligible to be a trade unionist. If you employ one of these men and he makes a complete mess of the plumbing and ruins your house, you have no redress. On the other hand, if you employ a man who has a natural-born skill—I believe that is possible in plumbing; it was what Senator Keane had in mind—you have the whole trade union organisation against you. If, in carpentry or plumbing, you can only employ somebody recognised by the union, then the unfortunate victim should be able to turn round and say: “You have certified this man as a plumber or carpenter and he has made a mess of my house. You, as the recognised body in law, are bound to make amends for the harm done to me.” That is the position I should like to see with regard to architects.

Mr. Lemass: Would the institute of Architects like this Bill if that provision were inserted in it?

Mr. Fitzgerald: There the Minister is going on the bad line of thinking only of a section of the community instead of thinking of the well-being of all the people. The Minister will not convert me to that unstatesmanlike attitude. I am interested in the welfare of the people as a whole. At one time, when one went out of Dublin, one passed into charming country. When you go out in any direction now, you find that the country is disfigured because of our being taxed more than we need have been for the provision of houses which are hideous to look at. De gustibus non est disputandum. Senator Sir John Keane does not like the Albert Memorial. Possibly his father or grandfather regarded it as the most beautiful thing ever built.

I am not interested only in the beauty of things. I know a man who [185] told me personally how lucky he was not to have bought a new house in which he was at one time interested. He bought another house and shortly afterwards he noticed that the gable end of the house which he nearly bought had cracked right down. That was a case of the speculative builder doing the thing on the cheap. Everything is done to give these houses a good appearance but nothing is done to ensure that in a few years the people who have bought such houses will not find that they have made a bad mistake in buying them. I personally want a higher standard in all these matters. I admit that i ask that more from other people than from myself but I do know enough about human nature to realise that if by passing through a five years' course in the university and submitting to an examination in one of the hardest worked courses in the university at the end of that time, you can put up your plate outside your door and call yourself an architect, the people of the country are not left in the same unprotected state as if you could put up a plate outside your door and call yourself an architect without undergoing such a preparation.

I think this is a matter about which there might be Government legislation. I remember a time when there used to be a jam jar bearing a label on which there was a guarantee that it contained nothing but pure fruit. Sometimes in smaller print at the bottom of the label the words appeared: “With a judicious admixture of fruit juice.” The position at the present moment is that you can label something that never got within half a mile of fruit as jam and the public are not protected. When Senator Douglas talked about distinguished architects I rather groaned inwardly, because I have often heard ordinary laymen talking about distinguished architects and I knew that they were talking about people who had no qualifications in architecture at all. Frequently, out of a certain perversity of my nature, I have tried to assume a surprised look and have said that I did not know that the person mentioned was an architect at all. Certainly there was no reason why he should be called an architect.

[186] I am sorry for one thing that the Minister is refusing to accept this Bill. If he had accepted it, I would have liked to have proposed certain more rigid provisions with regard to the limitation or protection of vested interests. I do think that people should be allowed to know whether a man is a fully qualified architect having gone through a university course, whether he is the product of an institution or whether he is allowed to call himself an architect merely for the reason that he was practising in that alleged capacity for some years before.

The Minister said he is not going ahead with this Bill. I do not want to attribute any unworthiness of thought to the Minister, but I must say that I would require more than the remarks he made here to be convinced that he, who is not entirely devoid of intelligence, really believes that within a year we are going to have a proposition put forward by the Vocational Commission which is going to smooth the way for a complete Government re-arrangement with regard to professions. I do not believe that the Minister thinks in his heart of hearts that the report, when it does come, is going to make a straw of difference in regard to the professions or that the Government would take any action in relation to these professions as a result of that report. The Minister might have made certain criticisms of the Bill as put forward. He might have put forward a reasoned criticism of the statement made by Senator Douglas, but the one thing that discouraged me completely was his talk about the proposed report of the Vocational Commission. The Vocational Commission to my mind in conception was not related to such an individual problem as is involved here. What the public certainly understood was that it was going to examine the steps that it would be necessary to take to order society in relation to the vocational activities of the people. I do not think that it was related to the conferring of degrees, the institution of bodies governing the professional practice of their members or the registration of members of such bodies. I am prepared to take a bet with the [187] Minister here and now that in 24 months from now there will be nothing received from the Vocational Commission that will in any way affect the decision of the Government as to the action they should take in relation to the matter now before us. Once the Government says that it is going to do nothing, we may assume that nothing will be done.

Dr. Rowlette: With the opening statement made by the Minister I find myself in very cordial agreement. The claim that can be made for this Bill was stated quite tersely and correctly by the Minister, namely, that the purpose and the justification of a Bill such as this is the protection of the public and not the protection of any profession. That is the underlying principle governing the registration of members of other professions for which the principle of registration has been already established. It is definitely set out in the Preamble to some of the Bills establishing these professional organisations. I might quote, for example, the Preamble of the Medical Act of Britain, 1858, which underlies our Act of 1927. Our Act was, indeed, merely a local application of the British Act of 1858. The Preamble runs in this way:—

“As it is expedient that persons requiring medical aid should be enabled to distinguish qualified from unqualified practitioners, be it therefore enacted....”

That seems to be the only justification for providing for registration of the members of any profession. I think that Senator Douglas has established that, for the protection of the public, exactly the same system of registration is required in the case of architects as is required in the case of the medical or dental profession. There are other professions very strictly controlled by methods of much longer standing, such as the two branches of the legal profession, but in cases in which action has been taken in the last 100 years, it has generally followed the lines proposed here.

