Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 8 Apr 1943

Vol. 89 No. 14

Army Pensions Bill, 1943—Final Stages.

I move that the Bill be received for final consideration.

There is an amendment in the name of Deputy Dockrell which is out of order. The Bill provides that allowances be paid to dependents who are mainly dependent on a deceased soldier and the amendment suggests that such allowances be paid if the dependents were partially dependent. That would obviously involve an increased charge on the Exchequer.

I understand that the amendment is out of order, but with your kind permission I should like to make just a few remarks on the hardship of this.

The amendment may not be discussed. As it is out of order, any discussion initiated would be out of order. Were the Deputy allowed, other Deputies could not be precluded from following.

I wish to call attention to the narrow scope of the section.

The section does not arise on the Report Stage. What does arise is the Bill as affected by the amendments made in Committee.

Perhaps I might be allowed to speak later.

I understand that the motion before the House is that the Bill be received for final consideration. I object to that motion. On the 3rd March when the Bill was first introduced the Minister indicated that he would like to have the Second Reading on the following day, and said that he did not think that it could be regarded as a very intricate or controversial type of Bill. Nevertheless, there was no objection on the part of anybody in the House to taking the discussion on Second Reading on the following day. When the Bill appeared, it was clear at a single glance that it contained some very serious defects. The Minister, in replying to some of the criticism, said:

"The extent of the period between my setting out to bring this matter to its present position and the present time is due to the fact that the Bill had to be carefully considered and discussed and rediscussed, and this represents the result of that consideration and discussion."

The Minister thus indicated that a very considerable amount of consideration, discussion and rediscussion had taken place before the Bill was presented to the House. A serious defect in the Bill was pointed out to the Minister on Second Reading. Nevertheless, when we came to consider the matter on Committee the following week, no attempt was made by the Minister to meet the point raised on Second Reading, or to assist the House in any way in the serious discussion of an important measure which had involved him in a considerable amount of consideration, discussion and rediscussion. Four out of every five men in the Army to-day are men who joined the Army in response to the national call—a call made by every Party in the House, and supported by the whole of the people. Their response to that call rendered them liable either to lose their lives or to lose their ability to maintain themselves and their families——

In the opinion of the Chair, the Deputy is losing sight of what is permissible on the Report Stage, namely, the Bill as affected by changes made in it in Committee. There were none.

I shall content myself with saying that it would be a disgrace and a discredit to this House if this Bill were to leave it after final consideration in the form in which it is at present, after the type of discussion which has taken place and the type of consideration which it has received in Committee. That is the point I want to emphasise, and it is only in relation to that point that I desired to advert to the importance of the measure——

The Deputy is making a Second Reading speech.

I did not think that I was restricted strictly to the discussion of alterations made in Committee on the terms of the motion: That the Bill be received for final consideration.

On the Fifth Stage, it will be permissible for the Deputy to discuss what is contained in the Bill.

It would be a disgrace to the House if the Bill were received for final consideration without anything being put before us by the Minister to meet the points made in Committee.

Is the Minister still in a position to make the changes suggested?

I am not making any changes.

I hope the Minister will make the necessary changes.

Question put.
The Dáil divided:—Tá, 55; Níl, 22.

Tá.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Crowley, Fred Hugh.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Fuller Stephen.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Daniel.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Keane, John J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Kelly, James P.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Loughman, Francis.
  • McCann, John.
  • McDevitt, Henry A.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Meaney, Cornelius.
  • Morrissey, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Mullen, Thomas.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Loghlen, Peter J.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Rice, Brigid M.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Laurence J.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Conn.

Níl.

  • Bennett, George C.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Dockrell, Henry M.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Hannigan, Joseph.
  • Hickey, James.
  • Hughes, James.
  • Keating, John.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, Timothy J.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Sullivan, John M.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Ryan, Jeremiah.
Tellers:-Tá: Deputies Smith and S. Brady; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.

I move that the Fifth Stage be taken now.

I am opposed to taking the Fifth Stage now.

Is the Deputy pressing it to a division?

Do I understand that there is a motion before the House that the Fifth Stage be taken now?

Yes. I assume that the Deputy understands that it is nothing contrary to precedent in taking it to-day.

If you are accepting that motion, I want to say a few words on it. The Minister told us on the previous stage that he has no proposals amending this Bill to bring before the House. I, therefore, oppose the taking of the Fifth Stage now, because I think the Minister should consider between now and Wednesday next whether, in justice to the House, to himself, and to the men who have been asked to serve the country and the families depending on them, he should not reconsider his position.

The country, as I have just stated, called men of all classes and all ages to the Army to defend the country against military dangers to which it was possibly exposed. We have an Army now in which four out of every five are men who left their ordinary avocations and joined the Army, thereby exposing themselves to the possibility of either losing their lives and leaving their families to be cared for by the State or by somebody else, or incurring permanent disability, rendering themselves incapable of supporting themselves and their wives and families and leaving them to be cared for by the State or by somebody else. The Minister has indicated that he has reviewed this matter at considerable length. When the Bill came before the House, as I have already said, we found serious defects in it, although the Minister suggested it was uncontroversial, and now as we look at the measure we find that the Minister's suggestion that the Bill is not intricate is anything but a correct description of it.

When I realised the unsatisfactory nature of the provisions being made for the wife and children of an officer or man who was completely disabled, I sought to be allowed to remove these provisions from the Bill and to introduce an amendment by which the married pensions to be paid in respect of the wife and children of a disabled man or officer would be fixed by regulations to be made by the Minister for Defence, after consultation with the Defence Conference. That amendment was ruled out of order because the implication was that it would impose an increased charge on the State; but, although the Minister considered the whole matter, he never consulted the Defence Conference, or any members of it, in connection with these proposals, and he has not in fact consulted this House.

