Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 20 Mar 1934

Vol. 51 No. 9

Sheepskin (Control of Export) Bill, 1934—Second Stage.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." Its purpose is to make provision for regulating and controlling the export of sheepskins from the Saorstát and, arising therefrom, to revive the fellmongering industry in the Saorstát. Fellmongers are persons who treat sheepskins in such a manner as to separate the wool from the pelts. During the European War the industry was in a very flourishing condition here. It provided a considerable amount of employment to male labour, both skilled and unskilled. The principal fellmongering firms were situated in Dublin, Cork, Carlow, Limerick, Mullingar, Mallow and Clonmel. During that period these firms worked all the sheepskins that were available. The satisfactory state of the industry then was due directly to the prohibition which was in operation on the export of skins, but since that prohibition was removed the industry has declined and the majority of fellmongers are either closed down or working part-time. In fact, only three firms are now engaged in the industry —two in Dublin and one in Limerick.

The decline of the industry was due directly to the inability of Saorstát fellmongers to purchase sheepskins in competition with cross-Channel buyers. There are a number of reasons for that inability of Saorstát fellmongers, apart from the fact that the English firms in this business are much stronger financially and operate on a much larger scale. The skins bought here by these British firms are, of course, a very small proportion of the total of sheepskins bought by them. For various reasons, also, the pelts treated in certain parts of Great Britain command a somewhat higher price on certain markets, and for that reason English fellmongers are occasionally able to pay higher prices for skins and they have, apparently, been operating a consistent policy in this country, which has resulted in the practical suppression of the industry here.

It is, therefore, proposed under this Bill to prohibit the export of sheepskins and thereby, to make available for fellmongers in the Saorstát the raw material necessary to revive their industry. It is estimated that employment will be found for a number of men in consequence. There is no question that the Saorstát fellmongers can work all the skins that are available, but even if they cannot do so, provision is made in the Bill to permit the export, under licence, of any surplus. At the present time, the firms which are working—the three firms to which I have referred—are operating only to, approximately, one-sixth of their capacity, and it is estimated that the total quantity of skins is, roughly, from 20,000 to 25,000 a week. The effect of the operation of the measure will be to reduce somewhat the prices paid for sheepskins. It may be argued that the prohibition of the export of sheepskins, therefore, will have a bearing on the price of sheep. There is no reason to believe that the Saorstát farmer will be affected by the Bill as the price of sheep will continue to be governed by the export prices. Any reduction in the price of sheepskins would fall on the butchers who, however, cannot be said to be in an unfavourable position at the present time. There is a ready market for pelts in Great Britain and the Continent, and no difficulty in disposing of the products of the industry is anticipated. The pelts prepared in the Saorstát will be available for export as there are as yet no light tanneries in the country. Any loss in the export trade will, therefore, be more than compensated for by the increased export of pelts. The licensing provisions of the Bill can also be operated, if necessary, to prevent any attempt to depress, unduly, the price of sheepskins here. In addition the Bill will permit of the export in the months of June, July and August of the skins of shearlings which are not worked by the fellmongers. The measure is a simple one. Its provisions can easily be understood. I have outlined the manner in which it is proposed to utilise the powers conferred by the Bill. The matter has been very carefully considered and discussed at a number of conferences with all the interested parties. The measure before the Dáil is the outcome of these discussions.

The Minister makes a statement that all the interested parties have been consulted. I would like to ask if any representatives of the farmers have been consulted.

Yes, the Department of Agriculture.

The extraordinary thing about that reply is that it discloses the extraordinary mentality of the present Government as regards the farming community. The Minister says that the Bill will not have any effect on prices so far as the farmers are concerned. He said it may affect the butchers. It is the first time I learned that butchers are philanthropists. It seems an extraordinary thing to see a Bill like this introduced and to see that the farmers are to get it in the neck every time. If the Minister can show us how a serious reduction in the price of skins is not going to effect a reduction in the price of sheep I would be glad to know from him how he arrives at that conclusion. The farmers in this country are anxious for industries, but I think there should be some assurance given to them that if industries are to be started here they must be able to compete with other countries. It is not fair that farmers should be curtailed in the price of their sheep in order to start an industry here that is not able to live on its merits or on the merits of its work. What strikes me as extraordinary is that the fellmongers in this country have this advantage: they are more favourably placed with regard to cost of the transport of the skins, the raw product. One would imagine that that would mean putting them in the position that they would be able to pay as good a price as the people beyond the water. I think a question like this that affects the farmers so much as 20,000 to 25,000 sheepskins a week is very important. In the present condition of the live-stock trade I think it is a deplorable thing that any steps should be taken that would affect the farmers in that way. I think the Minister ought to consider whether the industry is really worth the hardship it will inflict on the farming community.

