Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 24 Feb 1927

Vol. 18 No. 9

PUBLIC BUSINESS. - ARMY PENSIONS (No. 2) BILL, 1926—THIRD STAGE (RESUMED).

Section 6 put and agreed to.

I move:—

Before Section 7 to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) Where the claim of any officer or soldier under this Act is rejected or revised by the Army Pensions Board, an appeal shall lie to a Pensions Appeal Tribunal established under this section whose decision shall be final.

(2) The Pensions Appeal Tribunal shall be composed as follows:—

(a) There shall be constituted a Panel consisting of four duly qualified medical practitioners nominated by the President of the Royal College of Surgeons, four duly qualified medical practitioners nominated by the President of the Royal College of Physicians, four legal representatives, being barristers or solicitors of not less than seven years standing, nominated by the Minister for Justice, and four officers of the National Army nominated by the Minister.

(b) The Pensions Appeal Tribunal shall consist of not more than five nor less than three members of the Panel, of whom at least two shall be duly qualified medical practitioners, nominated by the President of the Executive Council.

(c) Casual vacancies in the Tribunal shall be filled from the Panel on the nomination of the President of the Executive Council.

Amendments 9 and 10 both provide for the establishment of a Pensions Appeal Tribunal which will have power in case of necessity to review the decisions of the Army Pensions Board. It is intended by each of these sections to give the applicant a right to an appeal, and I would be prepared to give way to Deputy Bolger and allow him to move his amendment but for the fact that he expressed the wish that I should move mine, and also but for the fact that my amendment deals with a case of either rejection or revision, while Deputy Bolger's amendment only deals with rejection. The Pensions Board might revise a claim. A claim might be made to the extent of a one hundred per cent. disability. The Army Pensions Board might reduce it to 80 per cent. I think it desirable that there should be an appeal in such a case. My wording is taken from the English Pensions Act. I need not state the case for an Appeal Board at any length. I have already told the Dáil on more than one occasion —I fear in a rather wearisome manner —of the state of mind of men who are appealing for these pensions. They are appealing for them in a resentful, suspicious frame of mind. They will not be wholly satisfied with the decision of a Board appointed by the Minister and liable to be removed by the Minister at his pleasure. Both Deputy Bolger and I seek to give them some further appeal to a Board not established by and not responsible to the Minister. There may, and may rightly, be differences as to the constitution of that Board. I have suggested what is possibly too elaborate machinery. Deputy Bolger's machinery is simple, but his Board is wholly composed of medical men. I must attach a certain importance to the provision in my suggested new section which places an officer of the Army on the Board, because I believe officers of the Army have the interest of their men, including those men who served them in the past and are not serving them now, at heart, and that they will do justice to the claims that come before them.

I am not tied to any definite composition of the Appeal Board, I will take Deputy Bolger's suggested composition. I will take an alternative suggested by the Government or by anybody else, but I do hold to this principle that the Appeal Board should not be appointed by the Minister for Defence. It should be an appeal from the Minister for Defence. The Minister for Lands and Agriculture has just told us that you must hear both sides of the case. But in this case the judge who will hear the appeal side of the case is the Minister for Defence himself, who is one of the parties to the action. A similar difficulty arose in Great Britain. It was found necessary to appoint a Pensions Appeal Board there. That Pensions Appeal Board is not appointed by the Minister for Pensions; it is appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor is both a judicial and a political officer. We have no equivalent here, and I was interested to see that both Deputy Bolger and myself, without previous consultation, decided that the most suitable authority to appoint an Appeal Board was the President of the Executive Council, acting in his capacity as head of the machinery of the State. The British Pensions Tribunal is more favourable to the applicant than the tribunal Deputy Bolger has suggested or that I am suggesting. The British Tribunal is composed of one medical practitioner, one person of legal experience, and one wounded or disabled soldier or officer. I think there will be difficulty here in finding any authority to appoint a wounded or disabled soldier or officer. There are, if my information is correct, two or three competing bodies speaking on behalf of the ex-National Army men, and there probably will be some difficulty in that respect. Therefore I do not ask the Dáil to appoint a representative of the disabled men on the Appeal Tribunal.

I suggest a panel to be formed of four surgeons to be named by the President of the Royal College of Surgeons, four physicians to be named by the President of the Royal College of Physicians, and four persons with legal experience to be named by the Minister for Justice and four officers of the National Army. I think from that panel an Appeal Tribunal of not more than five or less than three members should be chosen, and at least two of that panel must be doctors. It may seem rather cumbersome machinery. I have taken it, as I have taken most of my models, from the inspired legislation of the Government; I have taken it from the Railways Act. It contemplates the position that doctors will not be willing to give up the whole of their time serving on a tribunal of this kind, but that you will have a tribunal varying in composition from time to time, but at the same time willing to give free part-time services to investigating these cases. They need not be very numerous. As I said, I can imagine other suggestions for a tribunal which may be better, but what I want to put to the Dáil is that there should be some appeal from what I may call the Court of First Instance, that a disabled and wounded man should be allowed to say: "I do not think I got fair play from the Minister's board and I will go to an independent body on which the Minister will be represented by National Army officers." He can appoint officers of the medical service or other services, as he thinks fit. Nothing else will induce a man who has been wounded or disabled to feel that he is getting a fair deal than the acceptance of this principle, an independent appeal from the Minister.

I wish to support Deputy Cooper's amendment. I know the many heartburnings and the anguish that are experienced by many members of the National Army when they find their appeals for pensions turned down by the Board of Assessors. I believe it is only justice that there should be an appeal from the decision of the Board of Assessors. I am satisfied to leave the appointment of that Board to the President of the Executive Council. I know that he will do justice; I know that the board that will be set up on his authority will give satisfaction to all the applicants who have, from time to time, been appealing to the Pensions Board for some redress. Therefore, I have pleasure in supporting Deputy Cooper's amendment.

I would like to support the amendment put forward by Deputy Cooper, but perhaps not in its present wording. It seems to me, from reading through the amendments on the Paper that the Aire Cosanta must have some idea of having an Appeal Board established, because I see that he has an amendment down to delete sub-section (3) of Section 7. I certainly think it is most desirable that such an Appeal Board should be set up, even for the sake of the Army Pensions Board itself. The Board of assessors under the Military Service Pensions Act has done its work very well. At the same time a great many of the National Army men throughout the country feel that they have a great grievance. Perhaps the grievance is not genuine, but they feel they have a grievance, and if an Appeal Board had been established and their appeals heard they would have been satisfied, even though their appeals had been rejected. The present position is that if a case is brought forward a second time it goes before the Minister, and if he thinks the applicant has a case it goes forward to the same Board of Assessors again. Of course, that is not at all satisfactory. I certainly would appeal to the Minister to set up an Appeal Board of some sort under this Act to deal with grievances so that those who are not satisfied after a first hearing will have an opportunity of putting their cases before an entirely different body. If that is done I think it will be most satisfactory to everybody, and consequently I support the principle of the amendment.

