Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 14 Mar 1950

Vol. 119 No. 12

Committee on Finance. - Vote 55—Industry and Commerce.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Morrissey)

I move:—

That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,000, be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1950, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, including certain services administered by that office and for payment of certain Subsidies and sundry Grants-in-Aid.

This Supplementary Estimate is in respect of an additional sum required in the Vote to meet the grant to defray the salary and expenses of the Industrial Development Authority.

Mr. Lemass

I am opposed to the grant of this sum to the Industrial Development Authority. In view of the Minister's observations, it is probably desirable that I should say in advance that opposition to the granting of money to the Industrial Development Authority does not constitute opposition to the idea of industrial development. We are getting here a position which must seem strange to members of the Dáil of long-standing. The recollections of the discussions upon industrial development in former years will amuse rather than irritate those who had an opportunity of hearing to-day's discussion and, in particular, the Minister's concluding speech. However, I want to make it clear that our opposition to this Industrial Development Authority and to the voting of money to it is due to the belief that it will not facilitate the expansion of Irish industry. We believe that it constitutes an impediment to that expansion and no amount of special pleading by the Minister will convince us otherwise. The case which has been made for its establishment and for the voting of the taxpayers' money for its functioning is that, without it, industrial development cannot take place. That is nonsense. There was more industrial development when we got rid of a similar organisation than was ever possible while that organisation existed or than will ever be possible in the future should a similar organisation exist. Let me protest also against this futile pretence of regarding criticism of the proposal to establish an Industrial Development Authority as equivalent to discouraging people from engaging in industrial activities. I have expressed the view that——

An Ceann Comhairle

Might I submit that the issues involved in this Supplementary Estimate are the salaries and expenses for the current financial year and I do not think, as the Dáil has now approved of the principle of the Bill in the Second Reading, that either a resumption of Second Reading speeches or a reply to what the Minister said when concluding is in order?

Mr. Lemass

No, Sir. I would not have time to do that. However, as I am opposing the Estimate, I am entitled to give my reasons. I expect that the situation will exist in the future that on every occasion, year after year, upon which an Estimate for this Industrial Development Authority is submitted to the Dáil, we shall be able to discuss its functioning and criticise, if there are grounds for criticism, the results of its operations upon industrial development. That is what I propose to do now. I submit that we have no evidence before us to show that the Industrial Development Authority members, for whom we are now asked to vote money, have, in fact, been doing work that could not have been done more expeditiously and more efficiently by the staff of the Department of Industry and Commerce. That is the case I am making. The Minister, it is true, in the course of his speech on the Bill, referred to certain developments in 1947 and 1948 affecting the footwear industry, the clothing industry and the woollen industry. He attempted to suggest that whatever situation was there to be remedied was put right by the Industrial Development Authority.

Mr. Morrissey

Not at all.

Mr. Lemass

The precise case I am trying to make is that the power that the Minister had to act, given to him by legislation, was capable of being exercised and was, in fact, exercised with expedition when the necessity arose. If the Industrial Development Authority had been in existence then, there would presumably have been a reference to it of the circumstances affecting these industries for examination and report preceding action by the Minister. I think I am entitled to remind the Dáil that that situation was, in fact, envisaged in 1947. I had here a Bill then dealing with industrial prices and efficiency. I think I have already invited Deputies in this House who were not in the Dáil then or whose recollection of the discussions which took place then is not too fresh, to refer to Official Debates.

We had considerable agitation amongst members of the Dáil concerning what they described as scarcities of essential commodities—particularly boots, woollens and clothing—which they attributed to the restrictive protectionist policy which was in operation and demands upon the Government to take action to rectify the conditions of scarcity leading, as it was alleged, to unnecessary high prices through giving permission for the importation of higher quantities of these goods. That permission was given. It is true that the market situation changed and, because it changed, the quota fixed for the importation of these goods had to be modified also. But, if the Minister was trying to suggest that circumstances existing in 1947 could have been avoided if there had been an Industrial Development Authority or that there would have been more information concerning possible future developments if such an authority existed, the best answer I can make to him is to request him to refer to his own speeches and the agitation in which he participated for action by the Government to remedy the conditions of scarcity and the consequent high prices.