I was surprised that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who shows periodical signs of being a business man, should bring in such a measure. I am sure he is laughing to himself when telling us of these conferences that he had with agricultural representatives on this Bill. I remember some years ago—when the policy here was not so favourable to wheat growing as the present policy of the Government—being on a deputation who met in conference representatives of the Department of Agriculture. We certainly urged the case for more wheat growing. But all the big guns of the Department flattened us out, the very same big guns that are now behind the Minister for Agriculture supporting wheat growing. Civil Servants like all servants will stand by their boss. In this case the Minister told the poor civil servant: "You represent agriculture, but you must represent it the way I want it," and he has faithfully carried out orders. Is not that the position?

The Minister for Industry and Commerce wants the House to believe that prohibiting the export of sheepskins with perhaps 10 lbs. or 12 lbs. of wool on the skin will not materially affect the price of skins or the price of sheep. I am afraid that if there is such a great demand for sheepskins in Great Britain and the Continent we will reach the time when the skin will be the most valuable part of the sheep. I wonder did the Minister consult the butchers and ask them would it affect their trade if the export of the skins was prohibited? A butcher goes into the market and puts a value on the hide of the sheep just as he puts a value on the best of the loin chops and he expects to get some of his expenses out of the skin naturally. If he does not get that, or if there is a loss through any diminution in the value of the skin because of the passage of this Bill, is it not quite obvious that the butcher must lose; is it not quite obvious that the man who sells the sheep must lose or that the public must pay more for the mutton? Somebody must lose. The Minister instead of singling out 20,000 or 25,000 sheepskins a week should have put some money value on those.

It is all very well to get some people into employment here and there, but I am afraid it will work out like the market that the Minister for Agriculture got, a few pounds of butter here and a few eggs there and a few pounds of meat somewhere else. You must get something substantial. Though I am 100 per cent. protectionist, I doubt if this thing is a business proposition at the present time, and more especially so when the value of the sheep has gone down. The Minister will reply to this and he will quote The Farmer and Stock Breeder about prices, but I want to anticipate the Minister and tell him that there is an artificial increase in the price of sheep in Europe as well as here at present. There has been a diminution in the sheep population here because since the Minister became Minister lambs have been taken in exchange for two ounces of twist. The farmers got out of breeding sheep to a large extent. But the diminution in the sheep population and the consequent rise in prices owing to the shortage elsewhere have artificially put up the price of mutton.

He should have taken the House more into his confidence by showing the capacity, the outlet, the possibilities of this trade here. He might have told us if in normal times this would be a good business proposition. I submit for the Minister's consideration that in the abnormal times through which we are passing he might defeat the ends he has in view. There is nothing as dangerous as to tackle a useful job at the wrong time, and if he cuts down the price of the commodity we have at a time when the price for that commodity is low, and puts on a certain tax in order to build up an industry somewhere else, it may poison public opinion. He is certainly going to face failure and he may poison public opinion against attempting the job under more favourable circumstances. The Minister should not pursue this project. He has not made a case why the butcher should suffer, why the farmer who produces the sheep should suffer, or why the public should pay more for their meat. All three things may happen. He has not told us what increased employment there will be or what chances there will be for the export of dressed sheepskins. If he thinks that dressing them will provide a profitable national asset, would he not consider it advisable to fix a price for the sheepskins here not less favourable than the price they are getting for them at present? Will he not fix a price bearing some relation to the existing price in the British market?

