Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 1 Mar 1945

Vol. 96 No. 7

Military Service Pensions Bill, 1945—Committee (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 25:—

Mr. Davin

I appeal to the Minister and his colleagues to hesitate before they, by their votes, agree to enshrine in this or in any other Bill the vicious proposal contained in the Minister's amendment. If the amendment is carried by the votes of the majority of the Deputies, it is going to deprive High Court and Supreme Court judges, appointed by this Government and by their predecessors in some cases, of the discretion which they hitherto had of assessing costs according to their own judgment. I would ask the Minister or any Deputy to quote any case in the history of the Legislature of this State or of any democratic State where parliamentary government is in existence, where the citizen successfully taking action against the State must pay not only his own costs but the costs of the defendant who loses the case. If that kind of vicious proposal is the right kind of principle to insert in a Bill of this kind, the same principle can be inserted in every other type of legislation under which a case can be made by the citizen against the State or by the State against the citizen.

The majority of the members of the Fianna Fáil Party, including the Ministers, are either in receipt of pensions or are entitled to receive pensions under the Act of 1934. They secured certificates—properly so, I am sure— under the cheap and easy method of going before the civil servants nominated by the Referee, who heard their cases and decided them in their favour. I am sure they claim to be the representatives of their colleagues in the Old I.R.A., and, as such, are they, by this amendment, going to make it impossible for all their old colleagues—good claimants or genuine applicants—who, according to themselves, did not receive fair and just treatment, to succeed in securing pensions? Is there going to be one law for Deputies and the deciding or verifying officers and those who have received pensions already and another law in the future for all these cases which every Fianna Fáil Deputy who has spoken has said are still outstanding and have not been fairly treated? I have heard Deputy after Deputy saying that there was a number of such cases. Some said there were hundreds. One Deputy said there were at least 2,000 appellants under the 1934 Act who had not been fairly treated. Another Deputy said 5,000. I am not sure of the number, but the Minister has certainly admitted there are hundreds. Is there going to be one law or one kind of procedure for the Minister and the people in privileged positions to get their pensions—an easy and cheap method—and another procedure, an impossible or, at any rate, excessively costly method, for these other cases? By this amendment, if it is inserted in the Bill, they will make it impossible for any good applicant to go to the courts, if he fails to get the necessary justice from the Referee or those who will act for the Referee in disposing of the outstanding claims. That is the issue here, apart from the constitutional question.

When I read this amendment, early on Monday morning—I had nobody to guide me legally in the matter and I have had no opportunity since of discussing the matter with any lawyer member of the House—I said it was the most amazing proposal I had ever seen put on paper by a Minister since I became a member of this House. If the Old I.R.A. are not going to do their job for the remainder of their colleagues who have not been given justice in the past, either under the 1924 Act or the 1934 Act, I hope if this amendment is enshrined in the Military Service Pensions (Amendment) Bill that the constitutional nature of the amendment will be challenged in the Supreme Court or some other court.

I have heard, of course, about the method of dealing with applications by the Referee or by those who have been authorised, without legal power, to act for him in the past. I have had one case brought under my notice within the last few days of a prominent Old I.R.A. man who, at any rate, lost his job in connection with his activities in the pre-Truce and civil war period, who was out of work for nearly seven years after the civil war ended, who did not go back to his old profession and who, when called before the Referee, was not sworn. Until I got the particulars of that case, I always understood that the first thing that happened when a person went before the Referee was that he was sworn and, in many cases, if not in all cases, was passed on to civil servants who took the evidence or cross-examined the applicant. That is a case, at any rate, that was not properly dealt with under the terms of the 1934 Act. This Bill, of course, is to legalise the irregularities which the Minister and everybody else admits have taken place in dealing with the applications already disposed of.

I have also been informed by a verifying officer whom I know very well that when some of these appeals were being dealt with before the local brigade committee, a verifying officer in one case at any rate stated that there was only a limited amount of money allocated for every area in connection with the payment of military service pensions. Therefore, of course, the boys who got in first scooped up whatever was made available by the Minister for Finance.

I appeal to the sincerity—I put it that way—of the Minister and his colleagues and I ask them to say whether or not they would be justified in prescribing, under the terms of this amendment, a different kind of procedure for dealing with the remaining cases from that which was adopted in the past and under which their own claims were dealt with and approved. That is the issue involved in this amendment, apart from the grave constitutional issue that I believe is involved and that will have to be raised if this amendment is inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Traynor

The speech we have just listened to is typical of Deputy Davin. He makes all sorts of vicious charges that are in the main without foundation.

Mr. Davin

All right. Dispose of them.

Mr. Traynor

I will, of course. That is what I am standing up to do. We all know the reason why Deputy Davin tries to make the differentiation. He talks about the difference in the pensions, the difference in the methods of securing the pensions for Ministers and the ordinary man in the street. If the Deputy has any experience whatever of the court of the Referee, he will know that every person that goes before the Referee is equal, each one getting the same amount of attention. The suggestion contained throughout the Deputy's speech is that there is one law for one person and another law for another.

Mr. Davin

This changes the past procedure.

Mr. Traynor

As a matter of fact, we were listening to a Second Reading speech. I was rather surprised that the Deputy was allowed to develop his speech in the way he did. In fact, I think I am correct in saying that he repeated a certain amount of his speech on the Second Reading. If he did not, then he took advantage to say at this stage what he forgot to say on the Second Reading. It is typical of the Deputy, as it was typical of the Deputy last night to rush in here for the first time in the discussion and draw the attention of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to the fact that there was not a House, when he had come in for the first time, for about five minutes, and had with him only one other Deputy of his Party. If the Deputies of this Party were supposed to be displaying a lack of interest, as was suggested, what greater interest was being taken by the Deputy's Party?

Mr. Davin

Is this in order, Sir? Apart from that point, I voted in the previous division.

Mr. Traynor

I am sure it is as much in order as the Deputy's speech to which we have just listened.

Mr. Norton

Is everything in order this evening so?

Mr. Traynor

Another suggestion which the Deputy made and which is quite unfounded is that there was a limited amount of money allocated for the various areas. I doubt very much if the Deputy believes that, although he stated it. He must surely know, as every other Deputy in the House knows, that the judge heard the cases irrespective of the number of applicants that came from any area, and that there was only one thing required and that was proof of service. If the applicant was able to prove service to the Referee and his board, the applicant got justice. If there are any people in respect of whom the Deputy has any doubts as to whether they got justice or not—we will leave out the question of justice—if there are any cases where he has any doubt about their not having got what in their opinion they were entitled to, there is there, within the Act, the specific remedy for dealing with that matter. The applicants in whom the Deputy is interested can very easily take advantage of that particular clause in the Act.

Mr. Davin

He cannot take his case to the court in future.

Mr. Traynor

He can go before the Referee as often as he likes, provided he can produce additional evidence.

Mr. Davin

He cannot take his case to the court in future.

Mr. Traynor

He certainly cannot take his case to the court if we pass this Bill. There have been suggestions made in the course of the debate that we are depriving an applicant of his costs. I am sure every Deputy knows very well that an applicant will get nothing out of the costs. If anyone gets anything out of the costs, it will be the counsel who will be appearing on behalf of the applicant. I can understand thoroughly well Deputy Coogan's championing of the legal people in a matter of this kind, but why Deputy Donnellan should set himself out to do so I do not know.

Mr. Donnellan

The Deputy is not the champion of the legal fraternity but of the people who, through the legal fraternity, have to get their cases before the court and are not financially able to do it themselves. I am far from championing the legal fraternity.

Mr. Traynor

So far as this amendment is concerned, its purpose is as much to protect the applicant who, to my mind, will be exploited in respect of bringing these cases into court, as the State. I stated yesterday that two cases alone had cost the State £1,060. Did the applicants get anything out of that?

Mr. Donnellan

Nothing whatever. Why should they?

Mr. Traynor

Who did get it and why had the State to pay it?

Mr. Donnellan

These people had to fight their cases and the Minister is now responsible for bringing in a most undemocratic Bill.

Mr. Traynor

The men concerned in this are people who are being induced to bring their cases into court irrespectice of what chance they have of succeeding. All that the court is doing in these cases is granting a rehearing and not, as some Deputies seem to suggest, granting pensions. The decision of the court does not do anything of the kind. It merely grants a rehearing. These men have already got a hearing. They got a hearing with all the facilities that every other member of the forces who applied got. If, in their opinion, they can produce any more or any better evidence than they have already produced, there is, as I have informed Deputy Davin, the means there in the Act to go forward as often as they like, as often as they can produce new evidence. If they can convince the Referee eventually, as some 500 have been able to do, through the medium of evidence which was not formerly available, they too will get pensions. I think that is as much as can be done at the moment. The 70 cases which have already been dealt with will cost between £3,000 and £4,000 and that money is just being handed out for the sake of the people who stand up in court and talk——

Mr. Donnellan

That is what it cost you to prevent them from getting justice.

