I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 5, Section 8 (1), line 6, to insert ", after consultation with the Chairman of Seanad Éireann," before "may".
I do not think this amendment requires any explanations as it was an agreed amendment on the last Stage.
Public Business. - Staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas Bill, 1959—Report Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 7, to delete section 21 (2), lines 37 to 40, and substitute the following new subsection:—
(2) The Chairman may suspend from duty a civil servant to whom this section applies, who, while employed on duties directly related to the business of Seanad Éireann, is guilty of grave misconduct warranting disciplinary action.
Deputy Sweetman expressed some doubt about the wording of the section as it stood. I undertook to look into it again and to see that it was made certain that members of the staff engaged on Seanad work would be covered by the section. Therefore it is a redrafting.
I agree that the redrafting does cover the situation. The previous draft, shall we say, threw some doubt on the matter. I am not interested so much in the power of suspension per se. What I am interested in is that when officials are doing Seanad work the Seanad will be enabled to carry on its work on its own. I agree with the Minister that the way to provide that is through, so to speak, the delegation of the power to the Chairman of Seanad Éireann. One should not lose sight of the fact that we are considering not merely the position of what I might term an unruly official but the principle that while the Seanad is doing its work, even though it happens to be in the same building as the Dáil, it is independent in the exercise of its functions.
Yes. That is a point that was considered. It is extremely difficult to express by way of statute what the Deputy has in mind. I should not like to put into a statute that the Ceann Comhairle would be bound to allocate staff, and so on, if required. We have to assume the Ceann Comhairle will do that.
This is one method of showing the way we want the wind to blow.
I think this covers any difficulty that may arise.
Amendment agreed to.
As this amendment involves a potential charge on State funds the Bill will have to be recommitted in respect of amendment No. 3.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 3.
I move amendment No. 3.
In page 9, section 28, to insert, after subsection (2), the following new subsection:—
(3) (a) In the subsection—‘civil servant to whom this subsection applies" means a member of the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas (other than the Superintendent, Houses of the Oireachtas, or the Captain of the Guard, Houses of the Oireachtas) holding office on the 1st day of June, 1959;
‘reckonable service' means, in relation to a civil servant to whom this subsection applies, service rendered by him which would, if this subsection were not passed, be reckoned in computing his superannuation allowance and additional allowance under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1956.
(b) For the purpose of calculating the superannuation allowance and additional allowance payable under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1956, to a civil servant to whom this subsection applies, whose reckonable service would, if he retired on attaining the age of sixty-five years, exceed sixteen years but not twenty-six years, the Minister may add to the reckonable service of that civil servant such period of notional service as the Minister thinks proper, so however that the total of the reckonable service of that civil servant and the notional service so added shall not exceed the period of service by reference to which the superannuation allowance and additional allowance payable under subsection (1) of this section were computed.
This amendment comes as a result of discussion both on the Second Reading and on the Committee Stage. Many Deputies expressed a wish to see the members of the Staff of the Oireachtas considered with regard to superannuation. Various suggestions were made. Having considered the matter, I thought the best we could do in all the circumstances was to raise the number of years' service notionally to 26 years, where it may be lower, in reference to those who are serving at the present time.
Deputy Cosgrave suggested that I might give special consideration to former members of the I.R.A., being defined as those who are drawing pensions or holders of a medal. On consideration, I thought it would be difficult to do that. It would be very difficult to meet the case that the members of the Oireachtas Staff were in any different position from the members of the Civil Service generally. This is a different code of legislation. Ex-members of the I.R.A. have been dealt with by various Acts by way of pension and medal which qualifies a person for a special allowance if he is qualified in another way. It was pointed out to me that if we wanted to do something else for members of the staff who were in the I.R.A. it should be done under the military service pensions code or an Act of that kind. I departed from that and thought the simplest way of dealing with it would be to bring all the serving members up to around two-thirds of the superannuation they would be entitled to on retiring This amendment is now presented to give effect to that decision.