The principle underlying the amendments of Deputy Cooper and Deputy Bolger is one that decidedly recommends itself to me. In view of my experience in dealing with pensions in other quarters, I think that the man who has an award made which he considers unsatisfactory, or who is refused an award at all, will have nothing to complain of if he can subsequently appeal from that decision to a tribunal which is not appointed, manned and controlled by the same authority as the tribunal which has decided upon his case in the first instance. As Deputy Cooper has pointed out, there is an Appeal Tribunal in regard to pensions made for ex-Servicemen of the British Army and it has worked on the whole exceedingly well. I did not gather from the Deputy whether he meant these gentlemen to act voluntarily and without remuneration.

The Deputy knows that I would not be permitted to suggest a paid appointment. Possibly if this is carried a Government amendment may be introduced at a later stage.

The Deputy would not be actually in order in proposing the expenditure of State money, but, at the same time, I would like to know whether it is his view that these professional men should be asked to act voluntarily and without remuneration or whether they should be paid. For my part, I think that it would be asking a great deal to suggest that these services should be given without remuneration and, furthermore, it might not be as satisfactory in the end. With that purpose in view, I do not know whether I shall have the approval of the Deputy who moves the amendment, but I for one would appeal to the Minister if he is prepared to consider that the principle involved in these two amendments is a proper one, also to consider the advisability of providing for the proper remuneration of those who would constitute such a tribunal. The principle is not a difficult one to defend. I think, on the contrary, it would be rather difficult for the Minister to oppose it. I hope, in the interests of the facile administration of the pensions, that he will be prepared if not to accept this identical proposal to propose, at some future stage of the Bill, a similar proposition and to have these people who shall be asked to give their services properly remunerated for those services.

I do not see my way to accept this amendment. The persons who are suggested as nominators of this Appeal Board would not, in my opinion, have the right to nominate. In order to meet, to some extent, the arguments that were put up against the section. I have introduced a new sub-section (sub-section in Bill quoted). The sub-section which I am introducing instead of that sub-section is as follows:—

"The Army Pensions Board shall report to the Minister in the prescribed form on every application referred to them under this section, and for the purpose of such report shall cause every such application to be investigated in such manner as shall be prescribed by regulations made under this Act with the consent of the Minister for Finance."

That sub-section gives power to set up district boards throughout the country for the purpose of examining people who are referred to them in the first instance. You might describe it, if you choose, as a weeding-out process. It will deal with people who have no case whatever but who, nevertheless, will apply for pensions. It would be absolutely impossible for the Army Pensions Board to examine individually all these cases. Those district boards will act as a court of first instance and will report to the Army Pensions Board in each case. It will be then for the Army Pensions Board to decide whether they will bring those cases before them for examination. It would be a hardship on the Army Pensions Board if it had to go through frivolous cases in which no prima facie claim to a pension had been established —in which 20 per cent. disability or 30 per cent. disability had not been shown on applicant's own evidence. At the same time, it is not proposed that any man shall be finally dealt with by that district board. He will have an appeal to the Army Pensions Board in the ordinary way. If the Army Pensions Board decide that he has not the requisite amount of disability he can appeal to the Minister. If the Minister thinks that the case is one that should be further examined, he will send it back to the Board. I should be prepared to make regulations such as we had under the Army Pensions Act of 1923, whereby a consultant would be brought in from outside. That, in my opinion, was a very good safeguard for the applicant. In every case, the people who applied got absolute and complete fair play. There is no doubt about that.

They do not think so.

There are people who will never be satisfied that they have been treated properly irrespective of what they get. These people will be with us, and no matter what board you set up you will have the same type of complaint. When these cases were referred back to the Board, which will cease to exist when this Bill comes into operation, some of the most eminent physicians and surgeons in the city sat with and assisted the Board. In many instances they did not take the paper case but had the applicant brought before them and examined. When the physician or surgeon who acted as assessor gave his decision, that was taken as final. If such a provision is made for regulations under this Bill, I think it should meet the case. That is as far as I am prepared to go. It is a reasonable way of dealing with the matter and, as far as I can see, it will cause no hardship. If you are going to have an appeal in every one of these cases to an appeal board, I can quite understand that there may be no pensions granted for the next two years.

Might I ask the Minister whether the Board would be bound by the decision of the consultant? In other words, would the consultant be a medical referee?

That is practically what it amounted to in the case of the other pensions. If the Board could not agree, or if the Minister sent back a case to the Board, the consultant was always there and a decision was arrived at.

I chanced to drop into the Board room once or twice when the Board was sitting. There were some cases under consideration that had been sent back by my Department. The prospective pensioner was brought in and examined. The Army Pensions Board, in one case, were not satisfied that certain things which the applicant alleged had happened. The consultant stated that he believed they did. That settled the matter and the man got his pension for twelve months longer. I believe that the suggestion I have made will leave no room for hardship or grumbling. No man can be turned down under this sub-section which I propose to introduce without going to the Army Pensions Board.

My hon. friend, Deputy Redmond, has asked me whether I consider that this Appeal Tribunal should be paid. I am afraid I must answer after the manner of Gilbert and Sullivan opera. If I were Minister for Defence, and if I were bringing in this Bill, I should certainly provide for an appeal tribunal, and I should certainly provide that the tribunal be paid. But as a private Deputy, putting down an amendment to a Government Bill, I am not empowered to make provision for payment and I can only make a suggestion. However, my amendment is a practicable amendment even though the members of the Appeal Tribunal are not paid. I have had experience of cases of men who served under me in the Great War and who afterwards served in the National Army. They were wounded or disabled, and they applied for pensions under the old Act. I told them to go to the Board with a statement of their case from very good doctors. I had written to leaders of the surgical profession and asked them to give an opinion on the cases of these men, and I offered to pay for that opinion. In every case payment was refused.

They stated they were glad to do what they could for ex-Service men. I know that Deputy Redmond would not suggest that the legal profession are less disinterested than the medical profession. Whether paid or not, I believe it is possible to form a satisfactory appeal tribunal that will deal impartially with applications according to the facts before them.