At the beginning of the discussion on Committee Stage, I drew attention to the basic position of certain officers and said:

"Under the 1923 Act, if an officer was 100 per cent. disabled, he became entitled to a pension of £200 a year."

Then, with regard to Section 3 of this Bill, I went on to say that while, under the 1923 Act, if an officer was 100 per cent. disabled, he became entitled to a pension of £200 a year, this section contemplates that an officer who is permanently disabled in the present emergency may only get £120 a year. The Minister, in effect, told me that I had completely misinformed myself on the question of officers' pensions, or, more or less, that I had not read the Bill or had some ulterior motive for the criticisms I made. He implied that the criticisms of the Bill from these benches were dictated by unworthy motives, but in reply to a Parliamentary question yesterday my suggestion or interpretation of Section 3 was quite borne out by the Minister's answer. I did say that, under the 1923 Act, the minimum pension that any officer suffering from disablement would get would be £200, but according to the reply that was given to me by the Minister yesterday the amount payable to an unmarried officer, suffering 100 per cent. disablement attributable to service in the forces during the emergency, would be, in the case of a second-lieutenant, £120, both maximum and minimum; in the case of a lieutenant, a maximum of £153 6s. od., and a minimum of £120; and in the case of a captain, a maximum of £197 2s. od., and a minimum of £153 6s. od.—all substantially below the £200 mark. The attitude of the Minister, generally, was that he was not going to take part in any discussion or explanation as to the Government's attitude in this matter. I think it is regrettable that we cannot discuss in this House in any constructive way the provision to be made for the wives and children of people who have been disabled as a result of taking their part as soldiers in this emergency.

I should also like at this stage to ask how many of the Deputies who are sitting behind the Minister, who have voted for every section of this Bill, really understand what the Bill provides for. I think it is a unique Bill. The Minister said, justly, that a Bill, of this kind would be accepted by everybody in the House, but when we came to look at it, the result was that there were 13 divisions called on the Committee Stage of the Bill. As a matter of fact, every line of the Bill was challenged, but in all of these divisions nobody walked into the Lobby in favour of the Minister's proposals except his own supporters. Even on the Money Resolution, only three people, who were not supporters of the Minister, voted for it, and they voted, either inadvertently or, possibly, for some other reason. Therefore, I suggest that there is reason for reconsidering this Bill in the light of the attention that has been called to it. Does anybody here realise what this Bill means?

Let us take, for example, three instances. Let us take the case of two men who, at their country's call, joined the Army and became second-lieutenants, and let us say that one was unmarried, but with a mother dependent on him, whereas the other was married and had a wife and six children. According to this, they both would get £120 as their basic pension. The man with the wife and six children would get an addition of £30, in addition to the £120, whereas the pension provided for a mother who was entirely dependent on a second-lieutenant would be added to by the amount of £52 a year. Does anybody realise that under this Bill, if a sergeant of the Army and a member of the L.D.F. are both killed while engaged on military duty—both men, let us say, leaving a widow and six children—the widow of the sergeant in the Army will get 28/6 a week for herself and her six children, while the widow of the L.D.F. man will get 48/- for herself and her six children? The sergeant in the Army who loses his life will leave his widow and six children depending on 28/6 a week, while the widow and six children of the L.D.F. man will have at least 48/- a week.

Under Section 7 of this Bill certain arrangements are made for special grants to certain classes, irrespective of whether the people concerned were officers or not, but under Section 7, "the appropriate annual sum" for a widow and six children is £140 8s., whereas under the provision made here the widow and six children of a sergeant would only receive an annual provision of £74 2s., while the annual provision for an L.D.F. man would be £125. We ought to be able to say what kind of principle we are working on. I do not understand why, under Section 7, £140 8s. should be considered the appropriate amount for a widow and six children while, under another section, £74 2s. should be considered the appropriate amount that this House considers for the maintenance of the widow and six children of another type of man, or that £125 should be considered the appropriate sum for the widow and six children of an L.D.F. man.

I should like to ask whether any of the people who supported the Minister in the 13 divisions that we had here on this Bill realised that there are these inconsistencies, this injustice, and this sort of lack of mercy in respect of the men who have been called upon to join our Defence Forces under the present circumstances. If they did not understand that, I ask them now to consider what they are proposing to do for the dependents of these people, and I suggest that they should support me in asking the Minister to think over this matter until next Wednesday, at least, and ask him to give this House an assurance that before the Bill leaves the House radical changes will be made in it.

On a former occasion in this House, we had an Emergency Order postponed in connection with compensation for bomb damages. On that occasion, we were met with the same kind of unrelenting resistance to discussion in this House. We were told the country could not afford to give more than 30/- a week to the widow and family of a man who had been killed as a result of bomb damage. As far as we here were concerned that was the way the position was left by a vote of this House. Happily—however inadequate the change may have been—when the matter was taken to the Seanad it was changed. We will have something more to say if the Fifth Stage of this Bill is leaving this House without any further guarantee from the Minister, but I do not think the House ought to leave it in the condition in which it is at the present moment and be in the disgraceful position that we were in with regard to the consideration of the question of compensation for victims of bomb damage, when the Seanad had to come in and make the necessary change.

Apart from the question of saying what a man should get because he is prepared to answer the call of his country, I should like to say to the Minister that there is something even deeper than that to be considered, and we here as a Parliament should have some guiding principles as to what provision we should make for the family of that man. I think it is about time that we should apply some of the social teachings of the Church to our legislation. What I have really taken exception to in the legislation passed in this House over the number of years I have been here is the fact that there is no application of the social teachings of the Church to our legislation. I did not like to hear the Minister saying a while ago, when I asked him whether he would make the necessary changes, that he would make no changes. I do not view a Bill like this passing through this House without having regard to underlying principles that should guide us here as legislators passing legislation dealing with the families of the nation. I would make a final appeal to the Minister to make the desirable changes in the Bill.

