Three amendments have been submitted on the Report Stage of the Shannon Fisheries Bill. These amendments seem to have arisen as an afterthought and should really have been tabled in Committee. The Chair does not look with favour on such departure from the usual procedure. However, owing to the fact that to suit the Minister's convenience, the passage of the Second and Committee Stages of this Bill were expedited, the Chair will allow the amendments to be moved.
Shannon Fisheries Bill, 1938—Report and Fifth Stages.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 2, at the end of Section 5, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) The Board shall be liable for any rate levied by a council of any county, county borough or urban district or the commissioners of any town in respect of any fishery or fishing rights transferred and vested under the powers contained in subsections (1) and (2) of Section 5 of this Act.
On a previous occasion I endeavoured to make a case for this amendment. It is this: that the fisheries on the Shannon were exempt from rates payable to the local council. The local rating authority did not get anything by way of rates from these fisheries, as these rates were struck and collected in some other way. I pointed out that if that kind of thing continued in County Clare, the county council would find itself in the position that a great many things would be taken away from the valuation of the county, and the other ratepayers would find themselves having to pay an excessive amount because of the reduced amount of rates coming in. I pointed out that the works at Ardnacrusha were exempt from rates, and that I had information that a proposed ammunition factory at Kilkishen was to be exempt from rates. I stated that I was also informed that it was proposed to exempt Rhynana, the air base, from rates, and now it is proposed to exempt the fisheries from the rates that were paid in the past by the owners. I do not think it is right that a big corporation like the Electricity Supply Board should be exempt from the payment of rates to Clare County Council. At a meeting on Monday last, the county council expressed its opinion very strongly on this proposal, pointing out that it would be a gross injustice to the revenue of the county if this corporation were exempt from the ordinary operation of paying rates to the local authority for the maintenance of public services. There is no reason whatever for such a proposal. If such a practice was to continue in respect of any of the works now being carried on in connection with Government or semi-Government institutions, local authorities would find themselves in a serious position. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment, so that further injustice will not be done to ratepayers in the county. I notice that the Fisheries Act exempts for 12 years certain fisheries in the county. Surely, Clare ought not be asked to bear all the burden of the irregularities and the injustice.
I cannot accept an amendment of this sort. Listening to Deputy Hogan, one would imagine that the Shannon Scheme and the Electricity Supply Board were exempt from the payment of all rates. The Electricity Supply Board is prepared to pay the same rates as were paid by the owners of fisheries that they have taken over. If Deputy Hogan wanted an amendment dealing with the question of payment of rates, that amendment would be on a Bill to amend the Fisheries Act of 1925. This Bill and the main Act of 1935 made no change in the liability of the Electricity Supply Board for the payment of rates. If we were to introduce an amendment dealing with the payment of rates by the Electricity Supply Board into this particular measure, we would be asking the board to pay two kinds of rates, rates for fisheries as well as the portion for which the Electricity Supply Board have to pay rates to the boards of conservators. The Electricity Supply Board is in exactly the same position as every other fishery owner in regard to the payment of rates. Deputy Hogan's amendment is to get the Electricity Supply Board to pay rates to the county council as well as to the conservators, and we cannot accept that amendment.
I am not prepared to withdraw the amendment. I think it is very important in principle.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: — Tá, 29; Níl, 54.
Tá.
- Bennett, George C.
- Benson, Ernest E.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Cole, John J.
- Corish, Richard.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Keyes, Michael.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
- Nally, Martin.
- Norton, William.
- O'Brien, William.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- Esmonde John L.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Heron, Archie.
- Hogan, Patrick.
- Hurley, Jeremiah.
- Keating, John.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Shaughnessy, John J.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Níl.
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Colbert, Michael.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Fred Hugh.
- Davis, Matt.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Flynn, John.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Friel, John.