I am totally dissatisfied with this amendment. I cannot accept what the Minister has said, namely, that this amendment gives the same privileges, if one may use that word, to the people that are named as to those who are included in the original subsections (1) and (2) of Section 26. It does not seem to me that it covers the very special case that can be made for the people who had the task of trying to build up the institution of this Oireachtas particularly in its very early years. The task of building up these Houses and of building up the traditions that were to go with them was quite a different task from that which has been compared by the Minister in relation to the Civil Service as a whole. There was opportunity, in one way, of experience in relation to Departmental work but there was no such opportunity in relation to a Parliament. Therefore, the people who came in at the beginning and gave of their best here are entitled to be treated in a different way
When two members of the staff are being picked out for special treatment —I use the word "staff" to cover officers and everyone else in this connection—we in this Party feel very strongly that the treatment should be accorded to everybody. The Minister's amendment does not accord the treatment of added years to everyone. It accords it to a few more than the two persons concerned. That is not meeting the principle. That is only going, for the sake of expediency, a very small part of the road. The principle involved in subsection (1) of section 26 is that six years' service shall be added. If six years' service shall be added for one man, then six years' service should be added for everyone employed here.
When I say I am totally dissatisfied with this amendment, as I was totally dissatisfied with the original section, I want to make it clear that it is because the same measure of concession is not being given to others as is being given to a very small number, rather than that I have any objection to those who are getting it. I am not objecting to the giving of the concession to those mentioned in the original section or to those given in this amendment but when six years have been given in one place they should be given in all places. That seems to be common justice.
Like Deputy Sweetman I am totally dissatisfied, but it seems useless to go into detail in an effort to improve this Bill. On a previous occasion I mentioned the position of other members of the staff. I still hold that view in relation to these men. They are being denied justice in so far as the Minister claims to be fair by giving common justice to two officials. I consider it is necessary to go beyond that and I should like to draw the Minister's attention to one case, without mentioning names. There is a person who since 1919 served as an official of the Irish Government. He had a break in service due to imprisonment. He refused to take part on any side in the Civil War and now political victimisation is continuing in this case. I am convinced the Minister knows of this case. The Minister cannot say fair play is being given when he is considering only two members of the staff, although I say good luck to them. Whether it is because of indifference or because of his determination to continue political favours for some and discrimination for others, he is claiming that this amendment will be the remedy, when we know it is only eyewash.
If I understood the Minister correctly in his statement in moving this amendment, he appeared to experience some kind of perturbation that singling out the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas for special treatment in accordance with the demands from this side of the House might give rise to dissatisfaction in the Civil Service as a whole. If that argument is to be accepted and regarded as valid, it is an equally valid argument against the principle enshrined in the section to which this is an amendment, namely, Section 26.
Speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill, I made the comment with regard to this section, from which this amendment emanates, that it was marred by selectivity. I cannot see my way to depart from that view on looking at and reading this amendment. Rather am I reinforced in my view that not alone was the principle of selectivity put into operation in regard to the principal section but that it has on closer scrutiny been moved a step further in that direction as far as this amendment is concerned, namely, that it selects a few more. It is not very hard to guess the arena from which that selection is made and the natural corollary is that discrimination is rampant with regard to others.
Let us be clear upon what we disagree and let us be clear in relation to the principles from which we proceed towards the doing of justice. At the recent Fianna Fáil Árd Fheis the Taoiseach announced our entrance politically into a new era and side by side with that he said he thought the old era of bitterness and strife should be forgotten and regarded as dead. This section and the amendment are giving new life to that bitterness. It is for that reason that I am opposed to them on the simple basis that they are resurrecting the past, leaving justice undone. If the Minister is going to fulfil the pronouncements of the Taoiseach at the Árd Fheis, the Minister would do well to reconsider this, to go back and do justice to the people who gave their lives to the building up and moulding of our Parliamentary institutions.
