Private Business. - Civil Service (Transferred Officers) Compensation Bill, 1929—Second Stage (Resumed).

When I moved the adjournment last night I was endeavouring to convey to the House the attitude which the Minister, on behalf of the Executive Council, expressed towards the decision of the Privy Council. I think I had quoted the words of an interview with the Minister which was published in the "Irish Times" on 15th November of last year. The words were as follows:—

It (the reference being to the decision of the Privy Council) has nothing to do with us. When the original decision was given we made our position perfectly clear. We said that it was an entirely inequitable decision, a decision such as we could not accept and which we have no intention of accepting. Really, we are not interested.

Now, if the Executive Council and if the Minister for Finance were not interested in the decision of the Privy Council, if his Government did not accept that decision, why has he introduced into this Dáil a Bill the long title of which begins AN ACT TO CONFIRM A CERTAIN AGREEMENT INTERPRETING AND SUPPLEMENTING ARTICLE 10 OF THE TREATY OF 1921. The agreement which, in so far as it relates to those officers who are to retire within what was the original permissive period of seven years, is founded entirely upon the decision of the Privy Council. If entering into that agreement with the representatives of the officers who are concerned in this litigation conformed in every iota to the principles enunciated and laid down in the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is not in fact an acceptance of that decision and an honouring of the obligations imposed by the acceptance of that decision, then what is it?

The Minister said on 15th November that it was the intention of his Government to ignore proceedings before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I must confess that I do not for myself see how they could have ignored that decision in view of the fact that the Government was officially represented before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council when this matter came before it for the second time, in view of the fact that it assisted in placing this case for trial before that Judicial Committee. I do not for myself see how, having once appeared before that Court, the Government could have ignored its decision. And I challenge the Minister in this House to which he is responsible, to state here that he does not accept and the Executive Council, of which he is a member, is not accepting the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Of course, it will be said that mine is a partisan voice in this matter, that I am concerned simply to bring the charge, that the Minister and the Executive Council have abandoned their earlier position, home to the Minister. But there are other people than I who can speak in this matter, people who are supporters of the Minister, and a journal which has advocated the cause of the Minister and his party, during the various elections and by-elections which have taken place in this country since the Treaty was accepted. I have here a quotation from a leader in the issue of the "Irish Times" for February 21st, 1929. In passing may I say that this leader is headed rather significantly with the word "fleece." Possibly it may refer to the manner in which the Ministers were shorn of their courage and strength, as Samson was shorn by Delilah, but whatever the purpose of that word there is no mistaking the meaning or the significance of the article itself. Could anything, for instance, be clearer than this?

"This settlement ought to satisfy everybody. The civil servants will get their money; the Free State taxpayer will not be required to pay an additional halfpenny, and the authority of the Privy Council in Dominion affairs has been upheld."

And it has been upheld by the Minister in accepting the decision and in entering into an agreement which was based upon the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I would not like, however, that the House would think that the "Irish Times" is injudicious and intemperate in its praise of the Ministers, because though it may love the Ministers it does not on occasions hesitate to chastise them, remembering what happens often when the rod is spared; and so in all the true kindness and fullness of its paternal dispensation it criticises Mr. Blythe even while it praises his works, for it goes on to say: "Mr. Blythe's attempt to defy the Privy Council was ridiculous." We agree it was ridiculous, ridiculous because he abandoned the position which he took up, and if it is ridiculous it is because he and the Executive Council in retreating from that position have covered themselves with ridicule and dishonour.

Then it goes on to say:

"Now the British Government, in almost quixotic magnanimity, has come to Mr. Blythe's rescue with its offer to pay the cost of the civil servants' additional retiring allowances. Once more it has given evidence of its good-will towards the Free State, and he would be a churlish Minister who did not recognise such generosity. We may hope that henceforward, for its own sake, the Dublin Government will be more tactful in its dealings."

I would say we may hope, for its own sake, that the Dublin Government will be more consistent in its public declarations that the things it says outside it will stand over in this Dáil, that when the Minister declared that he was not interested in a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council he ought to have proved it by ignoring that decision altogether, by continuing to pay the compensation upon the conditions and principles which he thought were fair, and by leaving those who thought they were aggrieved by that decision of his to seek their recompense and to procure it, if they were able, elsewhere.

Now that we know where the Minister used to stand, and that we have been able to satisfy ourselves by how much since then he has given ground upon this matter, let us return to the Bill. The Bill is, as I have said, in effect an acceptance of the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and a surrender to the blackmail of those transferred officers who carried their claim against the Executive to a foreign tribunal. That tribunal is one whose claim to exercise jurisdiction in this country or over its citizens should be repudiated by every true Irishman. We, on these benches, at any rate, are not prepared to surrender to such blackmail. We are not prepared to accept the decision or the judgment of such a tribunal. We are not prepared to accept an agreement based upon such a decision and we will not, either directly or indirectly, allow that decision to stand or be honoured. With a Government which has been like putty in their hands, the transferred officers under Section 14 of this Bill have procured terms and conditions of service which were not written into the Treaty and were never contemplated by the Treaty. Remember that Mr. Amery, the British Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, himself said in the House of Commons that it was not the intention of those who drafted Article X. of the Articles of Agreement of 1921 that the civil servants in question should be put in any more favourable position in respect to these matters than if they had remained in the service of the Crown under the British Government. The terms of Article X. of the Treaty were onerous enough, too onerous by far for this country, but the terms which it is proposed to impose by this Bill are almost unendurable. Under the very first section, taken in conjunction with sub-section (6) of Section 14, the term "transferred officers" is given a very much wider content than it could possibly have had in the Treaty, for it is made to include not only established officers but unestablished officers, and even temporary clerks. It covers, therefore, a greater number of persons and, therefore, the cost of compensation must be proportionately increased. Furthermore, the transferred officers constitute the great majority of the civil servants. I think the total personnel of the Government staffs, excluding the Army, Civic Guard, cleaners, postmen, messengers and the temporary staffs in the Post Office is something like 14,000 persons. According to the figures which were furnished to me by the Minister yesterday the number of transferred officers affected by this Bill is 13,529.