- Fuller, Stephen.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kelly, James P.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Little, Patrick J.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Munnelly, John.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Tubridy, Seán.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Keyes and Heron; Níl: Deputies Little and Smith.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 4, line 57, Section 10, to delete the words "the board is satisfied" and substitute the words "an arbitrator appointed by the Minister is satisfied" and after the word "person" where it first occurs in line 58 to insert the words "to the board."
The principle of this amendment was fully debated when the Bill was going through its Second Reading. I have drafted it to implement the points I made on the Second Reading, and that Deputy Dillon and other Deputies made, that we could not accept the principle of an interested body being themselves empowered to deal with the matter of compensation in a question in dispute, which is practically what the section in the Bill amounts to. Here we have certain bodies of people applying for compensation to the Electricity Supply Board, and the Electricity Supply Board are given discretion to decide themselves whether or not they are going to give compensation, or what the amount of the compensation will be. I think that in that particular connection Deputy Hogan made a very relevant remark on the Second Reading, to the effect that, if you are going to give discretion to one party in a dispute, an equally good case could be made for giving discretion to the other party. One could make quite as good a case for giving discretion to the people who are looking for compensation as to the people who eventually will have to give it. I do not say that either case would be very just, but at least it is quite relevant and is a very good argument.
However, our principal objection to this section, as it stood, was that we could not at all accept the principle. It was bad enough, in certain Acts that were passed through this House, that certain Ministers should be given very wide discretionary powers — some of us have objected to that particular discretion being given to Ministers — but here we have gone further than we have gone, to my knowledge, in any legislation that we have passed, recently at all events. We have given discretion, in the very important matter of compensation, to the body that will themselves have to pay the compensation, to decide whether or not they will give it. Without making any long speech on the matter, since it was fully debated on the other reading, I think that the House generally will not accept that principle.
It was not really until the debate on the Committee Stage had proceeded a considerable distance that the urgency of this amendment became manifest. We objected altogether to the principle of allowing an interested party in a dispute to be the judge in that dispute; but when we came to discuss that principle, the Minister undertook to defend the position he had taken up, and his first line of defence was to say:
"It is highly likely that these people — these injured parties — will get a better deal from the Electricity Supply Board than they would get from an arbitrator, because it will be in the interest of the Electricity Supply Board to purchase their goodwill, and if they err at all, when they come to give an ex-gratia grant under the Bill, they will give an exceedingly generous grant because, in addition to allaying the ruffied feelings of the complainant, they want to bring him right over to their side.”
It is important to bear that statement of the Minister in mind. The debate then proceeded, and it was suggested that this Section 10 was the Minister's own plan, and at column 551, in Vol. 70, No. 5, of the Official Debates, the Minister made the following statement:
"I shall explain that this section did not initiate in the way suggested."
That is, from the Minister.
"An indication of the section was foreshadowed when the Electricity Supply Board approached me saying: ‘Here are classes of people who, in our opinion, have a claim for compensation, but unfortunately we are debarred by law from making payments to them'."
In fact, the Electricity Supply Board came along and said, in effect: "Some of these injured parties have kicked up such an infernal row that we want to buy them off, and we have not got statutory authority for doing so. Now, we want statutory authority to buy off the noisy ones, but as to the injured parties, who have no vested interests to speak for them, who have no eloquent advocate to speak for them, and who do not know how to make a nuisance of themselves, we do not want to do anything for them; but as to the fellows who have proved troublesome we want authority to buy them off." Now, we are not so interested in the fellows who have proved troublesome. We, in the Fine Gael Party, and those in the Labour Party also, I think, are interested in the unfortunate individuals who have wives and families and who find that, as a result of the operation of the electricity supply code, they have been deprived of an opportunity of earning their living, who have nobody to speak for them, and many of whom are simple people who do not know how to speak for themselves. Now, we want to give an arbitrator the discretion that it is proposed to give to the Electricity Supply Board in Section 10, so that if these people come to us we can say to them: "State your case in the simplest possible terms to this arbitrator who is set up, and if the merits generally of this are that, as a result of the Electricity Supply Act you have been deprived of your livelihood, he is here to direct the Electricity Supply Board to compensate you for that loss."
