Good, JohnThursday, 20 July 1933 |
Dáil Éireann Debate
Page of 29
|
Cement (No. 2) Bill, 1933—From the Seanad.
What about the Dublin gentleman who was appointed city accountant in Belfast within the last few weeks? He was not a resident.
What we want is further intercourse between the two. We do not want any partition of that kind.
The Minister said that our people suffered disadvantages in Northern Ireland, and I gave as an illustration the case of the Belfast city accountant to show that residents of the Saorstát were quite fr...
Under licence?
Must they not be admitted by your Department?
Then how will the Minister get rid of them at the expiration of the period which has been thought sufficient?
I submit that we are not going to get rid of Partition by measures of this kind.
The Minister says that the main object of this measure is to provide employment for our nationals. I should like to point out to the Minister that, before you do that, you have got to provide industri...
I think it has something to do with it. It will be necessary to get some people from the Six Counties in order to establish a successful industry here.
I tried to point out to the Minister for Finance during the absence of the Minister for Industry and Commerce—and may I say that we all regretted the Minister's absence, and may I also say that I am v...
I think the object of the Seanad amendment, as far as I understand it, is to bring in men of experience in the industry from any part of Ireland. They are all Irishmen, no matter what part of the co...
Does not the Minister agree that the object of the amendment is to provide free ingress from the North of Ireland or anywhere else?
Does that mean that they can stay here?
There will be no standard applied to imported cement?
I agree with the Minister on that. Question put and agreed to.
Cork Tramways (Employees' Compensation) Bill, 1933—Money Resolution. - Clarecastle Pier Bill, 1933—Final Stages.
Is the Minister satisfied that they are responsible for the maintenance of the pier, because a question arose on the Second Reading, and the Acting Minister was not at all clear on that?
Who is responsible for the maintenance of the pier financially? Can the Minister tell us?
The reason why I asked this question in the Minister's absence was, as I pointed out, that in connection with several of the piers liability for maintenance rests with the Board of Works. In the case...
I think the Minister will agree that it is almost a scandal that those piers should be allowed to get into the state of decay in which we find many of them at the moment.
Cork Tramways (Employees' Compensation) Bill, 1933—Money Resolution. - Perpetual Funds (Registration) Bill, 1933—Committee and Final Stage
On Section 2 could the Minister tell us for the purpose of information what is the difference between perpetual funds and trust funds? Under the perpetual fund he has trustees and under the other he ...
Has the trustee dropped out after appointment?
These proposals are similar.
Supplementary and Additional Estimates. - In Committee on Finance. Vote No. 46—Primary Education.
Can the Minister say are there any precedents to guide him?
I am not so sure that we are not establishing a precedent now, which will be used against us in the future, whereby we guarantee a moiety of all costs. Vote put and agreed to.
Supplementary and Additional Estimates. - Vote No. 57—Railways.
Would the Minister say what the total amount given to this railway company in the way of subsidy in the last ten years has been approximately?
I think this is a very fortunate company. It has received approximately £50,000. I was under the impression that when the last advance was made to this company it would be the last, I want to know h...
I would like to impress upon the Minister that we have had very hopeful statements on previous occasions made by Ministers who occupied his office, but as each occasion went by considerable sums of mo...
Supplementary and Additional Estimates. - Business of Dáil.
And to adjourn after that?
Will the House adjourn after we have dealt with No. 17 or not?
When we dispose of No. 18 will we be supposed to go further?
It was arranged earlier, as I understand, that the House should adjourn when we had dealt with No. 17.
I understood that No. 17 was suggested earlier. Now, when No. 18 has been satisfactorily dealt with, as we hope it will be within a reasonable time, will something else be thrust upon us?
I can assure you that, if I am here, it will not be unanimous.
| Last Updated: 17/05/2011 15:59:32 |
Page of 29
|