Now Section 14 of the Bill is a rather extraordinary one. I do not know whether any of the members have read it, but it stabilises the present conditions in the Civil Service. By Section 14 the Civil Service will be entrenched in an impregnable position of influence and authority vis-a-vis the present Minister for Finance, the present Government or any other Government, so long as this Act stands and so long as the transferred officers constitute an important element in the Civil Service. It will give these transferred officers a controlling power in the State. They will have a right of veto upon all Government policy, because should they disagree with the Minister, should they disagree with the Government, or should they disagree with a measure introduced by the Government, they will be able to say that such a Minister, such a Government, or such legislation prejudices their position as set forth in Section 14, and immediately the Minister must be dropped or the legislation abandoned, or else the transferred officers must be permitted to retire upon terms which would mean bankruptcy to the Government. That is the purpose and the purport of Section 14. If by any change whatsoever these officers are able to go to a tribunal and say that their conditions of service have been lessened, then they are to be permitted to retire upon the terms of Article X. of the Treaty as the Minister originally visualised it should work. That is to say, supposing they should disagree with the Minister in the year 1935, they would be entitled to retire upon terms which may have been equitable in the year 1922. With this power in their hands, it is quite obvious that by a mere threat of retirement they can paralyse any policy of the Government. If Section 14 is allowed to pass we will be governed by a bureaucracy of which this House and the Executive Council responsible to this House will only be a mask.

Another thing. It has already been admitted that a thoroughgoing reform of all the Government Departments is overdue—that is if we are anxious to lighten the burden of taxation on the people. But such a reform must necessarily entail such alterations in the conditions of the Civil Service as would enable every transferred officer to appeal to Section 14 of the Bill, and therefore Section 14 must inevitably prevent any reorganisation of the Civil Service in the interests of the people. It condemns us to maintain for the lifetime, at any rate, of half a generation the huge, unwieldy, inefficient, extravagant machine which has come down to us from the British régime. Section 14 will involve this country, I believe, in continuous over-taxation for a further ten or perhaps fifteen years, and will submerge our people still further in poverty and in depression.

Again, one of the crying evils with which we have been afflicted since the Treaty was passed has been the amount of money paid away every year to absentee pensioners. If this Bill goes through. I believe it will mean an accentuation of that evil, for, quite obviously, the people who brought this litigation to the House of Lords have their spiritual home in Great Britain; quite obviously, they are not loyal citizens of this country; quite obviously, they are not patriotic public servants, or they would have accepted the decision of the Supreme Court of this land. Therefore, having shown, as I said, that their spiritual home is in England, there is not a doubt about it but that, when they do come to retire upon the terms secured to them by this Bill, they will do as a considerable number of their ex-comrades have already done—they will make their domiciles and homes in England. If he were to produce this Bill at all, the Minister might, at least, have made such terms with those who were going to draw pensions under it as would ensure that they would, at least, live in this country and spend amongst its people the pensions which they are to pay them. The negotiations afforded him an excellent opportunity for doing that. It was a safeguard which was omitted from the Treaty and which the Minister should have had inserted in this agreement. He cannot say that his attention had not been drawn to this evil. He himself is aware of it. He knows the amount of money that goes out of the country every year in respect of the pensions to ex-R.I.C. men, and in respect of the pensions paid to ex-members of the British judiciary of this country. He saw that under this Bill further sums were going to be paid away in pensions, and I say he should have had the foresight and prudence to ensure that, at least, if these men were to draw pensions from the Irish Free State, they would continue to reside in the Irish Free State.

Again there is the question of the effect of Section 16 (1) which says:

Whenever a transferred officer to whom compensation under Article X. of the Treaty has been granted (whether before or after the passing of this Act) is employed in any situation in a public department whether such employment commenced before or after the passing of this Act...

(b) so much of such compensation shall be payable in respect of any period whether prior or subsequent to the passing of this Act during which the remuneration of such transferred officer in such employment is less than his remuneration in his former office as with his remuneration in such employment will amount to his remuneration in his former office.

The expression "situation in a public department" is subsequently defined in sub-section (3) as including a situation under the Government of Great Britain or of Northern Ireland. Section 16, though apparently at first sight it might be designed to secure a proportionate reduction in the pensions of those who retire from the service of this Government to take service in another, will, in practice, really have this effect: by enabling the Government of Northern Ireland or of Great Britain to avail themselves of the services of experienced officers upon less than normal terms, it will really have the effect of subsidising the Civil Service of the Government of Northern Ireland at the expense of this State, because many men may not like to continue in the service here as they are politically antagonistic to this Government, or because their homes or their families are in the North of Ireland, and they will be prepared, if they can ensure it, to accept a lesser remuneration in the Six Counties than they would have been prepared to continue working for here in the service of the Free State, if the Free State makes good to them the difference. Mark the words:

so much of such compensation shall be payable in respect of any period whether prior or subsequent to the passing of this Act during which the remuneration of such transferred officer in such employment is less than his remuneration in his former office as with his remuneration in such employment will amount to his remuneration in his former office.

So that a public servant who is in receipt, say, of a salary and allowance of £600 in the Twenty-Six Counties can go to Northern Ireland and discharge the same duties there for a payment of £500, and, so far as I can see, under the Bill the difference between his salary in the new employment and the salary in his employment under the Free State will be made good to him by way of pension or allowance. I believe that that will, in practice, be the effect of the Bill.

In criticising the Bill we are rather at a disadvantage, because the Minister in introducing it had not the courtesy to explain the terms of the measure to us. We can only go upon surmise. I will ask the Minister, if he is going to reply, to explain the exact purport of Section 17.

I hope the Deputy is not suggesting that I introduced the Bill without speaking to it. We were only resuming the debate last night, and I had spoken before.

