Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 7 Nov 1946

Vol. 103 No. 3

Industrial Alcohol (Amendment) Bill, 1946—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

In introducing this measure yesterday, the Minister did not make a convincing case so far as the activities of the company are concerned. The information he gave us regarding their activities, from inception up to date, revealed incompetence and ineptitude—if the company can be blamed for launching out on a project that could scarcely be made a success. The Minister rather reluctantly told us yesterday that alcohol is now costing 7/6 per gallon. The production of the company at any time was far from economic but, even at present, when compared with the prices of imported fuel for motor propulsion, a figure of 7/6 is outrageous. We imported for the first 12 months of this year 19,000,000 odd gallons of petrol, which cost us £717,000, representing a price of 8.9d. per gallon. That is the figure at which we can secure motor fuel and we have this type of "cod" industry producing alcohol at 7/6 per gallon from raw material obtained at a price that is not economical from the point of view of the producers. Potatoes for this purpose are being purchased at about £4 per ton while the actual market price is over £10 a ton. That, in itself, is an indication of the success of the project. The Minister asks the House to widen the powers of the company so as to permit them to launch into other activities. He expects the House to have confidence in the capacity of the company to carry out certain investigations with a view to engaging in other activities. If the House concerns itself with the record of the company, it cannot agree to the Minister's proposals.

The Minister and the country know that the project has been an absolute failure and that this is an effort to switch over to other activities so as to save the faces of the company and of the Minister. When introducing the original Bill, the Minister informed the House that alcohol would be produced at 1/9 per gallon. It was never produced at anything like that figure. It was produced at about 3/6. The figure I mentioned was the estimate given by the company to the Minister of what their product could be sold at—an estimate that was 100 per cent. wrong. Now, we are asked to provide power through legislation for this "dud" State company to carry out further investigations with a view to activities in other directions. It is almost certain that this company will decide that they are capable of producing certain chemicals—that is, if they want to continue in operation and to draw their salaries. They should not be charged with the responsibility of investigating those matters.

The Minister did not make quite clear to the House the extent to which the Scientific Research Bureau will co-operate with the company or the extent to which responsibility will be placed on the bureau to determine the technical methods to be adopted. If responsibility is to be placed on this company, with its record of ineptitude and failure, I am vigorously opposed to the proposal that it should be empowered to produce sulphate of ammonia. Before the war we were handicapped by not being in a position to buy certain essential artificial manures for our main industry. The price of phosphates was higher here than in any other country, because we were pursuing the unsound idea that that industry needed protection. That had its repercussions. Relatively speaking, we were, probably, the lowest users of phosphatic manures in the world.

It is a very essential plant nutrient that the Minister contemplates can be produced by this company. The Minister referred to the investigation that was carried out by a departmental committee, that he felt was unsatisfactory. I agree that a departmental committee was not the right committee but of the two methods of investigation I would prefer the departmental committee to the method now suggested by the Minister, that this company should investigate the possibilities of producing sulphate of ammonia in this country. It is generally understood that the production of synthetic sulphate of ammonia would require very big and expensive plant and in order to produce at an economic price it would be necessary to produce much more than our own requirements. If we have an output in excess of requirements will it be possible to produce so economically that we can sell on the world market in competition with, say, Imperial Chemicals or other companies turning out huge quantities under most favourable conditions? I warn the Minister that this article is being sold ex-factory by Imperial Chemicals at £9 10s. 0d. per ton. The pre-war price was about £6 10s. 0d.

I am not opposed to an investigation of the possibility of producing a nitrate in this country but in my opinion the people that the Minister suggests should be the manufacturers are not the people to carry out the investigation. It ought to be carried out by an independent tribunal. If this company is to do the job, it ought to give evidence before that tribunal and explain its technical methods and financial requirements, and so on. It is my opinion that if we charge this company with the responsibility of making a decision in this matter, the decision will be to launch into the production of sulphate of ammonia and we will then find ourselves in the position of having to pay for this very essential raw material for agriculture 50 per cent. more than the price at which we could buy it outside and then the Minister will put a tariff on imported sulphate of ammonia or possibly prohibit its importation.

