New amendments are tabled in connection with this Bill, and it seems that it will be necessary to recommit the Bill for the consideration of these amendments.
HOUSING (BUILDING FACILITIES) BILL, 1924—RECOMMITTED.
Ordered that the amendments be considered in Committee.
I move:—
In Section 8 (1), page 5, line 17, to add at the end of the sub-section the following words—
"and may at any time and from time to time by order continue, vary or revoke all or any prices or amounts prescribed by him or on appeal from him under this Section."
The effect of the amendment is that if an enquiry has been held and the price of material has been fixed by the Minister or by the Appeal Tribunal, on appeal from him, the Minister can, at any time, increase or diminish the price so fixed as circumstances of the trade require. An order of the Minister altering the price under the amendment can be appealed against under sub-Section (2) of the Section, so that if the Minister is given power to vary the price fixed by the Appeal Tribunal there is still an appeal from his decision.
I am afraid this proposal is but a further example of what several people have objected to recently under the heading of "hasty legislation." It would appear now from this proposal that this Bill has not had the consideration that its importance deserved, and it has been shown that this particular clause to which considerable exception was taken in Committee was of a much more far-reaching character than the farmers of the Bill had anticipated. I think one of the lessons to be learned from the time that has been spent on this Bill is that before these Bills come before the Dáil they ought to receive more consideration than certainly this Bill, and some other Bills that we have had before us, received. Deputy Cooper complained very justly a little while ago that the Bill then under consideration was the worst, from the point of view of draftsmanship that he, in his somewhat lengthy experience of Parliamentary work, had come in contact with. My experience of Parliamentary work is exceedingly brief, but I am quite satisfied that this Bill is one of the worst examples of draftsmanship that certainly has come before this House. I think the amendment that is now put forward makes that point particularly clear. As an old writer puts it, "He goes furthest who knows not whither he goest." This proposal, I am afraid, will not add very much to making this Bill of the workable character that some of us would desire.
If I were to attempt to put forward the proposition that a Circuit Judge could review, alter, or revoke a decision that had been made by the Court of Appeal, I am quite sure that the Attorney-General and those associated with him would rise in righteous anger and would tell me that that was rank heresy, that the principle I attempted to set aside thereby was an old and recognised principle in law, possibly established as far back as Magna Charta, and that it would be exceedingly unfair and unwise to attempt to alter that well-known principle and the practice that had been established by it. Yet that, in substance, is exactly what this amendment proposes. May I point out exactly the position as we find it under this Bill, so that the members of the House may clearly understand this amendment and its effect. Under Clause 8 the Minister takes power to fix the prices of building materials. If the aggrieved party finds fault with that decision of the Minister he has the right under Clause 10 to have his case considered by a Court of Appeal Clause 10 reads as follows:—
(1) Whenever a right of appeal from an order of the Minister is given by this Act, the appeal shall, subject to prescribed rules of procedure, be made to a standing tribunal of appeal consisting of three persons to be appointed by the President of the Executive Council, and such tribunal shall have power to confirm or to annul the order appealed against, or to make such other order in the matter as the Minister could have made under this Act, and the decision of the tribunal of appeal in the matter shall be final and not subject to appeal or to review by any court.
(2) Where any appeal to which this section applies is not finally determined within fourteen days after the date on which notice of appeal was given, the operation of the order appealed against shall be suspended as from the expiration of the said fourteen days until the appeal has been finally determined.
It was pointed out that that clause was absolutely unworkable. As every member in this House knows, building commodities, like many other commodities, are subject to fluctuation in price from time to time. As conditions alter the prices vary. It was pointed out that under this decision of this Court of Appeal there was no power to alter the price of a commodity once that price had been fixed by that Court of Appeal, so that if the price of that commodity happened to fall that particular person or merchant was precluded from altering his price. His price was fixed by the Court of Appeal. There was no power to alter it; if the price happened to rise he had no power to alter it. So that really what this proposal meant in substance was that it put that particular firm or that particular individual out of business, because it precluded them from dealing in that commodity. When that was pointed out, the President undertook to consider the matter, and the result of the consideration is this proposal. Now, what is the proposal?
"That the Minister may at any time and from time to time by Order continue, vary, or revoke all or any prices or amounts prescribed by him or on appeal from him under this Section."