But what explanation did the Minister give of the Bill when he introduced it? He simply said that it was to make operative a certain agreement. I am anxious to know what the purport of Section 17 is. It is quite possible that it may be perfectly harmless, but it does sound and it does read rather equivocal. What it says is this:—

Where a transferred officer retires or is discharged (whether before or after the passing of this Act) from the service of the Government of Saorstát Eireann in circumstances entitling him to compensation under Article X. of the Treaty and it is shown to the satisfaction of the Board that at the time of such retirement or discharge any debt or other sum of money was or is due and owing by such transferred officer to a Minister who is head of a Department....

then so much of his allowance shall be retained to pay that debt. Personally, I can see that there may be a question of provident funds and other things involved, but I should like to be quite clear as to what is exactly meant by Section 17. I frankly confess that it may be quite a harmless section, but I do not know, and we have no information on this side of the House as to what is the nature of the debt referred to by Section 17.

Before I conclude I would just like to refer again to the long Title of the Bill: "Bill entitled an Act to confirm a certain agreement interpreting and supplementing Article X. of the Treaty of 1921..." Now this is the third occasion upon which this Dáil has had to consider "An Act amending a certain agreement interpreting and supplementing Articles of the Treaty." This is the third time a Bill, amending the sacrosanct Treaty of 1921, has been introduced into this Dáil, and every time such a Bill has been introduced into the Dáil for amending the Treaty, the Treaty has been invariably amended to the disadvantage of the people of this country.

Article V.?

I do not want to discuss Article 5. When Mr. Thomas and Mr. Henderson, I think, came over to this country and persuaded the Minister for Finance and the members of the Executive Council of the Free State that they were certain to find a pea under the thimble which Mr. Justice Feetham was then placing before them——

That has nothing to do with this Bill. This Bill deals with Article X. of the Treaty, and no other.

Exactly, and because it does amend the Treaty, I am referring to previous amendments of the Treaty.

The Deputy must not do so. He can deal with Article X. of the Treaty and this Bill in so far as it affects Article X.

I accept your ruling. The only point is this. This is the third time a Bill to amend the Treaty has been introduced into this Dáil, and every time the amendment has been to the disadvantage of this country. I think there is a large section of the people which does want the Treaty amended and which wants it amended in a way that will enable every interest in this country to be represented in this House.

The Deputy is going off the track again.

I think, in view of the fact that the Treaty has already been amended three times, to the disadvantage of the people of the country, the Minister ought now to consider whether he should not introduce a Bill.

The Deputy ought not to pursue that.

Very well. I defer to what you say. I know, of course, that the Minister is going to say that this Bill is not a disadvantage to the people of the country and that he will say "What harm about the judicial decision of the Privy Council which does not impose a penny piece upon the people of this country? The British are going to foot the Bill." Of course the British are quite willing to foot the Bill after the Minister and the Government have humiliated themselves before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for the second time and have shown that whatever chastisement the people on the other side of the water administered to them in private has not been fruitless and that they are prepared to honour in every iota, as I have said, the acceptance of the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. When I heard the Minister say he has no concern in this matter because the British are going to foot the Bill, it reminds me of the general who, having led the army into the field, at the end of a few weeks reported the position to the Government at home saying, "We have surrendered all along the line but that does not matter because the enemy have agreed to bear the cost of the pensions for the army."

I briefly, half an hour ago, expressed my opinion about the Department of Finance in its internal administration. It is, therefore, a pleasure to me to congratulate it on its external activity in protecting the interests of the Irish taxpayer in spite of the attempts of certain parts of our Press to saddle the taxpayer with an unnecessary and an unjust burden. I think we are now conducting the funeral service over this famous Wigg-Cochrane case which has, as far as I know, brought about the demise of one Lord Chancellor, ruined the reputation of a second Lord Chancellor and brought a third Lord Chancellor in sackcloth and ashes to apologise for the decision. Not only that but this famous case has brought confusion and has brought distress, and in the words of Lord Carson, it has brought indecency into the sacred precincts of the House of Lords.

As far as this case is concerned, I think the Minister will agree that I have stood by its cradle and followed its hearse. I feel no hostility towards Mr. Wigg or Mr. Cochrane. In fact, I never met them, and if I met them I candidly say that I should not know which was Mr. Wigg and which was Mr. Cochrane. They are a kind of heavenly twins, but they have had a very important effect upon the whole constitution of the British Commonwealth of Nations. The mistake which I think is now being remedied by this Bill which Messrs. Wigg and Cochrane made, was in believing in the doctrine of the Fianna Fáil Party. They believed that, in fact, King George was there with a large stick in the form of a Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to tell us what to do and what to obey; and they proceeded on that assumption, with the result that we know. The correct attitude they should have adopted was to decide either that they were subject to the Irish Government or the British Government, and when a decision was given against them in the Supreme Court of the Irish Free State they should have made representations to the British Government as to, in their opinion, an inaccurate interpretation of Article X. The British Government could then have followed the precedent already set in the case of Article XII. in asking for an opinion from their Judicial Committee without involving the Free State in that opinion, and then, by negotiations, similar results to this Bill could have been arrived at. That result could have been arrived at in a friendly way without creating disturbance and without creating bitterness, and without involving the litigants in what, in my opinion, is the crime of sedition—a crime for which I have been tried and condemned—a crime of stirring up feelings of ill-will and hostility amongst different sections of His Majesty's subjects. I welcome this Bill, and the happy ending of a long and rather unpleasant dispute.

I would like to say a word in regard to this Bill. As I understand it, the principle of it is to make provision for compensation for certain officers in connection with Article X. of the Treaty. In the discussion that has so far taken place other things have been introduced, but, as far as I could hear, nothing has been said on the merits of that particular question. I listened with very great care to Deputy Derrig and to Deputy MacEntee in their attack on the Bill. Neither of them addressed himself to the question as to whether or not compensation— any compensation—should be given to the civil servants who were transferred at the time of the Treaty. I did not understand Deputy MacEntee to say that there should be no compensation paid. I take it that the principle of the Bill is that there should be compensation paid. In so far as that is the main principle of the Bill. I cannot take it from anything that I have heard either Deputy Derrig or Deputy MacEntee say that they are against it. Article X. of the Treaty made provision for the compensation of transferred officers. If we say now that we are not to make that provision and are not to give compensation to transferred officers, then, as far as I understand it at any rate, we are simply rejecting Article X. of the Treaty. Deputy MacEntee has not gone that far, and I do not know if any Deputy who follows him will go that far. The Treaty has been accepted by the majority of the people of this country. Even that particular Article in the Treaty, as far as I remember, was contained in the alternative suggestions to the Treaty made in 1921. That is my memory of the position at that time —that in the long discussions that took place in December, 1921, and in January, 1922, in regard to the Treaty, nobody was falling out about that particular Article.