Mr. Traynor

We have attempts to bring cases before the court at present to the number of over 400 which would cost the State over £23,000. It is Deputy Donnellan's duty, as well as it is mine, to protect the taxpayers against that sort of exploitation. This measure is only doing that and it is not doing anything more.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

The most peculiar thing about this Bill, the debate on which I have not so far participated in, is not so much what is being done to men and women who are making applications under the 1934 Act as the extent to which the Minister is violating very many basic principles in relation both to the ordinary law of the country and the ordinary rights of the citizens. We had another example of that in the Customs (Amendment) Bill. It is one thing to recognise that there is an unhappy state of affairs that has to be remedied; it is another thing to remedy that by violating certain principles which are important not only to applicants under the 1934 Act but to the citizens of the country as a whole and the members of this House. It seems to me that, in the heat of the debate, we are tending to lose sight of these factors.

In this particular amendment the Minister takes it upon himself to say that he wants to protect those persons who have initiated proceedings because, if they do recover any costs, it will be no benefit to them, but only to the members of the legal fraternity. Something of the same line was taken by Deputy O Cléirigh from another angle yesterday. If I instruct solicitor and counsel to pursue a case on my behalf in the High Court and they accumulate costs on my behalf, somebody has to pay them. Surely it is not equitable to say that, merely because certain people might take advantage of flaws in the Act to incur costs from a professional point of view, we should step in and make a drastic change in the discretionary power of the courts. That is the important issue. It is not a question of whether we are to be involved to the extent of several thousands of pounds of public money. There is something more important than that. Only the other day we were given information by the Minister for Justice in regard to expenses incurred by the State in law costs and many of us, including the Minister for Justice, were of the opinion that a good deal of the expense incurred could have been avoided; in other words, the money of the taxpayers can be wilfully and, in many cases, foolishly expended, so long as it is expended on behalf of officers of this State; but, when an ordinary citizen desires to avail of the courts to protect himself against the State, then we are to step in and deny him certain rights to which he is entitled.

The starting point of this Bill was the departure from procedure laid down in the original Act. When the original cases were first listed, surely it was open both to the Minister and his legal advisers to check up on the position and see if there was a likelihood of the court ruling that the procedure had been departed from, and either accepting that position and making the necessary corrections or coming before the House at that time, instead of allowing the cases to pursue their way through the courts until finally we get to the point where certain litigants have committed themselves in regard to costs for professional services. Now we are to step in and say at the last moment that we, by virtue of the powers of this House, are going to deny them any relief whatever that the court may see fit to grant; relief in relation to costs, not arising out of any misdemeanour or any act of omission or commission on the part of the litigants, but arising out of a departure from the procedure laid down in the Act by servants of this House and of the Minister. Because of an effort, apparently, to correct what the Minister said is a very difficult position, we are, step by step, to depart from long-established and long-accepted principles. It seems to me that what we are doing in this Bill is not protecting either the members of the Old I.R.A. or those who desire to make applications under the Act and under this amending Bill, but using the unfortunate position that has arisen out of the 1934 Act to bring ourselves and the law of the State that we are supposed to uphold into ridicule in the eyes of the citizens. Unfortunately the Minister, in taking the easiest way out of a very difficult situation, is doing violence not only to his conscience but to this House, because he is able to force through this Bill by the aid of his majority. He is doing violence to principles that had been established over a long period in this House. I think it is most unfortunate that we should be forced to go along this particular path.

Mr. Coogan

I did not intend to intervene further in the debate, but in view of the Minister's remarks which cast aspersions on the legal profession, I think I am entitled to rise again and to explain that I had no professional interest in this matter good, bad or indifferent. None of these cases has brought any grist to my mill. I am entirely disinterested as far as that goes. I think it unfair of the Minister and of the Taoiseach to describe the legal profession as attempting to set up an El Dorado out of the proceedings which are the subject of this Bill. Everybody knows that if you go to litigation, costs must necessarily be incurred. There are court fees of all kinds to be paid. The solicitor who does the correspondence has to be paid. The counsel who gives his opinion on the case and has to present it in court has to be paid, but these are not the major portion of the costs. The legal gentlemen do not get the lion's share and it is unfair of the Minister to come here and represent these costs as being, as it were, taken into the maw of the legal profession.

It was not the legal profession that promoted the litigation that is now the subject of this Bill. This litigation arose out of a number of genuine grievances of a large body of patriotic Irishmen who felt so keenly on the matter that they, through their brigades all over the country, collected money to get the opinion of learned counsel as to whether they had a case. Having got the opinion that they had a stone-wall case to go to the courts, they collected further moneys to have their case threshed out in court. Surely the solicitor and counsel who appeared on behalf of the I.R.A. men in court are entitled to a fair recompense for their labours on behalf of these men? Surely no aspersion should be cast by any Minister on counsel simply because they acted for these men? Is it the Minister's contention that solicitors or counsel, unlike any other section in the country, should work for nothing? I think the Minister's comment is uncalled for. I do not wish to say anything further. Personally I am not concerned with the professional aspect of the matter. I think a great injustice has been done to a body of Irishmen who risked life and limb in dark and evil times for their country. That is the kernel of the matter. I think also that the Minister in trying to rectify what was perhaps an impossible situation has gone the wrong way, as Deputy Larkin and others who spoke against the Bill have pointed out. You are sacrificing the rights of these decent Irishmen; you are violating principles of law which have operated in this country heretofore and you are introducing a procedure which is a negation of all law.

Mr. Davin

The Minister tried to frighten any Deputies who might listen to him too attentively by giving the costs of the several cases brought before the court at a figure of something like £4,000. He indicated that there were 400 further cases pending which, if this Bill is not passed in its present form, will cost the taxpayers £25,000. How does he arrive at £25,000 as representing the cost of 400 cases not yet heard and that are never likely to be heard if this Bill becomes law? Is it not the fact that the 70 cases which cost £4,000 had to be brought to the courts by members of the Old I.R.A., as citizens claiming constitutional rights of which they were deprived by the Referee or those who were authorised to act for the Referee in certain circumstances? Was it not the defective nature of the legislation contained in the Act of 1934, or the method by which the Government administered the Act of 1934 that was the cause of bringing these cases before the court? I should like to assume, and on that matter perhaps Deputy O Cléirigh, an eminent member of the legal profession, might assure us, that this Bill is now watertight and that it will prevent in future any of these cases coming to court. If that is not so I do not know what the Bill was brought in for. I think, however, it is possible in the best regulated communities and with the most sincere desire on the part of any Minister to do justice to all citizens of the State, even after the Bill becomes law that cases to be reheard will still leave one or two outstanding in which the members of the House will feel that the applicants have not been fairly and squarely dealt with. Is it not proper that if a few Old I.R.A. men still believe, after their cases have been reheard, that they have not been given the justice which they were entitled to receive under the original Act or under the terms of this amending Bill, they should have the right as citizens to go to the highest court of the land where they may get judgment in their favour? If this Bill passes, we may anticipate that the same kind of amendments will be introduced in regard to every other Bill, which means that the judges of the country, instead of being real judges will become civil servants, directed, as they will be directed in cases of this kind, to give costs against the plaintiff who wins his case, and double costs against a plaintiff who loses his case. Surely to goodness ordinary members of the Fianna Fáil Party will see the seriousness of depriving judges of the power of discretion which they had in the past in dealing with cases of this kind in which the rights of citizens who have not got fair treatment from a Minister under any particular Act are concerned. It is not too late to appeal to the Minister, I hope, to review the serious decision he has made. I hope that he will hold over this matter for further consideration. I should like to know has he submitted this amendment for the consideration of the Attorney-General and is it being put forward with the consent of the legal advisers of the Government.

General MacEoin

I appealed to the Minister yesterday evening to withdraw this amendment. It is quite clear that this amendment is not necessary because Section 2 of the Bill has already been passed. Section 2 of this Bill is to prevent anybody from going to court after 1st February. Between 1st February and the passing of this Bill there are people who may go to court and win their cases, and the Minister requires this section in order to make sure that, if they do, they will get no benefit and they will pay all the costs. If the Minister tells us that that is the attitude, then we can understand it. We may argue against the injustice of it, but that is what he is doing. I do not think anybody will deny that if, before this Bill is signed by the Uachtarán and becomes the law of the land, there are rights that might be obtained by any people, they should not be denied them. The Minister is going to deny those rights. Not only that, but if those people avail of the rights which the law of the land gives them they are going to be punished by having to pay both their own and the Minister's costs. The Minister is not accurate when he says that the benefits would go to the solicitors. If this section is included when this Bill becomes law, the applicant then has to pay his own and the Minister's costs. Therefore, there is a direct loss imposed upon the applicant. I hold no brief for the legal profession, but I think the Minister should consider withdrawing the innuendo which he applied to Deputy Coogan—that he knew the reason why Deputy Coogan was advocating this. I do not think that is a fair argument.

Mr. Traynor

I did not say that.

General MacEoin

The Minister said he could understand why the Deputy, being a lawyer, was advocating this.

Mr. Traynor

As a legal man.

General MacEoin

I think if I leave it to the Minister himself he will see that that innuendo should be withdrawn. If the Minister says that this amendment is necessary because the House has passed Section 2 of this Bill, then we can understand that it is wrong, and very wrong, but let the House know it is doing wrong. I suppose we have the right to do wrong-the royal prerogative. This really enshrines the old principle that you cannot get costs against the King.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

Some people do not wish to do wrong.

