We are awaiting the Minister for Justice, who will be here in a short time.

I must apologise. I did not know this Bill was coming on first.

Why? Did the Minister not know that we were not taking the Agricultural Credit Bill?

I thought it was coming on first.

That fortifies what I said. There must be absolutely no organisation whatever of Government business anywhere, except for the purpose of an election—and then it is well done, of course.

There was a question on this, which the Minister promised to consider, was there not? It was with regard to the council reporting on the circumstances of its award and the losses occasioned to the individual being rewarded.

I did consider that, but I did not think it was necessary to bring in an amendment. There are several objections to doing so. First of all, I am of opinion that this committee ought to concern itself with the deeds of bravery—with the giving of the certificate or medal— and that anything in the way of remuneration could be considered afterwards by the Minister, or even before. Because of the constitution of the committee the members might meet only at certain times. They come from different parts of the country. There is one Cork representative. For example, a man might have lost a suit of clothes in performing a deed of bravery. That might want to be attended to immediately. Even though an award of a certificate or medal might not be considered in his case, the man might have suffered a certain amount of damage to his clothing in his attempt to save life. As the Bill stands, the Minister for Justice would be at liberty to go to the Minister for Finance and ask him to give compensation. That, I think, is one of the principal reasons why we should not do what the Senator asks. The principal objection in my mind is that I do not want to associate the two things: the actual award of the certificate or medal for a deed of bravery and the compensation. I think that the award for the deed of bravery should stand on its own. The compensation is another matter. It is a matter that the Minister might deal with, apart from what the committee may think.

Does this interfere in any way with the Carnegie Trust?

No. This deals with Irish awards only.

I understand, therefore, that the Minister's point is that Section 5 covers the matter that was raised. It leaves the individual who may have suffered damage to deal directly with the Minister for Justice. Is that so?

Yes.

And the Minister for Justice will then deal with the Minister for Finance. I take it that is the idea?

Yes.

Presumably, the machinery will be that the person concerned will deal through the police with the Minister for Justice.

Or the local authorities, but probably through the police.

It is not very clear.

It is not, but I think we may leave it as it is. The point is that anybody can make representations.

On the section, is it clear that anyone can make representations to the Minister for Justice?

It is not specifically provided that any particular person is to do so. Representations may be made to the Minister by, say, an onlooker. There is no reason why anybody should not do so. Anybody, even an onlooker, can do so.

The real trouble under Section 5 is that "anyone" will be interpreted to mean "any T.D." That will simply add to the troubles of T.D.s and, possibly, of Senators. It is not a very desirable thing, because there will be an endeavour to get something for a constituent. That is why I was endeavouring to make the council responsible.

We are asking the police to do it.

If it were understood that the police were to do it, it would be better.

That is understood, but it is not in the section.

It would be most undesirable to have anything like competition amongst public representatives in making representations in a matter of this kind. On the other hand, I think we should guard against the possibility of no representations at all being made, because that has happened very often.

I can say that, from our experience, there is not much fear of that happening.

Suppose a person loses his life in performing a deed of bravery, will his dependents be entitled to any compensation?

I think that is covered by the words that "the Minister may make to the dependent of any such person".

That point is covered.