In Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 65—Army Pensions.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £168,473 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1930, chun Pinsin Chreachta agus mhí-abaltachta, Liúntaisí agus Aiscí fé sna hAchtanna Arm-Phinsean, 1923 agus 1927, agus chun sintiuisí agus costaisí iolardha mar gheall ar a Riara san agus chun Pinsin d'íoc fé Acht na bPinsean Seirbhíse Mileata, 1924.

That a sum not exceeding £168,473 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for Wound and Disability Pensions, Married Pensions, Allowances and Gratuities under the Army Pensions Acts, 1923 and 1927, and for sundry contributions and expenses in respect of the administration thereof and to pay Pensions under the Military Service Pensions Act, 1924.

The amount of the vote for 1928-29 was £296,887 (inclusive of a Supplementary Vote of £10). There is, therefore, a decrease of £43,414 on the previous year's estimate. Of the total estimate the sum of £25,000 may be regarded as abnormal expenditure. This abnormal expenditure includes provision for arrears in the case of new pensions granted under the 1927 Act; for travelling expenses of applicants attending at Dublin for examination, and for the cost of the Army Pensions Board. Provision is made in the estimate for the payment of pensions and allowances under the Army Pensions Acts, 1923 and 1927 (wound and disease), and the Military Service Pensions Act, 1924. The greater part of the claims under the Act of 1927, and the balance of claims remaining to be dealt with under the 1923 Act have now been received and have been referred to the Army Pensions Board set up under the Act of 1927. Approximately 75 per cent. of these cases have been reported on by the Board, and it is expected that the remainder will be dealt with during the current financial year.

Owing to the fact that the number of applications for disease pensions and allowances under the Act of 1927 did not reach expectations, and, in consequence, the number of awards made did not reach the number estimated for in the last financial year, there was a saving in expenditure in this respect during 1928-1929. As it is not possible with any degree of accuracy to state how many of the claims, now before the Army Pensions Board, will be admitted, it is not possible to estimate the expenditure for the current year with any degree of accuracy. From the experience gained in the administration of the Act, however, it is considered that a reduction in the Estimate under Sub-heads A. and B. can be made. There is, accordingly, a reduction under these Sub-heads of £27,154 and £14,000 respectively as compared with last year's Estimate.

The work of the Board of Assessors set up under the Military Service Pensions Act, 1924, has ceased and no further claims under that Act can be considered. The increase under the Sub-head for Military Service Pensions is consequent on the retirement from the Forces of certain officers, N.C.O.s and men to whom certificates of military service had been issued and who were, therefore, eligible on discharge for payment of pension under the Act.

Nuair a bhí meastachan a 64 ós cóir na Dála, dubhairt mé a raibh le rá agam, beagnach, idtaobh an meastachain seo. Mar a dubhradh go minic cheana, nílimíd i gcoinne pinsin do thabhairt d'óglaigh do gonadh san chogadh agus nach bhfuil in ann obair do dhéanamh. Nílimíd i gcoinne sin. Ach maidir le fo-mhírcheann "J"—Military Service Pensions—is dó linn nach ceart pinsin do thabhairt do sna daoinc óga so. Is olc an rud dóibh fhéin agus is ole an rud don náisiún é. Dá ndéantai an méid airgid atá i gceist annso do mheadú fá fhicid agus suim chaipitail do dhéanamh dé, ba leor an brabach a bheith ag teacht as chun obair do sholathar do sna daoine seo. Bheadh 2½ mhilliún ar fad san mhéid chapitail sin. B'fhearr i bhfad obair do thabhairt do sna daoinc seo na bheith ag tabhairt pinsin dóibh. Deirtear gur ar son an sar-oibre do dhin na daoine seo ar son na tíre go bhfuaireadar na pinsin. Má's mar san atá an sgéal. ní gá náire a bheith ar an Rialtas ainmneacha agus seolta na ndaoine seo do nochtadh don tír agus gan a bheith ag cur ar Theachtaí ceisteanna do chur ar an Aire i gcóir gach Contae indiaidh a chéile agus na hainmneacha d'fháil ar an dóigh sin. Bá chóir don Rialtas liosta iomlán de na daoine seo do chur le chéile agus d'fhoillsiú. Bheadh fhios ag na daoine annsin an méid oibre do rinneadar ar son na tíre. Tá aithne againn ar chuid acu agus is beag a rinneadar, gidh go bhfuil siad ag fáil pinsin.

Ar aon chuma, b'fhearr obair do thabhairt do daoine óga ná pinsin do thabhairt dóibh agus ar an abhar san ní dó linn gur ceart an Vóta so. mar atá sé anois, do leigint tríd an Dáil.