As I have said, quite a number of things have been introduced into the discussion on this Bill. Deputy MacEntee founded his objection to it entirely on the question of the decision of the Privy Council: that the Bill was giving effect to the decision of the Privy Council, and that it was an acceptance on our part of the decision of the Privy Council. It may be my misfortune perhaps that I can never hope to understand the mentality of Deputies on that side of the House, but I can never understand why people who are so anxious to proclaim their national outlook should take advantage of every possible occasion that turns up, such as this, to show that the other people are right and that we are wrong. Deputy MacEntee quoted the "Irish Times" to the effect that the decision of the British Privy Council has been upheld. I suppose the "Morning Post" and all the British Conservative papers would say the same, and would insist on saying that this measure was a victory for them from their point of view. I cannot understand what object Deputy MacEntee can have in supporting, as he seemed to me to be supporting here, the view of the "Irish Times" rather than the view of the Minister for Finance.

I have not heard the Minister for Finance in this House or elsewhere express the view which Deputy O'Connell is now attributing to him.

Mr. O'Connell

I take it that the greater part of Deputy MacEntee's speech was intended to show that the Minister for Finance, having taken up a certain position, has now receded from that: that the "Irish Times" says that, that some other people say it, and that Deputy MacEntee says it. After all, in external matters we should speak as one body rather than as a party. I cannot understand, therefore, why we should be so anxious to proclaim to the world that we have given way on this matter. Personally I do not see any giving way on the matter. I certainly cannot see that there is any victory in this for the Privy Council unless they are able to make their decision run here. I think there is general agreement upon this point, that the decision of the Privy Council has not been imposed upon this Government. Does the Irish taxpayer pay one penny more because of the decision of the Privy Council?

That is not the point.

Mr. O'Connell

If it is not, perhaps Deputy MacEntee, or some Deputy who follows him, would tell us what the point is. Deputy MacEntee has spoken on this matter. I think I am a person of average intelligence, and though I listened carefully to the Deputy's speech, I have not been able to discover his point, if there is any point in it. Perhaps Deputy Little, if he speaks later, will be able to throw a little more light on the matter.

Did the Deputy read the First Schedule of the Bill?

Mr. O'Connell

I have read the whole Bill.

The First Schedule interpreting and supplementing Article X. of the Treaty?

Mr. O'Connell

Yes. I am addressing myself to the point as to whether, in fact, the Irish taxpayer is called upon to pay more as a result of the decision of the Privy Council than he would be if the decision of our Supreme Court was upheld. That is the way that I understand the Bill, and if that is the case I cannot see the subtlety of Deputy MacEntee's argument. I think Deputy MacEntee was carried away by his eloquence in painting the picture of what is going to happen in the future. He told us that there are 13,529 transferred officers. Possibly anybody listening to him would be under the impression that all these were going to get pensions. Of course, that is not the case. I think the Deputy was altogether extravagant in his statement in which he painted the picture of civil servants telling the Minister for Finance or any other Minister that if the measures the State brought in were not to their liking then they would hold the Government up to ransom, as it were, to take his own words: that if they did not like certain measures introduced in this House they could then claim their pensions, and in fact impose a very heavy burden on the State. Of course that is all moonshine. It will not be sufficient for them to say that they were displeased. They will have to go before a tribunal, and we must assume that the members of that tribunal will bring some measure of judgment and common sense to bear on the matters presented to it for decision.

I am supporting the Second Reading of this Bill because the principle involved in it, as I take it, is the principle of compensation to certain officers. Neither Deputy Derrig nor Deputy MacEntee said that there should be no compensation. The question is whether there should or should not be compensation to certain officers in accordance with the terms of Article X. of the Treaty. As I have said, nobody has argued so far, and I do not know if anybody proposes to argue, that there should be no compensation paid. So far as the decision of the Privy Council is concerned, I am satisfied that the Irish taxpayer will not be called upon to pay any more than he would be called upon to pay if the judgment of the Supreme Court here were put into operation.

May I ask what is Deputy O'Connell's interpretation of Section 14?

Mr. O'Connell

I do not agree with the interpretation of Deputy MacEntee with regard to Section 14.

I was glad to hear Deputy O'Connell saying what I claim to have been the first to have said in this House, that in questions of foreign affairs there should be an attempt at unity, but I think what-every unity there should be must be based on a real principle of independence. When the Minister for Finance implied a principle by saying that a decision of the Privy Council was a matter in which he had no interest, and of which he was going to take no notice, he was establishing a principle which we could all have followed in our hearts. We could have backed that up as a principle, as a real attempt to stand firm on our own grounds and to check or control, if not abolish, the influence of the Privy Council. It is not to the financial aspect but the constitutional aspect that I am directing my remarks, and to the establishment of a precedent. I would point out to Deputy O'Connell the great importance of that principle, as to whether we are going to be ruled by the Privy Council or not. I am reminded of another case which is likely to come before the Council, that is the question of the rights of fishermen in Northern Ireland. A decision which has been given may be carried further to the Privy Council, and if a decision is given by the Privy Council against Ireland you may have, or you may not have, in this case a valuable precedent to go on.

Mr. O'Connell

We have already sat on the Privy Council before when the Deputy was not here.