Mr. O Cléirigh

Unless they are sure of getting away with it.

Mr. Cafferky

The Deputy will make a good effort anyway.

Mr. O Cléirigh

This Bill, as well as the amendments that were framed to it and all the propaganda that has been attempted by the various members of the Opposition, was more or less boosted as being something to assist Old I.R.A. men who had not been properly treated by the State. Not by any stretch of imagination did I at any time think that the Bill would be used in any way to assist members of the legal profession, of which I am, as Deputy Davin said, a distinguished member.

Mr. Corish

Do not be so modest.

Mr. Davin

If not extinguished.

Mr. O Cléirigh

It is news to me. Speaking as a distinguished member of the legal profession—those are Deputy Davin's words—I might have taken a different view altogether of the amendment if it had been hinted to me beforehand that not only was it intended to benefit all the Old I.R.A. men, but also intended by the Opposition to bring at least £4,000 safe money into the pockets of members of my profession. That is a new angle on this Bill. I am proud to see that members of the various Parties are prepared to do that at the expense of the taxpayers. It is an advance from the narrow-minded, class type of legislation and argumentative politics that Deputy Larkin and other Deputies put forward from time to time. There is no class distinction here. The lawyer is entitled to collect his fees, on chance if you like, under this Bill, and for that reason the amendment here now must be defeated, and the members of my profession must get £4,000 or £5,000 of easy money, the safest money they ever budgeted for, by taking their chance—which is really no chance—in launching all the claims they can get on their lists between now and the day on which this Bill is to become law, because every case they register is a dead cert for a kill and for costs against the State, but in not one single case will there be the slightest bit of benefit to any member of the Old I.R.A. organisation. I argued that yesterday, and that is the only point in which I am interested. Will the bringing of any further single case before the courts, on the same grounds as it was brought heretofore, mean the slightest bit of benefit to any member of the Old I.R.A. organisation? The answer is: "No, not one single benefit". I challenge any member of the Opposition to contradict that. It may bring a fresh hearing on the same basis as that on which the case was heard before, but there will be no decision other than the decision that was given before, unless there is a change of tactics, a change of values in estimating what military service is.

There is no argument on this amendment that if those cases are heard by the court there should be a change of heart as far as the awarding of pensions is concerned, or a change of values as far as the Referee is concerned in deciding on the claims so heard. Therefore, without the slightest doubt, it is the intention that members of the legal profession should benefit by having 4,000 cases heard at a cost of several thousand pounds. I know it does, if you like, deny certain citizens certain benefits, but there are the bigger issues to be considered— whether it is wise in the interests of the State to deny certain rights which are established, and remember those rights have been established by the court decision recently given. It is because those rights have been established that this Bill had to be introduced. There was a technical flaw, if you like. Forty thousand cases should be brought before the courts and a favourable decision given. What argument can Deputy Davin or anybody else put forward against the 40,000 cases being brought before 1st April or whenever this Bill comes into operation? A certain number could be brought, because they have been listed; roughly 400 cases have been listed. Why not the 40,000? What right is there to give rights to 400 and refuse them to the balance of the 40,000? Is not that the point? Does Deputy Davin argue that 40,000 people should go before the courts to get the obvious decision, with costs against the State?

Mr. Davin

The Deputy is making some admissions now.

Mr. O Cléirigh

I am prepared to make the admission—and I am prepared to take the medicine afterwards —that you are depriving, if you like, 40,000 people of the right to go before the courts and get the obvious decision. Why not argue that the 40,000 should get that decision? Deputy Davin is arguing only for 400. I have not heard a single Deputy say: "What about the 40,000?" Is their right not to be considered at all?

Mr. Cafferky

Does not the Bill deprive the 40,000 of that right?

Mr. O Cléirigh

Are you prepared to allow the 40,000 to go before the court and get the decision that they must get, at the expense of the State?

You are arguing that 40,000 people who have certain rights should get a hearing. Are you prepared to allow the expenditure on all those cases to go into the hands of members of the legal profession, distinguished or otherwise, without any benefit accruing to the men whom we all, according to our arguments, want to benefit—the members of the Old I.R.A.? That is the point, and no Deputy has yet proved in argument here that if you brought the 40,000 cases before the court you will benefit even one member of the Old I.R.A. by the court decision. But you are undoubtedly going to benefit the members of a certain profession.

It has been argued that many people have gone to expense and have incurred costs. That is not so. They have not incurred costs; they have only given instructions to bring their cases before the courts. That may mean some cost, all right, but the amount would be very small. The cases have not yet been taken. It is when the cases are taken to court and when you have set the legal wheels in motion that the costs will be incurred. You will not be depriving any Old I.R.A. members of costs.

Mr. Corish

We have listened to a very extraordinary speech and I think if the Deputy will examine it when the Official Report is issued at the end of the week he, too, will consider it a very extraordinary speech. The Deputy really spoke with two voices. In the first place, he tried to convey the impression—he and other members of his Party tried to convey the same impression during the past fortnight— that members of the Opposition have said that the fact of I.R.A. members having their cases heard before the High Court is equivalent to granting them pensions. I defy Deputy O Cléirigh to indicate when and where any member of Parties in Opposition made such a statement. On the contrary, Deputy O Cléirigh and the members of his Party, especially Deputies who are also members of county councils, when confronted with resolutions condemning the Government for the action they are taking, went out of their way to tell the other members of the county council that this Bill was brought in only to validate pensions already granted. That was their stock argument all over the country. Notwithstanding that, there are Deputies who have gone the whole way with the Minister in trying to take constitutional rights from the people of this country.

I suggest that this is something more than a Bill to amend an Act; it is really an amendment of the Constitution. I contend that everybody has a perfect right to go to the highest court in the land in order to secure justice. Deputy O Cléirigh tells us, as the Taoiseach has told us, that what has happened in so far as the Referee and the tribunal are concerned was what was in his mind; but the law of the country cannot be interpreted by what is in the Taoiseach's or Deputy O Cléirigh's mind. The law laid it down very definitely that a certain procedure should be adopted. That procedure has not been adopted and people who were prepared to give their lives for this country have taken advantage of the only avenue open to them by going to the High Court in order to secure that the legislation passed by this House would be put into operation in their favour. I do not see anything wrong about that. Deputy O Cléirigh talks about lawyers on chance. I do not think that is a very happy phrase. I do not think the Deputy should refer to the members of any profession in that way.

Mr. O Cléirigh

I said that there is no chance in these cases.

Mr. Corish

The Deputy now says that the only thing that these people can be sure of is that they will have their cases reheard. Then he tells us they are not going to be better off for that unless there is a change of tactics. I cannot quite understand the meaning of that phrase. Are we to have a change of tactics on the part of the Government and the Deputy's Party?

Mr. O Cléirigh

That is the point.

Mr. Corish

Then I can understand the differentiation between applicants—that you must be a member of a certain Party before you are sure of a pension.

Mr. T. Brennan

There was one case of a man from your own town who fought against us in the Civil War and who should have got a pension under the 1924 Act but was refused, and we got him one.

Mr. Corish

Perhaps the Deputy will behave himself. Deputy O Cléirigh says that this does deprive some people of certain rights, but there are greater things. I cannot understand that. Surely there are no greater things than the rights of the people of this country. The people are entitled to their constitutional rights. Yesterday, when it suited Deputy O Cléirigh's argument, he told us that the cases that had gone before the High Court were test cases. If they are test cases, then the Minister should, from a constitutional point of view, agree to hear all the other cases that have been turned down. A test case to me has no other meaning.

In the amendment we are discussing the Minister claims extraordinary powers. He wants to ensure that nobody will go to the High Court between now and the passage of this Bill, which Deputy O Cléirigh expects will be about the 1st April. Perhaps it is a good day, April Fool's Day. Nobody will be able to go to the High Court, because the dice have been loaded against him. Surely the Minister ought to be satisfied with getting this Bill through the Dáil and not let us have any more retrospective machinery placed at his disposal in order to prevent good Irishmen from getting the rights to which they are entitled.

Mr. Donnellan

As usual, propaganda has troubled Deputy O Cléirigh very much. His view is that every Deputy who stands up on this side of the House has only propaganda in view —that with such Deputies propaganda is No. 1. There is an old saying and it is a true one, that a guilty conscience haunts a guilty mind. The Minister referred to the taxpayers and he said: "I should consider the taxpayers". I agree. It is the duty of every member of this House to consider the taxpayers; but surely the Minister will agree that the taxpayers would not be considered by interfering with the rights of ordinary citizens. As Deputy O Cléirigh knows perfectly well, in many instances his profession will not take a case without being sure, win, lose or draw, that they will get paid.

General MacEoin

Distinguished or otherwise.

Mr. Donnellan

Yes, distinguished or otherwise.

Mr. O Cléirigh

We are often very worried about it.

Mr. Donnellan

The Deputy says that going before the courts is of no use, except that it will give cases a rehearing. What good is that? Very often a man who has been tried for murder gets a rehearing, and, as a result, gets away with it. Deputy O Cléirigh knows that well. Therefore, I take it that in respect of the 74 cases which are to be reheard, there is a decision behind the scenes that it will be of no advantage to them.