We want to open the door to every injured person. Now we do not want to open the door to come in and rob the Electricity Supply Board. All we want to do is to open the door to every injured person to come in to the arbitrator appointed by the Minister and to tell his story to the arbitrator. If he can satisfy that arbitrator appointed by the Minister that he has a genuine grievance then the arbitrator shall have discretion to say that this man should get compensation and to fix the amount. The Minister immediately wrapped the Cumann na nGaedheal flag around him and said that he is only following the Cumann na nGaedheal Government and nobody except the Cumann na nGaedheal Government is responsible. That is entirely irrelevant. We are not talking about what the Cumann na nGaedheal Government did. We are talking about what the Fianna Fáil Government will do. They have come in to set a wrong right that could not be foreseen when the original Bills were going through. That wrong is explained this way: no matter how carefully one drafts an Act of Parliament one is going to find that the cases that are not being provided for are very hard cases. It is admitted that if you are going to fix strict terms of reference for any arbitrator, no matter how carefully you examine the fact, you will find that the possible development of strict terms of reference will eliminate certain deserving claims. These are the notoriously hard cases of law. The whole object of Section 10 and this amendment is to provide machinery to overcome that defective legislation, to open the door to hard cases; to give somebody a much wider discretion than is given in the ordinary terms of reference such as are ordinarily incorporated in an Act of Parliament, and possibly to devise some arrangement and machinery by which that discretion could be vested in the arbitrator appointed by the Minister rather than giving it to the Electricity Supply Board. We say give the discretion to the arbitrator. He enjoys the Minister's confidence; he is a prudent person, an impartial person and a person who will do what is reasonable and just between the parties. What conceivable objection can there be to that proposal? Somebody has got to decide on the merits of these applications. Under the terms of Section 10 as it stands any person who is convinced he has a grievance can make representations to the board. Anybody can apply to the board and the board then can or may examine that application and, in their own absolute discretion, without assigning reasons, may determine whether they are going to make an ex-gratia payment or not. That is a most unsatisfactory arrangement. Our proposal is simply this: to allow the self same people envisaged by Section 10 to make representations to an independent man and within a reasonable limit of time let that independent man say to the board: “In the circumstances I think the board ought to make payment to the following list of persons and the payments shall be so much in each of the several cases.” When that is done the business is finished.
Now I think the purpose for which Section 10 is designed is a good one. I think one of the great defects of these schemes of rationalisation and rearrangement is the scruple that all of us must have about the hard cases. I would call to the memory of the House the very remarkable statement that was made by Deputy McGilligan when we were discussing the Insurance Bill where there arose cases claiming compensation. On that occasion he said that he was responsible under some Transport Acts for providing strict terms of reference under which injured parties were to get compensation, and that since he left the Government and became a Deputy in Opposition and went to the Bar he came into personal contact with a number of applicants who had failed to get compensation under the terms of these Acts settled by himself. He told us that his experience was that if he had to do the work again he would never allow any transaction of that kind to be carried through this House without provision for proper compensation to every person whose livelihood was destroyed by that legislation. Now that is a very remarkable admission by a man who had long experience of this kind of legislation. I think that particular statement was responsible for evoking this section. If this section is passed with the amendment that we propose and a reasonable time fixed under it for the aggrieved parties to come in and to allow a responsible person to examine these complaints in a detached way and to determine between the parties what claim the aggrieved person has upon the Electricity Supply Board then we are nearer to an agreed arrangement for settling matters of this kind than it is possible under any legislation to get. Where is the use in spoiling the ship for the ha'porth of tar? If we are to do the job right then why spoil it for this trifle? Whether we do it rightly or whether we do it wrongly the amount of money cannot be very great. If we do the job right and if we find that this system of an official arbitrator to gather up the loose ends and deal with the hard cases in an equitable way unrestricted by statutory terms of reference, is a satisfactory way to wind up affairs of this kind, then we may have discovered the key for the solution of these problems that may arise under amalgamation cases in the future. We know that there are Bills looming ahead of us in connection with amalgamation. Where there will be hard cases and where questions of compensation will arise would it not be splendid if in this Bill we devised a plan which would clear the consciences of all of us in regard to the hard cases? If the House will accept this amendment then we can say that everything that could reasonably be done to meet such cases has been done. The ship will not be spoiled for the ha'porth of tar, a reasonable gesture will be carried to its logical conclusion and justice will be done to all. Where is the use of standing on a trifle of this kind and leaving a trail of dissatisfaction, annoyance and grievance behind us? There is here provided a good solution. If this amendment is passed no one is going to run amuck and there is an absolute certainty that reasonable men will feel that substantial justice has been done to all, including the hard cases. Surely that is worth doing. Section 10 with the amendment will ensure that the ship will not be spoiled. I very strongly appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to accept this amendment, so that the whole House could combine with him in seeing that Section 10 looks after everybody in so far as it is possible to do so.