On this Estimate for the payment of pensions, under the various Acts, I only have to refer to the points that were brought out as a result of the recommendation by the Committee of Public Accounts, arising out of which the Minister for Finance definitely undertook to introduce legislation within a very short period for the purpose of regularising payment under this Vote, on account of the fact that they are not subject to the scrutiny of the Committee of Public Accounts or the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I refer to the fact that the payments under sub-head J are still in the same position. The Committee of Public Accounts came to the conclusion that payments made in this manner were not regular and that the only way to regularise them in the circumstances was for the Ministry to introduce legislation to make that matter continue as it was, or for the Dáil to reverse the position and to permit the scrutiny of the details of the particular individuals to whom pensions are paid under this item. I say that the Minister for Finance definitely undertook that legislation would be introduced. Such legislation has not been introduced and we are still in the same position of voting moneys for payment of pensions absolutely similar to the Vote for Secret Service. I do not know whether we could get any indication now as to what will be the course the Government will adopt in this matter to regularise it. It will have to be done at some time or other, and I hope to hear that this matter will be taken up and that the Dáil will be presented with some definite statement as to whether the Government intend to introduce legislation or not.

In reply to a question asked by me some time ago in this House, I received a list of persons who were receiving pensions under this Act. I was rather surprised at the large pensions paid and at the fact that a large number of these pensioners are now resident outside the Saorstát. What I wish to allude to in particular is that there seems to have been very bad judgment used in the giving of these pensions. I know two individuals in my own district whose cases were put forward for pensions. One definitely had no I.R.A. service whatsoever. He served for something like six months in the National Army and he received a pension. Another was a member of the I.R.A. from 1917 to 1922. He then joined the National Army and served until 1924. He got no pension whatsoever. I do not know how the discrimination came about but the facts are there and they can be vouched for even by officers of the National Army.

Some time ago, in this House, I made an appeal to the Minister for Finance in connection with some I.R.A. men who were wounded during the Tan war, and who are now absolutely dependent on their relatives. One of these is a case in the Cobh area. A brother of his was captured at Clonmult and executed. Two nights afterwards the house in which this boy was, a labourer's cottage, was raided. He was taken out and put against the wall to be shot. Whilst the Cameron Highlanders were moving back before firing, the boy, who was only dressed in his shirt, made a dash across the country for four miles. As a result of what took place he is entirely broken down in health, and in the past eighteen months he spent seven months in hospital. He is a total wreck and entirely dependent on his relatives, who are only ordinary labourers. I think a case like that is an outrage. Twelve months ago I appealed to the Minister for Finance in this case, but nothing has been done since. There are several similar cases in the district. One is the case of a boy who was shot by the Camerons. His aged father and mother are now dependent on home assistance. I think it is nothing less than a shame that these old people, whose only support was shot during the Tan trouble, should be left dependent on home assistance, while we have gentlemen with a couple of years' service walking about with pensions of from £60 to £100 a year, able-bodied young men. There is the case of a young girl whose two brothers were killed at Clonmult. Her health also has completely broken down, and she is practically dependent on Home Assistance. I think that is a state of affairs which should not occur with any kind of National Government in power. The Government claim to be representative of the people. I do not think the people would stand over that. I have been putting up these cases here practically for nine months. I made an appeal to the Minister for Finance. He said he would look into them, but nothing has been done since. It is apparently a case of waiting until the people die of starvation.

I consider that the paying of the huge amount of £253,473 in Army pensions to young men in the prime of life, whilst those who actually suffered, and who are now on the verge of starvation, are left to the charity of the local rates, is intolerable. I had hoped that when I brought these cases to the notice of the Minister he would at least have seen that that state of affairs would not be allowed to continue. I hope, at any rate, that there will not be occasion to raise them again here. The amounts paid in pensions to young men leaving the service are more than the country can afford. If the cases which I have outlined were looked after, there might be some justification for this expenditure, but not for paying pensions to able-bodied young men. I do not know why this discrimination has been made. Men who were good men in the Black and Tan days, and who afterwards joined the National Army and served for three or four years, are turned out without any pension, whilst individuals who had no service whatever during the I.R.A. period are paid pensions.