Does the Deputy press his opposition?

Very much so. I was hoping that we might hear some voice from behind the Minister to tell us whether they understood the Bill in the way I have indicated. It is a very important matter.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 55; Níl, 23.

Tá.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Crowley, Fred Hugh.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Fogarty, Patrick J.
  • Friel, John.
  • Fuller, Stephen.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Daniel.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Keane, John J.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Loughman, Francis.
  • McCann, John.
  • McDevitt, Henry A.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Meaney, Cornelius.
  • Morrissey, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Mullen, Thomas.
  • O'Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Ceallaigh, Seán. T.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Loghlen, Peter J.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Rice, Brigid M.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan,Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Laurence J.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Conn.

Níl.

  • Belton, Patrick.
  • Bennett, George C.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Dockrell, Henry M.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Hannigan, Joseph.
  • Hickey, James.
  • Hughes, James.
  • Keating, John.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, Timothy J.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Sullivan, John M.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
  • Ryan, Jeremiah.
Tellers:-Tá: Deputies Smith and S Brady; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

When this Bill was being considered by the House, I scarcely realised how narrow was the scope of some of its provisions. Paragraph (3) of Part IV reads:

"Where no allowance is payable under the terms of the immediately preceding paragraph, one allowance shall be payable to such one of the dependents mentioned of a deceased soldier as the Minister may direct who was mainly dependent on such soldier."

I understand that, under the Army separation allowances scheme, allowances are not paid to mothers who have unmarried sons serving in the forces. That means that a mother cannot qualify; in other words, Irish soldiers have not any right to have mothers. Deputy Mulcahy, a few minutes ago, was drawing a distinction between a wife and a mother, and pointing out the alleged generosity to a mother as compared with a wife. The mother to whom he was calling attention would be mainly dependent and, so far as the ordinary soldier is concerned, that just cannot happen. I understand that the Army will not recognise any case where a mother has an unmarried son serving as a soldier, a son who is prepared to make a small allowance out of his pay to his mother. Therefore, the mother is not considered as mainly dependent, and, to continue the full sweep of the vicious circle, the mother cannot draw an allowance. I do not think other Deputies realise that the terms of the Bill have been drawn so tightly as that.

It would be invidious for me to make comparisons between the mothers and wives of Irish soldiers and the mothers and wives of soldiers in other armies; but I would like to say to the Minister, with all the earnestness of which I am capable, that he has not made a sufficiently generous allowance —in fact, he has not made any allowance for mothers who have unmarried sons in the Army. We can quite understand that the Army cannot pension wives and mothers and other dependents, but at least they might allow a soldier to opt between having a wife and having a mother. I suggest that in later years it may come to be regarded that during our time here an Irish soldier was not allowed to have a mother.

Is it possible to have provision made in this Bill—or is there any hope of another Bill embodying such provisions being introduced—for the members of Casement's Brigade? I understand that representations have been made to the Minister in connection with this matter, but no Military Service Pensions Bill has been introduced here so far that gave any recognition to the members of Casement's Brigade.

I am sure that anybody who has made an effort to understand this Bill will realise, from some of the things said here, that there are many bad points in it, but, until Deputy Dockrell spoke, I did not realise that the Bill could be as bad as he suggests. In Part III we have a reference to a mother, a father over 60 years of age, or incapacitated by ill-health, a permanently invalided brother, or permanently invalided unmarried sister, and grandparents. It is set out in that section of the Bill that an allowance shall be payable to one or more of the dependents mentioned of a deceased officer, who, in the opinion of the Minister, were wholly dependent on such officer. Then, further on, it is declared that

"a dependent's allowance granted to any person under the terms of this Part of this Schedule shall be an annual sum of £52."

It would now appear that a mother or father is not going to be regarded as wholly dependent on the son because, while he is a soldier in the Army, the Army takes no cognisance of the fact that he has a mother or father dependent on him. If the Bill is as bad as that, then it is worse than I thought it was, but that particular aspect is just in keeping with the rest of the Bill.

I am only anxious to be corrected if I am wrong.

The Deputy is wrong.

I am merely anxious to be corrected.

I am correcting the Deputy now.

I believe I would be right, then, in saying that if, during the emergency, there are two second lieutenants, one of whom has a mother and the other a wife and six children, they will get the basic allowance for themselves and, in respect of the mother, one man will get £52 a year, and the other with the wife and six children will get £30 a year. When I see some of the things that are in this Bill, I feel that perhaps I have got a little bit twisted in my mind and I am not representing things exactly as they are, but I am endeavouring to indicate certain things that are in this Bill as I see them.

I will take first the basic rate put down for a single officer of the rank of lieutenant or captain who becomes permanently disabled. The provision comes in under Section 3. Under this Bill a lieutenant, who is 100 per cent. disabled, gets a personal pension of £120 a year. I stated before that, under the 1923 Act, that man would have got a pension of £200. In connection with that we have to consider not only the nominal comparison between these two amounts but the value of £120 now to that man in keeping him. The cost of living in 1923 was 186. In 1942 it was 273. Money to-day has only 68 per cent. of its 1923 value. Therefore, when we compare actual cash values, a pension of £200 under the 1923 Act to a second lieutenant now becomes £82. Deputy O Briain indicated on the Committee Stage, when I was referring to the cost of living and its bearing on these proposals, that these proposals would continue whether the cost of living went down or not. It is generally taken that the cost of living post-war will not be reduced below 25 per cent. of what it was before the emergency. On the basis of a cost of living 25 per cent. greater than it was in 1939, the value of money to-day, as compared with 1923, would be 78 per cent., so that the £120 in 1923 terms would be only £93 10s. Od.