Mr. O Cléirigh

There is a previous decision against them, but if they have fresh evidence they will, I hope, succeed. The same applies to every one of the 40,000.

Mr. Donnellan

The Deputy spoke of the people's rights. The right of the people of this country is the right to take their cases to court, and yet this amendment tells the people who are to act for them, solicitors and counsel whom they have to get to state their cases: "You must depend on Pat Murphy, the Old I.R.A. man, for payment of your expenses and he is not able to pay them." Therefore, that solicitor or counsel, distinguished or otherwise, will not take the case when he knows he cannot get his costs. I ask the Minister to withdraw this amendment which I regard as a desperate effort on his part. I wonder how does it compare with the circular sent out in the different counties by some T.D's explaining this Bill. Deputy Killilea referred to my statement at a county council meeting. I wonder, when I bring back this amendment which says to these men that, even though they win their case in court, they must pay their own expenses, or that, as they are not able to pay, the legal profession will not represent them and therefore they cannot go to court, how it will be regarded.

Minister for the Co-Ordination of Defensive Measures (Mr. Aiken)

It is very interesting to hear some of the speeches made here to-day on this amendment. The fact of the matter is that according to this Bill any case entered after 1st February, even though a conditional order is granted, will not be reheard, but without this amendment, even though an Old I.R.A. man whose case had been entered in the courts did not win a rehearing against the law as proposed to be made in this Bill his lawyer would get all the expenses involved. Deputy O Cléirigh made a calculation—4,000 cases reheard at £50 each, or £200,000. I can understand people making the case that the Supreme Court decision should have been allowed to stand and that all the 40,000 cases should be reheard under the conditions they laid down, but I do not know what case there is for this State, the taxpayers of the State, paying £200,000, not to secure a rehearing for an Old I.R.A. man under the terms of the Supreme Court decision, but to secure £200,000 for the lawyers.

There was a system in vogue in certain cities of the world where lawyers who sat in their offices and could not attract clients took to the streets and became ambulance chasers. They were a disreputable crowd and regarded as such by the honourable men of the profession. Not all the lawyers in this country have since 1st February canvassed Old I.R.A. men who are without knowledge of the Bill or how the law stood, but one gentleman alone, in his own immediate neighbourhood, got 447 men to agree to enter their cases in the courts. Suppose this amendment does not go through. What will be the result in these 447 cases? They are entered in the courts and the Bill, without this amendment, goes through. They cannot be reheard according to Section 2, but the fact is that the lawyer, because he has the 447 signatures to whatever papers are put into court, will draw a cold £23,500 from the people of this country. Deputy Davin may laugh but that is the fact.

Mr. Davin

What is the use of talking about a rehearing when they were not heard before?

Mr. Aiken

If Deputy Davin and Deputy Donnellan could succeed in defeating this amendment, this particular gentleman would draw his £23,500, but the 447 men would be no better off. They would not get a rehearing under the other clauses of the Bill. It is all very well for some Deputies to talk about the rights of the citizens. The citizens have to be protected by the Oireachtas against court decisions which would create chaos. The Supreme Court has no responsibility for the results of its decisions, but this House has. The Supreme Court tomorrow by interpreting some old Act could create chaos in many ways and this House would have to say that as such and such results would flow from its interpretation of the law, causing chaos and disruption in the country, the law would have to be amended, or a new law introduced to prevent these results from flowing from its interpretation of the law as it stood.

The Supreme Court had not to administer the 1924 and 1934 Acts and it can form a very detached judgment on them, but the Oireachtas and the people of this country have to have the matter settled in a reasonable way. It is being settled here. The ill-effects which the Supreme Court's decision would have on the country are being prevented, so far as is humanly possible, by this Bill, and there is no disrespect of the law in seeing that the laws which are in force, or which are said to be in force by the Supreme Court, are in fact enforceable and give reasonable justice to the people. It is only justice to the Old I.R.A. man and the people of the State that the I.R.A. pensions proceedings of all kinds should be dealt with and wound up as quickly as is reasonably possible. This Bill proposes and makes an effort to ensure that that will be done.

I do not think there is an Old I.R.A. man in the country who would be interested in securing for ambulance-chasing lawyers a sum of £200,000 without its resulting in even one case, apart from the 70 already decided by the Supreme Court, being reheard. Every effort has been made under the procedure operated by the various judges who acted as referees to date to give a fair hearing to all the applicants. As the Minister pointed out, there is still in the 1934 Act a clause which gives to any of the 40,000, as well as to the 70 who have got a Supreme Court decision for rehearing, the right to have their cases reheard if they can bring forward evidence not previously available. The 70 who have had their cases adjudged by the Supreme Court have the same right to bring forward evidence that was not previously available, if it is available, in order to back up the cases which they have lost long ago. I think that this House would be very foolish indeed if it were to take up the attitude that, when a court declares the law to be other than this House wants it to be, and other than what it is in the interests of the people it should be, it cannot be amended. The Supreme Court have their function, a very useful function indeed. In this particular case, by giving a decision that the law is as they say it is, would lead to complete disruption. It would lead to a very grave injustice to the men who would be strung along for another number of years, as well as to the people of the country who have to find the taxes which are paid to the State, particularly if those taxes are to be frittered away in court cases, and in large sums to be given to the ambulance-chasing type of lawyer.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

The Minister is like a cooing dove, but I think it would have been preferable if he had left the dissertation that he has given us on law to Deputy O Cléirigh, who put his foot into it quite openly and unashamedly. The Minister seems to have overlooked one or two points. Everyone recognises that a difficult situation has arisen in regard to the procedure laid down in the 1934 Act. Nobody is taking up the point of view that this House has not the power to remedy defects in the existing law. What objection is taken to is the method by which the remedy is being applied. May I point out to the Minister and to Deputy O Cléirigh that on the Second Reading of the Bill a very mild, and, I thought, constructive suggestion was made. It was this, that the House as a whole, and not the political Parties, would try to find a way out of the dilemma. The Government Party, however, are persisting with the Bill and with their remedies to deal with the situation. They can hardly blame us then if our criticism is somewhat sharp as to the remedies they are proposing. It is correct to say that some 70 persons—former applicants—have obtained orders from the High Court. It was also correct for the Minister to say that 40,000 more could make application. Is it not also correct to say that there are a number of others who have already instructed their solicitors and have entered into commitments in regard to legal-costs? Since those persons have taken advantage of the existing law and have entered into commitments which they were entitled to enter into, is it right that we should suddenly step in all because we believe, as the Minister has said, that there are ambulance-chasing lawyers prepared to take a chance? In order to do that, are we also to penalise individuals who, quite properly, took legal action to expose the position that has arisen under the 1934 Act because of the failure of the Minister or his officials to carry out the procedure laid down or because of the failure of this House to lay down a workable procedure?

Surely the Minister recognises that the cases that were taken to court, and in respect of which orders have been taken, were not, in the ordinary sense, individual cases. These were cases that were representative of a group of persons who had consulted together and had possibly received collective advice. I think it is correct to say that far more than the 70 who have succeeded in obtaining orders from the court are already committed to the payment of expenses. Is it a fair proposition that we should step in and arbitrarily decide that these men are not entitled to any relief in relation to the expenses which they have incurred, particularly in view of the fact that all this has arisen because of a defect, due either to the Minister or to this House? Surely we can find some way other than this of stopping the ambulance-chasing in order to get out of what is admittedly a very difficult situation. We should not adopt the method of doing things that, in themselves, are wrong.

Deputy O Cléirigh has been referred to as a distinguished member of the legal profession. I think it is a good thing that the members of his profession do not give us the type of lecture that we have had to listen to from him this evening. Recently, there has been a great deal of talk about reconstituting the Second Chamber on a vocational basis. I think that Deputy O Cléirigh is himself the best argument against that because if his speech this evening is to be taken as typical of the contributions that we are going to get from members of that profession on matters affecting the profession, then I think we had better keep to the political paths where we are likely to get a little common sense and, I suggest, some little honesty.

The Deputy sat here during the Second Reading debate. He knew that we had tried to get an all-Party committee to find a happy way out of the present situation. Yet, he charged us with completely attempting to ignore the difficulties of the Minister and with trying to make political propaganda out of them. He asked if we had considered that a number of persons may find themselves in difficulties in relation to the amendment we are discussing, and, further, why we did not claim the right for the 40,000 also. He deliberately cited the fact that we had a division on that very point yesterday. He proceeded in that way right down the list, the suggestion being that the only persons in this House who have any interest in the welfare of the Old I.R.A. are those who sit on that side of the House. Running right through Deputy O Cléirigh's contribution, and that of many other speakers on the Government Benches, was the suggestion that, since we have got into this difficult position and since there are certain possible financial commitments that may be thrown on the State and on the taxpayer, we are just entitled to do anything, even though our action transgresses against the ordinary accepted principles. The suggestion is that we can deprive citizens of their lawful rights, and then defend ourselves by saying that, in our judgment, we are doing what is best. A wiser attitude was adopted on another occasion when it was said that "it would be far better that the whole structure of the State should be placed under the greatest stress and strain rather than that an injustice should be done even to one citizen." We seem, however, to be departing from that principle. I agree that it is important to save the taxpayers' money. May I point out that, because of the failure to prepare cases for the State in other instances, we have had to hand out the taxpayers' money, and yet we do not seem to worry about it? The important point is not whether the Supreme Court or the High Court was right in law, but whether, in respect of certain citizens of this State, we should step in and interfere with a certain right and prerogative which the Supreme Court has enjoyed up to this. That is important. We could deal with what the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures referred to as ambulance-chasers if, instead of the Government trying to push through its own arbitrary view, it was prepared to listen to advice, not from my side of the House only but from those intimately concerned with the carrying out of the Act. This Party is interested not only in getting equitable treatment for applicants under the 1934 Act but in getting a system of machinery that will not merely resolve the present tangle but leave all Parties satisfied that they did the best under the circumstances and with the feeling that, whatever the difficulties, fresh dissatisfaction and friction will not arise. I suggest that, even now, the Minister might reconsider the terms of this amendment and see if it is not possible to do what is desired without taking such drastic powers in relation to what is the prerogative of the Supreme Court.

