What is the rationale of bringing in what amounts to a block of definition sections at this point?

What we have done in this Bill is to provide in respect of each part of the Bill the definitions which are relevant.

But you have headed it supplemental?

Sorry, you are now going on to 155. I thought you were talking about definitions in the last part. On Part XV, I suggested on Second Stage that we would call this interpretation and supplemental.

Why were they put in the middle? I should imagine they would need to put it at the beginning of the end. There are definitions elsewhere too. There must have been a reason.

It is as near the end as possible, unless you put the savings and transitions part before this. We are just before the Schedules now, with the exception of the savings and transitions sections, which in the course of time will have less and less effect.

The draftsman seems to be coming around to the view which has often been expressed of putting the definitions at the end of a Bill. Apparently some gentleman in the early twenties decided that he was going to have the definitions at the beginning of all our Bills, which was a departure from the previous practice. We are moving back to the tail-end of the Bill again, to the old practice. Does anything arise in reference to this section?

No. In reply to what Deputy de Valera said. Subsection 5 (e) of section (1) says:

Such other words and expressions as are specified in section 155 have the meanings given by or indicated in that section.

Whatever about the ultimate layout of the Bill, there is a lot to be said for parliamentary debate, having the definitions at the end, otherwise——

We will not have the debate now.