I am not going to go into past history, and I am sorry the Deputy is taking up that line. It is cheap. I am not going into past history, not that I have any apology for the past. What we must do is, look forward and use our present position to be stronger to deal with England than in the past. When the decision was given by the Privy Council the Minister for Finance took up the position that it was no concern of his and that he was going to follow his own line. He then went to London and made an agreement. He has not at any point since repudiated in principle acceptance of the decision of the Privy Council, but in fact he has accepted every iota of the judgment of the Privy Council by the agreement. It would be a very valuable thing if in some part of this Bill the Minister introduced a clause dissociating the agreement entirely from the decision of the Privy Council, or in some way or other making a declaration that he had not accepted the decision of the Privy Council. That would be useful to us in the future. Although from the financial point of view it is not going to be a loss, at the same time the decision of the Privy Council was that the Irish Free State should pay these officials, no matter who recoups them. In fact, it is the Irish Free State who is going to pay them. If the agreement had been that the British Government was to pay them direct it would be a different question, and a different principle would be involved. It might then be said that some sort of victory in principle had been achieved, but as it is this Bill accepts in principle the decision of the Privy Council, and it is for that reason we oppose it.

When Deputy O'Connell was speaking I was thinking that it would be very interesting to see him at a cross-roads in Mayo defending Section 14 of the Bill, and explaining to the small holders and the labouring men of that county how just it was according to sub-section (3) of that section that when a man received promotion, or hereafter receives promotion, if he is not satisfied with that promotion he can claim then to go out on pension.

Mr. O'Connell

That issue was fought out at four or five elections.

It would, as I say, be very interesting to hear Deputy O'Connell defending that in Mayo, or defending it to the people we discussed here yesterday on the Dublin Poor Relief Bill. I wonder what the Executive Council think of presenting such a proposal to the Dáil in the present circumstances. Any man of 35, 40, or 45, no matter what his age, may, if he is not satisfied with the promotion he gets at any time hereafter, claim to go out on pension and remain a cost to this State, in face of the fact that all over the country there is nothing but complaint of the terrible injustice at the present time of the pension Bills, and of the extravagance they mean to a small and impoverished State such as the Saorstát. One would think that sub-section (2) of Section 14 was the limit. According to that, where a man claims that he is required to perform duties which are different to, or are not analogous to, those which he has been performing, or had an unreasonable addition to his duties imposed, he can also claim to go out on pension. The sub-section gives no indication of what is to determine the meaning of the words "unreasonable addition to his duties." There are plenty of civil servants who have never had the third of a day's work to do. Would a 300 per cent. increase in their work be considered unreasonable? Would that give them the right to retire?

I do not for a moment mean to speak disparagingly of the civil servants as a whole. I have said before, and I say it again, that I think the Civil Service is one of our greatest assets. I think the efficiency of our higher civil servants particularly is a thing of which we ought to be proud. It is a valuable foil to the blunders and incompetence of certain business elements in this city that have brought Dublin to the position that was described here yesterday, but it is not just to civil servants, in my opinion, to put them in the position where they will be regarded by the whole people as an enemy of the people, and who can hold up the country to ransom—to be regarded as persons who are entitled to claim privileges that no employees of any kind should be entitled to claim. Deputy O'Connell is familiar, no doubt, with another treaty that was made in the Dáil with another section of employees. A treaty was made with the railway employees a year or two ago. I think the Deputy knows a thing or two about that, and how far that treaty has been kept and worked out, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce could say how that treaty has been kept, and whether it has meant hardship and injustice to numbers of men who relatively have given as good service to the State as any civil servant. In my opinion this whole matter has been approached from a wrong angle. I think the Government could easily have made an agreement with the great bulk of the civil servants that would not have placed them in this invidious position.

That would have left them in a position where they had a free and fair contract with the State, and where they would not be dependent upon such questions as whether there had been an unreasonable addition to their duties and whether the promotion which they got was satisfactory or not. I think that the passing of the Bill will do a great deal of harm to the Civil Service, and, even if only for the sake of the Service, I appeal to the Minister to withdraw Section 14 and see whether he could not draw up a fairer agreement, one that will lead to less resentment amongst the people and to a happier position amongst civil servants than is likely to prevail if that section goes through.

I desire to approach this question in probably a different spirit to most Deputies. I am prepared to give to the Government, and to every Government, every credit that possibly could be given to them for any attempt they may make to develop and improve the international constitutional position as it exists. A certain position and condition were established by the Treaty, which most certainly were not the position and condition which had previously been held out as being the desire of this people, and for the moment, in relation to a Government functioning under that condition, and above all in relation to a Government which defends that condition, there is a good deal to be said for any claim that they may put forward that they are using to the best of their ability anything that is good in that condition. Personally I feel prejudiced, under the very awkward circumstances in which they stand, in favour of giving them as much credit as I can for any effort they make to develop that position. I will go further and say that I like to give them credit for any effort they make by legitimate means to develop and improve that position, even if they fail to accomplish their object. As I understand the declaration made by the Minister for Finance in public in relation to a decision of the highest court that exists under the most extreme British interpretation of the Treaty, it was a repudiation of its authority to interpret in any way any Article of that Treaty. "It has nothing to do with us. Really we are not interested." That is the declaration of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government in relation to all authority of the Privy Council and in relation to the interpretation of an Article of a Treaty between us two.

I give the Minister credit for that declaration, and every man in this House, whatever his politics may be and however much upon other matters he may be separated and divided from the present Executive, ought to uphold that Executive to the extent to which it meant and stood by that declaration. The Minister on another occasion, dealing with the decision of the Privy Council, said: "Such a result was not intended by Article X. of the Treaty." Here is a claim by the Minister for Finance, in the name of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government, to interpret himself, over the head of the Privy Council, the Articles of the Treaty of Agreement between this country and England. To the extent to which the Minister meant that and stood over it he is entitled to the unhesitating, unquestioning and open support of every man in this House, however much he may be opposed to him in other matters, who believes in the independence, the liberty and integrity of this country. The question at issue is whether or not this Bill, as we now have it, implements and stands over those declarations, or whether this Bill is the tearing up of those declarations. On the previous occasion when this matter was raised I rose and asked the Minister for Finance—so as to give him the opportunity of taking the credit of standing over, up to that date, that declaration—whether he then meant what he had previously said, namely, that in the interpretation of this, and, therefore, of any other Article of the Treaty, the decision of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth did not concern him and did not even interest him. If this Bill carries out that declaration it is our business, however we may be opposed to this Government, to support them. I have gone through this Bill infinitely more anxious to find that it upheld that declaration than to find in it anything which would enable me to oppose my political opponents on the other side of the House. If this had been a Bill to alter an agreement, if this Bill had declared that the interpretation of that Article was still the interpretation which was given to it by our Supreme Court, but that it was desirable to alter it in order that England might fulfil the obligations which she thought she had to these people, and that we were prepared to be her agents in doing so, then there would have been a good deal to be said for this Bill, and the Bill in that form might have been a victory not merely for the Cumann na nGaedheal Government, but for the whole principle of a free Ireland. Does it contain that?