Mr. Aiken

Deputy Larkin must be aware of the public history of these cases. Last year, a few cases were entered in the courts against the procedure upon which the referees have been acting since 1934. A couple of those cases were decided and a remainder, numbering about 70, was listed for hearing. The decision of the Supreme Court having been given in the couple of cases to which I have referred, the Government immediately announced that they proposed to accept that decision as not merely binding in the couple of cases decided but in the remaining 70 cases. No action was taken, and no action is proposed in this Bill, to deprive any one of those 70 claimants of his full and complete rights under the law, with all the costs going to his lawyer. Long before the 70 cases had been entered, as a pure matter of form, for judgment, the Government had announced that the parties concerned would get their complete rights and their costs. In making that announcement, the Government stated that they did not propose to grant costs in any future cases that might be entered. The law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, would have caused such chaos and disruption that no Government could take responsibility for the consequences. No sooner was this public warning given, that no further costs would be allowed in cases listed in future, than certain gentlemen—let us call them "ambulance-chasing lawyers" to distinguish them from the honourable professions of solicitor and barrister—thought that they could, by merely collecting a list of names and by entering cases in the courts, obtain £50 per head. A gentleman in one small district in the country proposed to enter 447 cases and draw £23,000 simply by canvassing for the names of people. This amendment would not be submitted if that "ambulance chasing" had not occurred. The Government would have been doing less than its duty if it had allowed the taxpayers' money to be squandered by giving a cold £23,000, which was not going to forward his clients' cases, into the hands of this gentleman. Under this Bill, if it goes through, his 447 clients, even if they got an order from the court, would not get the advantage of the rehearing which the 70 original cases got, but this gentleman would get his £23,500.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

Can the Minister definitely say that, prior to the date on which the Supreme Court gave its decision, there were no cases other than the 70 in which legal advice had been sought or legal proceedings commenced? I have seen the figure of 168——

Mr. Aiken

Cases in which legal proceedings were entered——

General MacEoin

That is a different matter.

Mr. Aiken

——numbered 70. Even though they had not come for decision before the court, costs were granted in those cases.

Mr. Davin

Would the Minister for Defence say how he arrived at the frightening figure of £23,500? Does that figure represent taxed costs or does it include pensions in the 447 cases to which the Minister for Co-ordination referred?

Mr. Aiken

The sum does not include pensions. These were cases that could not be advanced one iota by a court decision, as the Deputy knows. The State would have had to pay 50 costs in each case. The couple of cases which were heard fully cost £4,500.

Mr. Davin

Does that represent taxed costs?

Mr. Aiken

Yes. The State cannot pay costs that are not taxed.

Question put: "That the new section be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 33.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Brady, Brian.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Brennan, Martin.
• Brennan, Thomas.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Buckley, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick (Co. Dublin).
• Butler, Bernard.
• Carter, Thomas.
• Childers, Erskine H.
• Colbert, Michael.
• Colley, Harry.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Fogarty, Patrick J.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Kilroy, James.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick J.
• Loughman, Frank.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blanev, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Lydon, Michael F.
• McCann, John.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Morrissey, Michael.
• Moylan, Seán.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
• O Cléirigh, Micheál.
• O'Connor, John S.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• O'Sullivan, Ted.
• Rice, Bridget M.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Skinner, Leo B.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Ua Donnchadha, Dómhnall.
• Walsh, Laurence.
• Ward, Conn.

Níl

• Beirne, John.
• Bennett, George C.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Cafferky, Dominick.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Coogan, Eamonn.
• Corish, Richard.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Davin, William.
• Dockrell, Henry M.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Everett, James.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Halliden, Patrick J.
• Hughes, James.
• Keating, John.
• Larkin, James (Junior).
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Norton, William.
• O'Donnell, William F.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Reilly, Thomas.
• O'Sullivan, Martin.
• Pattison, James P.
• Redmond, Bridget M.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Rogers, Patrick J.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies O Cíosáin and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett

Question declared carried.

Amendment No. 26 not moved.

Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."

General MacEoin

On Section 3, Sir. Of course, it is true to say that once Section 2 of this Bill has been passed there is very little use in arguing on Section 3, but there are so many restrictions upon the rights of applicants in asserting their claims— particularly in view of certain things that can be done by the Minister— that I feel that Section 3 should not be passed by the House. I understand that we are now discussing an amendment to Section 3.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No. We are not debating an amendment to Section 3. The question before the House now is that Section 3 should stand part of the Bill—amendment No. 25, which inserted a new section before that section, having been agreed to.

General MacEoin

Very well, Sir.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Then, I take it, that the Deputy is satisfied that we should put the question, that Section 3 stand part of the Bill.

General MacEoin

Very good, Sir.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 4.

General MacEoin

I move amendment No. 27:—

To add at the end of the section after the word "power" in line 46 the words:—"and where an appeal by a brigade committee has been made on behalf of an applicant to the Minister to exercise the power conferred on him by sub-section (5) of Section 8, and sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act of 1934 the Minister shall refer back to the Referee each such appeal and that in such case the evidence of the nominees of the brigade committee may be accepted as sufficient evidence to discharge the onus of proof in each case: Provided always that the applicant shall have the right to give oral evidence and call any witnesses that he may consider necessary and that no person save the Minister shall have the right to call rebutting evidence and where such rebutting evidence is being called a summary of such evidence shall be forwarded to the applicant 14 clear days before hearing or rehearing."

This is an important amendment and I ask the Minister to accept it. In Section 4 the Minister fixes a final date after which he cannot exercise the power that Deputy O Cléirigh and others dwelt on. After 1st January, 1946, the Minister shall not have the right to refer a case back to the Referee for reconsideration, no matter what additional evidence may be available. The Minister is now binding himself by statute to take away that right. The date mentioned in the Bill, January 1, 1946, is a positive one and does not give much time. It would be true to say that great hardship will always exist, no matter what date is fixed. Section 4 reads:—

"On and after the 1st day of January, 1946, the power conferred on the Minister by sub-section (5) of Section 8 of the Act of 1934 and the power conferred on the Minister by sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act of 1934 shall cease to be exercisable, save in respect of any report in reference to which the Minister has, before the said date, received an application or request for the exercise of that power."

That power is taken from sub-section (5) of Section 8 of the Act of 1934. It reads:—

"Where a report has been made by the Referee under this section on an application for a service certificate, the Minister may, on the ground that evidence not available prior to the making of such a report has since become available, request the Referee to review such report, and the Referee shall thereupon review such report and, after considering such additional evidence and any evidence which the person to whom such report relates, may adduce, may either, as he thinks proper, confirm or vary such report."

Sub-section (6) of the same section reads:—

"Where the Minister requests the Referee to review a report under this section on the grounds that evidence not available prior to the making of such a report has since become available, he shall inform the person to whom such report relates of such request, and, unless such request was made on the motion of such person, furnish him with a statement of such evidence."

I move this amendment in order to clarify the position. If the Minister accepts the amendment it means that instead of being forced to hear a number of cases, he would only hear cases on which a brigade committee made representations or submitted further evidence on behalf of applicants. From information at my disposal as a member of a brigade committee I know that the number of cases is not large. It would only be 5,000 or 6,000 in all. Even if there were 6,000 cases I think a rehearing on additional evidence would meet much of the criticism that has been levelled against the administration of the Act, and would eliminate a large number of errors that have been committed, not only by the Referee and by brigade committees, but by everybody else who gave evidence. It was only on re-examination that mistakes were finally established. On the Second Reading I gave an example of what constituted additional evidence, but the Minister held a different opinion. I did not make the charge that Deputy O Cléirigh suggested I had made, that one had to be a member of a Fianna Fáil club to get a pension. I never made any such charge. As far as my knowledge of the Referee and of the board goes, they have been beyond reproach in that respect. There was no question about that. The charge I made yesterday was that when brigade committees were being formed an attempt was made by certain Fianna Fáil Deputies to confine them to members of Fianna Fáil clubs. That is a completely different version of the matter. That was the fault of the Deputies concerned. I am not making a charge against the Government. As far as the Referee and the board are concerned, they gave justice to everybody within the rules that they laid down. In no case did I see any political partisanship in the granting or refusing of pensions. I want to make that clear. If the Minister accepts the amendment it will go a long way towards meeting the dissatisfaction that exists, and it will eliminate errors that have been made in some cases by the Referee and the board and in other instances by brigade committees. These errors were perfectly bona fide, but they imposed hardship which was just as great as if they had been made deliberately.