What is the Minister's argument? In the first place, he states that the persons named in my amendment are not persons who are entitled to nominate members of the Appeal Tribunal. Is the Minister for Justice not entitled to nominate the members of an Appeal Tribunal? Perhaps, it is to the Presidents of the Colleges of Surgeons and Physicans that the Minister refers.

Has the Minister studied any of the old Statutes which empower holders of these offices to nominate persons for various purposes —to nominate on Boards of Visitors and such bodies and to make nominations in practically every department of life. The Minister will find that statutory powers to nominate are given to these persons. But I am not tied to this particular method of nomination. If it is thought that the Minister for Local Government and Public Health would make better nominations than the Presidents of the Colleges of Surgeons and Physicians, I will put down an amendment to that effect on the Report Stage. But I believe profoundly that by approaching those two authorities, who are the heads of statutory bodies, you will get the best doctors, and that is the purpose of the amendment—to get the best doctors possible to deal with these cases on appeal.

The Minister spoke of his intention of setting up district boards. That is not a concession. That is a disadvantage to the applicant. Instead of giving an appeal, the Minister offers a preliminary weeding-out, so that many cases will never get to the pensions board at all; they will be weeded out in the districts. That is not a concession; it is limiting the right of the applicant.

I have stated specifically that every man who wished to appeal from that board had a right of appeal and that only the Army Pensions Board, in the second instance, could say he was not entitled to a pension.

He has a right of appeal to the Minister's board. Under the Bill as it was drafted, he came straight to the Minister's board. Now he is liable to be weeded out and must appeal to the Minister's board. The whole essence of my argument is that there should be a final Appeal Board not appointed by the Minister. There is too much of the Minister in this proposed statute. It is always the tendency of an active and efficient Government Department to magnify its office. I do not complain of the Minister doing that. But I do say that we in the Dáil ought to bring the light of commonsense and public opinion to bear on these proposals. The Minister is, I am sure, familiar with the plays of Shakespeare.

Not very familiar.

Then I will instruct the Minister.

I should prefer not to be instructed.

In the play of Henry V. the King moves amongst his soldiers the night before the great Battle of Agincourt; he realises the fearful responsibility that lies upon him, and he says:

"Upon the King! let us our lives, our souls,

Our debts, our careful wives,

Our children and our sins lay on the King."

We can imagine the Minister for Defence clad in shining armour, with a heavy cloak thrown over him, walking about amongst the applicants for pensions and soliloquising:

"Upon the Minister for Defence!

let us our lives, our souls,

Our debts, our careful wives,

Our children and our sins lay on

the Minister for Defence."

Though I deal with this matter from a humorous angle, it is nevertheless a very serious matter. Many of these men are disabled by rheumatism and other diseases and are unable to obtain a proper livelihood. In many cases their wives are suffering. These men will not be satisfied that the proposal of the Minister to bring in an outside consultant is an advance upon anything proposed before. Is this consultant to be a member of the board? Is he merely to be called in as referee, or is he to be called in to give a certain opinion? As Deputy Redmond knows, the most important thing when you go for counsel's opinion is to frame the case that is to be put to counsel. Who is going to frame the case that is going to be put to this consutant? Is it the applicant or the board? The Minister stated, in conclusion, that if an appeal board were established no pensions would be granted for the next two years. In other words, he rejects an appeal board because of the inadequacy of the machinery proposed in this Bill. I am not satisfied with the Minister's reply, and I hope the Dáil will not be satisfied. I welcome the intervention of Deputy Bolger and Deputy Conlon in this matter, because it shows it is not a party question. It is a question of doing the best you can for men who have sustained injury or disease in the service of the State. We ought to give them the sense that they have been dealt with fairly, and we cannot do that without establishing a board of appeal.

I would like if the Minister would give some more information as to the travelling board. Is it a board entirely set up by his Department for the purpose of sifting, or does he propose to have a preliminary inquiry of independent doctors who may be said to represent the point of view of applicants? Is it to take the place of the original Pensions Board? If it is to be a local pensions board, I think we should have some indication of the Minister's mind as to what would constitute such a board. I see the Minister's difficulty. He contemplates the possibility of 20,000 applicants. I think he said at an earlier stage that there would possibly be only two, three or four thousand successful applicants.

One thousand, if 80 per cent. is to be the standard.

There will be 16,000 or 17,000 appeals. I think that is a difficulty, but, in view of what has been stated, it seems to me that the method should be to make the local pensions board more or less an independent body, where the applicant, if he is turned down, would feel that he has been turned down by a competent body on which there is someone who may be said to represent the point of view of the soldier. It may be that appeals from such a body would be much fewer than the amount contemplated. So far as we have heard from the Minister, the proposal seems to be to have a kind of parading preliminary inquiry, which in 75 per cent. of the cases would turn down the applicant. I doubt whether it is going to be much use from any point of view to have that kind of perambulating inquiry.

The proposal in the amendment, to my mind, seems to be to set up an independent appeal tribunal. The Minister has outlined a suggestion which comes to this, that the present board of assessors shall be turned into, in effect, an appeal tribunal, but it shall be an appeal tribunal which shall consist of nominees of the Minister. That is the essence of the difference between the two propositions. One is, that the final appeal shall be to an independent body, and the proposal of the Minister is that the final appeal shall be to his board. He has gone some distance, I agree, on the introduction of a consultant, but, with Deputy Cooper, I would like to know a little more about the status and functions of that gentleman. I asked the Minister whether his decision was to be accepted and taken as final by the board. He did not answer me directly. What he said was, that in his experience, when consultants had been called in, their decision had been acted upon. The question which I am anxious to have the Minister make clear is whether the decision of the consultant must be taken by the board when they are in a difficulty in regard to the granting of a pension; whether, if a consultant or expert in the matter is called in, they are bound to take his decision. If not, I think his suggestion does not meet the case. Undoubtedly, it would be greatly to the benefit of an applicant if such independent expert were brought in, but, along with Deputy Cooper, it strikes me as most essential that when such a person would be invited to decide on a question such as this, the applicant's case should be in no way jeopardised by the method in which the question is placed before the consultant. As he said, it is most desirable that we should know before letting this matter pass whether, when a consultant is called in, he is to have the question put to him from one point of view or the other, or whether he is to have access to the whole subject and all the files of evidence upon one side and the other. I presume, in all fairness to the Minister, that that would be his intention, but I think it is desirable to have the matter made clear.