If he is determined to go through with his Bill he should make arrangements with the factories that will work the raw material into a manufactured article so that they will take the raw material at a price that will compare favourably with British prices. If he does so the producers of the skins here will not suffer any loss. If he acts otherwise he is going to take something very definite away from the producers. The producers of sheepskins are not in such circumstances that they can look forward to becoming millionaires either in this world or in the next. The Minister should make sure that they will get as good a price for the raw material as could be obtained in Great Britain. If he gives us that assurance I might consider the Bill wise and opportune; but if the Minister cannot guarantee that, I do not think it could be considered an opportune measure. It is very unwise to have interference with the natural flow of industry. In this case we are concerned with the production of sheepskins, a by-product of mutton. The people handling the sheepskins will make sure that the apparent loss will be greater. I believe the loss to the producer will be greater than perhaps this innovation would warrant. I suggest that the Minister should withdraw the Bill or otherwise see that the sheepskin producers are not going to suffer any loss.

I think Deputy Belton has made a very useful suggestion when he proposes that there should be an understanding with the fellmongers that a competitive price would be paid. If there are to be only three buyers of sheepskins in the Saorstát it is obvious an arrangement between them could bring down the price of sheepskins to a very insignificant figure. As the Minister has met the fellmongers already, I would like if he would tell us whether they have given any guarantee or whether any understanding has been come to between him and them as to the maintenance of a reasonable price for sheepskins. It is all right to say the price of sheep will not be affected since that is controlled by the demand for export. I do not altogether accept that statement. I think the price of sheep is governed by the competition between those who buy for the home market and those who buy for the export market. If those who buy for the home market have to take into account that the skins they will have left after the slaughter of the sheep will have to be sold at a much less price than formerly, obviously the price they will offer will have to be somewhat less than would ordinarily prevail. In any case I think the fellmongers hardly deserve to be offered such a big concession as this, a concession which practically amounts to a present of the raw material for their industry. I suggest the Minister should give us some guarantee on the question of prices.

This Bill seems to be objectionable in principle because it appears to amount to a concealed subsidy to one particular class of the community at the expense of another class; in this instance to the domestic buyers of sheepskins—fellmongers—at the expense of the farmers. I would suggest to the Minister that if he wishes to revive the trade to which he refers it should be done, not at the expense of the farmers alone, but at the expense of the community, and that such direct grant should be given from public money as may be found necessary to make it possible for the trade to be revived and to encourage persons interested in it. I feel that at any time, and particularly at a time when the farming community has suffered and is suffering such hardships as at present, a Bill which selects them as the victims to subsidise a new industry or a revived industry ought not to be passed by this House.

I know very little about sheep and less about sheepskins. so that it is merely from the economic point of view I rise to ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will make clear a couple of points that I have not been able to gather from his introductory remarks. I assume that it is quite evident that when the fell-mongers here are finished dressing the skins and they are brought over to the other side or wherever they are exported to, they will cost more. Sheepskins, or dressed sheepskins, apparently, are going to cost more.

I should like to ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce has he considered whether there are alternative sources of supply for sheepskins, and if people who are using sheepskins have any alternative material because, at the present time, the industry is conducted on very narrow margins. I can envisage a very small increase in the cost of the supply of raw material—because that is what dressed sheepskins are to the trade that are using them up—bringing in an alternative source of supply, or bringing in quite another material to be used. It looks, on the face of it, as if we were going to get away with the dressing of 25,000 sheepskins per week in this country. If that is so, and if somebody here is not going to get less for their part of the whole, it is all right; but quite apart from whether the farmer is going to get less for the sheep, or the butcher to get less for the sheepskin, or who is going to suffer over here, there is the still further and bigger question, I submit, of whether we can add to the price of dressed sheepskins and hold our market. That is the important part of the question, and as the Minister for Industry and Commerce probably has the sources of information at his disposal, I should like to ask him to make that abundantly clear; namely, that we have not, in trying to get something extra, lost what we have got already. If we can better our position it is all to the good, but are we endangering the whole source of export for our sheepskins from this market? I should like the Minister to make that perfectly clear in his reply.