There is one further thing which I must say, I think—and it is relevant to this Supplementary Estimate—arising out of the Minister's recent speech. The Minister said I had stated the intention of this Party in relation to the future of this authority for the purpose of causing a sense of uneasiness and insecurity amongst its members. I consider that I was in duty bound to make that attitude known. If a Bill has been passed by the Dáil establishing this authority, if men have been asked to leave their previous occupations in order to accept membership of this authority, if others, at any time in the future are likely to be attracted into the services of that authority, would it be right for me to leave them under any misapprehension concerning our attitude towards them? I have said that we do not believe in it and that we think it will be an impediment to industrial development. We think the Trades and Industries Branch of the Department of Industry and Commerce can do the work entrusted to this authority much more efficiently. It did it in the past and it can do it in the future. Consequently, it is to be assumed by the members of the authority and by those employed in the service of that authority that that opposition will be expressed in a repeal of this legislation some time in the future.

The suggestion that there was a greater expansion in industrial productivity in the past two years than at any previous period, while completely contrary to the facts, was, nevertheless, advanced again to convey the suggestion that it was attributable to the functioning of this authority. We have had no evidence of any kind to justify that suggestion. If, in fact, this authority has been functioning as expeditiously and as efficiently as the Minister has stated, we have yet to see the results of their work. So far as published statistics show, the expansion in industrial output in 1949 and in 1948 took place entirely within industries which were established before the war and which were expanding because of the more favourable conditions prevailing after the war. I have no doubt that new industries can be established. I have no doubt that this authority, despite its peculiar constitution, despite the difficulties which I think will inevitably confront a body of that character, will be able to secure and promote proposals for new industries. Nobody has suggested that they will operate as a complete barrier to future industrial programmes. I believe they will slow down industrial programmes. I believe that, because of the procedure which such a body inevitably follows, there will be delay in taking decisions and in carrying out decisions upon proposals for industrial development submitted to it.

An Ceann Comhairle

I submit that the Deputy is making a Second Reading speech on the Bill.

Mr. Lemass

I agree that these observations may have been somewhat slightly out of the line of relevancy upon a Supplementary Estimate. My argument, however, concerning the functioning of the authority during the past ten months was supported by the statement made by the Minister that some 250 proposals for industrial expansion were submitted to the authority. I do not think that we have seen in the industrial organisation of the country the results of 250 proposals dealt with expeditiously. I have some knowledge of these matters. I know the inflow of proposals which come in ordinarily to the Department of Industry and Commerce—some good, some bad, some practicable and some impossible. I feel quite certain that if any such number of proposals were forthcoming during the past ten months they could and would have been dealt with more expeditiously in the Department than by the authority. However, the authority, no doubt, have been doing their best.

I have said nothing here against any of its members. I have considerable respect for its chairman. There are other members whom I would not have chosen myself. That may be due to a personal viewpoint on individual merits, but I have no doubt whatever that all four members are anxious to justify the establishment of the authority and have been doing their best to get results during the 10 months, which would help the Minister to get his Bill passed by the Dáil to-day. I think that the absence of evidence of any practical consequence of that work is an argument in favour of my point of view, that its existence is a brake upon progress and not an impetus to it.

I shall have more to say on the financing of this project on the Bill, but when we are now presented with a Supplementary Estimate for it, I think it is not unreasonable to ask the Minister what additional sum the taxpayer will have to provide in order to have the work of the Trades and Industries Branch of the Department of Industry and Commerce done under the auspices of this authority instead of under the auspices of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. We are presented with a bill for the salaries of the members. That is presumably additional expenditure but is there to be, in addition, a duplication of staffs? Will the matters which are examined by this authority and handled by its staff before being decided by the authority, come again, in the form of reports of the authority, to the Department of Industry and Commerce for re-examination there? Even on the question of the amount required for the payment of its members, the Minister's explanation of the Supplementary Estimate is unsatisfactory. According to the provisions of the Bill, the salaries of the members are: chairman, £2,500 per year and of the three ordinary members, £2,000 per year each—that is to say, £8,500 per year. These members were appointed by warrant of the Minister on the 26th day of May, 1949, and the Bill provides that these salaries will be payable to them as from 26th May, 1949. A simple sum in arithmetic will show that the amount required to pay the salaries of these members to the end of the financial year is less than the £8,800 stated in the Estimate. In fact, £8,800 is more than they will receive for a full year, and my calculation indicates that the amount required to pay their salaries to the end of the financial year would be £7,200. Why then are we asked to vote £8,800? Is there somebody else other than those named in the Bill for whom a salary is provided?

Mr. Morrissey

No, there is nobody else.