However, the man has got a pension of £120. The British provision under Royal Warrant of January, 1943—Command Paper 6419—would give a second lieutenant £195. We here are offering a second lieutenant £120. So much for that as a basic proposal. In the case of a man, whether he is a sergeant, a corporal or a private, the present proposals are that, if he were 100 per cent. disabled, he would get a personal pension of 42/- a week. That is the figure the 1923 Act contains, but when we express it in terms of 42/- in 1923 its actual value to that man is only 28/6.

If we consider a cost-of-living level that is 25 per cent. over the pre-war level then, in relation to the 1923 position, the value of the 42/-, in these circumstances, would be 32/7. At any rate he is getting 42/- under these proposals. In Great Britain, under the same Royal Warrant that I have just quoted, the lowest grade in the British Army would get 37/6, the next 40/10, the next 44/2, the next 47/6, the next 50/10, while a warrant officer would get 54/2.

Does the Deputy consider that a fair comparison to make?

I am stating facts here. This is not a deliberative Assembly. By the time we have finished with this Bill, I think nothing will be clearer to this country than that fact: that this is not a deliberative Assembly, and that neither the Minister nor Deputy Cooney cares one hoot——

I simply asked was it a fair comparison?

I am stating facts in order to draw comparisons. I have been trying to do that for several days here on this Bill. I do not think that I heard Deputy Cooney on this question before. I will be very glad to hear him, or anybody else, on some other comparisons that I am going to make. I am dealing with basic things because I think we ought to be clear as to what the basic position is for officers and men. That is necessary in order that we may be able to ask ourselves whether, out of the £120 a year paid to a second lieutenant who is completely disabled, and out of the 42/- a week paid to a sergeant or private—a sum which is the equivalent of £109 odd per year—a man will have anything to spare towards the maintenance of anybody else, after providing himself with such amenities in life as one who has given the whole of his physical capacity in the service of his country might reasonably be expected to enjoy.

Are not these proposals an improvement on the conditions in the measure that was brought in by your Party?

The Deputy can be heard on that later. Again, I want to say that the Deputy's voice has not been heard in this House previously during the whole of the discussions on this subject.

Deputy Fogarty should not embarrass the Deputy.

I will deal first with basic things. If the Deputies opposite will compare these basic sums with other basic sums, I want to ask them this: whether, out of these sums, a man who is 100 per cent. disabled will have anything left over, after providing for himself, which he can devote to the maintenance of some other person? I come now to the case of the married man. In addition to that basic proposal, provision is made under Section 3 for what is called a "married pension". I consider that this "married pension" is an utter and complete disgrace to this Bill and to this House as an Assembly.

Because it is double what you gave.

The Minister is entitled to interfere in any kind of way that he wants to on this. I am dealing with facts, and with conditions as they are to-day. I want to say that if we here do not put ourselves to the trouble of exercising our minds, then the proper and the right thing to be done will be worked out in misery and suffering by the people outside. The proper and right thing will be worked out, and it is not fair to ask the wives and children of men who become injured, or who lose their lives, to bring us, through their sufferings, their complaints and their bitterness, to doing the right thing. We are here for purposes of considering and discussing, and I am putting these facts before the House, in order that there will be no excuse for anybody to say that he did not know these things.

If an officer is married and has six children, he gets his basic allowance— in which I have suggested there is not much left for supporting anybody else —and in addition to that he gets "a married pension" of £30 a year, which is 11/6 per week. If a man were on unemployment assistance, in addition to the basic rate that he would get as a single man, he would get 12/6 a week additional in cash, he would get 14/- additional in food vouchers, and he would even get cheap fuel. At any rate, he would get, in addition to his basic allowance, the value of 26/6 a week. If he were a member of the L.D.F. who was injured in the same way in military service, then he would get, in addition to his basic allowance, 31/6 a week for his wife and children. If he were in the British Army he would get 65/9 a week, and as well as that, in respect of any child between eight and 18 years of age, who was suitable for getting education of a particular type, he would get an additional grant per child of £40 a year.

Under the 1923 Act, the grant would have been 15/-. The 11/6, at cost-of-living comparison with 1923, is only 7/10. Now, we ought to consider here whether 11/6 a week is a sufficient addition to the basic pension of a married officer who has a wife and six children, in order to maintain properly the wife and children who must look after themselves and who cannot be looked after by the father of the family because he has lost his ability to do so, in the service of the State. I said that, if the officer were in the British Army, he would get the equivalent of 65/9 a week and additional grants for his children between eight and 18 of £40 a year per child. If his circumstances of disability were such that he had to have constant attendance, he would also get a grant of £90 a year to pay for that attendance. In the case of a sergeant, a non-commissined officer or a private, who loses his life and who had a wife and six children, the position is that there is 12/6 granted for the wife and for the children, a total of 16/-; even if there were eight children, it would be only 16/-. Therefore, 28/6, under Section 7, of the 1927 Act, which is made use of in Section 5 of this Bill is all that is provided for the family.

I pointed out before that such a person, if on unemployment assistance, would get 26/6, in addition to a basic allowance. In the case of an L.D.F. man who had lost his life, such a family would get 48/6 as against 28/6 for a man in the Army. In the case of a man who lost his life in the British Army, the total for the widow and six children would be 63/6. In addition, she would get an allowance for each child from eight to 18 of £40 per year and in addition according to his rank—first class private, second class or third class—she would get anything up to 10/- additionally. Under the 1923 Act, the widow and six children of a man would get 40/-, and for children between 12 and 18 years of age there would be an educational allowance of £35 a year. You have there the comparison of the position in which the widow of a man who lost his life would be, with six children, getting 28/6 to keep the whole family, as against 48/6 in the case of L.D.F. men, 63/6 plus generous educational allowances if in the British Army, and 40/- plus educational allowances under the 1923 Act.