I should like to say that I am very disappointed at the statement the Minister has made. I thought that, in making a statement to us, he would tell us something as to the use to be made of the sheepskins in this country and as to the extra wool to be kept here, but I find now that his statement is completely empty of anything like that. Taking the actual contents of the Bill and the Minister's statement on it, I feel that it is a very poor tribute to this great industrial spirit that the Minister's policy is supposed to have stirred up in the country. He gives me the impression of holding a sucking-bottle to some very anæmic industrialist's mouth and doing it in such a gingerly way as to suggest that he wished he had not such a small baby to hold, or one that looked so unpromising. The Minister simply tells us that he is going to prevent the export of sheepskins with the wool on and that the wool is going to be taken off here; that then the wool is to be sent out of the country and the skeepskins also, and that it is going to result in the employment of a few people in the country.

I did not say a few.

The Minister did not tell us how many. He was not prepared, evidently, to lift the shawl and let us have a look at the baby in order to see what size it actually was. However, taking his statement with regard to the question of reduction in price alone, I think the House is entitled to hear something as to the number of people employed in fellmongering at the moment and the number of people who will be employed with regard to the whole of our skin supply. I understand that about 1,000,000 skins are available and that about two-thirds of that quantity are exported with the wool on. Do we understand that by keeping these skins in the country for that purpose the employment in the fellmongering industry is going to be increased by twice the amount at present employed? If so, what is the number likely to be employed? If each of the, let us say, 660,000 skins supposed to be exported at the present time are going to be paid for at, say, a shilling less, it is going to cost some people, below the top fringe of the farming community, something like £33,000 a year. Deputy MacDermot suggests that it would be more reasonable to give a direct subsidy for the improvement of this industry. I should like to know whether the Minister would feel happy in coming to the Dáil to propose that a direct subsidy of £33,000 or £35,000, or a little more, should be given annually for the development of the fellmongering industry alone here. I do not think the Minister would do that, but, at any rate, in putting a proposition before the House which definitely indicates that he is definitely going to use the powers that he is taking in this Bill for the improvement of the fellmongering industry, I think the House ought to be told what the Minister has in mind with regard to it.

With regard to the losses, it has to be borne in mind that within the last few years the price for these skins has fallen very considerably. The Minister's own figures tell us that the skins exported with the wool on, in 1932, brought in only, approximately, half the price per hundredweight of the skins that were exported two years before that, and that there was a fall in that year also compared with the previous year. There has been a considerable fall, according to the figures quoted by the Minister himself, and I should like to know is there going to be an additional fall of 1/- per pelt. I understand that the price received for pelts, say, from January to May, in any normal year, would be about 6/-. Is there going to be a reduction of 1/- on that, and are we, who expected something different from the Minister as regards the development here of the actual use of the wool and the actual use of the sheepskins themselves, to understand from the Minister that he sees nothing in this proposal that is going to create additional employment around the wool that is going to be separated from the skins here, or around the skins that are going to be prepared? Are they all going to be exported?

The question of the number of people who might be employed under this Bill is a very important matter, but that is a question, which, to my mind, it is impossible to discuss, because we have not received from the Minister any real indication of the possible numbers that might be imported. What does strike me very forcibly about it is this, that in this country we have very large tracts of land which are only suitable for, and can only support, sheep, and the unfortunate people who own these lands have been very extensively hit already, and are not in a position to bear any further burden. It seems to me that this Bill will, of necessity, put the whole burden on their shoulders, because, after all is said and done, the price of sheep is affected by the value of the skin, and the skin value is entirely affected by two things; one, the time of the year when the sheep is killed and the skin taken off, which depends entirely on how many months' growth of wool; and, secondly, on the particular time of year that the skin is sold. I have had very many years' experience of this, and I know that the price of the skin depends entirely on the amount of wool on the skin, and that does affect the price of the sheep.

It seems to me that the whole burden is going to be chiefly borne by those who cannot support anything on their land except sheep, and also by other farmers who rear sheep as well as other stock. I think it is a matter that requires very careful consideration. I should like to mention that, although I have the highest regard and respect for the officials of the Department of Agriculture, this is a matter that goes very deep. I should like to know what the sheep farmers in County Wicklow and in other places in Ireland, where they depend practically entirely on sheep, think of this matter. I should like to know if they have been consulted.

I should like to know if the figures which the Minister gave are export figures only, and can he give us any indication of the total production; how much is the home consumption of those skins and what uses they are put to. Did he consult any outsiders or was the consultation on behalf of industry with his Department and on behalf of agriculture with the Department of Agriculture? If he did consult any outside interests, why did he not consult agricultural private interests if he consulted industrial private interests? Was the consultation altogether confined to the two Departments consulting with one another?