The Minister seemed to be concerned that he might be creating a precedent if he were to treat the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas differently from other members of the Civil Service in this respect. Is it not clear that the introduction of this Bill, which protects the interests of a small number of civil servants in that special position, already establishes that principle? All that is being asked on this side of the House is that the principle should be extended to cover all Civil Servants who have given particular service to the Houses of the Oireachtas. In accepting the suggestions put forward on this side of the House he would be merely extending the principle in this Bill to cover all those who feel they have justifiable demands on State funds for their special services over the years in the service of the Houses of the Oireachtas.
I cannot agree with Deputy Sweetman that this amendment does not give equal treatment to all members of the staff. I came down in favour of this amendment in the end because I believed I was giving equal treatment to all, that is, that any member of the staff who would have less than 26 years' service at the normal retiring age would have years added to that to bring it up to 26 years.
I think the argument on the other side is that we should add years. Some advocated on the Committee Stage that we should bring everybody up to 40 years; others thought we should add years to everybody whether they were near the 40 years or not. That would certainly be departing from the section as it stood referring to individual officers. If, for instance, the two officers concerned had 34 years' service I would certainly never have asked the Dáil to do anything about it.
When this section was before the Dáil I explained that these officers were in a particular category, that these posts had so far been filled by the I.R.A. and that it was not likely that any further vacancy in either of these two offices would be filled by an I.R.A. man. I said it was more than likely that in the future these offices would be filled by ex-members of the army or the police force who would have served a fair number of years, who would have a fairly substantial pension and would therefore need no special treatment as far as we were concerned. That is the reason why these two men were picked out. The other officers came in at a normal age and will by the time they reach 65 years of age have earned full pension. I must confess I do not know who the individual is that was mentioned by Deputy Desmond but there may be hard cases of that kind. To accuse me, as Deputy Lindsay did, of raking up the bitterness of the Civil War is ridiculous, because of the two men mentioned in the Bill, one was on one side in the Civil War and the other was on the other side. To accuse me of being partial is, of course, mere Fine Gael pleading, and that is a sufficient description of it.
I am also accused, I think, by Deputy Lindsay, of bringing in another group that might be favourable to this Government. I do not know either of the men. I have seen the circumstances of their cases, the number of years they have served, when they came in and when they are likely to retire. I may have seen their names, but I do not know one from the other. I have no personal interest in them. If Deputy Lindsay is speaking for the Fine Gael Party, and if he thinks this amendment is unfair, I am quite prepared to withdraw it. I shall not have the slightest compunction about withdrawing it.
I must confess the Minister and I differ categorically on the principle involved in subsection (1) of Section 26. The principle there is not, in my view, what the Minister says it is—bringing a person up to 26 years' service. The principle is that of adding six years to a person's service for pension purposes. If the principle was what the Minister says it is, I could quite understand him, but it is not. The principle is the addition of six years' pensionable service. If that is the principle enshrined in sub-section (1), Section 26, then that principle should be applied to anybody who needs six years' service to give him the maximum pension.
I made it quite clear on Committee Stage that I do not expect anybody to go over 40 years' service, which must be the maximum under the Superannuation Acts. My amendments, which were ruled out of order, were on the basis that the principle was that they had six years' service added and so much service could be added for those who needed that service to bring them to the maximum, so long as the addition did not exceed the six years being added.
That is the whole point. Here is a principle of adding six years' service for pensionable computability. If you can add it for one, you can add it for everybody. So far as I can see from the lists the Minister gave me—I have already paid my respects to him for having given them to me—there are 30 people on the staff who may retire with less than a full pension. I am not quite certain in relation to one of them, but there are either 29 or 30. There is one man who is referred to as having 40 years' service and I do not see why he is included.
So far as I can ascertain, the Minister's amendment covers six, so that means 23 people are left out of the principle included in subsection (1) of Section 26. That is not a serious number when one computes the entire Civil Service or even if one computes the entire number of people serving in these Houses. Without any doubt, many of those 23 people who are still left out are people who served the State before 1921. Many of them are old I.R.A. men. So far as I can ascertain—I did not go round asking individual people—many are old I.R.A. men who came into the service of the State later on in years. The Minister acknowledged on Committee Stage or Second Stage—I forget which—that he could understand that the type of service in these Houses was a type which might appeal to old I.R.A. men.