Mr. Traynor

On the question of rebutting evidence the Referee does not necessarily and deliberately look for someone to refute statements made by applicants. That is not the purpose. What usually happens is that a witness is brought along to give positive evidence. Perhaps he is on his oath and is unable to give the positive type of evidence which would entitle a man to have his claim substantiated and it fails. I want to make it clear that there is no deliberate attempt. It is not part of the machinery of the hearing to bring anybody forward with the deliberate purpose of disproving a claim. It is just that the Referee may believe that an individual could help in the matter but he just fails to give the particular type of evidence required. In the amendment the Deputy is referring to brigade committees. Brigade committees have no statutory existence whatever under the Act. As far as the Act is concerned, they do not exist. It is part of the procedure which the Referee adopted as a way and means of having these cases dealt with reasonably expeditiously. The principal Act places the onus of proof on the applicant and this amendment suggests that it be placed on the brigade committees. I do not think that I could accept the amendment, from that point of view. I should say that I am not a party to the proceedings before the Referee in any respect. The Minister does not enter into it. The case is heard by the Referee and the Advisory Committee. It is examined by these people and the only point at which the Minister enters into the position at all is when the decision, one way or the other, is forwarded to the Minister. The latter portion of the amendment seems to be providing against slander, or something like that.

General MacEoin

I have not moved that yet. I take it that the Minister is not aware of the fact that there has been a large number of cases in which huge numbers of witnesses have been called. I do not know whether they are called by the Referee or at the instance of some members of the board but I know cases where the applicant brought, say, two or three witnesses, to substantiate and to discharge the onus of proof. After that, a very large number of witnesses was called who could give evidence only of a negative nature and the situation was created that to all intents and purposes they were refuting the evidence given by the applicant and, in that sense, it was rebutting evidence. That is not the important part of this amendment. I am quite willing to drop that part of the amendment if the Minister agrees to refer back to the Referee for consideration such cases as the brigade committee, between this and 31st January, put up to him for consideration. Having done that, instead of calling the applicant, all the Referee has to do is to notify him that his case will be heard on such a date and that he is prepared to take the brigade nominee's evidence in the particular case on a certain date. If that were done, the number of cases involved would not be very large, in my opinion, because I think the brigade committees themselves would have to act, as they have acted for a considerable time, as referees to a certain degree. I am prepared to drop the question of the rebutting evidence if the Minister is prepared to accept the first part of the amendment.

Mr. Traynor

I am afraid I could not do that, but I can point out to the Deputy that if there are any special cases in which he thinks justice has not been done and full examination has not been completed in regard to the evidence brought forward, and if he can bring sufficient evidence to bring the cases within the clauses of the Act, I certainly will have them forwarded to the Referee for examination. That proposal is not as wide as the Deputy's amendment would make it but, certainly, if the Deputy can produce cases of the type I have mentioned, cases in respect of which the proper type of evidence can be produced, I will undertake to have them dealt with as sympathetically as it is possible to have them dealt with.

General MacEoin

I wish to thank the Minister for that, but that is a personal thing to me. I am aware of cases myself, but I want the Minister to realise that I want to establish it as the right of any brigade committee, not the brigade committee of which I happen to be in charge. There are brigade committees of other areas that have not a Deputy as chairman and I want the Minister to give the same privilege or the same right to all the other brigade committees to do the same tning. I want him to make it a right, if possible. I am very grateful to the Minister for saying that he will accept cases from me, but these are cases that I am going to prepare. That means a good deal of hardship and it is putting the obligation upon me. I accept that, but that is an advantage to the Longford Brigade Committee because I happen to be the chairman. There is no reason in the world why the Leitrim Brigade Committee, which has not got Deputy MacEoin as chairman, should not have the same right. I want the Minister to accept the principle that, where a brigade committee, no matter who the chairman may be, makes representation that, in connection with cases, (a), (b), (c), (d), etc., justice has not been done and that certain evidence was not considered, a reconsideration by the Referee would take place. If I get that accepted, the Minister will have gone a long distance to satisfy me.

Mr. Traynor

I just want to make the position clear. What I have said to Deputy MacEoin goes for every brigade chairman throughout the country, within the terms I have stated. If it is possible to bring the type of evidence which we can take as coming within the meaning of a particular section of the Act, there is no question but that we can have it sent forward.

Mr. McMenamin

Would the Minister be prepared to put in an amendment to that effect?

Mr. Traynor

No. I am saying if it comes within the present section of the Act, that is, if the evidence is of the type which we require.

Mr. McMenamin

That is only a verbal statement.

Mr. Traynor

There is nothing tricky about the statement at all. I want to make it clear that what I am saying is that, as far as we can take cases within the particular section dealing with appeals, we will take them in. The point I want to make is, that there has been the suggestion throughout the debate—Deputy MacEoin made it a few moments ago—that certain types of cases, where there was evidence which, in his opinion, was the type of evidence that came within the meaning of the particular section, were turned down by the Referee. I am suggesting that the evidence given was not additional evidence within the meaning of the Act. Does Deputy MacEoin hold that it was?

General MacEoin

Yes.

Mr. Traynor

That is the point I want to get at. I say that if my attention is drawn to cases that Deputy MacEoin or any other brigade chairman has in mind, where there is evidence which they think is the type of evidence that comes within the meaning of the Act, and if the cases are still being turned down, I will have them re-examined from the point of view of seeing if by any chance a mistake was made. I do not believe a mistake was made but, if by any chance, a mistake was made, the mere fact that it is being brought forward for re-examination will allay the fears that Deputy MacEoin may have as to what other people may be thinking. That is as far as I can go. That is one of the difficulties we have had throughout this Bill, and when the Taoiseach was asking for a solution of the particular difficulty with which we were faced, that is what he was referring to.

We are told that there are 3,000 or 5,000 people to whom justice has not been done. How can we bring these people in without amending that particular section or without bringing in the whole 48,000 who have had their cases examined and who have not been given satisfaction? It cannot be done. If we are to bring 3,000 people in, it means we must bring the other 45,000, otherwise we are just doing what has been suggested here from time to time —we are dealing with certain sections of applicants favourably and with other sections unfavourably. We are trying to avoid anything in the nature of that, even by way of suggestion. There is the difficulty of being able to amend that particular section in such a way that we would not have to deal with the whole 48,000—the difficulty of dealing with the numbers referred to without doing an injustice to the remainder of the 48,000. No solution from this House, or our own Party, or any Party, so far as I can see, because they were all invited to suggest something, has been given. Apparently it has not been found.

General MacEoin

The Minister gave me the impression, in the first instance, that if a brigade committee put forward cases, or if Deputies put forward cases in which they felt that justice was not done, these cases would be considered. Then he veered around again and said that it must come within the section of the Act. Therefore, we are back where we started. It must be additional evidence in the opinion of somebody. It is a matter of opinion. In my opinion and in the opinion of the brigade committee a particular type of evidence is additional evidence. In the Minister's opinion, or in the opinion, as he told us yesterday, of the secretary to the Referee it is not additional evidence. Then it is not referred back to the Referee. The secretary to the Referee is exercising the power conferred on the Minister under the Act. It is the Minister's responsibility under this section:—

"Where a report has been made by the Referee under this section on an application for a service certificate the Minister may, on the ground that evidence not available prior to the making of such report has since become available, request the Referee to review such report...."

I know well that the Minister cannot do it, but it is the Minister on whom the responsibility is placed for referring back a case. Now the Minister tells us that it is the secretary to the Referee who deals with these particular matters, that it is the secretary who says whether the new evidence is additional or not. If the members of a brigade committee, who are aware of the evidence given and what evidence was omitted, set out this additional evidence, then, if this amendment is accepted, the Minister must refer the case back to the Referee for rehearing. But, if we accept the statement which the Minister now makes, we revert back to the original situation and the applicant is no nearer to a rehearing.

I cited an example on the Second Reading of a person who did not qualify because it was held that his service was broken. That happened owing to an error. Documentary evidence, which established the fact that his service was not broken, was clearly on its face additional evidence. Yet the Minister's Department wrote back to the applicant and to the brigade committee that, in the opinion of the Minister, it was not additional evidence. Although every single member of the brigade committee was satisfied that that person was entitled to a certificate of service, that person has not got what he is entitled to. I admit that, in the first instance, the blame was on the applicant himself and, secondly, upon the brigade committee for not making sure of the facts of the case. Thirdly, it rests on the Referee and the Minister for not accepting the additional evidence when it became available. This amendment, if it were accepted, would allow that case to be reheard upon that evidence. The evidence of the brigade committee could be accepted by the Referee as conclusive that they had discharged the onus of proof which was on the applicant. The right of the applicant to come forward and give evidence would be preserved. I think the Minister should accept that portion of the amendment in principle, because I think he has agreed that there should be a greater widening of the scope of that section than there has been up to the present. It might let in a few more who should not be let in under the present definition, but it would certainly let in those who are entitled to come in and who should be given the opportunity. Can the Minister not accept the amendment?