The operation of the Bill will not affect the price of sheep in the least.

A Deputy

Why not?

I think Deputies who have been preaching day in and day out that the price of any agricultural product of which there is an exportable surplus is determined by the export price should not run away from their teaching so rapidly as they have done to-day. If there was one thing which the Party opposite seemed to regard as an axiom, something beyond contention, it was the statement which they so frequently made that where there is an exportable surplus the price on the export market determines the price at home. Either they are completely wrong in that or else they are completely wrong to-day, because if, as their earlier assertions would lead us to believe, the export price where there is a surplus determines the home price, then this Bill cannot affect the price of sheep by one red penny. I think anyone who gives the matter a moment's consideration will see that that is so. There is a large exportable surplus of sheep. Sheep are exported with the skins on them and the price at which sheep will be purchased will be determined by the price at which sheep are purchased for export. It is quite true, as Deputy Brennan said, that butchers are not philanthropists. When the price of sheepskins went up over the past 12 months, and when the butcher realised more for the sheepskins than he anticipated when buying the sheep, he did not go back to the farmer and say: "I made a mistake in the price; here is a little more." Of course not. They are not philanthropists.

That would apply to every shopkeeper.

They are business people who have no control over the price they are going to get for the product. The price paid for sheepskins is determined by the price paid for pelts. It is, of course, possible for fell-mongers in Great Britain temporarily to pay a price here which is uneconomic in order to corner the supply, but they will not continue doing that indefinitely. In the long run the price secured for the pelt on the market will determine the price of the skin, and that is the fact that is going to determine the price of the sheepskin here as well as in Great Britain. If there is any tendency to corner the market or to depress prices unduly, there is power taken in the Bill to license export and that is the most effective method of securing that the situation here will not be availed of for the purpose of making undue profits by the fellmongering firms. I anticipate that there will be more than three firms in this business. Firms that closed down during the past decade will, I trust, reopen, as a number of other firms that closed down have reopened. In any event, there will be sufficient demand, between the firms now existing and the firms that will come back into existence, to ensure that competition, on the one hand, and the price procurable for pelts on the other, will determine the price paid for skins.

I consulted the Department of Agriculture as to the manner in which the operation of the Bill might affect farmers. I think they were the proper body to be consulted. For the moment, I forgot Deputy Belton. But there is no other place that I am aware of where the opinion of farmers can be procured or the manner in which the interests of the farmers are likely to be affected can be stated in an authoritative manner.

Whom did you consult to prohibit export? Did you consult the industrialists?

Everybody interested.

You did not consult any farmer?

We consulted the Department of Agriculture.

Why did you consult private individuals in the one case and not in the other?

May I proceed now? Deputy Dockrell appears to be under some misunderstanding concerning this Bill. There is at present no light tannery handling sheepskins in this country. We hope that in due course such a tannery will be established and, of course, the introduction of a measure of this kind is an essential preliminary to the establishment of such an industry. Wool detached from the skins and the pelts after treatment are entirely exported. There is none retained in the country at all. That position will still continue until the light tannery has been established and it is possible to utilise the sheepskins here. Wool, of course, will continue to be exported. No matter what plans may be adopted in order to encourage the utilisation of Irish wool here, there will always be a fairly large surplus available for export. It has been, in fact, calculated that if every article manufactured from wool used in this country was manufactured from Irish wool there would be still about 66?rd per cent. of the wool produced available for export. The treatment of that wool—the cleaning of it, the scouring of it and the grading of it—gives very considerable employment. That employment is now being given mainly on the Continent and there is no reason why it should not be given here. That industry will, in fact, permit of considerable development once a start is made upon it.

Deputy Mulcahy was on the same point. He seemed to consider it unsatisfactory that we were merely proposing to do the fellmongering and continue to export the pelts and the wool. The tanning of sheepskins is a very skilled trade. It will not be easy to get it established, but we hope to do so. Until we do so we shall continue to operate as at present. There will be no difficulty in selling the pelts. There is, in fact, a demand for them in excess of the supply. That demand exists in practically every European country. The only serious point raised in the discussion is the reaction of this measure upon the price of sheep. I think it will not affect the price of sheep. It will affect the price of sheepskins, but not, however, to any appreciable extent.