The Minister has been stressing recently the importance of exports so that we may command foreign exchange which is the means of purchasing essential imports. The Minister realises that to a very large extent we must look to agriculture to provide those exports. Therefore, we must get the raw materials for agriculture at the same price at which other countries command them, so that we can compete against these countries in the world market. The Minister must know that every action of his that raises the price of raw material to agriculture is impeding the possibility of expanding agricultural exports. I warn the Minister to be extremely careful in this matter of producing sulphate of ammonia and particularly careful in view of the record of this company. I do not think it is the right type of company for this work. It is the same story, a State company, manned by civil servants, and the taxpayers' money being put into it.

The Minister gave us an account of the capital, £275,763, returning a profit of £14,000. That profit is derived, first of all, by asking the farmer to take an uneconomic price for his potatoes and secondly, by selling the product at an exorbitant price which it could not command but for the fact that the petrol people are compelled to admix with the imported fuel a certain percentage of this alcohol at a price far above that at which fuel can be bought. The price of industrial alcohol is 7/6 as against 8.9d. for imported petrol. It is amazing to find the Minister coming in here, merely to save face and to defend this dud industry, seeking other activities for this company. The Minister has not made a case for it and I think the House, under no circumstances, could agree. Apart altogether from the important consideration of the capacity of the country and the qualifications of the company there are certain objectionable provisions. If we are to rely on the record of this company for our prognosis of its future activities, we can have no confidence at all in this company to carry out the work.

In regard to Section 8, if the facilities are granted that the Minister contemplates, before the issue of certain chemicals a licence would have to be issued. I object to that because I have had experience of a somewhat similar circumstance in regard to the importation of leather. Calf-hide was not produced in this country in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements of boot manufacturers and certain people were allowed to import calf-hide under licence but, when the application for a licence was made, it was sent to a particular tannery and if the tannery could not provide the hide that was required, the tannery recommended the particular applicant for a licence. I am satisfied that the big manufacturers in the boot business were able to secure a licence to buy leather at a cheaper price than the smaller men in the trade and thereby had an advantage in being able to sell their shoes at a lower price. The same abuse can occur here, if we are going to have the same type of machinery in operation. Certain individuals will be favoured with licences to import chemicals and possibly to import at a financial advantage, and the Minister scarcely can contend that that is desirable. The moment you set up this sort of thing, it is inevitable that it will be open to abuse. I suggest that Section 8 of the measure certainly would be open to the abuse of certain individuals being favoured with a licence, to the disadvantage of other people. The Minister certainly did not make a case for extending the powers of the company to enable them to engage in other activities, and I say that they are not the people to carry out these investigations that the Minister suggests. On the record of the company, they are not a company which can command the confidence of this House. So far as this Party is concerned, it could not support the measure.

I notice that Deputy Hughes said that petrol distributing companies will have to take so many gallons at 7/6 a gallon. Is that correct and, if so, how will it affect the distribution of petrol?

They are taking it at present.

That is not under this Bill. Deputy Hughes was referring to the past.

The Deputy made a reference to so many gallons at 7/6. I am not sure if he is right or wrong. If there is a big sum of money being placed to their credit now, to increase their work, will it not mean that further thousands of gallons will be placed on the market and mixed with the petrol? If so, I would like to know what effect it will have on industry, which will have to use petrol to carry on.

The Minister to conclude.

Would it be possible to get a House during the Minister's reply? There is only one Deputy sitting behind the Minister.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted and 20 Deputies being present.

Recent declarations by leaders of the Fine Gael Party led some people to expect and their followers to hope that they were going to take a more progressive line in the future on this subject of industrial development here. I am sure every member of the House, irrespective of Party, is intensely disappointed by the speeches we had on this Bill from Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy Hughes. They certainly conveyed that their approach to the Bill was one of uncritical hostility. They did not discuss even the proposition contained in the Bill, but merely adopted a line of uncompromising and uncritical hostility to any project relating to industrial development with which the Government is associated. I do not think that my remark is unfair.

I think that it is an absolute misrepresentation.