I did not need to be convinced by Senator Douglas's argument because [188] I was convinced beforehand that protection was proper and necessary for the public in the case of the profession of architects in the same way as the other two professions I have mentioned. Its importance is different in kind. In many respects the architect's work does not come so closely into our lives as the work of the medical or the dental profession, but it does come into the life of all of us to a certain extent and it is proper that people who desire to employ architects for any purpose should be in a position to recognise that there are certain architects who have undergone certain training, whose skill has undergone certain tests and to distinguish such people from others who, while they may possess considerable natural artistic ability which is capable of development, have not had the advantage of such training. Sir John Keane thinks that there is no difference between these two classes, but some people would prefer the man of practical experience while others would give their patronage to those who had specialised training. It may be there are men of genius outside those who have been so trained. But the present Bill will provide for people who have been carrying on practice as architects before the introduction of the Bill. It can be no hardship on those entering the profession in future to provide that they must undergo a certain amount of training to fit them for the essentials of their profession. It is quite true that a man may go through any amount of training and still be a very inefficient architect or doctor, but there is a better chance that he will be a competent worker at his profession if he has undergone a certain line of training and has had a certain amount of experience, the nature of which would be decided on by persons competent to decide, with the view, as I suggest, of the interest of the public and not the interest of any class or profession.

The present Bill differs in some respects, and I do not think to its advantage, from those that govern the professions of medicine and dentistry and, while I am entirely in support of the principle of the Bill that there should be a system of registration, I have some regrets that more attention [189] was not paid by the framers of this Bill to the legislation which, after considerable thought and considerable experience, has been adopted for those two other professions. I think a more effective, more useful and workable measure would have resulted. I trust the Seanad is not going to be deterred from studying this question and framing such a measure or putting it forward by the discouraging attitude of the Minister. As I understood the Minister, all he did was to tell us to-day that the Government was not at present in a position to pledge itself to support or facilitate the passage of such a Bill through the Oireachtas. I do not think that he suggested to the Seanad that it should refuse to consider the planning or drafting of such a measure based on the draft which Senator Douglas has introduced to-day. In fact, I think his advice went in the other direction. I think a measure of that kind could be made very effective. I am not, of course, going into any detail in criticism of some of the clauses in the present Bill before us, but I notice that in many respects the architects' profession will be much more closely tied than is found necessary by experience in the case of the other professions I mentioned. There are similarities between the Bills, but there are very great differences which require consideration.

There are questions to be considered in the framing of the Bill also as to what extent practice of architecture should be carried on by persons other than those on the register. Many people think that nobody can practise medicine or the healing art unless he is on the Medical Register. Anybody is free to practise the healing art if he does not represent himself as being on the register or as being a qualified medical or surgical practitioner. Senator Desmond Fitzgerald seems to have some very entertaining ideas of the licence enjoyed by members of the medical profession. He suggested, whether seriously or not I was not able to make out, that members of the medical profession had a free hand to commit manslaughter, without question from anybody. I can assure him that is not so. A medical man can be indicted for manslaughter just as readily [190] as anybody else if he gives reason for it. The reason that he is not indicted for manslaughter is that he so seldom gives reason for it; but that does not give him a licence to commit it. Almost the only privilege, if it is a privilege, that a registered medical practitioner enjoys is that he is bound to issue a certificate as to his opinion of the cause of death of a patient he has attended and he is bound to issue the certificate without charging any fees therefor. It is true that a non-qualified medical practitioner is not bound to issue such certificate or, if he does, it is of no avail.

One other point, which is a major point in the Bill which I hope we will come to discuss in detail, is the constitution of the board to control registration. I have no criticism of that board as a purely temporary instrument but I would have very grave criticism of it if such an instrument were to be proposed to control registration during future years. A temporary instrument may be necessary until a register is established, but as soon as a register is established or as soon as may be after a register is established, I think the profession should, to a very large extent, control itself. A board of the nature outlined in the Bill is not suitable to have control over future policy as to the conditions of education and as to the discipline of the profession. It is a bureaucratic body almost entirely and in some respects where it is not altogether a bureaucratic body it seems to me to be hastily conceived and unworkable. However, I do not want to go into such details at present.

I give every support to the principle of the measure that Senator Douglas has put forward, but many other details I would like to criticise. I base my support of it entirely on the protection such a system of registration would give to the public. There are other benefits in such a system of registration. I base my support of it in the interests of the protection of the public and not the protection of any group of professional people, nor am I at all interested in it from the point of view as to whether it will facilitate [191] or impede the possible vocationalisation of society in this country.

Peadar Mac Fhionnlaoich: Níl mórán agam le rá ach is mian liom a rá go bhfuil mé ar leith an Bhille seo agus sílim go bhfuil sé thar am againn ailtirí a chlárú mar is ceárd ealadhnach an Ailtireacht. Tá na ceárdaithe eile go léir cláruithe agus ní thuigim cén fáth nach mbeadh na hailtirí ar aon dul leo. Maidir leis an mBille seo, caithidh mé a admháil nach bhfuil sé léighte agam ar chor ar bith agus, mar sin, níl fhios agam nach bhfuil rudaí ann nach dtaitneodh liom. Tá mé i bhfabhar an phrionsabhail, sé sin, go mba cheart na hailtirí a chlárú. Anois, tá an rud eile ann, an bhfuil an t-am oiriúnach? Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil práinn ró-mhór leis an Bille seo. D'fhéadfaí dul ar aghaidh leis céim ar chéim agus gan mórán ama a chaitheamh leis ach gan diúltiú don phrionsabal atá ann.

Mr. M. Hayes: I find myself to a large extent in agreement with Senator Cú Uladh. It may be necessary in the first instance to state what an architect is. Not only is he a person who makes a plan for a building or set of buildings but he is also a person who is charged with the duty of seeing that the building is properly constructed in accordance with the plan, that the proper materials are used, and that any alterations that are made are suitable. So that an architect's function is greater than the function of what I think Sir John Keane might call an artist, that is, a person who makes a plan.