In other words, notwithstanding the fact that the Court of Appeal has power to fix, power to reconsider, and, after reconsidering, to alter, the Minister's proposal and to fix a certain rate, the Minister can, if this clause is passed, on the following day revoke the decision of the Court of Appeal and reinstate his own decision. Now, gentlemen, I ask you what is he use of such a clause as that? You fix under the Bill a Court of Appeal from the decision of the Minister. The following day the Minister can revoke the decision of the Court of Appeal, and has power under this proposal to reinstate his own decision. Gentlemen, such a proposal is childish, absolutely childish. What is the use of putting in a clause establishing a Court of Appeal, and then putting in a sub-clause doing away with the effect of the Court of Appeal. Would not it be better to do away with the Court of Appeal altogether and leave the matter in the Minister's hands, as this proposal now leaves it? So I say again, gentlemen, as I said before, legislation of this kind is exceedingly unwise, and whoever framed this Bill originally ought to be put in a glass case and kept there.
In answer to Deputy Good, I have got to say that the parallel between this Court of Appeal from a decision of the Minister and the Minister's subsequent reviewing of the decision of the Court of Appeal, with a matter which comes before a Court and is decided by a Court, is not a fair parallel. It was never intended to be on parallel lines. In order to explain the matter, let us take any item pleasing to Deputies. Let us take, for example, bricks. Suppose bricks cost £1 to-day and the Minister says the price should be 19s. 6d. That case comes before this Appeal Board and the Appeal Board, having heard the arguments, decides that the price should be restored to £1. In a week's time a huge quantity of bricks comes on to the market and the persons engaged in that particular trade, being satisfied that £1 is too dear, it is open to the Minister, in the special circumstances of the case, to review the decision, having regard to the altered conditions. The altered circumstances might be many. They might be a reduction in wages, they might be a reduction in transit, they might be a reduction in the cost of materials necessary in the manufacture of bricks; a different set of circumstances would therefore exist a week, a fortnight, three weeks or a month after the decision of the Court of Appeal. It is under these conditions that the Minister would so review and so alter the price that had been fixed by the Court of Appeal. Even then, if the brick manufacturers or others thought the Minister had not fixed a fair price, they could again come before the Court of Appeal and have the case reviewed, and if the Minister's decision was not correct another price could be fixed.
I do not think there is a likelihood of continual change of prices made by the Minister, but this particular amendment is proposed in order to meet an infirmity in the Bill which Deputy Good had discovered. The real objection of Deputy Good is not to this amendment, but to the principle that is involved, and which is met and covered by this amendment. On more than one occasion I have stated that we are not concerned with the particular vested interests of any persons in this industry —neither with labour as such, nor with the employing builders as such, nor with the persons who sell building materials. We are concerned with seeing one thing which is fairly obvious to everybody—that between those three parties there is a very considerable blister put on the backs of the people who are supporting this State, and whose money is necessary in order to keep each one of those in their present vested position. We are not concerned with dealing with——
Prima facie evidence is three instead of with one?
So far as that is concerned, we are taking this opportunity of dealing with one, and if Deputy Good will take the opportunity of advising us as to how we should deal with the other two, we are open to receive his suggestions. The Bill has been before us a long time, and, from the angle of Deputy Good, nothing has come but the criticism that this is an attack on one section. It is not. I have appealed to the other two sections. I have implored them to see this matter from the point of view of the citizen, and not of the person involved in any of the three services connected with the question of housing. It may be possible—I think it is possible—that the employers in certain cases will make an effort to make this appeal a success. I believe and hope that the same consideration will be given by employees. But is it the case that Deputy Good wishes that I should say to the employers: "Unless you take only 4 per cent. profit on your particular line" and say to Labour, "Unless you will agree either to reduce your wages or increase your output"—we are not going to allow any building whatever to go on in the country. I have explained, more than once, that it is not by finding fault or criticising whatever proposals are put up, but by putting up better proposals, that the question will be advanced. Is it the case that persons engaged in the sale of building materials have not made very considerable profits out of such sales? If it be denied, those people will not be hampered and their business will not be interfered with by this proposal. It is in cases where there is or where there are——
Prima facie evidence is not necessary under this Bill. If it were, it would put a different complexion upon it.