It contains a mixture of clauses, some of them merely machinery, and then a mixture which makes it impossible, as far as I, an ordinary man reading it, can see, to separate what is interpretation and what is supplemental. If this Bill had been a Bill supplementing that agreement, had it set out the existing terms of that agreement, as our courts had interpreted it and as the Minister for Finance had said he would stand over it, and if it had gone on then to show supplemental provisions, it would be a matter which might legitimately have been done. Disregarding for a moment the fact that there was a third interest in this matter, the transferred servants, the two high contracting parties, had the right to alter the agreement which was made. But in so far as this is an interpreting instrument which in its general body seems to interpret the agreement in the directly opposite way to that in which our Supreme Court has interpreted it, and to that which the Minister for Finance said he would stand over, we, as far as I can see, are not entitled to pass this Bill without admitting that in so doing, that very little thing, the defeat of an individual Minister in negotiation, has been accomplished, and that that very big thing, the defeat of a high principle, for which that Minister stood, has been defeated. Not merely has the Minister himself, not merely has the representative of one of the high contracting parties, said that such result was not intended by Article X of the Treaty, but the representative of the other party to that bargain has in set terms declared the same.

According to the Secretary for Dominion Affairs, Mr. Amery, in the British House of Commons, it was not the intention of those who framed Article X. of the Articles of Agreement that it should have been decided in the way in which the Privy Council had decided it, and in which we here interpret it. Now we are going to have this extraordinary position, that the men who go into the Division Lobby to pass that Bill as an interpretation of that agreement, the men who are going to vote for that as the interpretation of that agreement, are men who, through the Minister for Finance, are already bound and have declared to the world that that is a false interpretation. The Minister for Finance cannot vote for that Bill without publicly forswearing himself and without publicly throwing away the principle to which he declared he was devoted.

I think the House will recognise that I, in speaking, have not spoken in any sense of antagonism. There is no man in this House who would more willingly congratulate the Minister for Finance, who would more willingly, in the name of this country, express to him gratitude, if that Bill had been a Bill which did still declare on the authority of this Dáil that the interpretation that was put on that Treaty by our courts was the only interpretation. It is no grateful labour of mind, it is not pleasant on my lips, and it is no way grateful to my heart to say that in this matter the Minister has failed both himself and his country. If, in fact, he does believe that he is carrying out in this Bill the declaration he has made that the decision of the Privy Council in these constitutional matters and the interpretation of our treaties is nothing to us, and is not even interesting to him, then I ask him to so alter this Bill that it will make it clear on the face of it that the interpretation which was given by our courts is upheld, and that anything which is added to that Bill is a separate and distinct thing to alter the Articles in order that the interpretation may be different, and in order to carry out the machinery which is otherwise required. The Minister has the opportunity to do the big thing, and to do it with the support of the House. I wish he would do it. He may say, as has been said, and as I think he is probably right in saying, "Apart, perhaps, from administrative costs this will cost you nothing." That is probably true. There may be administrative costs in the matter inasmuch as we are the people who are to handle the money and give it out, but that is a trifle. He may say that in this matter nothing is lost but honour, that nothing has been thrown away but principle. I do not want him to make that defence. I do appeal to the Cumann na nGaedheal Government to do what they want to do in this Bill in a way which, instead of tearing up a significant declaration of the rights of this country over an interpretation of the Treaty, will make that right clear.

I did not intend to contribute to this discussion, but I certainly could not continue to listen as I have done for the last hour or two to so much that has little or no bearing on the main points involved in this Bill. Stripping it of a lot of verbiage and casuistry—I can give it no other terms—I come to deal with the actual facts. Some people seem to think that these transferred officers have no rights. In the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, which governed, at least to some extent, the 1921 Treaty, it was provided that a servant of the Crown not desirous of serving the new Government could be released in six months and could not be retained longer than two years after the date of application. That is embodied in our Treaty.

I agree with a lot that has been said this evening by Deputy MacEntee with regard to certain transferred officers who may, after getting their pensions, retire to some other country. In such circumstances another country would derive the benefit of the pensions which those people enjoy. That is one of the things which we cannot prevent. There is another side to that particular phase of the question. I know there are many people in this country, ex-civil servants and others, who enjoy small pensions and who are a very serious menace in the labour market to those seeking employment. That is a phase which has not, perhaps, been considered by some Deputies who have spoken in opposition to this Bill. It has occurred in my experience that many ex-civil servants who enjoy a small pension of, say, about one pound per week, enter into competition with others seeking employment. Sufficient attention has not been paid to the equities of the whole case. Whilst I hold that this Bill is capable of amendment, it is at least an attempt to translate into some kind of action the various happenings of the last couple of years, notably the famous Wigg and Cochrane case which has been referred to by more than one speaker.

Deputy Moore suggested that it would be difficult to defend Clause 14 at the Mayo cross-roads. I suggest that he would have as great a difficulty, if not a greater difficulty, in defending his position at the Wicklow cross-roads. I want to know what Deputy would have the temerity to stand up at any cross-roads in Ireland and say to a pensionable officer that if he were transferred to another Government he should not take with him all the rights and privileges that attached to his former position. That is, in effect, what this Bill means. We took over in this country a number of officers who served the British Government. They got the guarantee under the Treaty that their positions and conditions would not be worsened—that their opportunities for promotion and betterment would not be worsened. Exception has been taken to sub-section (3) of Section 14. Where a transferred officer receives promotion and claims that his position in the situation into which he has been promoted has been materially altered to his detriment, he has the right to retire. He has that right already without any existing legislation. He has his rights under this Article of the Treaty to retire on pension.