Now, in the case of a widow of an officer with six children the position is that, under the present Bill, the widow of a lieutenant or a captain would get £60, and for the children there would be a total of £64, making a total of £124 for the family. In addition to that, educational grants would be given for children between 11 and 18 years of age, of £30. Under the 1923 Act, the widow and children would get £230, as against £124 under this Bill, and the educational grants from 12 to 18 would be £35. If it were a case of the widow of a lieutenant, an Irishman in the British Army, the widow and children would get between them £308, and there would be additional allowances from eight years of age to 18, of £40.

I did not give the position of a married man with six children. He would get a basic allowance and a married pension of 10/- a week. I compare that with the 26/6 additional he would get if he were on relief. I compare it with the 31/6 that a man in the L.D.F. would get. I compare it with the 43/4 that a man in the British Army would get—where, in addition, educational allowances would be given for children who were suitable for getting that education, between eight and 18 years of age, of £40 per child, and where, in addition, if his circumstances were such as to require permanent attendance, he would get an additional allowance of 18/- a week. Comparing these cases with what a man would get in addition to his relief grant, what a man in the L.D.F. would get and what a man in the British Army would get, and comparing them with the terms of the 1923 Act, there are very serious questions to be answered on the point of comparison alone.

If we take the full position, including the basic rate of a sergeant in the Army, or a member of the L.D.F., each totally disabled with a wife and six children, the Army sergeant would have a total income of 52/- and the member of the L.D.F. a total income of 61/6. These are only some considerations of the extraordinary things this Bill discloses, and when the Minister says that the proposals in it had to be considered and re-considered, discussed and re-discussed, we ought to have been able to get from him more of the fruits of that discussion to guide the House, first as to what the Bill actually means, and secondly as to what principles it was formed on. We ought to be able to get some explanation of any shortcomings that there are in the Bill. Apparently the structure of the family was considered when, in the new Part III inserted in Section 5, it was taken into consideration that men in addition to supporting families very often have to support relatives. But if there is any basis for the amount fixed in the new Part III of Section 5 for the dependents of men, surely there must be some basis as to how much was required to sustain the wives and children of disabled men. In respect of officers and men, those who have joined up for the present emergency are the people whose position we have to consider, because they are the kernel of the trouble.

We have all kinds of generous planning, shall I say, in certain Articles of the Constitution. Article 42, where the question of education arises, states:—

"The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social."

How could any social education be given to the children of a man who has given his life for his country who, no matter what their number, with their mother, are asked to live on 28/6 a week or in the case of children who have to live on a pension of 10/- a week provided for their mother and themselves because the father had lost his ability to care for them due to the service he gave to the country? There are many other inconsistencies in the Bill, but this only shows how necessary it was that this Bill should have been discussed in the House and how necessary it would be that we should have the help of Deputy Cooney or Deputy Fogarty to discuss it, or to help to bring about a situation in which it could be discussed. I think one of the results of this Bill will be that, if two men join the Army for the emergency, one becoming a second lieutenant and the other a sergeant, there is discrimination between their families in the matter of provision for the education of children. The Seventh Schedule of the Army Pensions Act of 1927 applies in respect of officers and provides:—

"Repayment of amount proved to have been in fact necessarily and properly expended in educational fees, but not exceeding £30 in any one calendar year in respect of any one child."

That can be given for any number of children of which the Minister approves in the case of deceased officers, but there is no such provision in the case of deceased men, in the Act. Deputy Cooney does not think much of that Act, and I never thought much of it. It brings about this situation: that if two men of equal class, or of any class, joined the Army for the emergency, and one became an officer and was killed, and the other became a sergeant and was killed, provision is made for the wife and children of the officer, and there are also educational facilities, while for the man who became a sergeant such educational facilities, while vided for the children. I think there would be no desire in this House for discrimination of that kind. If there is one thing that wants to be looked after, in addition to securing main tenance for the wives and families of men, whether killed or disabled, it is education. Deputy Cooney wanted to know whether it was fair to compare the rates proposed to be paid here and the rates paid to Irishmen who joined the British Army. I think the comparison is fair enough, and, in that connection, I should say in relation to the rates paid in Great Britain that a very considerable agitation is developing over there, that the rates are not sufficient.

Definite attempts are being made to establish the principle that the dependents of men who lost their lives, and particularly disabled men who have to live without any capacity to help themselves or their families, are entitled to receive from the State not only adequate sustenance, but additional comforts and amenities over what might be regarded as adequate sustenance because of the fact that it was in the service of the State they gave all. I ask Deputies to consider these amounts, to visualise a sample case, and ask themselves, in the case of a man who has been completely disabled and who has a wife and family, whether in the light of the provision that is made here his children will ever be able to buy a book, ever be able to go to a concert, ever be able to feel that they are the respected and comfortable citizens they ought to be because of the service of their fathers, and not paupers.

This Bill is a challenge to the whole of our outlook on society. The manner in which this Bill has been discussed is a challenge to this House as to whether it is either a representative Assembly or a consultative Assembly. In my opinion, it is neither one nor the other. It has utterly failed to represent the spirit or the wishes of the people. It has utterly failed to discuss this measure properly or to make itself a consultative Assembly, in relation to it. I oppose this measure and I am perfectly satisfied that, when it is marked as having passed the Oireachtas, it will be a different measure in very many respects. It may not be all that everybody would want to have it, but it certainly will not be the discreditable thing which it is now. I think that this House has discredited and disgraced itself by the way it has approached the discussion on this matter.