The present position with regard to architects in Ireland is that there is only one university institution in the 32 Counties which gives a degree in architecture, and that is University College, Dublin. Those of us who are familiar with the work in University College, Dublin—I do not profess any familiarity with the work of architects —but those of us who are in University College, Dublin, know that the architectural students and staff are people who work very hard; that the course [192] is a long one and a difficult one, and that the degree is generally regarded as being very well worth while. It is recognised in England by the Royal Institute of Architects there except, as Senator Fitzgerald has said, for an examination in professional practice. It is not a very serious difference as between the two bodies.

Besides University College, Dublin, and its architects, there is also the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland. In University College at present there are, I am told, about 97 students, and there are about 160 others in the Institute. At the moment any person can use the title “architect”, and what the Bill proposes is to restrict the use of the title to trained persons. I do not see how that principle could be objected to. Having restricted the use of the title to trained persons, the Bill does not propose—and it should be clearly understood—to compel anybody to employ a particular type of architect. Liberty is left to the public to employ any kind of person they choose, but the person who has not had a university training, or a training with the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland, is not to be allowed to use the title “architect”.

It is proposed then to control them by a board which is set up under Section 2. I must say that I am not wedded in any way to particular provisions of the Bill. I am interested merely in seeing that the public is properly served by having designated for it the people who can properly call themselves architects, the people who are trained, the people who, as Senator Sir John Keane has said, are skilled artists. I will not go into that general question, but I think it elementary that no person finds himself in possession of skill of a high type from his birth. He must be trained for it, and persons who do not subject themselves to the ordinary discipline of a university or other training of the kind, never become competent as artists, as writers, or even as poets, without practising the art over long and painful periods. Senator Rowlette suggests that he is not satisfied with [193] the board. I think the principal function of this House would be to accept the principle of registration of architects, if the House were agreeable, and then the matter could be further discussed, and discussed, as Senator Cú Uladh has suggested, very slowly. If necessary, all interested parties could have their say, and a Bill could be presented to the Dáil after considerable discussion and, I presume, considerable compromise.

The object of the Bill, therefore, is not to benefit architects, but simply to enable the public to recognise them. Senator Fitzgerald mentioned a number of ugly building schemes throughout the country. I happen to know, from my contact with architects in University College, that not a single one of those schemes was designed by a university architect, nor do I think was any one of them designed by a person whom they would recognise as an architect at all. The object of the Bill, therefore, is a public object and it must be remembered that local authorities over a long period of years now control building. You cannot make any alteration to your house without applying to the local authority. There is also town planning and it is universally recognised as a sound public principle that there should be control of building, control of the kind of buildings which may be put up in particular places. Surely when we have accepted that principle, as we have in our public legislation, we should go a step further and enable the public who are complying with that legislation to know what kind of person they can use in order to give them service which is based upon a particular type of training. There is no suggestion in the Bill of giving particular people privileges, and Senator Douglas read out a very imposing list of countries in which registration has been adopted.

I now come very briefly to the Minister's objection. It is a familiar one— with the Minister—that the time is not ripe. I have some sympathy with him at the moment in all his difficulties if he thinks this particular type of legislation will, so to speak, be planked down upon him, but I think the Government might be reassured that, [194] if this Bill were passed this evening, it would be some considerable time before it would reach the Dáil.

Mr. Douglas: It would take more than six months.

Mr. M. Hayes: I think it would. The Minister is, I think, quite misinformed when he speaks of the “promoters” of the Bill. I do not know whether he uses the word in its technical sense as used in standing orders, but Senator Douglas is no more a “promoter” of this Bill than the Minister is the promoter of the Shop Hours Bill. He is exercising his function as a public representative to bring in a public Bill for a public purpose and if the Bill were to pass its Second Reading now, I do not think any fees would fall to be paid or any expenses to be incurred by anybody. The argument used by the Minister that there would be promoters and expenses has no validity, nor, I think, has his argument about the report of the Vocational Organisation Commission. Senator Tierney said that the commission could not report within six months. I think it will probably be found that the commission will scarcely report before 12 months, and, even if it did report, I do not think that any harm would be done to any possible report the commission might make by this House having taken steps to draw up a registration Bill for architects.

I think Senator Douglas is entirely correct, and I support him very strongly in his view, that the Seanad should do work like this. In the nature of things we do not give the same lengthy and detailed consideration as the Dáil to finance or to Bills of that nature. We never discuss Estimates, which occupy a considerable time in the Dáil. Our powers are very restricted and we naturally have more time than the Dáil. I think it would be a sound principle, which has not been adopted by the present Government and was not adopted by the present Government's predecessors, for us to discuss certain matters which are not of acute political concern and which are not urgent. I think this Bill is not urgent in spite of what has been [195] said. It has no political significance at all, and I think the House would be well advised and well fitted to discuss the matter, to reach a particular conclusion and then to pass it on to the Dáil. I would not at all ask the Minister to stand up and give his benediction to the Bill and to say: “Go ahead, and when it does pass the Seanad, I will back it in the Dáil.” Far from that. I think the Minister might not have thrown any cold water upon it, but that he might have taken the attitude: “The principle is not a bad one, and, if the House gives the matter consideration through a Select Committee, hears objections to it and hammers out a Bill, there may be time in the Dáil to go into it.” I think that is all that the Minister and the Government are being asked to do.

I recognise at once that the Government has a great many other irons in the fire at present besides having to take up this kind of thing, but that, I think, is the very reason why the Seanad should take it up and carry it considerably further than the Second Stage. If it did that, I think it would be very useful. So far as the principle of the Bill is concerned, I am entirely in favour of it and I suspect that the Minister himself is in favour of it. With regard to the report of the Vocational Organisation Commission, if this Bill were discussed and hammered out in detail, I think it could have nothing but a useful and profitable effect upon any report which that commission could possibly make. I therefore suggest that it should pass the Second Stage, and that the passing of it on Second Stage should not be regarded as a victory or a defeat for anybody, but simply as a matter of our doing a job of work which we think ourselves competent to do, which falls to be done at present and which I think ought to be done, so that we might get ready for a situation when the time we spend now might be of a very great value indeed.