Let us consider what was said. Neither Deputy Hughes will contend nor anyone who heard him will agree that he spoke about this Bill. He spoke about the production of industrial alcohol. What is the proposition in this Bill? It is that the powers and functions of the Industrial Alcohol Company be extended. It is not proposed in this measure to interfere with their industrial alcohol enterprise, it is not proposed to give them any further money, but it is intended merely that they should be used for a purpose which I had thought everybody would have agreed to be desirable.

We are at the stage now when we can review our war-time experience and consider what action we should take, arising out of that experience, to strengthen the industrial structure of this country. Our war-time experience showed us that there are many industries here, the operation of which during emergency circumstances is of vital importance to us, but which are dependent for their operation on the provision of a continuous supply of various industrial chemicals. The quantities of these chemicals may be relatively small, but they are essential to the operation of the industries. I cannot say—and, in fact, nobody at this moment could offer a firm opinion—as to the practicability of producing these industrial chemicals here on an economical basis.

Would the Minister say what the industrial chemicals are?

It is quite possible that some of them could not be produced here on an economic basis, but we think it is desirable that there should be an organisation in existence which will have examined the technical possibilities of their production, which will know precisely what is involved in their production and which could, under future emergency circumstances, be entrusted with the responsibility of their production; and which might, even under normal circumstances, be given a licence to engage in their production as a commercial proposition.

The Industrial Alcohol Company was established for the purpose of producing power alcohol. Deputy Hughes compared the cost at which that industrial alcohol is being produced with the cost of imported motor spirit. It was never suggested that it would be possible to produce power alcohol here at a price comparable to the price of imported petrol spirit. That fact was clearly recognised when the original Bill was passed and this company was set up. We had two objects in mind then—one had ceased to be important before the company began to operate, namely, to establish a method of ensuring a minimum price for potatoes. Deputy Hughes will know better than other Deputies here that there is no effective method of guaranteeing a price for potatoes; but we considered that an effect equivalent to a guarantee could be secured if we could establish an organisation prepared to buy all the potatoes offered to it at a predetermined price. By that method, it is possible, in effect, to create a situation in which potatoes would not ordinarily be sold below that price.

Would the Minister say——

I hope I will be allowed to speak without interruptions from Deputy Dillon. At the time the industrial alcohol project was conceived, the price of potatoes had fallen very low. It was an entirely uneconomic price. Potatoes were sold at that time at as low as 30/- per ton.

Was there not any other method? A guaranteed price for pigs would have been a better market.

There was, but it was not sufficient. If that is the Deputy's idea of how such a situation could be handled, we can consider it on its merits, but I do not think it has any merits. The situation which existed in relation to potato production here had, in fact, considerably improved before the industrial alcohol company came into production. In fact, production during its earlier years was based, not solely on potatoes, but on the use of molasses purchased either from the Irish Sugar Company or imported. There was, of course, also the idea to establish here the equipment for the production of power alcohol against the possibility of circumstances arising in which petrol supplies could not be obtained from abroad or in sufficient quantities. It is quite clear that a factory established either for the purpose of operating in the potato market in the manner I have indicated or to produce power alcohol as an emergency measure, could not plan its production upon the basis of a continuous and regular output every year. Its production is related to the quantity of potatoes offered to it, and, of course, the production of power alcohol in ordinary times is not essential to the supply of motor fuel in this country.

Deputy Hughes said that the company did, in fact, fail during the emergency. That is completely untrue. This company during the years of the emergency produced about 4,000,000 gallons of motor spirit. That may have been a small quantity when related to the petrol imports over the same period.

At 7/6 a gallon it was a failure.

It produced motor spirit in the quantities that we decided it should produce it. The Deputy has lost sight of the important consideration that if the imports of petrol had been curtailed much more seriously than they were, and if the whole economic life of the country had been tied up at any one time by reason of our inability to get motor spirit at all, then by adopting more drastic measures, we could have expanded the production of power alcohol. It was comforting to have the knowledge that we had the equipment and the organisation there to do it if necessary.

And run a car on whiskey.

Or bread soda.