I have pleasure in supporting the principle of the amendment. To my mind, on reading Section 10, the real difficulty is that these people who feel they have a grievance and who have to make their claim to the Electricity Supply Board, have to make that claim to one of the parties to the transaction. Under the section as it stands you are asking one of the parties vitally concerned to adjudicate upon complaints made by people who have a grievance. That is the position in which you are placing the Electricity Supply Board. I do not think that anybody could argue that the insertion of the words in the amendment, suggesting the appointment of an arbitrator by the Minister, would interfere with the operation of Section 10, and I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that it would be establishing a very good principle if this amendment were adopted. In cases where a considerable principle is involved, where people feel they have a just grievance and ask for an amount of compensation to cover their losses, if that amount is to be determined by one of the parties interested, vitally interested, and if that party is to get the right of being the judge and jury in regard to what is to be allowed, then the position is most unfair. I suggest that would be the position if this section were allowed to stand as it is.
The appointment of an arbitrator by the Minister will enable people to come forward and prove their claims. They will have to be satisfied with the person appointed by the Minister, a person who is not bound by either of the parties to the dispute. I think it would have been just as equitable to say in Section 10 that the people who are aggrieved should themselves come in and decide what compensation ought to be awarded to them—it would at least be just as equitable as to allow the Electricity Supply Board, one of the vitally interested parties, to decide for themselves what compensation they will allow to people who feel they have had losses under the operation of legislation. If the Parliamentary Secretary does not see fit to accept this amendment, I strongly urge on the House to adopt it. I ask Deputies to establish the principle that in cases of this sort, where questions relating to loss of employment and earnings come into consideration, one of the parties to the dispute will not be allowed to act as judge and jury, but rather that the decision will be left to an arbitrator appointed by a Minister responsible to this House.
I would also like to support this amendment. I do so, not only from the point of view of principle, but because I happen to have had some personal experience in a somewhat similar case. I was glad to hear Deputy Dillon say that Deputy McGilligan now realises the hardship the original Act inflicted upon certain parties and interests. I happened to be connected with a little undertaking which made a profit of £600 a year. That undertaking was destroyed by the Electricity Supply Board and the compensation awarded was a sum amounting to less than three years' profits of the property. At that time there was a certain amount of freedom of contract. I had to submit to the terms imposed by the Electricity Supply Board. There was freedom in the transaction if you like, but it was the freedom that obtains between the boaconstrictor and the rabbit. I think the principle involved in this amendment would obviate the hardship that will fall on certain interests, not alone under this Bill, but, if we can establish the principle, it may extend to other forms of governmental control and activity. In view of my own experience and on grounds of general principle, I heartily support this amendment.
I would like to correct Deputy Bennett when he mentions the word "compensation." In regard to compensation, it is provided for in Acts already passed by the House. This is a question of an ex-gratia payment, not compensation, and I think it makes a great difference.
What is the difference?