I would press again my further question in regard to this consultant, namely, whether he is to be regarded, in effect, as a court of appeal, whether he is to be regarded strictly as a medical referee, whose decision will be final, or whether he is simply to be called in, his opinion asked, and then let the tribunal decide whether they shall act upon it. The two cases strike me as being very different from the point of view of the applicant. If the tribunal, having called in a consultant, must act upon his decision, then I immediately admit that the applicant has been given some consideration, but if, on the other hand, the consultant is called in, if his opinion does not meet with the approval of the Board, and can be turned down, I do not think there is much use in calling him in at all. I, for one, would not be bound by any of the suggestions made in these two amendments, or by any of the proposed nominators or nominees of the tribunal, but I would like to ask the Minister to agree to some form of independent tribunal, no matter by whom nominated, but independent in the sense of not being merely another tribunal nominated by, or under the control of, the Minister himself. As I have pointed out, that is what was done—and it has worked very satisfactorily—in regard to British pensions. In matters such as these, the principle is the same, and I do not see why it should not also be adopted in this case. There have not been so many appeals to the Appeal Tribunal in regard to British pensions, and I do not think that the proportion has been over excessive. I do not see how, if the present board of assessors have proved that they have not wantonly turned men down, the number of appeals will be as great as he seems to imagine. If the independent appeal tribunal show that in their judgment men have been turned down wantonly by the court of first instance, then I say that that will be proof positive of the necessity for an appeal tribunal. In both cases, therefore, the Minister would be justified in accepting the principle and in following in this case the British precedent, adopting the principle which will, and shall, do nothing but bring justice both to the applicant and the Minister himself, inasmuch as it will show that he is anxious that the men should be treated in a proper way and according to the canons of justice and right.

A question has been asked by Deputy Johnson as to the constitution of local boards. These will consist of qualified medical practitioners in whom both the applicants and the State will have confidence. I have a certain amount of confidence in every medical practitioner in this country, and I am sure that applicants will have the same. I do not believe that you will find a medical man of any standing who will turn down a man who has the semblance of a case within the four corners of the Bill. We must administer the Bill whether it is 80 per cent. or 100 per cent. disablement, and the medical men must act accordingly. It is said that we should establish an elaborate appeal board. Take the cases cited to us from England, where the maximum number of cases treated per day by the army pension board is 8, sometimes 5. I would like to know when we are going to get any work done, or if we are going to have appeals from one court to another. I think I am doing very fairly in putting up the proposition for bringing in a consultant from outside when a case presents any difficulty. If the practice which we followed before is to be the practice which we are to adopt now, namely, to form a panel of four independent surgeons and physicians in Dublin to be called in their turn to try cases which are there to be tried, absolute justice will be done to the applicants. I would be sorry to think that any of these practitioners would not, in fact, give the benefit of the doubt, if there were doubt, to the applicant. I think I am giving every safeguard that is necessary in the proposal I have made.

Take the case of an appeal board, as proposed by Deputy Cooper, of four doctors, and four barristers or solicitors. I can visualise the cost, the amount of money we would have to spend if these were men of any eminence at all. I anticipate that it will take three years to get through the work that has to be done, and that will not be by casual sittings of one day in the week. Whoever is on this board will have to sit every day in the week for at least eighteen months or two years in order to get through the cases in reasonable time. I could understand having such an appeal board sitting if cases were to come up once in three months, but that would not be possible. I am really going further than I intended to go when I say that I will arrange, through regulations, that the consultant shall be brought in. Deputy Redmond asked me whether he was to decide. He will be a consultant if there is any doubt in the case, and he will have a right to whatever documents or files of evidence are there, either from the medical man who has examined the applicant for pension, or any evidence from the doctor who may have been attending him in his own district. He will have access to all the evidence that is brought forward, and if he wants the applicant before him that will be arranged.

When the Minister suggests that four doctors and four lawyers would have to be paid I cannot help wishing that the Minister for Industry and Commerce were present to instruct him in the way that a board works when selected from a panel, as under the Railways Act. You do not have to pay every one of them; you might have to pay those of them who were doing the work, and that would be at the outside four, because presumably the officer of the Army would be detailed for duty and would do it free. But in any case I do not lay any stress on the form of the appeals tribunal. Deputies will realise that you cannot put down an amendment saying that there shall be an appeals tribunal without making some suggestion. But if this amendment is carried I will concur with the Minister, and I will take any tribunal suggested, provided that it is not nominated by the Minister, but by some outside authority. The Minister says that this machinery would be impracticable and would cause delay. It has worked very well in England; it has caused very slight delay and it has done much to allay the distrust in the minds of ex-Service men. The Minister's speech has revealed complete ignorance of what the ex-Service men are thinking. No doubt they have not been able to make their representations to him as easily as to me, but I do sincerely assure him that there is this doubt and this fear, and that he would be very well advised to allay it.

I would ask the Minister to shed a little more light upon this proposed local board. His last statement suggested that it would be purely medical. Are we to understand that the sole function of this board will be to inquire into the extent of disability? Will it have any duty with regard to deciding whether that was due to service, or will it be purely the extent of disability?

The extent of the disability, that is all. The Army Pensions Board will find the rest.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 30; Níl, 42.

  • Pádraig Baxter.
  • John J. Cole.
  • John Conlan.
  • Bryan R. Cooper.
  • Séamus Eabhróid.
  • Seán de Faoite.
  • David Hall.
  • Criostóir O Broin.
  • Tomás O Conaill.
  • Aodh O Cúlacháin.
  • Liam O Daimhín.
  • Tadhg O Donnabháin.
  • Eamon O Dubhghaill.
  • Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
  • Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
  • Connor Hogan.
  • Séamus Mac Cosgair.
  • Tomás Mac Eoin.
  • Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
  • Liam Mag Aonghusa.
  • Tomás de Nógla.
  • Ailfrid O Broin.
  • Seán O Laidhin.
  • Domhnall O Mocháin.
  • Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
  • Tadhg O Murchadha.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (Luimneach).
  • William A. Redmond.
  • Nicholas Wall.