The price at which alcohol is produced depends entirely on the price the company pays for its materials. In fact, the effect of the compulsory admixture of power alcohol on the price of motor spirit was this, that the price of petrol had only to be increased—that is, the total cost of motor fuel to the country—by about 1/2d. a gallon. In practice, as the House knows, the price at which petrol was sold to the consumer is very largely determined by the amount of tax that the Government wants to take from it. I merely mention these matters, however, to get the minds of Deputies clear on those points. It has nothing whatever to do with this Bill. I do not think anyone suggests that there is not in charge of these distilleries an efficient organisation of chemists and engineers. They were certainly chosen for their efficiency, and I think that they have done a very good job in keeping the industry going in the difficult circumstances of the war and in adapting its equipment to the production of certain classes of chemicals which we were in urgent need of during the war. If it were not for it, we would at times have been without ether and formaldehyde and we could not have got for our hospitals and laboratories the undenatured alcohol which they required at that time.

I mention these matters for the purpose of refuting the suggestion that there was any inefficiency or incompetence in the management of the undertaking. There is no possible basis for any such suggestion. The Government, coming towards the end of the war and faced with the knowledge that we had these supply problems during the war, believed that we should now investigate the possibility of avoiding similar supply problems in another emergency, so that there would be a supply of such industrial chemicals as it is possible to produce on an economic basis here. We have an organisation which is suitable for the purpose of examining these matters. We could have decided to create a new organisation. If we had produced a Bill to establish a new organisation, it would not be criticised in precisely the manner in which Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy Hughes have criticised this Bill. We decided, however, that it was unnecessary to set up a new organisation because there was already in existence an organisation which could do this work. It had the staff, the organisation and the experience to enable it to do this work better than anyone else in this country. That is why it was decided to adopt the device of altering the expressed objects and powers of the Industrial Alcohol Company so that it could undertake these further functions which the Government had in mind.

As I explained, it is not proposed in this Bill to alter the finances of the company. If, arising out of the investigations undertaken by the company, it is decided that the company should embark upon some new form of manufacture that will involve the provision of substantial capital—sulphate of ammonia, for example—further legislation will be required. We have left the matter in that position deliberately so as to make it clear that the Dáil must, in fact, be consulted before any large-scale project can be proceeded with. I do not know what Deputy Hughes' fears are concerning the manufacture of sulphate of ammonia here. I often wished during the war that we had been more vigorous in our efforts to establish the industry before the war. We might have succeeded in establishing the industry in 1938 or 1939 if we had pursued the task with greater energy. If we had done so, not merely would we have had adequate supplies of sulphate of ammonia during the war but we would have them now and at a much lower cost than we can import them. I do not know if the Deputy fully appreciates that the sulphate of ammonia industry is particularly suitable to this country. The main raw material used in it is gypsum.

What about anthracite?

We have most valuable gypsum deposits in the country. Turf could also be used.

I am aware of the raw materials that are required.

Why then has the Deputy fears and hesitations?

Because the Minister for Agriculture told us that he had blocked the Minister when he put that proposal before the Government. He knew that it was going to put an additional charge on agriculture.

He said nothing of the sort.

He said it in this House.

The Minister must be allowed to proceed without interruption.

I object to this gramophone blaring when I am speaking.

I bet you do.

The plans for the establishment of the industry before the war contemplated production on a scale that would be more than adequate for the country's requirements and at a price lower than the commodity was at that time being sold in Great Britain. When, originally, we contemplated the manufacture of sulphate of ammonia here we approached various foreign firms, including the main supplier of sulphate of ammonia to this country. That supplier was naturally opposed to the idea of our making sulphate of ammonia for ourselves. When he became convinced that we intended to proceed with the project, he adopted the ordinary device of cutting prices here in order to discourage it. We feel, however, that if we can get sulphate of ammonia produced by an Irish firm at a price similar to the prices charged for that product in adjacent countries we will have done reasonably well. Deputy Hughes talked about the manufacture of superphosphate not being possible here unless protected by a tariff. That is not correct either.

Why did you put it on?

If the price here was higher than in Great Britain, then why was it not imported? There was no tariff on the importation of superphosphate from Britain. There never was a tariff on the importation of superphosphate from Britain.

There was.

There never was and is not now.

It was not allowed in.

There was no restriction whatever on the importation of superphosphate from Britain. Why was it not imported if the price here was so much higher than in Great Britain?

It was not allowed in.