Liam O Buachalla: I rise not so much to take part in the discussion on the Bill as to offer a few words of explanation in connection with my own position. As the House is aware, I subscribed my name to this Bill in [196] order to facilitate its introduction; at least, it was represented to me that by assenting, its introduction would be facilitated. I subscribed my name to it because it had also been represented to me, and I agreed, that the matter of the Bill was such as should receive the fullest discussion in the Seanad. I want now to make my position clear. When I agreed to act as an assenter to the Bill, I made it clear that if time were not available, or circumstances not opportune for its discussion or for its acceptance by the Government, I should be relieved of all responsibility in connection with it. As a matter of fact I foresaw difficulties at the time.

I think my colleagues in the Seanad who also assented to the Bill will agree that these were the conditions under which I agreed to assent to the Bill. In view of the Minister's statement which we have just heard, and in view of the fact that there are more urgent problems calling for the attention of the Minister and the Government, I feel that I must support the Minister in his attitude on the Bill. I would like very much that the circumstances were different and that we could go ahead with it, but at the present time the whole order in legislation and Government matters should be one of strict discipline. In matters of this kind, the Government must decide what is the course, and for me at any rate, when the course is indicated I feel that it is my duty to support the Government.

Mr. Conlon: The speech of Senator O Buachalla has rather surprised me in view of the fact that he put his name to the Bill. The Senator referred to the Minister's speech. I do not think the Minister made any case which would justify Senator O Buachalla in adopting the attitude he has just indicated. But, I suppose he knows his own business best. The Minister said he was not satisfied that Senator Douglas had made any case that the Bill would be in the public interest. He, or somebody else, suggested that possibly it was in the interests of some members of the Architects' Association. The fact that some section of that association might derive some benefit from it would not necessarily mean [197] that it would not be in the public interest. Personally, I think Senator Douglas made a very good case, from the point of view of the public interest, for the Bill. I will leave it to Senator Douglas to deal with that aspect of the matter when he is replying. The Minister also stated that he did not consider the passing of a measure of this kind was a matter of urgency. On that, Senator Douglas made at least two points of importance. One was that large numbers of people may become unemployed due to the fact that this Bill will not have been passed and, secondly, that a certain number of architects may not be able to take up the work which it is thought will be available in plenty as soon as the war is over.

There is another aspect of the matter I would like to deal with. More than four years ago, when the Bill under which this Seanad was set up, was going through the Dáil, it was suggested by the Taoiseach that arrangements would be made by which a vocational Seanad would be set up. Although this House is supposed to have been set up on a vocational basis, I think it will be admitted by everybody that such is not the case. Various vocational bodies nominate representatives for election to this House. Two Seanad elections have been held. On the first occasion, when the vocational bodies nominated the persons they would like to see going into the Seanad to represent them, they found that, owing to the system of election in operation, there was no possibility whatever of their nominees getting elected; that there was no possible chance of anyone getting elected to the Seanad except persons who had the backing of one or other of the two big political Parties. We were told, however, that arrangements would be made to bring about the object which it was said the Government had in view, but more than four years have elapsed since then, and nothing has been done.

The statement has been made that if this Bill were passed other old-established vocational bodies would also expect to be put on a proper statutory basis. What that statement amounts to is this: that the Government [198] do not want to be troubled or bothered to take up these matters. The point of urgency was not stressed by the Minister. It surely is no argument against this Bill to say that if it were passed other old-established vocational bodies would be coming along seeking the same kind of statutory recognition. Even if they did so, I fail to see why they should not get it.

I referred a moment ago to the fact that more than four years ago the Taoiseach indicated that the original intention was to have this House elected on a vocational basis. Speaking in the Dáil on the Second Reading of the Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Bill, 1937, on the 7th October of that year, the Taoiseach, in a reference to the Seanad suggested by the commission set up to examine the question of a Seanad formed on a vocational basis, said:

“That undoubtedly could be got if our economic life was at the moment organised on a functional basis so that we could get representative functional bodies who could themselves directly elect on to the Seanad.... Unfortunately from the point of view of getting a different Second House (from the Dáil) we are not so organised. If we should become organised in that way in the future, there is provision in the Constitution so that a measure such as we are now proposing could be amended to allow representative functional or organisational bodies, when formed, to elect their members directly on to the Seanad.... We are not organised in that way and, in the main, I think there are scarcely any statutory bodies to which we could hand over the power and the right to elect members directly on to the Seanad.”

Unless bodies, such as the architects, are established on a proper functional basis there will never be any chance of getting a Seanad elected such as the Government and the Taoiseach would seem to desire. I put that point of view forward for the consideration of the Government. I put it to them that they ought not to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. They may think [199] that some changes are desirable in it. Is so, they can put forward their case before the Select Committee which Senator Douglas has suggested. That committee would have the power to examine persons and papers, and before it all details can be gone into. The committee will be able to decide whether or not any changes proposed are reasonable or otherwise, and it can be relied upon to come to proper decisions. I am strongly in favour of the principle of the Bill, and intend to vote for it. I hope that the members on the opposite side of the House will also support the principle of the Bill.

Mr. O'Donovan: The few remarks that I have to make on the Bill are based largely on what I heard here this evening and on what I knew already. I understand that Senator Hayes, in the course of his speech, said that the degrees conferred by the university here were recognised in England, but that the degrees of the Institute of Architects were not. If our university degrees are recognised across the water, it seems to me that there is no great urgency in passing any further legislation. I would like to have some information on the line of demarcation there is between the engineering profession and the profession of architects. There seems to be no definite line of demarcation—at least, none was indicated to-day. I understand an engineer can draw a plan of a house and deal with the sanitation and all the other requisites for the building.

Mr. Douglas: So can a blacksmith at the present moment, so far as the law is concerned.