It seems to me that the Minister, in framing this amendment, is not doing full justice to the principle of adding six years. I do not think he is right in saying that the principle is one of bringing someone up to 26 years. There is no merit in that argument. If you had five officers, one of whom had 17 years' service, one had 18 years' service, one had 19 years' service, and two had 20 years' service, and you brought in an original section covering all five of them, so that they would all be raised to 26 years' service for pension purposes, then I could understand the Minister making the argument that the principle involved in the section was to raise it to 26 years. It is not what happened. One person had six years added to his service and that is the principle that is in the section as it stands, and that is a principle which, I submit to the Minister, should be extended to all the 30 people involved and not merely to six.
I can quite see the Deputy's way of looking at it but I should like to repeat that if the two officers mentioned had over 30 years' service, I would never have brought the clause in. It is because their years of service were so low that this was done and we did not give a very big lift— just six years. If there are others in the same boat, there cannot be any great grievance if we bring them up to 26 years also.
The Minister suggested there is another way of dealing with the matter if there is a grievance on the part of other long-serving members of the House who are old I.R.A. men. In order to avoid bringing in other members of the Civil Service or creating a difference between them and persons working in the Houses of the Oireachtas, could the Minister not decide that they should be treated in the same way under other measures such as the military service pensions legislation and so on? If the Minister feels such machinery is available for dealing with this special question of adding to their years for superannuation purposes, would he not consider it would be applicable to the two cases mentioned in this Bill?
No. What I said was that it is very difficult to pick out an ordinary civil servant—I want to make it clear that I mean an ordinary civil servant, whether of the clerical officer grade, messenger grade or usher grade, which grades are closely allied as the ushers are drawn from the messengers—and give him special terms because of I.R.A. service. It would be very difficult to do that and withstand the demands of the other Departments of the Service who would have a claim, anyway, that they had equal rights to the same concessions.
I said that in the general service we have to depend on the code of military service pensions to give these people preference over ordinary civil servants who had no military service. I have been arguing from the beginning that the two officers in the Bill are in a different category. These two posts have been filled by I.R.A. men from the beginning, but, as I explained, they will be the last I.R.A. men to go into these posts. From now on, it is more than likely that these posts will be secured by officers of the Army or Garda Síochána who will have had a fair number of years' service and will have therefore a fairly decent pension. As a result, there will be no case in the future for giving the occupants of those posts any special concessions.
As we are now making the change and as there are two men not far from retirement, I put the clause in to cover these two cases as exceptional cases. As far as the ordinary staff are concerned, I feel you cannot make an exceptional case there. Perhaps I am illogical in yielding to the pressure of the Dáil and bringing in now this amendment to cover everybody up to 26 years at least so that they cannot have a grievance.
The Minister mentioned ushers. I did not intend to mention any particular class but, as the Minister has mentioned ushers, I shall try to compare them with messengers. In latter years they have been recruited from the messenger branch of the service. But there is, I would suggest to him, an entirely different situation in relation to them and in relation even to the other class involved here, and more or less analogous, that is a paperkeeper.
When these Houses were being established ushers had to set out on an entirely new line of country, quite different from that of a messenger in a Department. A messenger in a Department had his duties more or less-easily circumscribed and defined. But in the establishment of the Oireachtas, and particularly in its formative years, there was a great deal more to be done. It required tact and initiative. It was not merely a question of doing a job but of ferreting out exactly what job you were supposed to do. It was not merely a question of taking a message from somebody who called at the gate to see Deputy So-and-So. There was a great deal more than that involved. No precedents were available to us here. Therefore, there had to be a large amount of new work.