Mr. Lemass

Then the amount required is not £8,800. In addition to the £8,800, there is a sum of £1,200 for travelling expenses. The Minister has informed us that the members of the authority have visited England, Scotland and other areas but, even on that basis and with that information, it does seem to me to be an unduly large amount. I shall not question the amount spent on travelling, provided it gets some useful results but the Minister suggested in his speech in introducing the Bill that what they spend in that connection is entirely at their own discretion. I think most members of the Dáil would regard that as an unsatisfactory position. He stated as reported in column 1587 of the Official Debates: "They will be free to frame their own programme, to regulate their own procedure, to travel where and when they consider necessary and generally to operate as a fully autonomous body."

Mr. Morrissey

Would the Deputy prefer that they should have to get the sanction of the Department of Finance any time they went to see anything?

Mr. Lemass

I do not suggest that but I do suggest that when a bill is presented to the representatives of the taxpayers, they are quite entitled to question it.

Mr. Morrissey

The Comptroller and Auditor-General will do that if it is necessary.

Mr. Lemass

The Comptroller and Auditor-General will do that but it is the duty of each Deputy, when an Estimate is presented here, to see what the taxpayer has finally to pay. I am asking what is the justification for the amount of £1,200 provided for travelling during the past ten months—£300 per member over that period? It may be that that expenditure was fully justified but it is here that that question must be asked and answered. This is a Supplementary Estimate. It provides for the salaries of the members and their travelling expenses for portion of the financial year. We know that this authority has to be financed by an annual grant. We have not been told how much it is estimated that annual grant will be. Before we pass this Supplementary Estimate and commit ourselves by doing so to passing similar Estimates in other years, should we not know how much the total bill is likely to be?

An Ceann Comhairle

It would be a more relevant question on the Money Resolution.

Mr. Morrissey

It would be more relevant on the Estimate for next year.

Mr. Lemass

I am not prepared to wait until next year. We are asked to vote this amount this year and, in voting it, we are committed to voting it for next year. How much larger will the Estimate for next year be? This is, I think, the second Estimate for the authority this year.

Mr. Morrissey

No.

Mr. Lemass

That is so because the cost of the staff is carried this year on the Vote for the Department of Industry and Commerce. I see that stated in one of the notes to the Estimate but next year the cost of the staff will be charged, I presume, under the sub-head relating to the Industrial Development Authority. I wish to be informed what that annual bill is likely to amount to.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think the annual bill is relevant to this Vote, which is for one specific purpose.

Mr. Lemass

I admit that, in the case of a normal Supplementary Estimate relating to an Estimate which has been fully discussed in Committee on Finance by the Dáil, members of the House are and should be strictly confined to the sub-heads of the Supplementary Estimate and the particular purpose for which it is being introduced. I submit, however, that it is a different matter when we are presented with a new Estimate for a new service, to which we are opposed in principle, and that we should be able to justify that opposition by argument. I am opposed to this Industrial Development Authority. I am opposed to it for the reason I have stated. I think it will not help industrial development here. It is because we are desirous of removing every impediment to rapid industrial expansion and because we recognise the urgent need for industrial progress that we object to the establishment of this authority.

We protest strongly against the suggestion that opposition to this Estimate, or to the Bill which preceded it, is due to any desire to impede industrial development while the present Government is in office or to create any anxiety in the minds of those who might want to engage in it. They have no need for anxiety. For the first time in the history of this State, we have an Opposition to the Government in office who, in relation to this matter of industrial development, are pressing them on, urging them to go ahead with the job. We never had that situation for twenty years before.

Mr. Morrissey

Where is this going to end?

An Ceann Comhairle

It has nothing to do with this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Lemass

It has been suggested that opposition to the Supplementary Estimate would cause misunderstanding.

An Ceann Comhairle

It has, in a Second Reading speech, and surely the Second Reading is over after ten hours' discussion.

Mr. Lemass

I do not want to argue with the Chair, but I think that a large part of the Minister's speech would have been more relevant to the Estimate than to the Bill. However, if the Chair rules that I cannot pursue that line any further ——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair is getting used to criticism as to how it rules from both sides of the House.

Mr. Morrissey

It is a long time since it was questioned from this side.

Mr. Lemass

I am opposed to this Supplementary Estimate and I have endeavoured to explain the reasons for my opposition. I do not want these reasons ——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair is simply referring to the fact that it is frequently said: "So-and-so was irrelevant" and "So-and-so made an absolutely irrelevant speech, when the Ceann Comhairle was in the Chair." That is a reflection on the Chair.