Mr. O'Donovan: I want to draw attention to the fact that engineers also are not recognised by any statutory authority. I should like to see the architectural profession put on a proper basis. If they were, I believe it would be in their own interests as well as the interests of the general public. I think there has been good reason for complaint. You will find a person drawing up plans and subsequently you will discover when the [200] building is half constructed that it is defective in some way. You have “quackery” in every profession, and as a member of a profession I object to “quackery”. The State has to some extent recognised trade unionism. The trade unions are guarded in this respect, that a man cannot get work unless he is able to produce his trade union card. Professional and vocational bodies are naturally anxious that something similar should apply to them.

I think we are all anxious to make this measure more comprehensive, to make it go further than dealing merely with architects. It certainly should embrace engineers and other professions. We should put some distinguishing mark on professional bodies that require a university qualification and degree. One point that occurred to me is that a degree granted by one body should be recognised by another. Apparently that is not the case. If we were to establish an architects' institution along the lines suggested here, we would still be in the position that registration here would not be recognised across the water.

I suggest that this discussion could well be postponed. If we were to pass the Second Reading and proceed with the other stages here, and if the Bill were refused by the Dáil, we would not have gained very much; we would merely have wasted a good deal of time. I suggest we should adjourn this discussion to a later date—perhaps Senator Douglas will agree to that— because otherwise we will simply be running against a stone wall. I would far prefer a postponement of the discussion; at least we might have unanimity on that.

I must congratulate Senator Conlon on what we might regard as his maiden speech here to-day. I can well anticipate, as a sequel to our present discussion, an appeal from the auctioneers for registration. That sort of thing would tend to widen our discussion a good deal if we agree to postpone it now and resume it at a more opportune time. There is a necessity for the proper recognition of professional qualifications in other countries as well as in this country. [201] That would be all to the public good, because then people would not be imposed upon by persons not fully qualified to carry on undertakings that should be allotted only to genuine professional men.

Mr. Cummins: I think the suggestion made by the last Senator may be the saving of what may prove to be a very useful piece of legislation. The Vocational Commission is sitting and we will probably have its findings made public in the course of the next few months. In the circumstances, it is not asking too much to postpone this discussion for at least six months. That would be a much better way than to have this Bill flung aside by the Minister and his Party. Unless he is prepared to sponsor it as it goes from this House, there is very little use in going any further with it now.

This Bill seeks to clarify the position of architects. I suggest it should have a wider scope and include engineers and others. It will then be of benefit to many people inasmuch as it will place them in a position to get employment. I think we could have a great measure of unanimity if this discussion were postponed and later, perhaps, the Bill could be extended to include certain findings of the Vocational Commission. It is quite possible that certain findings of that commission will soon be made known, and the promoters of the Bill will have those things to guide them and there will be no clash of interests.

Mr. Madden: That commission might go the way of all the other commissions that are never heard of again.

Mr. Douglas: How could the Bill as it stands be altered in order to bring it into conjunction with the report of the commission? That could not be done until this stage is passed.

Mr. Cummins: Could we not just postpone the Second Reading discussion?

Mr. Quirke: So far as Senator Douglas's point goes, if and when the Bill is again being debated it might be possible at that period to pass the Second Stage and then it could be [202] amended to meet the requirements of the Vocational Commission. I do not agree with Senator Madden when he says that the commission will probably go the way of all commissions and never be heard of again. I do not think that is our experience. I think our experience has been quite the opposite. Practically all the commissions that have been set up have reported. Some of them may have dragged along a bit, but as a general rule they have all reported and none of them has faded into oblivion.

I appeal to the promoters of the Bill to adopt the suggestion made by Senator O'Donovan. I think his suggestion was very reasonable. Anybody who listened to the statement of the Minister will be convinced that that is the best policy. There are various reasons why the Minister is not prepared to accept the Bill, apart from the possibility of running across the findings of the Vocational Commission. I think the last two speakers have given sufficient reasons for the adoption of Senator O'Donovan's suggestion.

Mr. Conlon: What would be gained by postponing the discussion? I cannot see that anything would be gained. I think something might be gained if we had the principle of the Bill established. I am not quite clear what would be gained by postponing the discussion.

Mr. Lemass: Perhaps I might be permitted to intervene to make the position clear. The Vocational Organisation Commission is at present preparing its report. This is a Bill for vocational organisation. The sole purpose of the Bill is to arrange for the organisation of people following a particular avocation. The body concerned in this Bill, the Institute of Architects, has made representations to the Vocational Organisation Commission and, I understand, put proposals before it —at least, I have seen a report to that effect in the paper. It appears to me, therefore, that that commission is considering the representations made by the Institute of Architects and whatever proposals were submitted by that body, [203] and that it will comment upon them in its report, and I think we should wait until that report appears before enacting legislation relating to architects. If there is nothing in the commission's report relating to architects, as Senator Fitzgerald suggested might be the case, then this matter might be considered again, but if there is something in it relating to architects, I think the Government ought to have an opportunity of considering it before being asked to make up its mind on this Bill.

I would put it to the Senator that the position is this: that while I do not want to influence the Seanad in its attitude on this Bill I want them to know what the attitude of the Government would be, and that is that I feel that the Government will not support the passage of the Bill through the Dáil unless and until the report of the Vocational Organisation Commission has been published, when the Bill can be considered in the light of that report. If the Seanad think that any useful purpose is to be served in proceeding with the Bill, knowing that it is going to fail to get a First Reading in the Dáil, then that is a matter for them, but I would strongly suggest that it would be better from everybody's point of view—the members of the Seanad who are interested and also others whose time and attention might be occupied in discussions on the Bill in the committee that has been suggested to be set up—that the whole matter should be allowed to stand over until we get the report of the Vocational Organisation Commission.

Professor Johnston: Would the Minister accept the Second Reading now, and then let the Bill go into cold storage?

Mr. Lemass: That is a matter for the Seanad, but if the time came when this particular Bill was being considered as a piece of legislation I might have a great deal to say about it.