Supposing it be not necessary, any particular limitation that is put on profits in this Bill is a necessary limitation in the circumstances. If the case can be put that the present profits are such that no limitation of them should be imposed by either the Minister or an Appeal Board, I am satisfied that no such limitation will be imposed. We are endeavouring to deal with profiteering here in one particular service, and only one. I have made some inquiries recently about the labour end of housing. Those inquiries have not disclosed the fact that there is such a shortage of output as I had been led to believe. I do not mean to say that in every case where building has gone on there has been a generous output. There has not. There have been individual cases in which the output has not, by any means, been a credit to Labout, as such. I do not believe that the Deputies opposite would subscribe to any such limitations.
You are going very far away from this amendment now.
I would not go so far only that Deputy Good interjected——
You are doing splendidly, Mr. President.
Deputy Good thinks that when we are only dealing with one of the three parties to this measure it is unfair. I would say it is unfair to the draftsman to blame him for the method in which he gave expression to my interpretation of what was required. I certainly gave him a very difficult task to interpret. He has interpreted it to my satisfaction. The language may, perhaps, lack some of the elegancies that a Bill might have, but if it achieves its purpose I am satisfied with it. I will put up with any infirmities.
I think the objection is that this amendment does not achieve Deputy Good's purpose and is unnecessary. I would suggest that Deputy Duggan would not press this amendment. Nobody wants it. It is unnecessary, and may cause confusion. I do think Deputy Good has made a hit—a very palpable hit. The Section would read: "The Minister may at any time, if he thinks fit, order a local inquiry into the cost of building materials. The Minister may, by Order, prescribe the maximum amount of the wholesale or retail price which may be charged for such materials." Then the amendment reads: "And may at any time, and from time to time, by Order, continue, vary, or revoke all or any prices or amounts prescribed by him or on appeal from him under this Section." The game of shuttlecock and battledore Deputy Good visages should not be possible. But it is possible, and it will be possible, if this amendment is carried.
The Minister already has power to make a variation of the cost, and may prescribe the maximum amount at any time before he makes the first order under the inquiry, or after he makes the first order. He may at any time prescribe the maximum amount to be charged once the inquiry may be held. And that order may be appealed against. But under the amendment, as Deputy Good rightly points out, after having had the appeal decided against him, he may, under the powers proposed to be given. vary the order of the Appeal Court and make a new maximum, irrespective of what the Appeal Court declared should be the maximum. That is bad, I think, and it is unnecessary. And Deputy Good, who asked for an amendment of this kind, is not satisfied with the amendment. It does not achieve his purpose. Nobody else wants it. It is not necessary for the Minister's purpose. I suggest that Deputy Duggan should withdraw the amendment.
I am not satisfied that the see-saw methods which appear to be prevalent in this amendment will serve the ultimate object that the Minister has in view. I do not think that anybody will deny that there is a ring in existence. Deputy Hewat stated on the Second Reading of the Bill that there was no evidence of any ring amongst the providers of building materials, and that there was no reason for control of prices.
I said there was a very definite ring amongst labour.
The unfortunate thing at the moment is that there is control of prices. The ring has control of prices in their own particular interests, and again I congratulate the Government upon bringing in this clause in their Bill, even though they did it from within the precincts of a glass house. As I said, it is rather unfortunate that this amendment appears at this stage, because I think the amendment that Deputy Good would like would be something that the Government would bring forward stultifying the whole clause. I appeal to the Government to stand by that clause, because it has a wholesome controlling influence on people who have formed a ring for the control of prices in their own interests.
During the time this Bill has been under consideration, it has been stated again and again from the Labour Benches that there was profiteering in building material. I can only say now, as I said before, that I have no knowledge of this profiteering. I challenged those who make those statements—and they have had many opportunities right through the period this Bill has been under consideration—to put forward evidence of profiteering. We have arrived at a state when no such evidence has been produced. In that case I think it is unfair, at this stage, in view of that challenge, to adhere to the statement without bringing forward any proof.