Compensation can be assessed; at least you can define it. We are prepared to give these ex-gratia grants for something that is rather nebulous. The people who are to be considered as claimants for an ex-gratia grant are people who are unable to make a claim sustainable in law for compensation. That is my point. We are trying to do a very just and a very fair thing. I would agree with Deputy Dillon that there should be arbitration if it was a question of dealing between two parties and if there was not a question of a third party. If we had to deal as a Government with a man who owned a particular piece of property, it would be quite easy to deal with him by arbitration. In the case of fishermen who have a nebulous right, a right to fish, or a prescriptive right as Deputy Hogan called it—a right to fish on free waters—that would hardly be a right sustainable in law and hardly one for which we could assess definite compensation. We, however, while we regard their right as a nebulous right, think there is a moral right involved and we are inclined to go as far as possible in meeting the difficulties created for these unfortunate fishermen.
Deputy Dillon clarified the matter very well when he said that when you appoint an arbitrator you must have pretty tight terms of reference for him. I think that is correct and I agree with Deputy Dillon. Here there might be innumerable claims, claims covering a variety of things, and that would make it impossible to frame terms of reference. In that case it would be impossible for us to be just to the people whom we want to help if we were to appoint an arbitrator with any terms of reference, no matter how wide, because they might exclude some unfortunate man whom we hope to help in this manner. In the circumstances, I must refuse to accept the amendment.
If it is vital to have strict terms of reference, and I deny that it is vital to have strict terms of reference for the purpose of Section 10, how are the Electricity Supply Board going to determine these claims? All I want is that the arbitrator should have the discretion which the Parliamentary Secretary proposes to give to the Electricity Supply Board, whatever that discretion is. The Parliamentary Secretary must have some concept in his mind of what kind of discretion he proposes to confer on the Electricity Supply Board. All I am asking him to do is, having conceded that discretion, to confer it on the arbitrator instead of on the Electricity Supply Board.
The Parliamentary Secretary took me to task because I mentioned the word "compensation."
The Deputy realises, I assume, that we are not in Committee. Deputies may, however, ask questions within reason.
Then, putting it in the form of a question, I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he can see any difference between compensation and an ex-gratia payment that could not be met with a common solution? One quite appreciates what compensation is, as laid down by the law. Compensation is payment for something. An ex-gratia grant is also given for something.
Compensation is not given for nothing.
I said that compensation is given for something, for some right lost. An ex-gratia grant is given for something too, something lost, and there may not be as good a case made for it as for compensation, but nevertheless it is in fact compensation for something. I am suggesting that with all the Parliamentary Secretary's lofty sentiments and talk it would be quite easy to have an arbitrator appointed by the Minister or anybody else, who could adjudicate on a matter and decide on the amount of the ex-gratia grant, if you want to give that instead of compensation, and the circumstances under which it should be given. The Parliamentary Secretary said it would be impossible to frame terms of reference to include everything. We want to arrange this so that anybody who thinks he has sustained a loss can make an application and have it decided upon. Nobody who has extravagant ideas will put in an application if he knows he has not some foundation for his claim. To say that you could not frame terms of reference is pure nonsense. The section itself says that the board shall receive any application. Let any interested party make application and let the arbitrator decide whether there is anything in it, and if there is something in it, what amount he should give away by way of ex-gratia grant or whatever you like to call it.
The explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary makes the matter even more involved and complex than it appeared before he spoke, for he says that he has no objection to the principle enshrined in the amendment, and he thinks that it is a good thing to have an arbitrator, but he says it is a question between the board and the party from whom a right is being taken. He says that in this case the board will be dealing with people who have a nebulous claim to some lost right, which they could not prove on legal grounds, and that that can only be dealt with by allowing the board to give them an ex-gratia grant at their discretion. Yet this House is giving statutory authority to the board to acquire such rights at their discretion, from the previous owners without any arbitrator being allowed to come into the matter at all. As I said on an earlier stage it would be equally just to give to the other side, the existing owners, the right to fix the price of the interests acquired. It would be equally just to say that they should have discretion to determine the amount of compensation. The amendment is a perfectly fair one. If an arbitrator is appointed and the Electricity Supply Board can sustain their claim, the amount to be paid shall be determined by a party who will be impartial. Experience of the attitude of the Electricity Supply Board upon issues of a much more concrete character than those visualised by the Parliamentary Secretary, does not indicate that they are a very equitable body or a body to which the House could, with confidence, give this discretion. On a former occasion we had two sets of fisheries in Limerick of approximately the same length. In respect of the first of these rights, about four miles of water above the tidal water, the owners got £4,000 compensation, while in the case of another fishery of about the same length further upstream, the owners got compensation to the amount of £24,000 or £25,000. The owners in that case were of a different type and were in better circumstances than the unfortunate men who happened to be the owners of the other fishery. There is an anomaly upon an eight-mile stretch of water which is not calculated to inspire very much confidence that the Electricity Supply Board will give a square deal in the matter of assessing compensation for any rights they may take over under this Bill. The principle in the Bill is not one that can be defended in all equity but the amendment gives an equitable way out of it. Even where there are rights which the Electricity Supply Board feel could not be proved in court, the parties should be compensated when these rights are taken over and I say there is room for the appointment of an arbitrator to assess the amount that should be given to such persons when they come to be compensated. I think it would be an act of grace if the Parliamentary Secretary could see his way to accept the amendment. It would ensure satisfaction and harmony in the working of the measure as against the friction which is likely to be created between such people and the board by the knowledge that these people are going to be left absolutely at the mercy of the board in the matter of any compensation to which they feel they are entitled.
I am very glad that the Parliamentary Secretary is not accepting this amendment. I am against it and I can speak for some of the people concerned with this section. In former cases, where there was a question of the appointment of an arbitrator, the decision of the arbitrator was not always acceptable to those concerned in the arbitration, any more than the decision of the Electricity Supply Board would be. From previous experience, we know that, in connection with these Shannon Fisheries Acts, there is a better chance of the working fishermen who are concerned in this matter getting compensation from the Electricity Supply Board than from an arbitrator. Deputy Keyes referred to the Abbey fishermen. In that case the Electricity Supply Board made an offer, and if the matter had gone to the arbitrator, it is very doubtful if the fishermen would have fared as well.
Tuige nach labhrainn an Teachta as Gaedhilg indiu?
I know some of the men concerned in this question are averse to the appointment of any arbitrator and would prefer to deal with the Electricity Supply Board direct. They are confident that they would get quite as good a deal from the Electricity Supply Board as from the arbitrator. It is for that reason that I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary is not accepting this amendment. Of course there is a legal question involved, the question of the principle of the thing. Perhaps Deputy Dillon and other Deputies who have spoken on the question of principle may be correct in their attitude in that regard, but it is really a very small matter in which there are a small number of men concerned, the number of men who were not covered by the principal Act and for whom this provision is to be made in order that something can be done for them by way of an ex-gratia grant.
Question—"That the words proposed to be deleted stand"—put.
The Dáil divided:—Tá, 57; Níl, 34.
Tá.
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Carty, Frank.
- Clery, Mícheál.
- Colbert, Michael.
- Crowley, Fred Hugh.
- Davis, Matt.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Flynn, John.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Friel, John.
- Fuller, Stephen.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kelly, James P.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Little, Patrick J.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Munnelly, John.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Tubridy, Seán.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl.
- Bennett, George C.
- Benson, Ernest E.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Cole, John J.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Dillon, James M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, John L.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Heron, Archie.
- Hogan, Patrick.
- Hurley, Jeremiah.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Lawlor, Thomas.
- Linehan, Timothy.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Nally, Martin.
- Norton, William.
- O'Brien, William.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Sullivan, John M.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Question:—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Agreed to take the Fifth Stage now.
Question:—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.