I have here another case of an ex-lieutenant of the National Army from Mitchelstown. He told me, and I believe him, that he was actually sworn in by the Minister for Finance himself. That man was on active service during the Black and Tan period, and afterwards served as a lieutenant in the National Army during the Civil War and was discharged without a pension, while we have pensions of £200 and £100 paid to individuals who had very little service during the Black and Tan period, if any. In that way, I say, there has been discrimination. These men with pensions have been touting around at elections on behalf of Cumann na nGaedheal candidates. I think that the whole thing lies more or less with the Cumann na nGaedheal agent in each district. Apart from any political question, I hope that these cases which I have referred to will be looked after by the Minister for Finance. I think that any National Government, or Government claiming to represent the people, should see that these cases are attended to before it is too late. It is not very heartening to see such cases as these coming before Boards of Public Assistance, some of them men who were active in the Black and Tan period, and who should, at least, be entitled to the nation's respect and support.

The statement of the Minister for Defence, showing that there was a reduction of £43,000 in this Vote, reminds me of some very grave defects in the administration of the Army Pensions Act. I hope it is not too late to call attention to many decisions in connection with pensions and gratuities—principally gratuities—that reflect very little credit on the Government. I have in mind a number of cases of the dependents of people killed during the Civil War, or during the pre-Truce period, in which the decisions of the Army Pensions Board were ratified by the Department of Defence. I suggest that before any decrease was made in this Vote justice should have been done in cases of that kind. There are a number of cases where the decisions were so manifestly unfair that they should be reconsidered by the Minister. There is, for instance, the case of people who lost a son and who were offered £20 as a gratuity. Owing to their poor circumstances, they ultimately accepted the £20. Their acceptance of that money, owing to their poverty, should not prevent the case being reconsidered. I suggest that cases of that kind should be reviewed.

I also want to refer to cases that were rejected by the Army Pensions Board. I asked a question about one case some time ago, that of an ex-officer of the National Army, who was wounded seven or eight times during the Civil War. According to the statements of the nurse who attended that man, the man's body was a mass of wounds. The Army Pensions Board decided, however, that the man had sustained no disability. To me, it seems humanly impossible that that man did not sustain any disability in view of the nature of the wounds he received. That man emigrated to America, and that very fact has been taken as proof that he was physically fit. This is not the place to discuss the methods by which he was able to get to America. The fact of the matter is that he is practically a physical wreck, and that he has been unable to obtain employment in America. Certificates from medical men in America are in my possession as to the wounds he suffers from, and photographs are also available showing his disability. I am not satisfied with the way the Minister met that case when I put down the question. The suggestion he made, that the photographs of the wounds might not be photographs of the wounds of this man did not seem to me to be a decent way to meet the case. It seemed tome to be quibbling with the matter. That case is one of many that I know of that should be looked into again.

I do not think the Minister should automatically agree with the decisions of the Pensions Board. Both in connection with army pensions, cases arising from wounds and disability, and military service pensions cases, the Minister seems to agree automatically with the conclusions of the Board. I suggest that where gratuities were given that were little short of an insult to the unfortunate people to whom they were offered, the cases should be reopened and that certain infirmities in the Pensions Act of 1927 might even be removed. I know of several cases where pensions or gratuities were not granted. In one case a gratuity was refused to the sister of a poor man who contracted consumption as a result of his service in the pre-Truce struggle and died of it. His parents were dead, but his sister was practically dependent upon him. That is not the spirit in which the Act should be administered, or in which an Act to meet cases of that kind should be framed. I draw attention to cases of that kind in the hope that we have not heard the last of them, and that even a tardy attempt will be made to deal justly with such cases on their merits rather than on the technicalities which the Minister relies on to refuse gratuities or pensions.

The Oireachtas in its desire to show that no one who served the country to the utmost of his power and ability should pass without recognition, passed a series of Pension Acts. These Acts have reached a large number of people and have done a great deal of good and given untold relief in many cases. But there are many cases like those brought forward by Deputy Murphy just now that have not been reached by the Pensions Acts from one cause or another. A great many cases in my constituency have come to my notice that are just outside the provisions of the Pensions Acts. One can hardly understand how they should be left outside but one can see when you come to look at it very attentively that they do not come quite within the terms of the Acts. It is of course, impossible to make an Act fit everybody's disability. You can only legislate for the greatest number. There is not sufficient licence given, I think, to deal with certain cases, which seem to be hard cases, from an outside point of view.

In most countries, within the power of the Minister who has control of the defence forces, there is a misericordiam fund for the purpose of dealing with special cases of hardship, and I would suggest that we should not be an exception to other countries and that we should have a fund of that kind; that there should be at the disposal of the Minister a certain sum of money to be used to assist exceptional cases of hardship that come before him. I recollect two cases of extreme hardship of men who have not been paid either pensions or gratuities of any kind. According to the ordinary mind their disabilities are entirely due to their service to the country, yet they do not come in under these Acts and are not getting any outside help. They are dependent on their own people and always will be. I think these are cases that should be dealt with in the same fashion as they are dealt with by other countries, and that the Minister ought to have a certain amount of money under his control and that he ought to be able to give, at any rate, small donations which would be of untold help and benefit to the class of people I mention and those whom Deputy Murphy also alluded to.