The President has pointed out, and pointed out very properly, that there are three different parties concerned in this matter of the cost of building materials. He has only dealt in this Bill with one of them. I hold it is unfair to deal with that one, particularly where there is no evidence of any kind, not a scintilla of evidence, that there has been any profiteering. I think it is unfair to segregate that particular section for legislation, when there is no proof of profiteering, and to leave the other sections alone. If the Dáil wants to deal fairly let it set up an inquiry. If, as a result of that inquiry, profiteering is found to exist in building materials, as far as I am concerned, I will withdraw any opposition to a proposal of this kind, but that Commission must——
I allowed the Deputy to make an allusion to this question of profiteering because it was raised by Deputy Corish. But he is really speaking now on the section rather than on the Amendment. We have passed the Section which sets up the control. The Amendment is with regard to the variation by the Minister of orders made by him or on appeal from him. It is rather narrow.
But might I point out that certain statements were allowed to be made in the course of the debate, and surely the other side ought to be allowed to refer to them.
That is what I am doing. I allowed the Deputy to go as far as saying that he did not agree with the other statement, and I allowed the President to go a certain distance. Then I told him he was going too far. We cannot go into a discussion on whether or not we were right in passing Section 8 unless we had a motion to delete it on Report.
The country wants houses, and I think the people are entitled to know why they cannot get them. As far as I am concerned, I am prepared to give them every assistance.
I have no objection to all this information being disseminated in the best possible manner, but it is my business to see that that is done at a particular time, and that the right thing shall now be discussed. What we are now discussing is a particular amendment, and not the general question.
I do not know whether I would be allowed just one half a minute to give a short statement in regard to what has already taken place?
Are you now speaking on the amendment?
When you hear my statement, I think you will agree it could be taken in connection with the amendment.
Can we not discuss this matter again?
This is simply an amendment to a section. Later on there will be a motion to the effect that the Bill be received for final consideration. When that motion is made the whole Bill will be before us, and anything that concerns it will be in order. It is only a difference of, perhaps, half an hour, or at most, two or three days. There will be no injustice done to anybody, and Deputies will be allowed to give full vent to their opinions when that motion is made.
I think you have been long suffering over the matter of this amendment. I do not propose to trespass much further by getting out of order, but the amendment, I suggest to my colleague, Deputy Good, that was put down by Deputy Duggan on behalf of the Government, is an amendment which has a bearing on the Section. In so far as it has a bearing on the Section, it improves the Section. But that is only damning it with faint praise, because the Section itself is so rotten it would take more than the whole force of the Executive to put it in anything like a decent shape. It is the blot on the whole Bill. If I test the Section, no doubt I will be called to order, so I must really confine myself to the amendment. It is a harmless effort in a good cause; that is what I say of it. I would be rather inclined to pat Deputy Duggan on the back for his efforts in the direction of improving the unimprovable. The only way to improve the Section is to delete it.
I am supporting this amendment because I have been informed that once this Appeal Court fixes a price, that price cannot be revoked or altered. In other words, there would be no appeal from that appeal. If the Appeal Court were to fix a price for three or six months, and circumstances were to alter in the meantime, it is for that purpose this amendment is put in, so that the Minister himself may alter, revoke and so on. It has been put to us there has been no profiteering. There is one class of person we wish to attract in the operation of this Bill, and that person has been almost put out of business. I refer to the small builder. I am informed on very reliable authority that the small builder suffers a disadvantage in the matter of prices as compared with the larger builder. If that be so, and if the Minister holds an inquiry, to which I now understand Deputy Good has no objection, and if the small builder makes a case for the same price for this particular housing scheme in which we are all interested, I think there is some justification, in the event of some innocent brother in the confraternity not hearing of the inquiry, for some effort on his part to endeavour to persuade the Minister.
The President is touching dangerous ground again.
If the provision remained in the Bill as it stands without this amendment, notwithstanding the legal advice the Minister has received that there would be no power to alter the decision, there would, at least, be power to order a new local inquiry which might take a quarter of an hour——
And which might take three months.
If it is simply a case of an extraordinary rise or fall in the price of bricks—and that is the kind of new fact which the Minister has in mind—the evidence is palpable, and does not require a great deal of inquiry, and that new inquiry would warrant a new order.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I beg to move:—
In page 5, line 33, to add to Section 8 a new sub-section as follows—(5) Neither this section nor any order made thereunder shall continue in operation after the expiration of eighteen months from the passing of this Act.