Níl

  • Earnán de Blaghd.
  • Thomas Bolger.
  • Séamus Breathnach.
  • Seoirse de Bhulbh.
  • Próinsias Bulfin.
  • Séamus de Burca.
  • Máighréad Ní Choileain Bean Uí Dhrisceóil.
  • Michael Egan.
  • Desmond Fitzgerald.
  • Thomas Hennessy.
  • John Hennigan.
  • Seosamh Mac a' Bhrighde.
  • Donnchadh Mac Con Uladh.
  • Séamus Mac Cosgair.
  • Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
  • Patrick McGilligan.
  • Eoin Mac Néill.
  • Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
  • Liam Mac Sioghaird.
  • Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
  • Martin M. Nally.
  • John T. Nolan.
  • Michael K. Noonan.
  • Peadar O hAodha.
  • Mícheál O hAonghusa.
  • Seán O Bruadair.
  • Risteárd O Conaill.
  • Parthalán O Conchubhair. Máirtín O Conalláin.
  • Séamus O Cruadhlaoich.
  • Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
  • Séamus O Dóláin.
  • Peadar O Dubhghaill.
  • Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
  • Eamon O Dúgáin.
  • Aindriú O Láimhín.
  • Séamus O Murchadha.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
  • Máirtín O Rodaigh.
  • Seán O Súilleabháin.
  • Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
  • Caoimhghín O hUigín.
Tellers.—Tá: Deputies Morrissey and Redmond. Níl: Deputies Dolan and Sears.
Amendment declared lost.

I move:—

Before Section 7 to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) Where the claim of an applicant has been rejected or revised by the Army Pensions Board an appeal shall lie to a Pensions Appeal Tribunal established under this section whose decision shall be final.

(2) The Pensions Appeal Tribunal shall consist of a Chairman and four ordinary members, all of whom shall be appointed by the President of the Executive Council.

(3) The ordinary members of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal shall be duly qualified medical practitioners.

(4) The Minister may with the consent of the Minister for Finance make rules regulating the functions and procedure of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal.

(5) The powers given to the Army Pensions Board under sub-section (7) of Section 5 of this Act shall likewise apply to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal.

I agreed with the principle of Deputy Cooper's amendment but not with the mode of appointing the Board.

I wish to support Deputy Bolger's amendment. The arguments for it are, in the main, the arguments for my amendment and and I will not repeat them. The Minister's arguments in reply I think will be the same.

I wish to support the amendment. I am not altogether satisfied from the Minister's statement that the method he has put forward is a satisfactory one, and I do not see why he should not accept the proposals in this amendment. The position is fairly clear, and I think there ought to be an Appeal Board. It will satisfy the applicants particularly, and it will be much better for the Board itself to have an Appeal Board for applicants with a grievance to go before.

I confess I am surprised that an attempt is being made to move this amendment. I suggested that as amendments 9 and 10 both asked for an Appeal Tribunal, but of a different kind, the question of whether there should be an Appeal Tribunal would have to be decided first. I assumed that amendment 9 was being moved by choice or by arrangement—I had some reason to think that, as a matter of fact. However, I think that amendment 9 having been defeated, amendment 10, in view of sub-section 1 of the proposed new section, could not now be put from the Chair. I think a decision has been taken against an Appeal Tribunal.

May I point out that the Minister stressed the practicable nature of the tribunal almost as much as the question of the tribunal itself.

I voted against the last amendment because I did not agree with the method of selecting the board which was outlined, but I thought I would have an opportunity of having the other amendment put to the Dáil.

I was not in the chair when this particular matter was opened, but I made it clear when we were adjourning that a certain procedure would have to be followed, and to put amendment 10 now, after amendment 9, has been debated and defeated, would, I think, be improper, and I feel that it cannot be done at this stage. It will be open to Deputies, however, later on to move in the matter again, but at this particular stage it would be impossible to put amendment 10 after amendment 9 has been defeated.

Will you allow Deputies Bolger and Conlon to state that they inadvertently voted in the wrong lobby on the last division, and make a majority for the Minister of only 8 instead of 12?

There was no inadvertence. I objected to the method outlined in the last amendment, but I stated that I approved of the principle of the amendment that an Appeal Board ought to be established.

I agreed to the principle of Deputy Cooper's amendment also, but I said I would be satisfied to leave the selection to the President of the Executive Council.

The matter cannot be carried any further at this stage.

SECTION 7.

(1) Every application for the grant of a pension, gratuity, or allowance under the Principal Act which is pending at the date of the passing of this Act and every application for the grant of a pension, gratuity or allowance under the Principal Act as amended by this Act, or under this Act (save as is herinafter otherwise provided) shall be referred by the Minister to the Army Pensions Board.

(2) The Army Pensions Board shall examine every application referred to them under this section and shall report thereon to the Minister in the prescribed form.

(3) Every report by the Army Pensions Board on an application referred to them under this section shall be conclusive.

(4) No application for a pension, allowance, or gratuity under this Act which is based on a wound received on or after the 1st day of October, 1924, or on the death of a person killed on or after that date shall be referred to the Army Pensions Board.

I move amendment 10a:—

On page 4, to delete sub-section (2) and substitute the following new sub-section:—

(2) "The Army Pensions Board shall report to the Minister in the prescribed form on every application referred to them under this section, and for the purpose of such report shall cause every such application to be investigated in such manner as shall be prescribed by regulations made under this Act with the consent of the Minister for Finance."

I have explained at considerable length what this amendment means, and it is not necessary for me to go over the ground again.

I am not quite satisfied with this proposal because it is going to leave the whole machinery subject to regulation. The regulations that are to be prescribed may alter the character of the machinery as prescribed in the Bill—at least, they may differ very considerably from what has been outlined as the intended procedure. It seems to me that if we are going to leave this matter of the preliminary inquiry to be decided by the perambulating Board, and the whole machinery is to be decided by regulation, it is asking us to give the Minister more or less a blank cheque. There is no assurance, for instance, in the section, even as it will be when amended, that there will be a right to go to the Board from the local inquiry. The regulations may contain a clause that the local inquiry is to be a final wiping out. There is nothing to protect us on that score. The Minister may say that the regulations will be subject to final approval by the Dáil. If that is to be the case, then I say that the regulations will require to undergo the regular process of a Committee Stage. This method of introducing regulations for carrying on the business of administration is getting rather overdone. It is becoming too easy for the Dáil to pass proposals of that kind saying that the Minister should make regulations, the regulations having all the effect of an Act; and yet they pass through, and it is practically impossible, unless one has a staff, shall I say, of observers, to examine all the regulations without the possibility of making inquiries as to their meaning. I think this proposal militates somewhat against the applicant, because it is going to leave in the hands of the Minister the right to prescribe the regulations, and so far as we know at this stage it would limit the rights of the applicant. I think that the proposal is not an improvement. If the Minister intends that there shall be a local inquiry by a competent board of medical men to judge the amount of disability, then that should be stated in the Bill. To do that by regulation, without any further reference to the Dáil, is quite a wrong way to act.