Mr. McEllin: I have listened here very attentively to this debate and, as far as I see the general position, I did not hear any very strong argument in [204] favour of this sudden rush of legislation on behalf of a particular section of the community. Nevertheless, there was one point that struck me forcibly, and I have no doubt that the Minister is particularly interested in it also, and that is that architects here have no right to practise in other countries, as the position stands. On the other hand, as Senator Hayes, I think, said, the Institute in England has recognised the status of Irish architects of University College, Dublin.

If that is so, there is a contradiction of arguments. In any case, I have no doubt that all of us would be very anxious to do anything within reason that would help to raise the status and prestige of our architects, and we have some very distinguished men of that profession in this country. On the other hand, every aspect of life here to-day requires further legislation of the kind Senator Douglas is looking for here to-night. Take the case of the shopkeepers in this country. I do not suppose there is a country in Europe with as many shopkeepers as we have. Instead of being an agricultural country we are a country of shopkeepers, and the whole system of shop-keeping is slipshod and uncontrolled.

Mr. Lemass: There was a commission on that also—for the registration of shopkeepers.

Mr. McEllin: Yes, but Senator Conlon, for instance, is interested in auctioneers, and they could put up a similar argument. As a matter of fact, I remember that matter coming before the House some eight or ten years ago, but there is not a single section of the community here that does not require some sort of legislation or control—if either legislation or control is going to improve it one iota: personally, I do not think it is. I think that Senator Sir John Keane struck the most original note here this evening when he said that legislation or registration is not going to improve either the standard or the ability of the architects, auctioneers or shopkeepers of this country. Legislation does not do those things, and there is every possible sense and reason in the Minister's [205] point of view, which is that we should wait for the next few months until we get the results of the long and laborious study of these matters that is being made by the Vocational Organisation Commission in connection with every side of Irish life. Then we could have sound criticism and constructive proposals, but do not let us have this sort of piecemeal thing for one section of the community and say that they must be looked after while everybody else is ignored. I think Senator Douglas would be well advised not to push this Bill to a decision to-night and that he should let it remain over until there is more unity of investigation for all sections rather than push it to a division and, perhaps, get beaten on it and do no good. Let us show patience. The whole world is in a state of flux at the moment and we will be in a better position at the end of the year to examine every side of Irish life and reorganise our whole social and commercial life after we hear the proposals of the Vocational Organisation Commission. Apart altogether from any interest that I have in Government policy I am perfectly satisfied that the Minister's suggestion to do so is reasonable and I think we should adopt it.

Cathaoirleach: Is Senator Douglas concluding?

Mr. Douglas: I am willing to conclude.

Cathaoirleach: Senator Douglas to conclude.

Mr. Douglas: There is quite a number of matters that have arisen in the debate to which I should like to refer. In the first place, I shall start by dealing with the end of the debate and completely disagreeing with Senator McEllin in thinking that we cannot deal with this because the world is in a state of flux in which it will not be in a year's time. I am afraid I cannot share his optimism. I may also say that I was interested to find in this debate an example of the fact that extremes sometimes meet, and this is not the first time that Senator McEllin expressed admiration for the views expressed by Senator Sir John Keane. I [206] do not find myself, in this case, in agreement with either of them, as has occurred before. Before I deal with this question as to what should be done with the Bill now, a few things were referred to which I think I ought to take this opportunity to reply. I have no quarrel at all with the statement of the Minister. He came here and warned the House that, in the present mind of the Government, there was no likelihood that even if we proceeded with this Bill and produced a good one, the Government would go on with it. That does not perturb me one tiniest little bit. In the first place, I am collecting quite a good list of proposals that were made here and rejected, that were afterwards adopted by the Government. Consequently, I would not refuse to go on with the scheme because the Government at this stage were not prepared to go on with it. I think that if I were the Government I probably would not be prepared to go on with it immediately, and, as I think I more or less indicated in my opening speech, I never expected that they would proceed with it immediately. What I do believe, and believe strongly, is that there is a number of measures, of which this is one, which it would be extremely difficult to get any Government to go on with, because there is a number of side issues—Senator O'Donovan mentioned one with regard to engineers—which will, I think, only be solved by getting a committee of responsible men, with power to send for persons and papers, who will invite in the opposition, and those who may have side interests, and see whether they necessarily clash, which they may. They may quite possibly decide that this thing is impracticable, or may quite possibly bring forward something which would be more or less agreed, agreed at any rate as far as the relative interests are concerned.

Personally, I am convinced that if this House were wise—there has been no serious argument against the principle of the Bill in the House—it would pass the Second Stage. At some time during the year—possibly not for six months, but the time could be hastened if events showed that there was [207] a necessity for it—it could be sent to a committee with power to send for persons and papers. The matter has been complicated by the fact that this has been ruled to be a hybrid Bill.

In view of the remarks made by the Minister, and my own remarks in the beginning, I want briefly to refer to that. This was not introduced with the knowledge or even with the suspicion in my mind that it would be deemed to be a hybrid Bill. I agree 100 per cent. with the statement of the Minister that private bodies have no right to come along and get registered unless they can make a case from the point of view of the public interest, and, without in any way questioning, having regard to precedents, the rulings that were made, I think that procedure should be changed, and that we should not have facilities for privately-controlled bodies to bring forward schemes of registration, but that if they are brought forward they should be brought forward as a public Bill. I am not sufficiently familiar with the circumstances of the introduction of legislation dealing with registration in the various countries which I have mentioned, but I have looked up a number of them and I found that they were dealt with as public matters. Nowhere were they dealt with by any scheme of private legislation. It is not disputed anywhere that this is a public Bill—a hybrid Bill is a public Bill—but by virtue of the ruling it has to go, if it passes the Second Stage, to a committee. I would respectfully suggest to the House that the wisest course with regard to this Bill would be to let the Second Stage pass, to let it go to the committee, where there may be people who will petition to be heard, and, when it comes back here, by consent to hold it up until such time as it seems worth while sending it to a committee with power to send for persons and papers. I did not introduce this Bill for the purpose of agitation. I have not canvassed a member of the House to ask him to vote for this Bill. I put it forward simply as a measure which I had become convinced was desirable. It is not possible in the time available here [208] now to deal with all the arguments pro and con. I am quite prepared to submit to what seems to the majority of the House to be the best course. If the majority do not believe in the principle of the Bill, they should vote against it. If they do believe in the principle, they ought not to vote against it. It should hardly be put on me—somebody should move the adjournment of the debate sine die, if that is the considered opinion. Personally, I think it would be very much better to let the Second Stage go without a division. We need not move for any committee at the moment. We could consider between this and February whether it was wise to let it go to the special committee as provided in the Private Bills Standing Orders, which need not necessarily be appointed to-day. My suggestion is that we should let it pass the Second Stage now. I give my word of honour that I will not move any further stage except after consultation with members, so that there will be no unpleasantness or anything of that kind. We could see then whether it would be wise, at some stage, to go further.