So you propose to buy the sheep without the skins?

A very large number of them. In fact, I think it is the regular practice in most civilised homes to eat the sheep without the skins.

You will not get many of them down in Wicklow.

The difference in price which will result will be very slight. It will represent the elimination of an uneconomic element in the determination of the price—something which was bound to take place in any event. The licensing power will be operated to ensure an economic price. That price is easily determinable, having regard to the prevailing price of pelts. If the price of pelts increases it is anticipated that the price of sheepskins should increase, and vice versa. If there is any tendency to move in the opposite direction the licensing power can be brought into operation to check that development. The present price of sheep is higher than it was this time last year, and higher than it was this time two years. Sheep are at present selling for a higher price than when Cumann na nGaedheal were in office. There may be a number of explanations of that fact, but it is a fact. Deputies are always able to explain away developments of that kind. They never seem to be quite so adept at finding explanations for other developments about which they talk so frequently. The price of sheepskins rose considerably during last year. Deputies who look at the available trade statistics for January and February will see that there was almost a 50 per cent. increase in the price of sheepskins over that period.

What was the price per cwt.?

I have only the January figures here. In 1933, 7,112 cwts. realised £6,839. In 1934, 7,640 cwts. realised £10,966. I think Deputies need have no apprehensions about the measure. It is not possible to say what employment will be given in this industry until it is known to what extent it will develop, and to what extent the sheepskins available in the country will be utilised here. When the industry was flourishing during the war nearly 200 men were employed in it. It is an industry which one would like to see established, because it employs adult men only, and I think that is an important consideration. Most of the workers are also skilled workers, and can command what are in these days regarded as relatively very high wages. I do not know that there is any other point which I need mention. The measure was decided upon after long consideration. It may be only one of a number of similar measures that may have to be adopted in order to conserve the native supplies of raw material for different industries, as a preliminary to the wider expansion of industry. The situation is somewhat different in respect of other animal products, but where there is raw material being exported which can be utilised at home, it may be necessary, in order to secure the utilisation of those products here, to regulate their export so as to ensure that a highly organised group in Britain will not be able to defeat such attempts by cornering the market. That is the main purpose of this Bill.

The Minister tells us that during the war 200 persons were employed in this industry.

Does the Deputy desire to ask a question? The debate may not be resumed.

I am just asking a question. Assuming that this measure, when put into operation, is going to give employment to an additional 200 persons, I am submitting to the Minister that a decrease of 1/- a skin is going to cost more than, say, £35,000, which is more than £150 per man.

There will not be that decrease in consequence of this Bill.

I should like to ask the Minister if he has really brought his mind to bear at all upon the extent to which the price of skins will be reduced? He has made a definite statement here that they will be reduced——

I also made the statement that they had recently been substantially increased.

Although they have recently been substantially increased the value of them is about £1 6s. 8d.; in 1931 they were worth 30/- a cwt.; they were worth 49/7 the year before, and 72/8 the year before that. If the Minister has gone into the question of price can he make any suggestion—say as against the price of 6/- a skin paid last year—as to what decrease in price the operation of this Act is going to bring about? It is a very material point when considering the question of the number of people to be employed.

That is subject to regulation. It is definitely subject to regulation under the Bill.

The prices are subject to regulation?

Oh, no. The price will, of course, be determined, as I said, by the price for pelts prevailing in Great Britain and elsewhere. The manner in which this Bill will affect the price is subject to regulation by the operation of the licensing clause.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 53; Níl, 26.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, William Frazer.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Crowley, Timothy.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hales, Thomas.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Kehoe, Patrick.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Doherty, Joseph.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Pearse, Margaret Mary.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).

Níl

  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Belton, Patrick.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
  • Dolan, James Nicholas.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Good, John.
  • Keating, John.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • MacDermot, Frank.
  • McGuire, James Ivan.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Morrisroe, James.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Rogers, Patrick James.
  • Rowlette, Robert James.
  • Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Traynor and Moylan; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Committee Stage ordered for tomorrow, March 21st.
Top
Share