I tell the Deputy there was never any restriction on its importation from Britain. The Deputy can look up the records to ascertain whether I am right. There could be no prohibition on its import or no tariff on its import without some resolution being passed by the Dáil. I am right.

I know you are wrong.

The Deputy has got it fixed in his Fine Gael mind that no industry can be run in this country as efficiently as elsewhere and that we cannot produce industrial goods as cheaply as elsewhere. He mentioned leather. We are arranging at the moment for the import of leather, both finished leather and semi-tanned leather. Has the Deputy any conception of how the price of that leather compares with the price of leather we are producing at home? In the case of upper leather, the types we are buying from abroad will be sold at two and a half times the price of similar upper leather produced at home; that is, an increase of 250 per cent. on the home price. In the case of sole leather, the difference in price is not so great but the price of that leather will be substantially above the price of sole leather produced at home. We are producing leathers at a price from 10 to 20 per cent. below the price of similar leathers produced by British tanners and sold in England.

Tell us what you are paying for the skins.

That was not always true. These tanneries were not always in a position to compete efficiently with tanneries elsewhere and to produce as cheaply and efficiently. They had to learn how. They had to begin some time. It is very easy to condemn a new industry which does not in its first year prove to be as efficient or as economical as old-established industries in other countries. There is no logical or physical reason why we should not have industries in this country as efficient as industries in other countries, but we have got to begin to learn the necessary processes some time. That is what we contemplate doing in this instance. We believe it is possible to have certain electro-chemical industries established in this country. It may not be possible forthwith to produce these materials in the variety in which we can buy them from abroad or perhaps even at the price at which we can get them abroad.

I agree that industries here should not be handicapped by having to pay for essential materials a substantially higher price than similar industries in other countries have to pay for such materials but I think that we should make an attempt to produce necessary materials for our industries. I think it is essential to the industrial development of the country that we should succeed. It may also be essential to the safety of the country that we should succeed. We found ourselves faced with war conditions in this country for the past few years and one of the obligations which confronted us was that of providing for national defence. One of the essential requirements for national defence was explosives. There was no private firm engaged in the production of explosives in this country. We were also faced with the problem of providing for the supply of such commodities as matches, which would be regarded in modern life as essential domestic commodities. Through collaboration with the Scientific Research Bureau and the co-operation of the Department of Defence, a factory was set up to manufacture explosives for the Army and also to enable the supply of matches for the public to be maintained. It was a Heath Robinson affair but it was established on sound scientific principles and worked. It not only engaged in the manufacture of explosives for the Army but also supplied explosives for match-making. The time arrived, however, when the Department of Defence said that they were no longer prepared to run that factory on the existing basis—having the factory run by soldiers under military conditions. It was completely uneconomic and anyhow its location was unsuitable. It was as Deputies are aware located in the vicinity of the Phoenix Park and was doing a lot of damage in the district because of the fumes given off. One of the questions we had to examine then was the extent to which these manufacturing processes could be carried on in normal times. That is one of the matters in which this company will be asked to help. When the Department of Defence asked to be released from the obligation of having to produce these materials, we went to the Industrial Alcohol Company and asked them could they undertake the manufacture of these materials. The only reply we got, and the only reply they could have given us, was they would like to examine it but under the law as it stood they could not spend a penny even on the examination of the practicability of undertaking manufacture of that kind.

What we are proposing in this Bill is merely to enable the company to undertake this examination. We shall empower them by the device proposed in the Bill to undertake the manufacture, if we are satisfied that it is desirable they should undertake it. If we find on inquiry that private enterprise is not engaged in the same business and does not propose to engage in the same business, if necessary we shall by legislation give the company additional capital. It may not require additional capital for some processes that may interest it. As I mentioned, there is a limit of half a million under the Act to the amount which the Minister for Finance can invest in shares in the company. That limit has not been reached. There is still a substantial balance remaining but if the company were to engage in any new form of manufacture or even wanted to establish a pilot plant as a preliminary to full scale working, then further capital would have to be made available for it. If the amount required was to bring the demands on the Minister for Finance in excess of the half million limit provided in the principal Act, then the matter would have to come before the Dáil. The only thing we ask the Dáil to approve of now is, first, the idea of having an efficient commercial organisation to carry on these investigations, an organisation that can be entrusted with the manufacture of these industrial chemicals which I have mentioned if it is shown to be a practicable and desirable course. If having agreed that there should be such an organisation, is is not a sensible proposition to avail of the existing organisation, the Industrial Alcohol Company, to manufacture these materials? I am sure Deputies will agree that that is a sensible course.