When the Bill was previously in Committee, there was some question raised as to the limit of time there was upon its operation. It is desirable to have it made clear that it will not operate after eighteen months from the passing of the Act.
This is but another evidence of the many ambiguities in this Bill. When this Bill was introduced it was clearly understood that this clause only applied to the material in the houses embraced within the Bill. Then we were told at a later stage by the President that it includes all houses and that its operation was limited to the period of the Bill. Some of us doubted the accuracy of it. While the idea was all right, we doubted whether the Bill meant that or something else. An opinion was obtained, and it was shown this particular clause operated until it was repealed by a further Bill. In view of that decision, the President said he would reconsider the matter, and this is the result of that reconsideration.
I note the Deputy supports this amendment with a certain amount of pleasure. I oppose it with equal pleasure, and probably with less anticipation of satisfaction. The intention appears to be something like this: "We cannot trust (that is to say, the Government cannot trust) the building material providers to provide materials at the price for houses to be built during the period with which this Act deals. Houses which are to be assisted in their building by Government grants will be made more difficult to build, or may be made more difficult to build, by virtue of the fact that building material providers may conceivably rush up the price. We must put the barrier against that possibility. After the Bill ceases to operate, then the building material providers are free to do what they like to the public, rob them ad lib. and be not subject to any check. The check may be provided during the period of 18 months, but after that you can go your own way and we, as a legislature, will have nothing to say to you." That is the proposal in the amendment. I wonder is it the intention of the Ministry to tell the building trades that they only ask them to hold their hands for 18 months, to soothe the savage beast, so to speak, and generally to go easy for a little time. After that they can make any profit they like and charge any prices they like. Certainly that is the message contained in this amendment, and I think the House should not accept it. Why do you want to limit the operations of this Section for 18 months? Is not the object of the Bill that a check should be placed upon profiteering in building materials? Presumably, the Ministry have some definition of the term "profiteering" in their minds. I am waiting anxiously to know what that definition is, and by the way, perhaps it will come, in the course of a week or two, but there is the definition here that excessive prices may possibly be charged for building materials. Now, if it is undesirable to allow excessive prices to be charged for building materials under this Bill, surely it is equally desirable to prevent excessive prices being charged for building materials at any time. Why then do you want to limit the period of check to 18 months? In doing so by a specific clause or section of this kind, you are telling the building providers that you are only asking them to hold their hand for a little while. You are inviting them to save up for the rainy day, to be a little patient, and then after 18 months they can just run riot in regard to prices.
Now, if one could imagine that the number of houses comprised within the ambit of this Bill was going to remedy the evils of housing, or to satisfy the demand for houses, one could understand the Ministry saying, "Well, we are against Government control; we are against checking private enterprise; we trust the innate good nature of the building trade; and we only want to give the public a certain amount of confidence that their money, which is being spent in grants under this Bill, will not be unduly and disproportionately taken by the providers of building material." I can understand that. But surely it is a bad thing to allow these excessive prices to be charged for any houses that are required for the next 10 or 15 years if, as has been said authoritatively, there are 60,000 houses required in the Saorstát to meet the present shortage. You want some check against profiteering, at least, until these 60,000 houses are provided; but by the adoption of this amendment you are telling the trade that after 18 months they may charge as they like. You are hinting to them that the check upon their rapacity will not extend beyond the period of 18 months. Consequently, I think this amendment should not be accepted. You say it may happen that within 18 months a new Bill may be required; that there will be a new Dáil, and that Deputy Good's party, associated with Deputy Gorey's party, may be in a majority, and then they will not be willing to insert a section such as Section 8. I suggest, therefore, to the Ministry that they should not accept this amendment of Deputy Duggan, and that they should, at least, lay the foundation for putting a permanent check upon profiteering.
Whether by labour or by anybody else.
Yes, whether by labour or by anybody else.
Very good; I am with you.
And when Deputy Good has defined profiteering and leaves a reasonable payment for labour we shall have something more to say to him. If the Ministry wants to tell the country that they only desire to check profiteering while they are in office, let them do so in so many words. If they do not want to do that, let them stick to the Section of the Bill as originally introduced, or, at least, as it has come to us in this stage and not accept the amendment of Deputy Duggan.