Similarly, the ordinary work of a paperkeeper in a Department is merely to see that the various officers, typists' pool and so on have adequate stocks of the various forms, paper and so forth. That is not the case here. The case here is not one of doing a circumscribed job but of trying to see how you can develop your job, be it usher or paperkeeper, to assist the Oireachtas to work as an Oireachtas. There is therefore quite a difference between the comparison the Minister has drawn and other messengers in the service. I do not think that could be denied, and I do not think the civil service associations would want to deny it to the tiny number of people concerned in those two jobs. There is then the question of the reporters and translators. I can see reasons there why they would not be comparable to the ordinary civil service grades.
As I say, there are only 30 people involved. To the best of my knowledge, the amendment deals with six. It might be that there are only 29 involved and the amendment deals with six, leaving 23. It is only 23 or 24, to judge from the schedule the Minister gave me. Having regard to the undoubted fact that there is a difference between these members of the staff—and I think everybody in the House would support the Minister in claiming that there is a difference between them and the rest of the civil service—the Minister ought to deal with the whole lot rather than only six.
The Deputy has made a case for those who came in in 1922 but most of them have already retired. Those of them who have not are obviously qualified for practically full pension.
No.
Very few.
I would say practically full pension.
The six years is what is involved. I do not want to go into the argument of how much unestablished service is pensionable. I have deliberately avoided that line. As far as I can see, it would run from one to six years' added service. In one case, six years might be involved; in another, one year.
The Minister says this is a non-recurring problem arising out of the consideration of the two people mentioned. Is it not true also of the people the Minister is being asked to consider now? The question of I.R.A. service will not occur again?
The point I made was that the two named in the Bill filled posts that were, if you like, automatically filled up to this from the ranks of the I.R.A. That cannot be done again because the old I.R.A. people are getting too old now to fill posts of that kind.
If the Minister gives the six years which Deputy Sweetman has asked for and which I am asking for, it will dispose entirely of any substance in the charge I have deliberately made of discrimination. I shall whole-heartedly withdraw that charge if the six years are given. As Dr. Browne says, it will not be recurring; and when we are doing something in a small community such as the staffs of the Houses of the Oireachtas, it would be as well that no foul taste would be left in anybody's mouth. I think the Minister is reasonable enough, if he feels so disposed, to make this small concession of six years apply to everybody here, and time will certainly reward him for it.
In fact, if the Minister looks, he will find that one person who came here in 1923 will retire with only 29 years' pensionable service and that the addition of the six years would still leave him with only 35 years. Another man who came in on the 1st November, 1922 would retire with only 32 years' service. If he got the six years, he still would not be up to the maximum. I am not arguing against six. Six is the number in the other section.
There is another man who has service starting on 25th July, 1922, but who will only have 33 years for pensionable purposes. Another man who started on 1st August, 1922, will only have, without the addition, 34 years for pensionable purposes. There is a real difference between these and the other classes in the Civil Service as a whole. It is a general service problem and the principle in subsection (1) which the Minister has brought in is the principle of adding six years. I suggest he ought to do that for everybody. I cannot put down an amendment. He alone has the right to do that.
I just want to repeat that I can understand the Deputy's argument with regard to the principle. When I was asked to consider the cases of these two men my first reaction was that we could, perhaps, give them about two-thirds in order to be fair. That was the sort of principle I applied. In other words, we would bring them up to 26 years. We look at it in a different way, and that was the principle as far as it occurred to my mind in the beginning.
Is it not a pity, to put it at its most courteous, that we should look at it in a different way when such a very small number are involved? The Minister is good enough to concede my point of view as a possible view. Is it not better that we should get courteous uniformity all round when we are dealing with the Houses of the Oireachtas? The Minister will not be weakening. He will be showing his strength and he will get a withdrawal from Deputy Lindsay into the bargain.