Mr. Lemass

The Ceann Comhairle may not be aware that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle ruled that references to the managerial policy of the Irish Press were in order on the Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

That has nothing to do with me.

Mr. Allen

May I raise a point of order in this connection? This Supplementary Estimate covers a particular period and is to provide money to pay for an authority appointed by the Minister on his own warrant. That has nothing whatever to do with the Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is just what the Chair is stating. It has nothing to do with the Bill or the Second Reading thereof.

Mr. Allen

It is a separate matter and a separate principle.

An Ceann Comhairle

Exactly. It has nothing to do with the Second Reading.

Mr. Lemass

In May last, the Minister, by administrative act, set up the Industrial Development Authority. He had neither statutory authority for it nor money to pay for it.

Mr. Davin

How many times must you say that?

Mr. Lemass

After that authority has functioned for 10 months, the taxpayer is asked to provide £10,000 to meet the salaries of its members and their travelling expenses. I am entitled, I submit——

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy is getting very concerned about the taxpayer.

Mr. Lemass

——to query the desirability of providing that money, to ask the Minister to justify statements he made as to the work done by the authority during those months and to controvert these statements if I think they are wrong, and that is what I am doing. In so far as I have to refer to debates which took place on the Bill, I am doing so merely in relation to statements made by the Minister on the Bill which related to the working of the authority during the period for which this Supplementary Estimate provides money. I should like to reiterate what I said to get it into sequence, but, as repetition is not allowed, I will not do so. My anxiety —and it is justifiable and natural, in view of the Minister's speech—is to make sure that our action will not be either misunderstood or liable to misrepresentation. We are opposed to this authority, opposed to the voting of money for this authority and seeking now, at the first opportunity, to express disapproval of the action of the Minister in establishing that authority by warrant and delegating functions to it by administrative act and without consultation with the Dáil, while, at the same time, making it quite clear that our opposition to that course is due solely to the belief that it is harmful to the policy of industrial development, and for no other reason.

Mr. C. Lehane

The smallness of the real objection made by Deputy Lemass to this Supplementary Estimate is the test that should be applied to the sincerity of his approach to it. That was his criticism of the fact that the Estimate provides for the salaries for a whole yearly period and the fact that the warrant making the appointments was dated only 26th of last May. I am sure there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for that. I do not know whether it is a matter of book-keeping or not, but if that is the sum total of the real criticism the Deputy can make of the Supplementary Estimate, it does not amount to very much. The Deputy expressed a desire not to be misunderstood.

Mr. Lemass

Or misrepresented.

Mr. C. Lehane

Or misrepresented. In his approach to this Supplementary Estimate, in my submission, he went a great way towards achieving the end he did not desire. One of the statements he made—I would consider it in the light of a charge against the members of the authority—was that undoubtedly some work was done of a beneficial nature during the period since the warrant was issued because the members of the authority wanted to help the Minister to get his Bill through the Dáil to-day. In my submission, that was a most improper suggestion for Deputy Lemass to make against the members of the authority. I do not think there is any warrant for such a suggestion; I do not think there is any basis for it; and I do not think it is fair that it should be made against these people. Presumably, whatever work was done by the members of the authority was done because they were appointed to do a certain job of work, and they are entitled to do it free from criticism of that nature, or the fear of criticism of that nature.

I do not suggest that it has any significance, but the records of this House do show the esteem in which the Deputy held one of the members of this authority and the terms which he used in referring to him on the last occasion when this matter was before the House.

Deputy Lemass states that his reason for opposing the Supplementary Estimate is that he believes it will impede industrial development. He repeated that on the Supplementary Estimate: he said it on the Bill. For that belief he did not advance one single cogent argument. He presented us with his credo and we had to accept that. On the basis of Deputy Lemass's belief, we have to reject the Supplementary Estimate, reject the idea of the Industrial Development Authority.

Mr. Lemass

I am allowed to do it and will do it.

Mr. C. Lehane

I would be the last to seek to limit the Deputy, but I am pointing out to him that beyond advancing that belief he gave us no reason upon which that belief was founded.

I am not quite sure of its strict relevance, but the challenge was thrown out to me as to my knowledge of what had been done by this authority since it was set up. I do not want publicly to go into the details, but I am prepared to supply them privately to any Deputy at any time. On two separate occasions, people who had been complaining bitterly to me of delays involved in dealing with applications to the Department of Industry and Commerce— in one case it was a quota; in the other a tariff—came to me subsequent to the setting up of this authority and said: "Something seems to have been done here; at least, there is speed now."