I rise to support the amendment. The amendment is another instance of where the Government are trying to improve a bad proposition. So far as Government money is concerned in the building of these houses, they have a case that may appeal to the gallery, but I do not think it will appeal to anybody else. But Deputy Johnson wants to make this the foundation of future legislation that is going to govern prices. I do not think any Deputy in this House knows better than Deputy Johnson that he is trying to do the impossible, that is, to lay the foundations for an impossible building that would come smashing down about his head before he knew where he was. It would not be the master builders who would build on that foundation, but rather, I think, irresponsible politicians. When I was a little bit younger in the ways of this House than I am to-day, I saw that a very interesting Bill was brought in by Deputy Johnson. It dealt with the nationalisation of the railways, and I respectfully suggest to Deputy Johnson, who has at his command and control an army of draughtsmen and an army that is very well drilled and can supply him with a great deal of information from various sources, even as to what politician is going to come up for election in the County Dublin, that his energies might be thrown into an effort which, as far as I am concerned, I will welcome gladly, to produce a private Bill in the House, under the auspices of the Labour Party, which will deal with the whole subject, in the 18 months that will elapse after this Bill comes into operation and its termination. I think it would be a very good work if Deputy Johnson and the Party to which he belongs would formulate another Bill on the lines of the Bill for the nationalisation of railways, nationalising all profits, and that it would probably help him in his march toward Treasury Bench. He outlined the time that Deputy Good and myself would be more prominent in this House than we are to-day. I would like to contemplate the time when our friends on the Labour Benches would occupy the enviable position of the Labour Party on the other side of the water with the aid of Deputy Good and myself, and if we were not enough we could import some noble lords into our Labour administration, as they have done in Great Britain. At all events, in supporting this amendment, I would like to suggest, as Deputy Johnson and his Party feel so keenly on this question of profiteering, that responsibility rests with them to give the Government all the assistance they can in every case.
I am supporting this amendment because I do not think it would be good business to insert in a Bill which is to have a life only of 18 months, a provision that is to last for all time. I said on more than one occasion that this Bill was not entirely a philanthropic measure on the part of the Government; that we had our minds centred upon two or three things. First on compensation, second on the provision of these houses, and thirdly on a general reduction in the cost of building, which would be beneficial to the State. Consequently, it is not in respect of this Bill alone that we want accommodation from the three persons or bodies concerned with this particular industry, which I need not mention again. Now, it is more than likely that another Bill will be introduced within twelve months, and another Bill within the succeeding twelve months. The Government's intention at the moment is to deal with this housing matter by a Bill each year. I do not think this particular Section that we introduced into this Bill will be a success in the sense that it is experimental, as all legislation dealing with profiteering or excessive prices or costs must necessarily be. If it be a success and achieves its purpose, if we consider it is necessary in the next Bill, we will introduce it into that or amend it, so as to suit the altered circumstances of the times, but on the other hand, if it is no longer necessary—and I do look forward to a time when such corrective of ordinary prices should not be necessary, I look forward with great hope to see that time come—and if it should not be necessary then, naturally, it would not be introduced in next year's Bill. I think a measure such as this, with a life only of 18 months, ought not to have an ordinance in it which would run for any longer period than the period for which the Bill would normally run. I do not think there is anything more to say.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 46; Níl, 13.
Tá.
- Pádraig F Baxter.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus de Burca.
- John Conlan.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Uí Dhrisceoil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Darrell Figgis.
- Henry J. Finlay.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- John Good.
- John Hennigan.
- Connor Hogan.
- Tomás Mac Artúir.
- Peadar Mac a' Bháird.
- Alasdair Mac Cába.
- Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Pádraig Mac Giollagáin.
- Seán Mac Giolla 'n Ríogh.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- Patrick McKenna.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Aodh Ua Cinnéidigh.
- Séamus N. O Dóláin.
- Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.
- Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Mícheál R. O hIfearnáin.
- Seán O Laidhin.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Pádraic O Máille.
- Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
- Seán Priomhdhaii.
Níl.
- Seán Buitleír.
- John Daly.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- David Hall.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
Amendment declared carried.