There is one other small matter in the Bill. The provisions of the principal Act appear to confine the Industrial Alcohol Company to the sale of alcohol to petrol distributors. I have mentioned that during the course of the war they produced certain by-products which were essential for various purposes. One of those by-products was undenatured neutral spirit which is required in various industries and is essential to the operation of hospitals and laboratories. They produced a spirit which served its purpose during the war but it was not good enough. They are satisfied, however, that they can produce a very fine neutral spirit which will be readily accepted by hospitals, laboratories and industrial users and they are installing a plant for that purpose. It is necessary to amend the legislation so as to permit the company without any qualms whatever to sell spirit to persons other than petrol distributors. They can undertake these activities, either investigation activities or subsequently manufacturing activities, without raising the question of the future of the industrial alcohol undertaking at all. I agree that the future of the undertaking will have to be considered at some stage, but we cannot afford, and do not want to do without the product of these distilleries now. The time will come, however, when they will be a matter for decision, assuming a full supply of motor spirit from abroad and a situation in which that supply is not likely to be suddenly interrupted. We shall then have to decide whether it is desirable to keep the distilleries in operation on this particular task of producing industrial alcohol. Probably we will. It certainly will be desirable to ensure that there is a staff of chemists and engineers familiar with the process and workmen capable of operating the distilleries, whose services will be available as soon as they must be brought back into full production again. But it could be that the Government will decide, for one or other of the distilleries, that it would be better business to turn them into some other form of production. That is a question for decision in the future. It is not one for decision now and I am not asking the Dáil to decide it now.

I would say the decision is made.

The decision has not been made.

And that you are switching over definitely. That is the purpose of the Bill.

I assure the Deputy that it is not the purpose of the Bill. The matter was never considered in relation to the Bill. At present we are still working upon a petrol ration. We want all the motor spirit we can get, either imported or produced, and there is certainly no assurance yet that we can anticipate uninterrupted supplies on an adequate scale for some time to come. When that time does arrive, there will also have to be considered the other reason which the Government had in mind in forming this company at all. It may be that that reason also will not be operative at that time, in which case a decision on the future utilisation of these distilleries can be more easily taken; but if the other reason also operates, there may be good reason why the production of industrial alcohol from potatoes should be continued, either on the basis of the full utilisation of the capacity of the five distilleries, or, as was done from time to time in the past, by opening two or three in each season. I have no doubt whatever that it makes for economy and efficiency to use the Industrial Alcohol Company under the new name we are proposing to give it for the purpose the Government had in mind in framing the measure.

This Bill has two objects: one, to put a tariff on sulphate of ammonia, and the other, to create a new home for Fianna Fáil crocks.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá: 58; Níl: 26.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Brennan, Thomas.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Butler, Bernard.
  • Carter, Thomas.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Colbert, Michael.
  • Colley, Harry.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Loughman, Frank.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McCarthy, Seán.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Morrissey, Michael.
  • Murphy, Timothy J.
  • Norton, William.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Connor, John S.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowley, Honor Mary.
  • Daly, Francis J.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Furlong, Walter.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Kilroy, James.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Loghlen, Peter J.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, Martin.
  • Rice, Bridget M.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Shanahan, Patrick.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Skinner, Leo B.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Walsh, Laurence.
  • Walsh, Richard.


  • Beirne, John.
  • Bennett, George C.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Cafferky, Dominick.
  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Commons, Bernard.
  • Coogan, Eamonn.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Henry M.
  • Dockrell, Maurice E.
  • Donnellan, Michael.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Halliden, Patrick J.
  • Hughes, James.
  • Keating, John.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • O'Donnell, William F.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick.
  • Sheldon, William A.W.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Doyle and Bennett; Níl: Deputies Kissane and O Briain.
Question declared carried.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 13th November.