As far as I can see there is nothing in Section 14 to which any reasonable objection could be taken. It may require amendment here and there, but on the whole the principle underlying the Bill is good and acceptable. I know there are many transferred officers who are just as patriotic as any member on these benches or on the Fianna Fáil or Cumann na nGaedheal Benches. I deprecate, at the same time, the fact that some of these who have been given decent pensions by this Government have thought fit to go to other countries and give those other countries the benefit of their pensions. However, it is a matter of equity and justice. We cannot prevent it. We have only to hope that where, under this Bill, decent pensions and superannuations are awarded, the recipients will, perhaps under better conditions, decide to continue to live here and to spend their money in this country.

There has been a good deal of talk about what I previously said in regard to this matter, and I think there has been something very like an attempt to misrepresent the position that the Government took up. I might recall to Deputies that after the litigation here there was an appeal to the Privy Council, and there was a judgment delivered by the Privy Council. After some time a question was asked in the Dáil. It was on the 22nd February, 1928 (col. 108, vol. 22). The question was asked by Deputy Esmonde for Deputy A. Byrne. In my reply to that question I said:

The Government have had under consideration the opinions expressed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of Wigg and another versus the Attorney-General. The Government are desirous of honouring to the fullest extent their obligations under Article X. of the Treaty. It is clear, however, that some of the opinions expressed by the Judicial Committee in the case referred to would, if given effect to, result in more favourable treatment under Article X. of the Treaty being accorded to transferred officers in the matter of bonus than they would have received had they remained in the British Civil Service or than transferred officers who elect to remain in the Civil Service of the Saorstát would receive on ultimate retirement in the normal course under the Superannuation Acts. Such a result was not intended by Article X. of the Treaty.

Then I proceeded to outline what was intended. I said:

"The Executive Council has, accordingly, decided to introduce into the Oireachtas at the earliest practicable date proposals for legislation providing that awards of compensation already made by the Minister for Finance on the recommendation of the Committee, which was presided over by Mr. Justice Wylie, shall be binding in law. The legislative proposals will include a provision for the setting up of a Statutory Committee constituted somewhat on the lines of the defunct Committee whose duty it will be to adjudicate upon all pending and future claims under Article X. The determination of this Committee on any application or question referred to them will be final and conclusive. In assessing compensation the Committee will be required to adhere in the treatment of bonus to the basis applicable to officers in the British Civil Service immediately prior to the transfer of the officers to the service of the Provisional Government."

Then I proceeded to state that the Government was prepared to pay the costs. It was recognised at that time, or shortly afterwards, that legislation, concurrent legislation, by the British Government would be necessary, because both the British Government and the Saorstát Government are interested in those officers. They were officers of the British Government, and the Treaty provided for their treatment and for their protection. The position that we found ourselves in when the Privy Council delivered this judgment was that our Supreme Court had decided in one particular way, it had as it were advised us that the meaning of the Treaty in regard to this business was a certain thing. The British Government had been advised by the Privy Council that the meaning was another thing. They, like us, thought that the judgment of the Privy Council was wrong. We could proceed to deal with it, but the position would not be satisfactory as between the two parties to the Treaty unless there was joint legislation dealing with it.

The matter at the time I made that statement had not been completely worked out. I am not sure whether or not it was known at that time that the agreement with concurrent legislation would be based on an agreement, but it was at any rate fully recognised that in order to close the matter and to bring the two parties to the Treaty legally as well as in opinion into accord, it was necessary that there should be legislation both here and in the British Parliament. After certain events in England, and for their own reason, the British Government decided to refer the matter again to the Privy Council for an opinion, hoping, as was clear, that they would obtain an opinion contrary to that expressed in the judgment when the case was heard. We were asked to allow to arrange for counsel from this side to put the case before the new board. We agreed to that on the condition that the expenses in connection with the matter were paid by the British. The fees of the counsel who appeared instructed nominally for the Attorney-General here were actually paid by the British Exchequer.

That board delivered another and even more extraordinary and absurd judgment than the first board. When that judgment was announced I was, I think, rung up by somebody on behalf of the Press, and I said that it would make no difference to us, that we were not interested in it, that the British Government had sought the opinion of the second board of the Privy Council for their own reasons. Now the only modification that has taken place as compared with the intention in February, 1928, when I first spoke on the matter, is simply this: that the British Government have agreed to pay the extra amount which the original Privy Council awarded to the civil servants concerned in this matter. I, for my part, see no reason at all why we should obstruct or in any way hinder or make difficult the action proposed to be taken by the British Government in paying that extra amount. It really is no concern of ours.

Deputies have talked as if this matter of the Wigg and Cochrane case was fundamentally concerned with the question of the hearing of appeals by the Privy Council from the Supreme Court here. That is clearly not so. I would refer Deputies to a statement made by the late Minister for Justice on 3rd February, 1926, when he was discussing the Lynham and Butler appeal, on the Land Bill, which ousted the jurisdiction of the Privy Council in the Lynham and Butler case. The quotation appears in the bottom of column 341, and reads:—"For the moment we are not complaining about the admission of the Civil Service case of Wigg and Cochrane. We disapprove of any continued exercise of this prerogative, but if it is to eke out an obsolescent existence for some little time longer before it becomes obsolete by the joint protest of the members of the Commonwealth, then Wigg and Cochrane is the kind of case that might be admitted."

As I say, we did not set out in dealing with this matter to kill the appeal to the Privy Council. We went before the Privy Council in the first instance when the case was being decided. If the judgment had not been manifestly wrong and such as to throw a burden that was admittedly unjust on the Saorstát, we would have raised no objection to it. We would have been prepared to accept it. Our point of view was the point of view that the late Minister for Justice stated, that this claim of the Privy Council to reverse the decision of the Supreme Court here was objectionable and that it was to be contested by the methods that had been devised in all purely domestic matters; that its complete abolition was to be worked for, but that we were not out to make a test case of the Wigg and Cochrane case in that particular matter. Incidentally I am quite satisfied that this particular case, although we did not set out to destroy the appeal to the Privy Council by means of it, has in fact finished the appeals to the Privy Council.