I should like to support Deputy Johnson's objection to this amendment. If the Army Pensions Board are to report to the Minister in the prescribed form on every application referred to them, that would mean that if the Board granted a man a pension of £100 yearly and that report goes to the Minister, the Minister could, if he so wishes, undo all the work of the Board. If this amendment is carried the Army Pensions Board is really unnecessary, and it will be better to let the Minister say that he will receive all applications and grant them at his will. That is assuming too much, particularly in reference to those people who have not been treated properly and have not received adequate compensation either for wounds or disease contracted while on service. It will rest with the Minister to say whether these people shall get pensions or not. It is the same as the county council appointing an advisory committee. Under this amendment the Army Pensions Board will only be an advisory committee to the Minister, and will really have no say in the matter whatever. Later on we shall be asked to grant a supplementary estimate to defray the expenses of the Army Pensions Board. For what? Simply to report to the Minister on every case. It rests with him to say whether the report shall be accepted or rejected. That is going too far, and I hope the Minister will not persist in asking for those powers. It is further stated here: "By Regulations made under this Act with the consent of the Minister for Finance." The regulations for payments under this Act must be made by the Minister for Finance, but surely it is not necessary that every application before the Board must be reported on to the Minister. I was of the opinion that this Bill was introduced in order to do some good for those people, to keep them out of the workhouse, but if this amendment is passed the Bill will be worthless.

I would like to ask the Minister whether in this amendment he is seeking power to interfere with the awards of the Army Pensions Board. I notice that it says "with the consent of the Minister for Finance." Will the Minister for Finance have any power to reject the awards of the Pensions Board?

This amendment, I think, goes a good way to meet some of the arguments put forward. It enables regulations to be made whereby this district or local board can be appointed, as I said on the other amendment, in order to clear the ground and report to the Army Pensions Board. This district board will not be in a position to turn down an application definitely. They will report the result of their examination to the Army Pensions Board, who will examine it. If the applicant is not satisfied with the report of that Board, he can appeal and be brought before the Army Pensions Board proper and have his case heard personally if necessary. There will be cases in which documentary evidence will not be sufficient. It has not been sufficient under the other Acts, and it will not be sufficient under this, and, as I have said already applicants are brought up in person, and examined by the Board. Further, if the consultant is brought in, and is not satisfied with the evidence on the files, after having access to every document both for and against the applicant, he can have the applicant brought before him and examine him himself. He will then be in a position to say whether or not he agrees with the case as it has been presented by the Army Pensions Board. So that in every case, as far as it is humanly possible, the applicant for a pension will get fair play. Under the regulations that will be made, there will be qualified medical men, and if Deputy Johnson thinks that people who are not qualified will be put on this local or district board I can assure him that they will be men with proper medical qualifications.

How does the Minister know that? The Minister may not be in charge of the Department when this is done.

I take it that whatever Minister is in charge will not put a carpenter or a slater to examine a man medically, and that he will appoint a qualified medical practitioner. I do not think any person would ask anyone other than a medical man to examine a person as to whether he was 30, 40, 60, or 80 per cent. disabled. That could be done only by a qualified practitioner, and no Minister would ask any other person to do it.

The Minister is, no doubt inspired by the best and highest feeling towards the disabled person, and he hopes and intends that all these things he sets before us will happen. We want to insure as far as we can that they will happen under the Act. How does he propose to do it? So far from improving the section in favour of the applicant, it is possible under this proposed amendment, and I suggest it is intended, to reduce rather than increase his chance of getting a pension. Sub-section (2) states that the Army Pensions Board shall examine every application referred to them under this section, and shall report thereon to the Minister on a prescribed form. It is provided in Section 5 that the Army Pensions Board shall consist of a chairman and two ordinary members, who shall be qualified medical practitioners, only one of whom shall be an officer of the Army Medical Service. Now, the Minister tells us he has in mind having local inquiries made, and he proposes to make regulations that local inquiries shall be made before an applicant's case is heard by the Army Pensions Board, for the purpose of eliminating, and so he proposes an amendment which embodies what is in sub-section (2), and adds: "For the purpose of such report shall cause every such application to be investigated in such manner as shall be prescribed by regulations made."

The Army Board shall examine every application accordingly more or less independently, but it is to do so in the manner prescribed in regulations made by the Minister, which is a distinct minimising of the position of the applicant. For the purpose of eliminating it is an effective proposal, but it is not to the interests of the applicant—to the contrary. The Minister says what he proposes now in these regulations is to appoint a medical man to make a local examination. But the section says nothing of the kind, nor does the sub-section as amended, but simply that investigation shall be in such manner as the Minister may prescribe. That is not protection. The Minister's successor may be someone trained, say, in the Ministry of Finance who comes into the Ministry of Defence with all the predilections of the Ministry of Finance, and he makes regulations of a kind that will ensure that pensioners will have to go through a very small sieve. That is not an improvement of the position of the applicant. I was very much amused at a suggestion made by the Minister that this was an attempt to meet the proposal of Deputy Bolger and Deputy Bryan Cooper in the interest of the applicant, that it was something towards an appeal board. It was very interesting to hear the Minister make that case. On the face of it I think it is quite clear that the proposed amendment is a deprivation as compared with the provision made in the draft Bill, and I hope the House will not agree to it.

As far as I can see this amendment proposes that on every application the Army Pensions Board shall report to the Minister, and for the purpose of such report shall cause every such application under Section 7 to be investigated. I take this amendment on its face to mean every application that goes before the Army Pensions Board under Section 7 must be referred to the Minister in the prescribed form, and that every such application must be investigated according to the regulations which he may make.

The wording is: "The Army Pensions Board shall report to the Minister," and "for the purpose of such report shall cause every such application to be investigated." It seems to me to come to this, that it is not the Army Pensions Board that will actually come to the decision, but when application is made to the Board—according to this amendment, if it is passed—the Board must report to the Minister, and that application must then be investigated according to some regulations to be made by the Minister. It certainly would appear it will not be the Army Pensions Board will decide the matter but that the application will be decided in accordance with some regulations which are not upon the face of the Bill, or in an amendment. I would like some explanation of that from the Minister.