Mr. Lemass

I can supply the Deputy with plenty of cases of the other kind.

Mr. C. Lehane

Maybe so. One thing I cannot understand in the criticism of this Estimate is the suggestion that the creation of this authority deprives the Minister of any powers or relieves him of any responsibility.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is for the Bill, surely.

Mr. C. Lehane

I find considerable difficulty in bearing an even course between the Bill and the Estimate, as I think it will be accepted that they are closely related.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Bill set up this body—or will, by law.

Mr. Lemass

It did not set it up yet.

An Ceann Comhairle

I said "will"—if the Bill is passed. This is simply for this current Financial Year—the salary for these four people.

Mr. C. Lehane

It is suggested that this money should not be voted, for the reason that the purpose to which this money was put is one capable of removing responsibility from the Minister and depriving him of authority.

An Ceann Comhairle

Of course, the Deputy is persisting on the same lines as the previous speaker, in a Second Reading speech. That is all.

Mr. C. Lehane

I do not want to pursue it if the Chair is ruling against me. Perhaps I am not making myself clear.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not know if the House desires to resume the Second Reading.

Mr. C. Lehane

I have certainly no desire to do that. It is difficult, particularly having listened to the last Deputy, not to follow in the points which he made. The money which is sought to be voted under this Supplementary Estimate is money to enable a certain job to be done. No case has been made against the voting of this money which would suggest that an impediment was being placed on the industrial development of this country. Beliefs were stated, statements were made with no reasons assigned; but no reason was given to the Dáil why the Dáil should refuse to pass the amount contained in this Estimate.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Lemass was in the same difficulty as the Deputy now on his feet, in that he could not repeat the Second Reading debate.

Mr. C. Lehane

I find myself in no difficulty, to this extent, that I will refer any remark I make to the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Killilea

The Deputy said a moment ago he could not.

Mr. C. Lehane

I will do it without any assistance from Deputy Killilea. Where the matter is referable to the Supplementary Estimate and also referable to the Bill on its Second Reading, I do find myself in difficulty. A protest was made by Deputy Lemass against the characterisation of criticism as an attempt to impede. I am quite satisfied that there was no conscious attempt to impede anything that would assist in the industrial development of the country; but if that criticism was made, Deputy Lemass and other Deputies opposite have nobody but themselves to thank, in view of the line that they followed in approaching the Estimate. I hope that the Dáil will pass this Supplementary Estimate and not contribute to that impeding of which Deputy Lemass spoke so much.

Major de Valera

This Estimate is a Vote to spend public moneys. It represents an administrative cost, it is an increase in the cost of administration. Surely, therefore, we are entitled to inquire what the justification for that increase may be. If the expenditure is proved justified, by all means let us vote for it; if it is not, we are not entitled to spend the taxpayers' money, without just cause. That is the situation we have to face. Mark you, I am not relating it to any of the previous promises of the Minister's Party to reduce costs. That is certainly neither here nor there.

An Ceann Comhairle

It certainly is not.

Major de Valera

The thing that is important is (a) that this represents an administrative cost over and above what was voted last year and, therefore, it must be justified. I think Deputy Lehane said that no case has been made for not voting these moneys. Surely that is the completely wrong way to approach this. This is an expenditure of public money and, therefore, the onus of proving that it is justified is on the people who seek to spend it. The case to be made is a case for spending. In the absence of a proper case for spending, there is no onus on anybody who objects. Furthermore, this is not only an increased administrative cost but it is a cost already incurred. In other words, it is coming before the House in the form of a fait accompli. I am not quite sure how frequently that has happened in the past. As a general principle, the onus is on us carefully to scrutinise, on all occasions, expenditure or proposed expenditure. It is very much more on us to scrutinise expenditure which has already been incurred by a Government and which —like it or lump it, so to speak—will have to be met.

I am not going back over Second Reading speeches, but persistently through Second Reading speeches we asked for the information which would justify this body in what it has done to date. Deputy Lehane, as if he were the Minister in charge, has told us he will give us the information confidentially, and the Minister made several insinuations in the course of his speech, likewise Deputy O'Higgins and others. Nevertheless, here we are, at the close of the debate, in utter and absolute ignorance of what this bill is for, of what has been done. We are asked simply to vote these moneys on the assurance that they have been well spent. I do not think that is a sufficient discharge of the responsibility on the people who proposed this expenditure and for that reason alone we would be justified in opposing it, if only to call into prominence the extreme importance of the principle of public accounting, that the taxpayers should know where their money has gone.