Deputy Mulcahy deserves the thanks of every National Army man and his dependents, and of every man in this country who stands for justice, for the manner in which he has fought this Bill. From the facts and figures he has put before the House we must come to the conclusion that it is nothing more than a hash of a Bill. The amounts to be given by way of pension do not show justice. The basic figures are on a wrong basis. It is up to the Minister to right these matters before the Bill is passed. If we rush a measure like this through, it shows that our Constitution is nothing more than hypocrisy. After all that we have heard about our famous Constitution the Minister should not come to this House with such a Bill to provide for the men and the dependents of the men who gave us the right to sit here, namely, our soldiers. If that is the march to freedom, if on every mile of the road we are leaving a human wreck, is it worth fighting for freedom at all? Why should the men who took the risk of losing their lives or of being maimed be treated in this despicable way? We know the basis on which pensions were fixed for other men who took very little risks and whose position is secure when they retire into private life. I do not blame those who talk about the way in which this House can look after itself when people who gave it the right to look after itself are to be left as living wrecks. We can find money for everything else, but we cannot find it for the men who gave us the right to sit here and to legislate for ourselves and our country. In my opinion, this is a typical Fianna Fáil Bill, because never in the last 25 years had they much respect for our Irish Army. In fact, we had to force respect for it on them. We did not really appreciate the services which these young men gave to the country.

The Minister has the proud distinction of being a 1916 man who fought with Pearse, Connolly, Collins, and the other great men, but when he attains the position of being a front bencher to fight for the rights of the Irish soldier, he will not stand up and fight for those rights. I do not think he is one of those who would leave himself in the hands of civil servants or anybody else. At the same time, there must be somebody pulling the strings out of his hands. He has seen our own comrades left as wrecks, some of them dying in the poorhouse, others living on the dole and home assistance with their wives and children starving. This country should not have treated these men in that way. It shows, a poor mentality on the part of a soldier Minister. I expected more from him. I speak as one who was right through the whole movement for the last 20 years, one who was in armies and out of armies, and I always saw the trail of wrecks after every emergency.

It does not look as if we will have many disabled soldiers after the emergency—I hope we will not—but the needs of the few we will have should be looked after in every way. If money can be found at all, it should be provided for them and their dependents, so that we can look back with pride on the fact that we treated them well. Our soldiers expected more from an Irish Parliament and an Irish Minister. They certainly expected great things from a Minister who fought in 1916. I expected more from him.

I ask the Minister to take back this Bill and make such provision for these men as will do them justice. We expect that from him; the country expects it. If we expect to pull this country through it all, it is only on these lines we can do it. We hear of the great plans for the future that are being made in other countries. I believe this country is also to have a Beveridge plan. Surely we ought to start with this Bill and put up a plan for the Irish soldier. In doing that we would be doing nothing but mere justice. I ask the Minister to reconsider the whole position and fix proper amounts for pensions so that those in the fighting line will have some hope that, when they come back to private life, if they are so unfortunate as to be disabled during service and are not able to work for a living, the State will look after them and their dependents.

I certainly did not intend to intervene in this debate. I merely want to point out to the House that since Deputy Mulcahy became a politician he has been known to fill many extraordinary roles. But I think this is the most extraordinary role that he has ever been known to fill in this House. Deputy Mulcahy is an ex-Minister, even an ex-Minister for Defence, and a member of a Party who sponsored the 1923 and 1927 Acts. Yet, in a serious tone he criticises this Bill which, in practically every line, is a definite improvement on the two previous Acts. I interrupted the Deputy in the course of his speech to ask him did he consider it fair to draw a comparison between the figures which he quoted in regard to the British Army and the figures for our Irish Army.

I think it is entirely dishonest. There could be no just comparison between the two countries. One is a vast empire with vast resources and the other a small State. If the Deputy were serious he could have sought figures from countries which would compare in respect of population and resources with ours.

I gave outdoor relief figures.

I am saying that, if the Deputy were honest, he could have sought figures for countries which would compare in respect of population and resources. He did not do so. I hope the Deputy did not deliberately use this occasion to make a recruiting speech for the British Army. The comparison between the British Army figures and the figures for our own Irish Army was stressed and restressed by the Deputy. Therefore, it was made quite clear to any gullible Irishman: "If you want to take up an Army career as a profession, by all means go to the British Army."

And get killed or disabled for life. Is that the argument?

I hope the Deputy did not mean it. I would not believe that he did. I do not think it was an honest speech. We have also the Deputy's Party and every public organ in this country representing the Deputy's Party criticising the Government as having indulged in an orgy of expenditure. I am sure when the Budget comes on, we will have the Deputy criticising the lavish, foolish and extravagant expenditure of this Government in respect of its Departments.

Yes, on the grounds that it is not worth paying the amount of the Budget for a country that can only do this for the people who serve her.

A country that, in the present emergency, can improve the Acts which are at present on the Statute Book in respect of conditions of service is a country to be proud of. In so far as comparison between the L.D.F. and the Army is concerned I would point out that the L.D.F. is an emergency force and that many of the young men and middle-aged men who have manned that force have left their various occupations for life whereas the Army is a career adopted by young men.

The Army is an emergency force and that is what this Bill is for.

There is a permanent Army in this country and there is an emergency service known as the Local Defence Force. There is no just comparison between them. Yesterday, the Deputy challenged many divisions here and he could only rally into the Lobby about half a dozen members of his own Party. We know from himself that he has opposed this Bill from the very outset. Again, I do not wish to be unjust, but I feel that he is rather jealous of the fact that another Minister has been able to bring in a much better Bill and a Bill which, I am sure, will do credit to the Minister and to the Government and will satisfy every impartial and honest soldier in the country.