I do not know what these regulations are. The Minister may have in his mind a certain line he would be willing to pursue in the sense of consulting expert physicians or surgeons. As has been pointed out, that is all very well as far as he is concerned, but we are here passing an Act of Parliament to be in force for some time or until it is repealed, and from the amendment, taken in conjunction with the section, we do not know what is to be the nature of these regulations. I think that is a matter that should be put beyond all doubt before we pass this section. We must know whether any application which comes before the Pensions Board is to be reported upon and go to the Minister, and then has to be investigated in such manner as shall be prescribed by regulation. Then we must know what the form of the regulations and what they are to consist of. No matter what the present Minister for Defence may have in his mind any subsequent Minister, or even he himself for that matter, would be bound by the Act. I do not see how this can be construed as in any way meeting the case put forward by Deputy Cooper. It seems to me to put further off the possibility of doing justice to the applicant. Before the amendment is passed I think it is due to the House that the Minister should make some further explanation as to what the procedure would be and what the regulations are. I think if there are to be regulations they should be specified in the Bill.

The effect of the amendment is small. In the Bill as it stands the provision is that the Army Pensions Board shall examine every application referred to them under this section and shall report thereon to the Minister in the prescribed form, which means that every application must be examined by the Board. It is anticipated that there will be a very large number of applications. Most of them, of course, will be of a kind that cannot be sustained, but if the Board is to examine each application, and in practice that is what it would come to, the really deserving cases may have their cases delayed while cases that have no chance of pension are being weeded out week after week by the Board. Under the provisions of the amendment it would be possible for the Board to delegate some of its work. The Bill says: "The Board shall examine every application." The amendment says that "The Board shall cause every application to be investigated in such manner," and the intention has been stated by the Minister that applications in the first instance shall be examined by local boards, and if there is not an appeal from the report of the local board then the examination of the local board shall constitute the whole examination that is to be required, but if there is an appeal from the local board then the Pensions Board itself shall hear the application.

But when these matters have been before the local boards and when the Pensions Board has the reports of the various local boards before it it will be able to deal with them. If the local boards say they are cases that should get pensions these can be disposed of; cases that seem from the reports to be doubtful can next be dealt with, and, finally, those the local boards turn down absolutely can be dealt with in due order if they appeal. It is absolutely essential there should be some examination of them. If you leave the whole work to one board it could not be done in a reasonable time, and the really urgent and necessitous cases will have their consideration delayed unduly. It seems to me the amendment is reasonable, and that the provisions for this delegation of function ought to be prescribed by legislation. It seems to me a sort of administrative matter that is quite properly dealt with by regulations to be laid on the Table. Deputy Johnson has said correctly that regulations that are made are not examined. Occasionally a Deputy raises a point about one of them, and the fact that they have to be read, and that there may be a question, causes them to get a great deal more attention than they would get if they had not been laid.

I am quite at one with the Minister in the desire to have some expedition in the examination of the applications. I think the suggestion that there should be a local examination is quite a sound one. I am not against that at all, but I think it is a simple matter, not very difficult at any rate, to introduce into the section a proposal that there shall be a local inquiry, and to prescribe what kind of person is going to conduct that inquiry. Will it be a medical man? After all, the Ministers told us what they intend, but I think it would be very much more satisfactory, and comparatively simple, if there were introduced into the section this intention, that there shall be a local board to make the preliminary examination.

The Minister told us the whole purpose of this local inquiry would be to investigate the extent of the disability. Of course, there are other questions to be answered; it is not merely the extent of disability, but whether the disability was due to service. Surely it is not to be a matter for regulation whether this local inquiry is to have power to indicate if disability is or is not due to service. The limitations of the authority of that local inquiry should be expressed in the Bill, and I want to guard against the regulations doing more than making administrative provisions. It is so much more convenient to make regulations, even when those regulations involve important provisions of the law, and they should be confined to administrative matters.

I make the suggestion, and I hope the Minister will accept it, that he will embody in the Bill these provisions regarding the setting up of this local medical inquiry and the limitation of the authority of that local inquiry. Under this proposal it would be quite possible for the Minister to make regulations which would, in effect, mean that the local inquiry would be conclusive even to the extent of deciding whether the disability was due to service or not. It is possible; it is not at all outside reasonable expectations.

Oh, yes it is.

I think the matter ought to be dealt with in the Bill and not left to regulations. Here is the phrasing of this new sub-section:—"and for the purpose of such report shall cause every such application to be investigated in such manner as shall be prescribed by regulations." Well, that is giving tremendous power into the hands of the Minister. He is going to tell this Army Pensions Board how it is to conduct its investigation. That is nullifying all the safeguards in regard to the persons not being all appointed out of the Army service, and so on. It is limiting the intentions of the Minister and it is necessary it should be altered. I hope the amendment will not be pressed at this stage and that the Minister will, between now and the Report Stage, think of the desirability of introducing some extensions into the Bill to provide for the local examinations.

I asked the Minister for Defence a question and he did not answer me. Is he seeking in this amendment, or in any other proposals, to get power for himself or the Minister for Finance, or both, to reject the awards of the Army Pensions Board?

Where is that?

The second last line of this amendment says: "every such application to be investigated in such manner as shall be prescribed by regulations made under this Act with the consent of the Minister for Finance." In any portion of this measure is it sought to give the Minister for Defence or the Minister for Finance power to reject the recommendations of the Army Pensions Board?

Section 5 (7) points out that "The Army Pensions Board may for the purpose of carrying out the duties imposed on them by this Act make all such inquiries, summon all such witnesses, and take such evidence on oath (which they are hereby empowered to administer) or otherwise as they may deem necessary." This particular section, as has been explained by the Minister for Defence, is to meet the extraordinary number of applications which are bound to arise under this measure. We have had experience before of the huge number of applications which came in for consideration in connection with other Acts and the precise object of the proposed sub-section—the amendment that the Minister is moving—is to deal with that.

I do not understand the President. I asked a very clear and definite question. Are they seeking power to interfere with the recommendations of the Army Pensions Board?

The question is so ridiculous that I cannot understand how it arises. If the Deputy will point out to me in what place any such construction can be put upon it I will be prepared to answer him.

The construction is: "Every such application to be investigated in such manner as shall be prescribed by regulations made under this Act with the consent of the Minister for Finance." If the Minister for Finance is brought into it, it concerns some financial arrangements, and I have a recollection that in previous measures the Minister for Finance did interfere and did exercise a power over judicial decisions.

This is a question of spending money upon certain investigations. The consent of the Minister for Finance has to be obtained in connection with that. The numbers of boards, the persons on those boards, the general conduct of them, the general procedure adopted, travelling expenses and other things of that sort— all those are matters which concern finance, and the Minister for Finance must give sanction. It might be asked that we should have two medical boards in each county. The Minister for Finance would have to be satisfied that there was a case for that and that the number of applicants was such as to warrant it. There is nothing there which gives the Minister for Finance power to refuse a pension granted by the Army Pensions Board.