On a couple of occasions I put down questions to the Minister for Finance with reference to men who served in the Free State Army. I do not know whether they served in any other army, but they served five or six years in the Free State Army. They died and left widows and orphans behind them. The reply I got in every case was that they did not come within the terms of the Military Pensions Act. These widows and orphans are existing on home help now. We have, on the other hand, second lieutenants coming out of the Army, able bodied men, with pensions and a grant of £900, and men of higher rank are getting greater sums. I say it is absolutely callous that that should exist side by side with the state of things to which I have called attention here before now.

I gave the case of a man who had served at least five years in the National Army. He died of some disease or another, but it was pointed out to me, as perhaps it has been pointed out to other Deputies, that the disease did not arise out of his service. Certainly, after a period of service of five years, if the disease did not arise out of his service, it was accentuated by his service. It must not have been very noticeable when such a man was passed as militarily fit when he joined the Free State Army. When we had a motion about the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Bill here some time ago, the Minister for Finance gave very sympathetic consideration to it. Here are men who served his purpose, or here are the dependents of men who served his purpose, and he at least should give them a little sympathetic consideration. As regards the question of pensions, we have stated over and over again our attitude towards it. We believe the capitalised value of what is paid in pensions would start industries in which these men could be employed, and which would give a return and pay in time. I do not believe in a lot of sob stuff put up in this House about men who are deprived of pensions. I think there was a lot of leg-pulling when the pensions were given out, and that half the people that have them have no claim to them whatever.

Mr. P. Hogan (Clare):

I am not asking for any special consideration, and I am not going to indulge in any of what Deputy Kennedy called sob stuff. If I find it necessary to refer to some cases again, I shall refer to them in another fashion and at another time. I want to refer in general terms to some cases that I referred to formerly. I asked the Minister for Defence about three particular cases, whether it would not be perfectly obvious to even the most uninitiated that the disease that the men were suffering is clearly attributable to Army services. The three cases to which I refer are so clear to my mind that I cannot conceive how any Government Department could say that the disease is not attributable to Army services. These men were sent from the barrack under an armed guard to a mental hospital, yet I am told in one case, that because the statement of the man does not coincide with the statement of witnesses—this is a statement from a mental hospital—there is no prima facie evidence that he suffered an accident in the Army and is now suffering because of that accident. That is one case, but the man is still incapable. He came to me, but I would not take his statement because I did not think he was capable of making a coherent statement. I asked that his father should come, and his father did come, and he made a certain statement in which he mentioned the names of two other soldiers, one of whom was the cause of the accident. He was an awkward individual, and in shouldering arms struck this man, now suffering, in the eye, and rendered him unconscious. Sleepy sickness supervened, various symptoms developed and the man was confined in the mental hospital. He is now discharged. He is a married man, and he has nothing to support him or his family. The Minister for Finance promised to take the matter up. He did inquire into it, and now he tells me that the man's statements do not coincide. I shall have to bring this matter to the notice of the Minister on another occasion.

In another case a non-commissioned officer was injured while in charge of National Army troops. I am told that that man does not suffer any disability because of his Army service. He suffers from a delusion that he is still being pursued by the men who opposed the National Army. I think that is prima facie evidence that his delusions arose out of his Army service. He was in the mental hospital, and all the time believed that the opponents of the National Army were pursuing him. I brought this matter forward on several occasions. The Minister for Finance promised to investigate it. One particular case has been disposed of so far as the Minister is concerned. I am not prepared to accept his decision, and I will take another opportunity of bringing all these cases again before the Dáil, and we will have it finally determined whether the three men I have mentioned did contract disease while in the Army. I am convinced that they did, and that their cases have not been dealt with in an appropriate manner. Unless there is further consideration given to these men. I will have to draw attention to their cases again.

I would like to draw attention to the delay involved in conveying to an applicant for a pension information as to whether or not he is successful. I have in mind the case of a man medically examined months ago, but the result of the examination has not yet been conveyed to him. Because of his disability he was several months in hospital. Naturally his condition was not helped by the state of uncertainty regarding his eligibility for pension. To a great extent he was obliged to remain in the hospital because of his anxiety and state of uncertainty as to the verdict of the Medical Board. To such men the Medical Board's decision should be conveyed as early as possible. I understand there are many cases of the sort. In parts of the country this has caused unfavourable comment. People say that there is no trouble at all in granting pensions to men who are really well able to work, while the disabled men have to remain many months without receiving information as to whether or not they will be entitled to a pension.