Mr. Morrissey

I am very glad the Deputy said that.

Major de Valera

And I say it again. It is a very important principle.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy will hear more about it.

Major de Valera

Delighted. If the Minister will tell us more about this particular expenditure, I for one, as I said on the Second Reading, will have a very open mind.

Mr. Morrissey

About spending the taxpayers' money?

Major de Valera

The money is the taxpayers. I presume it is coming out of the Central Fund?

Mr. S. Collins

The rubbish in the Park is also.

Major de Valera

If this body is shown to have done useful work in regard to industrial development and if a proper case could be shown as to its likelihood of doing such in future, then —I think the whole House is unanimously in favour of industrial development—everybody would be wholehearted in this matter. On Second Reading we have already pointed out the flaws. In particular, I asked the Minister to deal with the question that this was merely a surveying body and that all executive action would fall to him. Therefore, on this Estimate it would be interesting to know what positive action he took on foot of surveying or other action taken by this body. That would lead me into a Second Reading speech.

The point is that this represents an increase in administrative costs over and above the expenditure budgeted for this year. It represents payments for liability already incurred, for which no adequate explanation has been given. We are told that it is for the salaries of these gentlemen. As we have all pointed out, they are very reputable gentlemen; there is no question of their personalities in the matter at all. On the principle of the thing, surely we should know what return has been got for their activities, even at this stage of the debate. We have not yet got that information in any tangible form.

Mr. Morrissey

I will resist the temptation to follow Deputy Lemass and Deputy de Valera into a rehash of the Second Reading. This is quite a simple issue before the House. It is a sum for the salaries and expenses of the members of the Industrial Development Authority. That is all. I do not propose to deal with any of the points that have been raised. Any points in connection with the Bill can be dealt with on subsequent stages. If the Deputies are getting concerned about the taxpayer and the money, we can deal with that also. I have no reluctance in the world to deal with that. There are public accounts in relation to the taxpayers' money. This is simple issue. The two Deputies have been wandering around the place trying to find something to say. All I am asking the Dáil is to provide the salaries and expenses of this board. the particulars are set out in the Estimate.

Mr. Lemass

Will the Minister explain the deficiency between the amount of the Estimate and the amount required for salaries?

Mr. Morrissey

Yes. I should have explained that. This Estimate was prepared earlier on. I grant you that it should be there. The Deputy knows that, if it is not required, it will not be expended.

Mr. Lemass

No. That is precisely the point.

Mr. Morrissey

I will put it the other way—it will not be issued.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 69; Níl, 57.

Tá.

• Beirne, John.
• Belton, John.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Browne, Noel C.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
• Coburn, James.
• Collins, Seán.
• Commons, Bernard.
• Connolly, Roderick J.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, John A.
• Cowan, Peadar.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Davin, William.
• Desmond, Daniel.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Dunne, Seán
• Esmonde, Sir John L.
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Norton, William.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• O'Gorman, Patrick J.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun)
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Sullivan, Martin.
• Redmond, Bridget M.
• Finucane, Patrick
• Fitzpatrick, Michael.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Flynn, John.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Halliden, Patrick J.
• Hickey, James.
• Hughes, Joseph.
• Keane, Seán.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Kinane, Patrick.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, James.
• Lehane, Con.
• Lehane, Patrick D.
• McAuliffe, Patrick.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• McQuillan, John.
• Madden, David J.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, William J.
• Reidy, James.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Roddy, Joseph.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Sheehan, Michael.
• Spring, Daniel.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Timoney, John J.
• Tully, John.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Dan.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Brennan, Thomas.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Buckley, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Butler, Bernard.
• Carter, Thomas.
• Colley, Harry.
• Collins, James J.
• Crowley, Honor Mary.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• De Valera, Vivion.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Friel, John.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick J.
• Lydon, Michael F.
• Lynch, John.
• McCann, John.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• McGrath, Patrick.
• Maguire, Patrick J.
• Moran, Michael.
• Moylan, Seán.
• O'Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Ormonde, John.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• O'Sullivan, Ted.
• Rice, Bridget M.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Walsh, Thomas.

Tellers:- Tá: Deputies Doyle and Kyn e; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy.

Question declared carried.

Estimate reported and agreed to.