PUBLIC BUSINESS. - COINAGE BILL, 1926—REPORT STAGE.

Wednesday, 10 February 1926

Dáil Éireann Debate
Vol. 14 No. 7

First Page Previous Page Page of 21 Next Page Last Page

MINISTER for FINANCE (Mr. Blythe): Information on Ernest Blythe  Zoom on Ernest Blythe  I move the following amendment:—

In page 3 in the Schedule, opposite the word “penny,” column 1, to delete in column 2 the figures “145.83838” and substitute in lieu thereof the figures “145.83333.”

The amendment is necessary because of a clerical error in transcribing the figures.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Question put: That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration.

Mr. GOOD: Information on John Good  Zoom on John Good  Would the Minister say what has been done with regard to the proposal that the nickel coins should be perforated. I would like to know if that has had the consideration of the Minister.

Mr. BLYTHE: Information on Ernest Blythe  Zoom on Ernest Blythe  It is having consideration, but with the coins the size it is [594] proposed to have them, I do not think there is the slightest necessity for perforation. I think the proposal for perforation contemplated that the coins would be more nearly the size of silver coins. That will not be the case. The only time there might be a possibility of confusion is while the existing sixpences are in circulation side by side with the new sixpences, but that would be only for a very short period of, say, two or three months, and I do not think that would call for perforation.

Mr. GOOD: Information on John Good  Zoom on John Good  I am glad to know that the matter is having the consideration of the Ministry, because there is a very strong feeling outside that the nickel coins should be perforated.

Question put and agreed to.

Fifth Stage ordered for Wednesday, 17th February, 1926.

The Dáil went into Committee.


Last Updated: 16/05/2011 16:36:13 First Page Previous Page Page of 21 Next Page Last Page