Let me make myself clear; I am not at all convinced that this Bill, as it stands, would work. It is a skeleton Bill. It does not purport to be anything else. I recognise that registration of engineers might have to be tackled, not I think in this Bill, but at some time in the near future, and that possibly the relationships between architects and engineers might have to be defined. At any rate, they would have to be considered. I believe that the way to do that is to get responsible architects and engineers might have to be defined. At any rate, they would have to be considered. I believe that the way to do that is to get responsible architects and responsible engineers before a committee of this House, a select committee which has power to have conversations with them and hear their views, and see whether it is possible to find a way by which either the House might ultimately have two Bills or might have one Bill which dealt with both. I think two Bills would be preferable. If we simply sit and do nothing, and particularly if we simply adjourn this debate, the effect will be that there is no preparatory work done at all. The Minister is not convinced; he could not be expected to be convinced [209] in such a short time. No one can prophesy what is going to happen after the war. Certainly, no one can estimate when the war is likely to end.

I agree with the Taoiseach that there is nothing at the present time to indicate any hope for its early conclusion. Unfortunately, I lived through another great war, and six months before its conclusion I thought it was going to last very much longer. I do not think the circumstances are the same now, and I agree with the Taoiseach, but having regard to the position, and, to my mind, the strong desirability of pressing for full reciprocity of recognition, I think it would be extremely well if some of those points had been discussed. While the war is on, and while there are acute shortages and acute difficulties, I do not think that the Government of the day—and particularly the Minister who happens to be Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister for Supplies—will have time or ought to be expected to have time to deal with the matter, and I think it is the function of this House to do this kind of work. That is not a new idea of mine. It is about 19 years since I first became a member of the Seanad. I have introduced and I have taken active part in a number of Private Members Bills, several of which were defeated and several of which became law. None of them, whether it was passed or defeated, dealt with matters which created any Party controversy. I clearly remember Senator T. Johnson, in close cooperation with the late Senator Browne, introducing the Town Planning Bill. The Committee sat for a long time. To the best of my recollection, we were told on the Second Stage—if we were not, I know that we knew—that the then Government would not promise to go on with the Bill. They were not opposed to the principle of town planning, but they were very busy, and they certainly would give us no promise. The committee, as I have said, sat for a long time. They produced something very different indeed from that which had been introduced by Senator Johnson. Eventually they sent it to the Dáil, and it lay there for two or three years, but [210] the result was the Town Planning and Regional Act. There was no question of hostility to the Government of the day. It was simply a matter that was not taken on Party lines. It resulted in a measure which I think some day will require further amendment, and which I do not think has worked as well as it might, but a measure which was at the time a very great step forward. I see no reason why the same thing might not happen with this Bill.

I did not altogether follow Senator Buckley in his remarks; I did not know exactly what he meant. If he was referring to the fact that, as far as Senators in this House were concerned, it was clearly understood that this was a non-Party measure, and that there was to be no attempt to beat the Government or anybody else with it, then I entirely and absolutely agree with it. That was always the understanding. That was the spirit in which I introduced it. That is the spirit in which I am speaking now, and it is in that spirit that I would urge the Seanad to let the Second Stage pass, and let us afterwards discuss whether we should send it to any committee at all. I think I would send it to the committee necessary under the hybrid Bill procedure, and stop there for the present. That means that there would be a Bill there at any rate. At a further stage we can see whether we should send it to a Committee with power to send for persons and papers, a matter on which I have an open mind in view of the attitude of the Government. At any rate that course would very largely meet the attitude here. A number of us are in favour of the principle of the Bill.

Mr. O'Donovan: Will that entail further expense?

Mr. Douglas: No, I am not aware of any expense at all. Certainly the passing of this Stage entails no expense to anybody—the State or anybody else.

Mr. O'Donovan: Would the further Stages, after the passing of the Second Stage, entail any further expense?

Mr. Douglas: Expense to whom—to the State?

Mr. O'Donovan: To the State or to individuals?

[211] Mr. Douglas: If a Select Committee is appointed, it will have power to send for persons and papers. The committee will sit and there will be light and accommodation required and some incidental expenses incurred. If the Senator is assuming that there are fees payable, I am not aware of any fees being payable in connection with a public Bill. That may be a matter of dispute. As to whether I and the other three Senators should be held to be promoters, I do not accept that position for a moment. At any rate, I cannot accept it, unless there is a legal decision. I had no intention of raising this matter, but the Senator has asked me. I think the privilege of members to introduce public Bills is concerned in any such suggestion and I am not worried about it. At any rate, the passing of the Second Stage would not involve even the promoters, if any, in expense. My own personal view is that if a Minister introduced a Bill which turned out to be a hybrid Bill, he could no more be held personally liable for fees than could an ordinary member of the Seanad. I did not want to raise that now, but the Senator pressed me on the question of fees.