Mr. Traynor

I cannot accept it.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 31; Níl, 56.

Tá

• Beirne, John.
• Bennett, George C.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Cafferky, Dominick.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Coogan, Eamonn.
• Corish, Richard.
• Davin, William.
• Dockrell, Henry M.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Everett, James.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Halliden, Patrick J.
• Hughes, James.
• Keating, John.
• Larkin, James (Junior).
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Norton, William.
• O'Donnell, William F.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Reilly, Thomas.
• O'Sullivan, Martin.
• Pattison, James P.
• Redmond, Bridget M.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Rogers, Patrick J.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Brady, Brian.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Brennan, Martin.
• Brennan, Thomas.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Buckley, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick (Co. Dublin).
• Butler, Bernard.
• Carter, Thomas.
• Lydon, Michael F.
• McCann, John.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Morrissey, Michael.
• Moylan, Seán.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
• O Cléirigh, Mícheál.
• O'Connor, John S.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Childers, Erskine H.
• Colbert, Michael.
• Colley, Harry.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Fogarty, Patrick J.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Kilroy, James.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick J.
• Loughman, Frank.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• O'Sullivan, Ted.
• Rice, Bridget M.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Ua Donnchadha, Dómhnall.
• Walsh, Laurence.
• Ward, Conn.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Bennett; Níl: Deputies O Cíosáin and Kennedy.

Question declared negatived.

General MacEoin

I move amendment No. 28:—

To add a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) Where rebutting evidence is given against a claimant on appeal such evidence, whether sustained or rejected, shall be privileged and no action shall lie for slander or libel against any witness who may have tendered such evidence before the Referee or before members of brigade committees or who may discuss such evidence with other persons after such meeting.

As amendment No. 27 has not been accepted, this amendment loses much of its force. I just want to make the point that at brigade committee meetings there may be heated discussions as to whether a person did or did not take part in certain engagements. In a perfectly bona fide way the assertion may be made that X did not take part in an engagement and X may regard that statement as a slander. At the brigade committee meeting, the statement might be held to be privileged, but as happens in some cases, the discussion may go on outside sometime after the meeting or there may be a conversation between two members going home. There may be a good deal of discussion on the question as to who is or who is not entitled to have an appeal made to the Minister on his behalf and this question of slander could arise very easily. I think the Minister should take note of it, and see what is the legal position. I do not want to press the amendment.

Mr. Traynor

I do not think the question really arises. The position as far as I know is that evidence given before the Referee in any circumstances is secret and confidential. There is no possibility of slander or libel or anything else arising as a result, so I do not think the Deputy need have any fears on the point.

General MacEoin

I admit that evidence tendered before the Referee is privileged, and that it can be held that a statement made before a brigade committee is also privileged. But outside of that, the discussion goes on sometimes between members in regard to claims and all that kind of thing, in which they say: "So-and-so did not take part in such and such a thing," and that might be regarded as slander at the moment.

Mr. Traynor

That is outside the legal end of it altogether; you cannot do anything with regard to that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."

General MacEoin

On Section 4, I think the Minister, having refused to amend it in any way, should now extend the date. He cannot possibly have the whole thing dealt with in 11 months. He is allowing himself a very narrow margin, and I think that date should be extended.

Mr. Traynor

The original decision was not to have it beyond the end of July, and it was generally believed that even that date was somewhat prolonged. Then I decided that it would be better to make it the end of the year rather than the middle of the year. It was decided that only those cases which were heard by the end of the year would be regarded as decided, and those not decided would be ruled out. Now, I again thought that that would be unfair, and I put it up to the Government that every case that was in by that date, whether it was heard or not, should be regarded as being legally entitled to be heard. I think it would be unreasonable— and I am sure the Deputy will agree—to go on extending the date. We are giving them practically nine months, and in that time any man can make up his mind as to whether he has the possibility of making a case. I think to ask for an extension beyond that would be asking too much, especially in view of the original decisions which were thought fully to meet the case.

General MacEoin

There is a number of people in America and all over the world who will have to be contacted and told about this particular date. When you fix 1st January, 1946, you are giving those people very little chance. I am aware that there were attempts to make applications under the 1924 Act from people who were in America and who only got in touch with their relatives in the last nine or ten years. After a great number of years they were still unaware of rejections and that sort of thing. The Minister is tying his own hands. I am glad he took the view that July was too near —that it was not allowing sufficient time. I think this date should be extended, particularly for overseas applications. If you put in the words "except in the case of overseas applications" that would meet the point.

Mr. Traynor

We can consider that, but I think it is very doubtful that the matter will arise.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Acting-Chairman (Mr. Allen)

Amendment No. 29 has been ruled out of order.

General MacEoin

I am not going to move the amendment, but I wanted first to raise this point of order, if I may, with your permission. I am informed that this amendment was ruled out of order on the grounds that it involves expenditure, either potential or actual. The Taoiseach submitted that if a scheme were put up which would meet the difficulties of the Government it would be considered. I suggest that such an amendment as I have here would meet the case. On the point as to whether it involves a liability or a potential charge on public funds, I submit that the Chair has ruled harshly, in view of the fact that a person is entitled to a service certificate if he was a member of the Volunteers and has active service, and that the method by which active service is established is by a rule of a referee. My submission is that that was already covered, and that this definition of mine was not an addition to what is already there. I submit, Sir, that the matter should be reconsidered.

On a point of personal explanation, it has been alleged that, in putting in that section, I knew it would be ruled out of order, and that, therefore, I did not mean that section. Now, the Chair knows that I only got the notice that it was out of order when I came into this Front Bench yesterday. I believed it was in order, and I am submitting to you now that it is in order. What I really wanted to do was to try to meet the wishes of the Taoiseach by putting up this section. I think that, under the circumstances, the amendment should be allowed. On a point of order, I submit that amendment No. 1, which was dealt with yesterday, did impose a charge, because it was proposing to appoint five referees instead of one. I submit that it could be argued that it was out of order because it was imposing a charge. This amendment, in my submission, is not at all on that line. The charge is already imposed in the Act of 1934. Therefore, Sir, you should admit this amendment, and allow me to make a case for it.

Acting-Chairman

The Ceann Comhairle has already ruled that it is out of order. It is an extension of the terms of military service, and for that reason he has ruled it out of order. Is the Deputy accepting that ruling of the Chair?

General MacEoin

I am accepting the ruling of the Chair. I can raise the matter on the section.

Acting-Chairman

Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 are out of order also. Amendment No. 32 really goes beyond the scope of the Bill, and I am not sure if the Ceann Comhairle would allow it.

General MacEoin

When amendment No. 29 was not allowed, there is very little use in allowing me to move amendment No. 32, because you have taken anything that is any good out of the amendments. However, I will move amendment No. 32:—

Before Section 5 to insert a new section as follows:—

The First Schedule of the Act of 1934 is hereby amended by the addition to Rule 4 of the following:—

4 (A) The brigade committee's certificate as shown by their records shall be conclusive evidence of the rank held by the applicant on the first or second critical date as may apply.

4 (B) Evidence of the rank held by an applicant when given by the brigade committee nominees shall be sufficient to discharge the onus of proof and shall be final and conclusive.

At the moment, with the Act being administered as it is, there are hardships imposed upon various applicants as regards the question of rank. There are all sorts of difficulties about ranks. The brigade committees were asked to submit records of the various companies of Volunteers and Cumann na mBan. They have done so. If a company was one short of its prescribed figure the company officer failed to get his rank. I do not hold any brief for those who fought in the executive forces during the civil war, but I submit that the question of rank under the 1924 Act was governed by the rank one held in the National Army and it did not matter whether one commanded ten men or 1,000, it was the rank one held in the Army that governed the rank for military service pension purposes. All that I am arguing is that the people on the executive forces side should have the same right. Once they commanded a certain number that should be accepted as their rank, particularly when the brigade committee gave a certificate that they occupied such rank. These certificates are in already and, therefore, there is no chance of anybody mending his hand. The records are there.

Where the brigade committee has made such a record, and where it has not been accepted by the Referee, this amendment will impose the obligation on the Referee of accepting that certificate. The 1924 Act was governed by staff duties at G.H.Q. as to what rank a person held, and they were bound by that. If, for instance, staff duties gave a certificate that I was captain in 1924, that automatically gave me my rank. I say that for the purposes of this Act the brigade committees should be taken as the staff duties of that particular period and their certificate of rank should be accepted and that should apply both to Volunteers and Cumann na mBan.

Mr. Traynor

Of course, the Referee has dual duties. He has a duty, in the first instance, to the applicant, and he has a duty, in the second place, to the State or the people. In the first instance, he endeavoured to ensure that the applicant would be given every possible facility in order that he might be granted whatever rights he was entitled to, and, in the second instance, he had to ensure that no claimant would get something to which he was not entitled. Therefore, the Referee must be entitled to call all and sundry before him that he believes will be able to help him in reaching his decision. This amendment, which I could not, under any circumstances, accept, suggests in as many words that the brigade committees will not alone be the verifying authority but that they will also be the people responsible for the final decision in a case. Of course, that would be out of the question. The Referee must continue to deal with whatever cases he has to deal with, whether they be new cases or cases on appeal, in identically the same fashion as he has dealt with them up to the moment.

