I am sorry the Minister is not present as I want to get some information about this section. Numbers of people who are interested have been speaking to me about it. It appears that while there is great desire that harbour boards should come under this insurance scheme it is not known whether the Minister has the right to include them or not. If not I would like to get permission to move an amendment on the Report Stage. At any rate, the Minister should have power to include harbour boards amongst other local authorities that come under the Bill.

Perhaps the Minister for Lands could advise you on this matter.

As no amendments were listed for this stage, it was considered that there would be nothing discussed now. However, I think Section 3 (1) does provide for what the Senator has in mind:—

The Minister for Local Government and Public Health may by order declare that any local body, authority or board named and described in such order shall be a local authority for the purposes and within the meaning of the Acts of 1926 and 1928.

I am not in a position to say whether that would cover a body such as a harbour board. I am rather inclined to think it would. I will raise the matter with the Minister and, in the meantime, it would be no harm if an amendment were put down so that the matter could be considered.

The Bill has already provided for the statutory inclusion of a body as a public authority, namely, in Section 2, which deals with every vocational authority. This ought to be in the Bill. Why not have harbour commissioners included in the same way, and not leave it simply to the discretion of the Minister?

An amendment will be put down.

Sílim go mba cheart dúinn tuilleamh minighthe a fhághail ar an mBille seo sul a gcuirfidhe i bhféidhm é. An Cumann Arachais a bhfuil an Bille seo ag tabhairt fearr-is-bárr cumhacht dó, cuiread ar bun é le gnothaí Arachais na gComhairlí Puiblidhe a dhéanamh, agus fágadh saor é ó chuid na coinnighleacha a bhaineas le Cumainn Aráchais eile. Tá siad saor, cuir i geás, gan aon airgead a chur isteach i gCisde na Tíre, mar chruthadhnas go bhfuil siad in dan a mbealach a íoc. Tá roinnt airgid curtha le chéile ag an gCumann seo ó cuireadh ar bun é, acht tá siad thar éis an chuid is mo de, sin cúig mhíle phunt, a chur i roinneanna i gCumann Arachais eile, agus tá sé cinnte nach mbéidh aon bhuntáiste as na rainneanna sin, go ceann tamaill mhaith eile.

I think it will be necessary to have a further explanation of the implications of this measure. The Local Authorities (Mutual Assurance) Acts gave the company power to transact business and to deal with public bodies. When the Bill was going through, it was stated that that would be a great help to local rates. Then the company went in for a "cut" in premiums. It was a non-tariff company that had not to make any deposit and now they have invested——

Is this in order seeing that this is the Committee Stage?

I think the Senator is referring to the title of the Bill. Perhaps he wants it amended.

The company invested £5,000 of their funds in another company.

I should point out that the Bill deals with a number of things. It enables the company to extend the number of local authorities which may take certain action. The Senator is dealing with the business of a particular company.

This is part and parcel of the same company. The Bill is giving the company additional powers. It is to be given power to deal with vocational education committees which were not previously included. I cannot see anything in the point raised by Senator Johnson. To members of the Oireachtas the matter may appear to be a small one, but it may have very important reactions if we pass legislation of this sort. Members of the Oireachtas should have a complete grasp of the implications of the Bill, and of probable reactions. I am only asking for more information now. I think it would be to the benefit of the promoters if members of the Oireachtas had further information.

It is very difficult to decide this matter. I think the Senator is simply asking for information as regards an extension of the previous Act and its implications. He is justified in doing that. Perhaps the Minister could give him some explanation.

On what?

On the Title of the Bill that is to be extended.

As members of the Seanad realise, this is a very brief Bill, and is rather unimportant in this way, that it only deals with the definition of local authority, so as to include in such definition vocational education committees, that were, in some unaccountable way omitted to be specifically named, when the Act was originally passed.

Title agreed to and Bill ordered to be reported.