My objection is to the vagueness of the amendment. Anybody reading the section as amended by this amendment would know nothing whatever about local investigations or local boards. So far as I know, there is nothing in the Bill about local boards, and what we are asked to read into this amendment—it is certainly not on the face of it—is that it shall be the intention, when the Army Pensions Board reports to the Minister in the prescribed form, to have these cases investigated by local boards. This is not the proper way to do that. If local boards are to be set up, let us set them up in the Bill, but do not let us pass a vague sub-section such as this, which might mean anything.

There is nothing on the face of this amendment to suggest local boards. The only thing we have got is the Minister's assurance. I am not suggesting the Minister would not endeavour to carry out that assurance; but we have also got a statement here in the body of the amendment that the application is to be investigated "in such manner as shall be prescribed by regulations." At present we know not what those regulations may be. It is true they will have to be laid upon the Table, or they may be laid upon the Table, but at present we are asked to pass this sub-section, and it may mean that local boards be set up; on the other hand, it may not. It may mean that these boards are to be medical boards only; it may not. It may mean that these boards medical or otherwise, shall have power to determine questions such as that suggested by Deputy Johnson, namely, whether the disablement arises out of or is due to service, or it may not.

I do appeal to the Minister to reconsider this amendment in order to place all doubts at rest and to determine in plain words that there shall be local boards set up, what those boards are to consist of and what their functions shall be, whether their functions shall be medical or judicial, and whether they shall be asked merely to determine the state of a man's health or to determine the question as to whether the man's health is due to service or not. I think before the House is asked to pass a wide amendment like this, an amendment which is so wide that it really conveys nothing, we ought to have it set down in explicit terms, and beyond all doubt, what the amendment really means. That is my principal objection to the amendment, because on the face of it the amendment may mean everything or nothing. It is certainly due to the House that it should be placed in a position to know what the amendment can and does mean.

It is the usual thing in passing Acts through this House that Deputies know what they are passing; but nobody reading that amendment could place any definite construction upon it. If we are asked to pass that now it means that we are giving the Minister carte blanche. He may set up local boards; he may, under that amendment, even set up an Appeals Tribunal. I wish he would.

Will the Minister withdraw this amendment now?

Will you delete the word "shall"?

If there is a general desire on the part of members of the House I will be prepared to withdraw the Bill altogether.

So far as I see you have more against the amendment than in favour of it. So far as the debate has gone, anyway, you have only yourself supporting the amendment and there are three against it; consequently we are in the majority. If it is amended by deleting the word "shall" so that the Board may, if they choose, report, it would be more acceptable.

It would be against the principle of the Bill, I am afraid.

I really think the Minister should withdraw this amendment. If he does not withdraw it I sincerely hope that he will put it as a vote of confidence in the Government and that they will go out on it.

I have nothing to add to what has been said beyond the fact that these local boards will be appointed, that they will simply have to carry out a medical inspection and report. They will not have to decide whether or not that disability is caused by service. That is a matter for the Army Pensions Board to decide. They will simply report the medical inspection to the Board.

The Minister realises, I hope, what he is asking us to do. He is asking the Dáil to give him authority to make regulations instructing this Board how they shall investigate. Once you tell a Board of this kind how they are going to conduct their investigations you have the authority at least to tell them within what confines they shall conduct their investigation, practically what result they shall arrive at. You know it is quite possible to make regulations how to make an inquiry, so as to ensure the results that you desire.

The regulations must be approved by the Dáil.

When we are asked by the Minister to give him that authority we are asked too much. That is what I want the Minister to realise. We will be charged in a future Parliament with having given the Minister power to do things that no Parliament should give the Minister power to do. I think the Minister should indicate in a further amendment how he intends local committees to be formed, what they will consist of, and the limitations to their authority. There is no assurance in this amendment that these regulations would not make the local inquiry the final authority. There is no assurance that there would be freedom of access on the part of the applicant to the Army Pensions Board. You may make regulations depriving him of that right under the authority you are asking us to give.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 39; Níl, 26.

  • Earnán de Blaghd.
  • Thomas Bolger.
  • Seoirse de Bhulbh.
  • Próinsias Bulfin.
  • Séamus de Burca.
  • Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí Dhrisceóil.
  • Michael Egan.
  • Desmond Fitzgerald.
  • Thomas Hennessy.
  • John Hennigan.
  • Connor Hogan.
  • Seosamh Mac a 'Bhrighde.
  • Donnchadh Mac Con Uladh.
  • Liam Mac Cosgair.
  • Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
  • Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
  • Patrick McGilligan.
  • Eoin Mac Néill.
  • Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
  • Liam Mac Sioghaird.
  • Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
  • Martin M. Nally.
  • John T. Nolan.
  • Michael K. Noonan.
  • Peadar O hAodha.
  • Seán O Bruadair. Risteárd O Conaill.
  • Máirtín O Conalláin.
  • Séamus O Cruadhlaoich.
  • Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
  • Séamus O Dóláin.
  • Peadar O Dubhghaill.
  • Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
  • Eamon O Dúgáin.
  • Seán O Laidhin.
  • Aindriú O Láimhín.
  • Séamus O Murchadha.
  • Máirtín O Rodaigh.
  • Seán O Súilleabháin.
  • Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.

Níl

  • Pádraig Baxter.
  • John J. Cole.
  • John Conlan.
  • Séamus Mac Cosgair.
  • Tomás Mac Eoin.
  • Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
  • Tomás de Nógla.
  • Ailfrid O Broin.
  • Tomás O Conaill.
  • Aodh O Cúlacháin.
  • Liam O Daimhín.
  • Tadhg O Donnabháin.
  • Eamon O Dubhghaill.
  • Bryan R. Cooper.
  • Séamus Eabhróid.
  • David Hall.
  • Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
  • Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
  • Seán O Laidhin.
  • Domhnall O Mocháin.
  • Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
  • Tadhg O Murchadha.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (Luimneach).
  • William A. Redmond.
  • Nicholas Wall.
Tellers—Tá, Deputies Dolan and Sea rs. Níl, Deputies Morrissey and Nagle.
Amendment declared carried.
Ordered, that Progress be reported.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Progress reported; the Committee to sit again to-morrow.
It was announced that Messages had been received from the Seanad that the Seanad had passed Constitution (Amendment No. 3) Bill, and Constitution (Amendment No. 4) Bill.
The Dáil adjourned at 8.25 p.m. till 12 noon on Friday, February 25th.
Top
Share