I think it is no longer a question of getting the British Government to agree to kill appeals to the Privy Council. It is only a question of getting them to agree to give the corpse a decent burial. I think there will never again be an appearance for the Attorney-General of the Free State before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Privy Council committed an absurd blunder in connection with this matter. It received, by the denunciations of its judgment, which were delivered even in the British Parliament, such a shock as it will never recover from. The judgment of the Second Board, instead of repairing matters, only damaged them further, and while we did not set out to do anything particular to the Privy Council in this case, the result of the blunders that were committed has been to bring the question of appeals from this country to the Privy Council to an end.

As for ordinary matters that have no international concern and which are not in any way involving the British Government, we have already devised a method which completely stops appeals to the Privy Council. This method we have used on a couple of occasions, and it, perhaps, could be perfected if it were necessary so as to make it still easier to prevent cases like the Copyright case or the Lynham and Butler case being dealt with before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I think that Deputies may feel pretty sure, whatever their opinion is, that even since the time that the late Minister for Justice spoke, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as a court of appeal from the Saorstát has obsolesced a great deal and it is now in such a comatose condition that it will probably die, as the newspapers say, without recovering consciousness.

With reference to the details of the Bill, I do not want, as it were, to anticipate the Committee Stage, but there has been a good deal of reference to Section 14, and Deputy MacEntee has delivered a sort of prophecy that, to say the least of it, is ridiculous. If Deputies will read Section 14 with any attention they will see that it is quite a simple section, and, I think, one that is unobjectionable. It may be unnecessary in actual practice to protect civil servants. It may be that no Government would do the things that perhaps some civil servants fear, but, in any case, it does not confer on them any rights beyond the rights they have actually had in practice. As I explained when introducing this Bill, the effect of its passage will be simply to leave the position as it would have been if the Wylie Committee had been a statutory committee. The points that are here made clear were points that were decided, in the sense that they are set down in this Bill, by the Wylie Committee. We felt bound to accept all the recommendations of the Wylie Committee as if they were judgments, and we acted on them whether, in fact, we disliked them or not. The only difference this Bill makes is that the new Committee recommendations will be statutory recommendations, final and conclusive, and must be accepted. In practice there will be no difference after this Bill is passed from the position that actually existed so far as civil servants are concerned while the Wylie Committee was operating.

Section 14 (2) provides that a civil servant may retire with compensation if he is required to perform duties that are not analogous, and that were an unreasonable addition to the duties of his office at the time of transfer. That protects—shall we take an extreme case?—a clerical officer from being told that in addition to his clerical duties he must wash the corridor outside his office every morning. It means that if a clerical officer were required to do duties of that sort he could then go before the Committee and could claim that he was required to perform duties that were not analogous and that were an unreasonable addition to the duties of his office, and he could claim to retire. That may not, as I say, prove necessary in practice, but the object of a provision such as that is to prevent the Government actually forcing transferred officers out, and not incurring the liabilities that they would incur if they were discharged in a straightforward way. I do not think it would occur, but any Deputy will see that it would be possible for a Government that would stoop to it to deprive civil servants of their rights by giving them duties which it would be impossible for them to perform and which they could not be expected to perform.

Sub-section (3) simply gives the same protection to an officer who has been promoted since the date of the transfer. This deals with a case of promotion in the normal course, and it simply means that the civil servant who has been promoted to a position has the protection that he had in his original post, because if you give no protection to a promoted officer it could conceivably happen that a Government, meaning to force a man out, would first move him out of the position which he held at the time of the transfer by promotion, and then, having deprived him of his Treaty protection, would proceed to treat him in some unfair way.

I do not want to deal with matters that are proper to the Committee Stage. The sections are all, in fact, perfectly reasonable and perfectly defensible. They will not create the type of bureaucracy that Deputy MacEntee referred to. As Deputy O'Connell, I think, said, in order to get these retiring allowances people will have to prove to the board that they have suffered unreasonable treatment, and we must assume that the board, which will be presided over by a judge, which will have representatives of the Minister for Finance and the transferred officers on it, will take a reasonable view of any case that is put before it. As a matter of fact, we are not going to have a rush for retirement, because I think it is perfectly certain that large numbers of the officers who have retired already are sorry they did so. A great many officers retired thinking that they would get employment of other sorts quite easily, but they did not find that the labour market absorbed them at all readily.

Deputy Moore talked about the man who had never done one-third of a day's work, and Deputy MacEntee talked about a huge, inflated, unwieldy, inefficient, and extravagant machine. Those are stock phrases for use at the crossroads, and I do not think that they require any reply.

I would like to ask the Minister one question, if I might. As the Bill is at present, does it, or does it not, give to the transferred civil servants from all sources exactly what they would have got— neither more nor less—under the decision of the Saorstát High Court?

That is a question that could not be answered by yes or no. If the Deputy will read the Bill he will see exactly what it gives them, and I think he knows what it gives them. It gives the people who retired before the 1st March the additional money which will be paid by the British Government, and it gives the people who retired after that the Supreme Court terms.

I have read the Bill, and it is because, from what I can see, the Bill does vary the decision of our High Court, that I must vote against it.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 76; Níl, 50.

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


  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Daniel.
  • Carney, Frank.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Colbert, James.
  • Cooney, Eamon.
  • Corkery, Dan.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Fahy, Frank.
  • Flinn, Hugo.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • French, Seán.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • Kent, William R.
  • Kerlin, Frank.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Mullins, Thomas.
  • O'Kelly, Seán T.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Reilly, Thomas.
  • Powell, Thomas P.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sexton, Martin.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (Tipperary).
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Tubridy, John.
  • Walsh, Richard.
Tellers: Tá. Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl, Deputies G. Boland and Allen.
Motion declared carried.
Committee Stage of the Bill ordered for Wednesday, 6th November, 1929.