General MacEoin

I do not know how that could be taken out of the amendment—that the brigade committees were to be the final court of appeal. The intention is that they would act on the records already existing and that are in the possession of the Referee—that they would be taken as conclusive evidence by the Referee for the purpose of determining rank. I am not very strong on that, but I do suggest there is injustice done. I will give an example of what I mean. A split unfortunately took place. Prior to the split, Company A of such a battalion had 110 or 100 men. After the split there were 45 on the side of the executive forces, 40 in the National Army, and the remainder were neutral. The company captain had the same work to do with the smaller number, and it was a greater hardship on him to perform his duties. I say it was a more difficult task and it required greater ingenuity on the part of the officer to perform his duties. Because of the split he there and then lost his rank.

I am putting the case that if he was company captain on 11th July, 1921, he automatically got that rank. If he was captain of the whole company, then that was all right, but if he was section commander on the 11th July, 1921, and in 1922 he became company officer of the attenuated company, with which he had to take part in various activities, he now found himself with a much smaller company having to do the same work as the large company did, but he does not get his rank. I am suggesting that the brigade records relating to his rank should be sufficient and ought to be accepted and the brigade committee, for the purposes of this Act, should be regarded as staff duties.

Mr. O'Leary

The Minister referred to extra evidence.

Acting-Chairman

On this amendment?

Mr. O'Leary

Last week he refused to hear an applicant and Deputy Allen knows as well and probably better than other people that there were genuine cases turned down in the County Wexford.

Acting-Chairman

I do not think that arises on this amendment.

Mr. O'Leary

When the Act came into force——

Acting-Chairman

The Deputy may raise that matter on a further stage of the Bill, but it does not arise on this amendment.

Mr. O'Leary

The Minister is not giving way to Deputy MacEoin simply because he has a majority to steam-roll this Bill through the House. Every member of the Fianna Fáil Party knows well that genuine men have been turned down.

Acting-Chairman

That does not arise on this amendment. It is out of order.

Mr. O'Leary

You do not want to hear the facts; you do not want the truth.

General MacEoin

Is the Minister accepting the amendment?

Mr. Traynor

No. I think that, on the whole, the Deputy will agree that the brigade committees' recommendations are usually accepted. The position is that there can be only one person holding the rank. You cannot just give three or four ranks away to one unit and it may be that, in the early stages, one man has proved his case to the satisfaction of the Referee. The question then arises of somebody else claiming a similar rank. In these cases, of course, I admit that the brigade committees' recommendations or statements might not be acceptable, mainly for the reason I have given that some other applicant had already secured the rank in question.

General MacEoin

It is clear that there is something wrong. In reply to a question yesterday on this point, the Minister said that the Referee had exercised his power under Rule 4 in 189 cases of higher ranks. There are a number of people who have higher ranks and some who have none at all, which creates a difficulty, and I submit that if the brigade records are accepted as final and conclusive, all that controversy would be avoided, and where a case arises in which the Referee has awarded a rank to an applicant and the brigade records cannot now be accepted, Rule 4 should apply. That is what Rule 4 was intended to apply to. It was designed to enable the Referee, if he were unable to grant a rank on the schedule, to grant it under the rule because of service rendered.

Mr. Traynor

In some cases, I should say that the particular rank— taking the grade in the reply to which the Deputy referred—could be held by one individual on the first critical date and by another on the second critical date, but after that I do not think it could be acceptable, and if there was any question of some person being strongly recommended by a brigade committee for that same rank, it would appear that one or other of the two individuals who had already secured that rank had secured it by false pretences or some other means.

General MacEoin

Not necessarily.

Mr. Traynor

That would then be another question to be dealt with. I do not think it could occur otherwise.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 33 not moved.

Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."

General MacEoin

This Bill is a Bill entitled an Act to amend the Military Service Pensions Act, 1934, and may, according to the Short Title, be so cited. I think that for the future this Bill may be cited as an Act for the destruction of all legislation relating to military service pensions in this country and as an Act under which the Government of the day runs away from its responsibilities. Under the Act of 1934, every person who was a member of certain organisations and who had active service is entitled to a certificate of service. It was left to the Referee to decide by rule what constituted active service. The Referee made the rule himself and then administered it. In other words, it was left to the judge to make the law, to administer it and to give it the judicial interpretation he wished.

I put it to the Minister that this Bill has failed in every respect but one, that is, in that it gives the Government power to override every applicant, to refuse them any recognition whatever if they are amongst the 48,352, the number given by the Minister yesterday as the number of rejects. If the amendment defining active service which I suggested were accepted, it would meet all the requirements in relation to the Act of 1934, and would only make statutory what under various referees are and have been rules. Under some of the referees, a person who rendered essential services but never fired a shot was granted a certificate and naturally a pension. Immediately after, that was almost thrown overboard and essential service became almost impossible to prove.

I appeal to the Minister to recommit the Bill on Report Stage, to adopt this amendment relating to service and to do the decent thing by these people who have done the decent thing by this country. If he does, the solution asked for by the Taoiseach will have been achieved. Justice will be done to everybody and any errors eliminated. I put it to him as strongly as I can that, in justice, he should do so, keeping in mind that, on the basis of this definition of service, the total expenditure involved would be very slight compared with other expenditure, such as R.I.C. pensions. The total expenditure involved in respect of all the military service pensions would not be one-third of the amount of the old R.I.C. pensions which this Government no longer pays. That is all that would be required by accepting this amendment to give justice to the members of the I.R.A.

Mr. Traynor

I do not think there is much necessity to delay the House with further speeches. I think it quite unnecessary for Deputy MacEoin or anybody else to appeal to this Government to do the decent thing by the Old I.R.A. They have been doing it since they came into office. They have given them the fairest possible treatment any Government could give any section of the people without interfering with the rights of the ordinary man in the street. One has only to look down the list of various things done for the Old I.R.A. men to realise this. We have provided, for example, disability pensions as well as the present pension scheme which to my mind, has been administered fairly and justly without any question of sectionalism or anything else. Therefore, to make an appeal to this Government to do better than that is, I think, just to use extravagant language. As far as this Bill is concerned, I do not think it is going to interfere in the slightest way with the interests of a single Old I.R.A. man in the country. The cases, as I said earlier, have been to all intents and purposes heard and examined fairly, and adjustments have been given on them, so that at this stage there are practically no cases to be heard. If, however, there are any men who think they have a good case they have ways and means up to the 31st December of this year by which they can have their cases re-examined. On that point, I may say that upwards of 500 people have already made use of that section, and have done so successfully. If there are still a number of people who feel that they have not been given as fair a deal as they themselves thought they should have got and are in a position to produce the necessary evidence, their cases can still be reheard.

Question put: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Tá, 58; Níl, 32.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Brady, Brian.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Brennan, Martin.
• Brennan, Thomas.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Buckley, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick (Co. Dublin).
• Butler, Bernard.
• Carter, Thomas.
• Colbert, Michael.
• Colley, Harry.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Fogarty, Patrick J.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Kilroy, James.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick J.
• Loughman, Frank.
• Lydon, Michael F.
• McCann, John.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Morrissey, Michael.
• Moylan, Seán.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
• O Cléirigh, Mícheál.
• O'Connor, John S.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• O'Sullivan, Ted.
• Rice, Bridget M.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Skinner, Leo B.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Ua Donnchadha, Dómhnall.
• Walsh, Laurence.
• Ward, Conn.

Níl

• Browne, Patrick.
• Cafferky, Dominick.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Coogan, Eamonn.
• Corish, Richard.
• Costello, John A.
• Davin, William.
• Dockrell, Henry M.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Everett, James.
• Finucane, Patrick.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Halliden, Patrick J.
• Hughes, James.
• Keating, John.
• Larkin, James (Junior).
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Norton, William.
• O'Donnell, William F.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Reilly, Thomas.
• O'Sullivan, Martin.
• Pattison, James P.
• Redmond, Bridget M.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Rogers, Patrick J.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies O Cíosáin and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Browne.

Question declared carried.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

When is it proposed to take the next stage?

Mr. Traynor

Would the House agree to take it now?

General MacEoin

No.

Mr. Traynor

To-morrow?

General MacEoin

To-morrow week. That will give you time to make up your mind.

Mr. Traynor

Next Tuesday, then?

Mr. Corish

When was it decided to sit on Tuesday?

General Mulcahy

If that is being put by way of motion, I shall oppose it. The House is sitting three days a week fairly regularly at present.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The question before the House is when the next stage of the Bill will be taken.

General Mulcahy

And the suggestion that it be taken on Tuesday would mean that we should have a four-day sitting.

Mr. Traynor

Yes.

General Mulcahy

The House is working three days a week, which provides a certain amount of consideration for the work of Deputies in the country. At this time of the year —the opening of the session—it is, I think, sufficient to ask Deputies to work three days a week. The financial business will be coming on soon.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

When will the next stage of the Bill be taken?

Mr. Traynor

I suggest next Tuesday.

General Mulcahy

I oppose that.

Mr. Traynor

Then, I suggest next Wednesday.

Report Stage fixed for Wednesday, 7th March.