I will not attempt to follow Deputy Mulcahy in the maze of words which he has woven around his obsession—an obsession which arises, apparently, out of the fact that I did not consult the Defence Conference. I am very sorry if I have hurt the Deputy's feelings by not doing that. I am sorry that he should have allowed it to drive him to take the action which he has taken in respect of this Bill, which is so urgently required by so many people who are in grave need and want at the present time. Less than half a dozen members of the Deputy's own Party have taken any interest in this discussion, and, as Deputy Cooney has mentioned, the Deputy has been accompanied into the Lobby by a few straggling followers who had taken practically no interest whatever in the Bill. Possibly that is because it is realised that the Bill contains something that is decent, something that is an improvement on the past, and something which Deputies could stand over. It has been amazing to me to find that Deputy Mulcahy divided the House on provisions of this Bill which in many respects were never brought before this House before. There was never before brought before this House a section of any Bill which would provide pensions for nurses. Yet Deputy Mulcahy considered it the correct thing to do to divide this House on the question as to whether or not nurses should get pensions, and he was able to influence members of the Labour Party who, probably through ignorance of what they were doing, who, probably, did not understand what they were voting for, followed him into the Lobby to vote against pensions for nurses who might contract disease, or who might be injured while serving the nation. He went further than that. He divided the House against a section which was providing for 1916 men. I am directing the attention of Deputy Giles to this, to show him that my interest in the 1916 men is what it ought to be.

I hope so.

It was not very lively in 1933, when I had to get you to put them into the Bill at that time.

Take your gruel now. He divided the House on a section which, for the first time, was providing pensions for old 1916 men who, through disease, age, or for any other reason, became incapable of earning their own living. He divided the House on that, and if he could have defeated it he would have done so.

But he failed to defeat it.

And I told you why I was dividing the House.

Deputy Mulcahy, as I have said, wove words around himself to such an extent that he became so involved that he did not even understand himself. Naturally, I could not be expected to understand him either. Deputy Dockrell, apparently, thinks that the mother of a soldier will not be entitled to a pension because she is not receiving an allowance owing to the fact that her son is married and that his wife is receiving it instead.

No; it is the unmarried soldier I was talking about.

Whether the man is married or unmarried, the mother, if she can prove that she was totally dependent on that son, will be entitled to a pension under this Bill.

Irish soldiers can have Irish mothers. That is the answer to Deputy Dockrell.

It did not require an answer, and I would not refer to that part of the argument at all.

Well, it should go on record.

Many good Irish soldiers had not Irish mothers.

The Bill, as has already been stated, sets out to deal with some very serious and pressing problems not covered by existing Army Pensions Acts. Those Acts contain no provision to compensate men discharged from the Army owing to disease attributable to service during the emergency period. Deputy Mulcahy, before 1927, could have done the things which I am doing here to-day through this Bill. He did not do them.

He had to pay for the wreckage.

He had from 1927 to 1943 to do any one of the things I have done in this Bill. He has wept tears— crocodile tears-here on behalf of the people he alleged he was representing. For three and a half years there has been an emergency in this State. Has Deputy Mulcahy, by word, act or deed, ever attempted to improve the 1927 Pensions Act?

Has the Deputy ever suggested to me that it should be changed?

I have told you time and again in the Defence Conference that the terms of the 1927 Act could not stand.

I deny that completely.

You are welcome.

I deny it completely.

To refresh the Minister's memory, I told him in connection with the Emergency Order that was issued in regard to bomb damage and in regard to the Orders that would have to be issued in regard to the L.D.F.

The Deputy has missed the tide. That is the trouble.

I am simply concerned——

For three and a half years this emergency has existed. I want to put the question to the Deputy and his colleagues as well as to my own colleagues: had I left conditions as they were, how much trouble could I have saved myself? Just think, the simple remedy I could have adopted was to have ignored the matter completely and left the Act as it stood——

No one would have raised a voice, no one would have done the slightest thing to induce me to do any of the things I have done. I found a certain situation existing when the emergency started, and I had not to receive any stimulus from the Deputy or from any member of his Party, nor indeed from any member of my own Party, except so far as questions may have been raised in this House relating to the emergency or by letters to members about conditions resulting from injuries received or diseases contracted. I set out, because of the things I discovered as a result of these letters, to do through the medium of the Bill what I hope will be done when this Bill becomes, in fact, an Act. I had not to be forced to do it. I saw a situation developing and I took steps to deal with it. Deputy Mulcahy did not have to come along and tell me to do it, nor did I consult Deputy Mulcahy about the matter. That is the only cause I can see for his wanton and wilful opposition to the Bill. I call it wanton and wilful opposition for the simple reason that there are to-day a number of relatives of deceased soldiers eagerly waiting for this Bill to go through in order that they may receive the compensation which this Bill will afford them. What does Deputy Mulcahy do? He delays this Bill by word, deed and act, by every means in his power. He delays the Bill in order to prevent the concessions which it grants to these people from taking effect.

In order to get better terms, which is a different thing.

There is another point I want to make clear and on which the Deputy's mind does not seem to be clear. That is the point that total or any other degree of disablement is not related to a man's economic but to his physical capacity. The fact that a man is totally disabled does not necessarily mean that he is incapable of earning his livelihood. There are men on the pension register who are drawing 100 per cent. disablement pensions and who are yet earning large salaries. Take the case of the men disabled in the Glen of Imaal accident. There are several of these men receiving at the present moment 100 per cent. pensions, but these men are capable or will be capable, of following some profession, trade or craft in which they are being instructed at the present moment. Before these men left to go to St. Dunstan's, one of them sent me a letter which he himself had typed as a result of the instruction which he was then receiving in St. Bricin's. It was a well-typed letter and he expressed the hope in the letter that as a result of the intensive training which he would receive in St. Dunstan's, to which he was being sent, he would be able to take up some position when he came back. As far as I am concerned, I shall see, so far as it is humanly possible, that when that man does come back, he will be given a position which he will be capable of filling. The same remarks apply to his colleagues who are also being trained, one of them, I think, in telephony. The other, I think, was taking up some form of gardening. The main point is, that the impression that a 100 per cent. invalided soldier cannot earn his living is completely wrong.