The main point has been made in connection with item "J," Military Service Pensions. Deputy Fahy was anxious that this sum should be capitalised and work provided for the men instead of giving them pensions. The Minister for Defence has no option in this matter. He acts in accordance with the Military Service Pensions Act passed by the Oireachtas. Deputy Briscoe raised the question of regularising the position as between the Military Service Pensions Board, the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee. I understand there was a promise made that there would be legislation introduced regularising that position, and the Bill had actually been drafted. Deputy Corry made rather wild statements about persons who had service pre-Truce and service in the National Army and who had not received pensions while others who had no service pre-Truce but had service in the National Army did get Military Service Pensions.

Any person who had pre-Truce service and service in the National Army had every opportunity of having his case placed before the Military Service Pensions Board. That Board was in existence for four years and considerable trouble was taken to give every opportunity to every applicant. Their cases were very carefully scrutinised and I think it can be claimed that it would be very difficult indeed to point to any case where a pension was granted where the person did not come within the terms of the Military Service Pensions Act. The pensions were granted in accordance with the Schedule laid down in the Act. Deputy Hogan raised certain cases and he says he is going to raise them again. He mentioned one case of a person developing sleepy sickness who was subsequently sent to a Mental Hospital as the result of a blow of a rifle in the eye. As to that all I can say is that the expert medical opinion given to the Board and to the Minister is that that could not possibly cause sleepy sickness. I think what I have said answers practically all the points made by Deputies. I will mention to the Department the point that Deputy Goulding makes regarding the delay in notifying applicants for pensions as to whether they succeeded or not.

An feidir leis an Aire a rádh cathain a bheireas sé isteach an Bille sin?

It is really a matter that is with Finance at present. I could not answer definitely when it will be ready.

Is the Minister not able to say when?

The proposed Bill is with Finance—it is really a Financial Bill.

Are we to understand that the Bill has been drafted?

The Minister is unable to say when it will be ready. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance is in touch with the matter and perhaps he will be able to tell us?

I doubt it.

Is there any hope that it will be introduced this year?

Oh, yes; there is every hope.

If the Deputy puts down a question in a fortnight's time we may possibly be able to tell him.

Question put.
The Committee divided; Tá, 79; Níl, 51.

  • Aird, William P.
  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Bourke, Séamus A.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Byrne, John Joseph.
  • Carey, Edmund.
  • Clancy, Patrick.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Conlon, Martin.
  • Connolly, Michael P.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Craig, Sir James.
  • Crowley, James.
  • Daly, John.
  • Davin, William.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • De Loughrey, Peter.
  • Dolan, James N.
  • Doyle, Edward.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Duggan, Edmund John.
  • Dwyer, James.
  • Egan, Barry M.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John.
  • Gorey, Denis J.
  • Haslett, Alexander.
  • Hassett, John J.
  • Heffernan, Michael R.
  • Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
  • Hennessy, Thomas.
  • Hennigan, John.
  • Henry, Mark.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Jordan, Michael.
  • Keogh, Myles.
  • Law, Hugh Alexander.
  • Leonard, Patrick.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
  • McDonogh, Martin.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, James E.
  • Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
  • Myles, James Sproule.
  • Nolan, John Thomas.
  • O'Connell, Richard.
  • O'Connell, Thomas J.
  • O'Connor, Bartholomew.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Hanlon, John F.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
  • O'Reilly, John J.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Reynolds, Patrick.
  • Rice, Vincent.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Shaw, Patrick W.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Tierney, Michael.
  • White, Vincent Joseph.
  • Wolfe, George.
  • Wolfe, Jasper Travers.


  • Allen, Denis.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Daniel.
  • Carney, Frank.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Cassidy, Archie J.
  • Clery, Michael.
  • Colbert, James.
  • Cooney, Eamon.
  • Corkery, Dan.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fahy, Frank.
  • Powell, Thomas P.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sexton, Martin.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
  • Flinn, Hugo.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • French, Seán.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • Kent, William R.
  • Kerlin, Frank.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Mullins, Thomas.
  • O'Kelly, Seán T.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Reilly, Thomas.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Tubridy, John.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle. Níl, Deputies Gerald Boland and Allen.
Question declared carried.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Progress reported. The Committee to sit again on Thursday, the 2nd of May.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.25 p.m.