Mr. O'Donovan: It was not a question of fees but whether the taking of evidence would involve a waste of further time and money.

Mr. Douglas: If it went to a committee, either a Joint Committee or, if the other House did not concur, to a Special Committee, as set out in Standing Order No. 121 in connection with Private Bill procedure, there would be expense for anybody who petitioned to be heard, but no one is obliged to do so. I suggest that we should not decide to-day whether or not it should go to that committee. I should like time to consider that further, having regard to the circumstances. It may be that it should not. At any rate, if it passes the Second Stage, I would not move to send it to a committee, but that the question of a committee should be simply left over without any decision by the House at all, so that we might have an opportunity [212] of discussing with experienced officials, and perhaps with members, as to whether at the next meeting we should move that it should go either to a Joint Committee or a Special Committee. But, at any rate, it can be agreed that there is no question of this House committing itself to pressing this Bill and starting a quarrel with the Dáil, because that would be contrary to the spirit in which the Bill was introduced. It would be the height of folly, in any case, so far as I am concerned. I may be futile sometimes, but I am never deliberately futile, and I certainly do not want to be led into any such position.

There is another point I should like to make with regard to recognition. So far as I understand it, the degree of the National University is not one of the degrees which is accepted under the British Acts for registration. But, if an Irishman becomes a member of the British Institute, he is then entitled to be registered as a member of the British Institute. I am not quite clear as to whether he can become a member of the Institute as of right, but he can have his name put up for election if he is a Bachelor of Architecture of the National University and if he submits to another examination, which I understand is in professional practice. That is subject to correction, but I believe that is the case. That is not contrary to what Senator Hayes stated.

Mr. O'Donovan: He did not say that much.

Mr. Douglas: I said that in my opening statement. I read portions of my original speech and there were portions which I did not read. But, in that case I read it, because I was particularly anxious that I should not make any mistake. In conclusion, I think it will be doing the Commission on Vocational Organisation the greatest possible disservice if it is going to be used as a whip to prevent legislation. That, of course, has been done with all the best commissions in England. It should be possible, surely, within a reasonable time, if the matter became more urgent, to find out by inquiry if it is in any sense the [213] intention of the Vocational Organisation Commission to deal with the matter which is the subject of this Bill. The Minister referred to the fact that the Royal Irish Institute of Architects gave evidence before that commission. He seemed to think that that indicated that the commission would report on that evidence and that it would have a bearing on registration. I gave evidence before that commission in two capacities—I was president of one of the organisations and vice-president of the other at the time—and I do not believe for a moment that they wanted any more than to get a general survey of the organisations that existed at present in order to have it on their records. If, on the other hand, the Minister has reason to think that we may get from that commission possibly an outline of a scheme for the registration of architects, another scheme for the registration of engineers, and so on, then I would be inclined to give way and wait, but I think we should only wait to the extent of not losing anything by it. I certainly would be sorry to accept the suggestion that the report would be turned out in six months. Personally, I have not any hope of its being issued and printed in six months. If the Government get it in six months they will be doing very well. If the Government have it printed and published in six months they will beat the record for speed for Government commissions.

The war may go on as long as I am afraid it will go on; but if by any [214] chance there are signs of its coming to an end earlier, I think the Government should very carefully consider whether they should not endeavour to get a reciprocal arrangement. In conjunction with that, they may find out— as I am advised is very desirable— that there should be registration in this country at the same time in order to strengthen their position, and particularly that the powers, which I have not gone into in detail, but which are set out in No. 3, should be made law. I am in the hands of the House. So far as I am concerned, I am not a bit anxious to be in a hurry. In any case, I never intended that the Bill should go through in less than six or nine months. I ask the House to let the Second Stage go through and, having clear regard to the Minister's attitude, we can then have some conversations and decide whether we should or should not have a further Stage.

Mr. O'Donovan: I do not wish to see the Bill defeated and would suggest that Senator Douglas accept the proposition to adjourn the debate sine die.

Mr. Douglas: It is not for me to say whether the Senator could move such an adjournment.

Cathaoirleach: Senator Douglas has concluded the debate on the Second Stage and I am putting the question now.

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 26; Níl, 21.


Alton, Ernest H.

Barniville, Henry L.

Baxter, Patrick F.

Butler, John.

Campbell, Seán P.

Conlon, Martin.

Counihan, John J.

Crosbie, James.

Cummins, William.

Douglas, James G.

Doyle, Patrick.

Fitzgerald, Desmond.

Foran, Thomas.

Hayes, Michael.

Johnston, Joseph.

Keane, Sir John.

MacDermot, Frank.

Mac Fhíonnlaoich, Peadar

(Cú Uladh).

McGee, James T.

McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The.

McLoughlin, John.

Madden, David J.

O'Donovan, Seán.

Parkinson, James J.

Rowlette, Robert J.

Tierney, Michael.


[215]Blaney, Neal.

Byrne, Christopher M.

Concannon, Helena.

Goulding, Seán.

Hawkins, Frederick.

Hayes, Seán.

Healy, Denis D.

Kehoe, Patrick.

Kelly, Peter T.

Kennedy, Margaret L.

MacCabe, Dominick.

[216]McEllin, Seán.

Magennis, William.

O'Buachalla, Liam.

O'Callaghan, William.

O'Dwyer, Martin.

Nic Phiarais, Maighréad M.

Quirke, William.

Ruane, Thomas.

Stafford, Matthew.

Tunney, James.

Tellers:— Tá: Senators M. Hayes and Johnston; Níl: Senators Goulding and Hawkins.

Question declared carried.

Mr. Douglas: I do not propose to move with regard to the appointment of a committee at this stage.

Cathaoirleach: The next step would be a motion for appointment of a joint committee, but, in view of the opinions expressed during the debate, the date for taking the motion can, if the Seanad so desire, be arranged by consultation.

Mr. Douglas: At the moment, I am taking no action.

Sitting suspended at 6.45 and resumed at 7.15.