A certain sum was allotted to me as a result of my discussions with the Government, a sum with which I was allowed to do what I liked, and the total sum, as dealt with in this Bill. worked out at 52/- per case a week. I could, if I so desired, have left the 26/- there. That would have been a simple expedient for me. I could have divided the remaining 26/- as a wife allowance or a children's allowance, but I want to point out to the House that the average family in the Army-and we have taken a census of this-is two-and-a-half children. I had to ask myself this question: was I going to penalise, the single soldier by giving him only 26/- a week and prevent him, if he felt like it at some later stage, from entering matrimony? I had to ask myself was I going to leave him with 26/-, or if he never entered into matrimony, was it fair that he should be compelled to exist on 26/-? I answered that question by saying that I did not think it was fair in view of the fact that the average family was, we shall say, three. I understand that the average family in the case of the Widows and Orphans' Pensions Act is also three. I understand further that analogous figures in the census of 1936 are 2.7. If all these figures are correct, I think I was fully justified in taking the action which I eventually took——

It is a shocking theory of family life.

——of converting the 26/- into 42/- and making 10/- available for a wife. There will be introduced, I hope, at some period in the existence of this Government or whatever Government succeeds it, some system of children's allowances or family allowances. If that is brought about, the situation which the Deputy has been contesting for the last couple of weeks will have righted itself. The children will automatically get the allowance and they will not be prejudiced by reason of the fact that they are benefiting under this Bill. Their allowances under this Bill will be there and the children's allowance under the other system will be there also.

I want to make clear that if, by any chance, any of these men died, the widow would be entitled to the same allowance which, as a married woman, she is getting while her husband is alive. In other words, she would get the married allowance granted to a serving soldier, so that, so far as she is concerned, she would be no worse off financially by the death of her husband, save that she would lose whatever assistance he might have been able to give her. But she would get the same pension or marriage allowance she was getting before he died. I might inform Deputy Mulcahy that that allowance was recently increased by this Government.

Deputy Mulcahy asked if Section 8 could take away any allowance or pension granted to a widow and children either in their own right or by way of a military service pension or in virtue of the service of a deceased soldier by way of allowance. The answer is "No." There is no such intention and there is no such power. The section refers explicitly to gratuities and to gratuities only. It empowers the Minister to recover gratuities already given ex gratia, or otherwise, in respect of death or injury. It is the Minister for Defence who will decide. I have my own feelings about that and I am sure that, if Deputy Mulcahy were Minister for Defence, he would have similar feelings. The question is left to the discretion of the Minister for Defence and not to that of the Minister for Finance, so that, in that respect, I should be prepared to say that the position was fairly safe.

Section 9 merely provides that the widow and children of a deceased officer shall not be entitled to a double pension in respect of the same bereavement-one under the pension scheme and the other under this Bill. For instance, the widow of a lieutenant is already entitled, under certain circumstances, under the Defence Forces Pension Scheme, to £45 a year. Under this Bill, she might become entitled to another pension of £60 a year. The object of Section 9 is to ensure that she cannot draw both. Naturally, she is entitled to draw, and would, of course, draw, the larger sum. Under this Bill the sum is larger to the extent of £15. She would, therefore, be drawing £15 more than she would draw by way of the pension to which she would be entitled by reason of her husband's service.

I have no apologies whatever to make to anybody in regard to the improvements which have been introduced by this Bill. I am very proud to have been the instrument through which these improvements have been brought about. I am very proud that I have introduced for the first time pensions for nurses. I am more than proud to be the instrument of providing pensions for men who fought in 1916 and who have now become incapable by reason of age or illness, or for any other reason. I am proud to be able to say that they will be entitled, for the first time, to a pension of the type described in this Bill.

The Minister said that, during the last three-and-a-half years, I could have brought forward any of the matters I brought forward here. I have explained that, at the Defence Conference, I repeatedly stated that the 1927 Act could not stand. The Defence Conference exists simply for the purpose of getting national unity behind the defence effort. It has nothing to do with the administrative affairs of the Army or of the other voluntary forces. We had no reason to think that the Minister was not approaching this matter in a reasonable way. In the winter of 1940, when the first Emergency Order dealing with compensation in connection with the emergency was issued, I challenged the basis of the Order here and, with the assistance of the criticism offered in the Seanad subsequently, succeeded in getting that Order changed. I have been urging since that the L.D.F. and A.R.P. would have to be provided for and that the 1927 Act could not stand. I just want to make that definite statement in view of the Minister's suggestion to the contrary. I did not want to discuss the matter or apologise in any way but, in view of the Minister's positive statement, I think I was entitled to say what I have said.

Perhaps it is due to my stupidity, but I think the Minister was not quite categorical in his reply. If an unmarried soldier who has been making a contribution of a few shillings a week to his mother, dies, will the mother be able to contend that, up to the extent of that contribution, she was dependent upon him or will she be told that she was not mainly dependent on her son's contributions?

I cannot anticipate what the decision will be.

That is just the point. I am right. I told the Minister that the word "mainly" will be the important word. I repeat that Irish soldiers have no right to have mothers.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 54; Níl, 21.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Crowley, Fred Hugh.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Fogarty, Patrick J.
  • Friel, John.
  • Fuller, Stephen.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Daniel.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Keane, John J.
  • Kelly, James P.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Loughman, Francis.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McCann, John.
  • McDevitt, Henry A.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Meaney, Cornelius.
  • Morrissey, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Mullen, Thomas.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Loghlen, Peter J.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Rice, Brigid M.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Laurence J.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Conn.

Níl.

  • Bennett, George C.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Dockrell, Henry M.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Hannigan, Joseph.
  • Hughes, James.
  • Keating, John.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Sullivan, John M.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
  • Rogers, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, Jeremiah.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and S. Brady; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.

This is certified by the Ceann Comhairle to be a Money Bill within the meaning of Article 22 of the Constitution.

Top
Share