The Minister is in the unique position that the Opposition is not objecting but is merely asking him to be fair. That is all we are asking. No member in Opposition has offered any criticism of what is being done in relation to some. The Minister has spoken of the position of the two officials named in the Bill. Sometimes I find myself wondering if the Minister is trying to convey to us that these two officials came in directly, as it were, from the I.R.A. Actually they came in from another branch of the Service. I should like to know, and this question carries no derogatory connotation or any criticism of any officials, at what age these officials came into this particular service? Would they, if they had remained in the service to which they were attached prior to coming in here, enjoy the same benefits or would they be less, or would they be more than the Minister is offering?
Deputy Sweetman has mentioned— indeed we have all mentioned—the position in relation to some other members of the staff. Whatever the Minister may say, he is going a certain part of the way towards helping, but he is not going all the way. After all, there are not many involved. I do not believe for a moment there would be any objection on the part of any other civil servants in other Departments; but, even should there be objection, we have a definite answer. The men we are pleading for here are old I.R.A. men just the same as the two for whom the Minister speaks. We are on common ground in that respect.
I am surprised that the Minister still says he does not know the position of the one man I have mentioned. I have picked out one case. The others have already been mentioned. Deputy Sweetman has concentrated today on their position. But the one man I have picked out is, it seems to me, one who had no say whatever on one side or the other, be it civil war or old I.R.A. Age changes situations in every generation but, as far as I am aware, one man is in the position that he is not getting fair play. Is it because he took no side in the misfortunes of the early 'Twenties? He had been in the I.R.A. Can we not give him credit for that? He had a term of imprisonment. Can we not give him credit for that? Is it too much to ask that he should be treated on the same basis as others have been treated? If the two officials concerned had not come into their present positions as officials, as the Minister terms them, of this House but had remained in the branch to which they were attached prior to coming here, would they now be in the position in which the Minister is placing them? Would they be better off? Would they not be as well off? If they are getting concessions now from the Minister, then good luck to him for offering them and may the recipients enjoy them, but surely the Minister is big enough to see that what he is giving to two should also be given to others who are equally entitled to it.
I should like to give Deputy Desmond as much information as I can. If one of the two had remained in the service he was in, he would get roughly the same pension and gratuity as provided in this Bill. The other had, of course, left the service for some years before he came in here, and so I cannot answer the question in his case.
Good luck to the men who are getting something. If the second man had not come into the service here would he still be in the service of the State?
He would. That applies to one anyhow. The other had left the service.
One thing is clear— this will not be a recurring problem. It will not arise again so far as the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas are concerned. Remembering that, is the expense of adding six years so formidable that it cannot be overcome? In my view the amount involved is so small that it would be well worthwhile spending even more to achieve some degree of uniformity and some degree of harmony. I again appeal to the Minister to take the substance out of the feeling that there is discrimination. I shall be the first to withdraw any suggestion of discrimination if he concedes the six years to meet the case reasonably adequately.
I am putting the amendment.
I think the Minister seems to be in some doubt. While I am most anxious to benefit the members of the staff, I could not agree to this amendment unless those for whom we plead get what we believe they are entitled to, namely, some fair play in the few years they will have when they go out on pension.
Before putting the amendment would the Minister give the matter some further consideration?
There is no urgency in this Bill. We shall give the Minister all stages next Wednesday, if he likes. Would the Minister pass the amendment on recommittal today and take the Report and Final Stages next Wednesday? That will give him time to consider the arguments we have put up.
Deputy Sweetman is aware—other Deputies may not be— that this Bill must go through both the Dáil and the Seanad before the Recess because it must be law by the middle of January. The Seanad has as great an interest in this Bill as we have and the Seanad may force an amendment. It is important that the Seanad should consider this Bill before the Dáil adjourns, otherwise we might have to recall the Dáil.
I shall undertake that our people in the Seanad will give the Minister every facility. If the Bill has to come back here I shall also undertake to give him every facility here.
I should like to know where we stand. I do not wish to oppose the amendment if we can get any information from the Minister on the matter. It is not going to rob the State but it is going to give a little happiness to men who served the State well and put a few more pounds in their pockets for their winter years.
May I suggest that the Minister withdraws the amendment and considers it again between now and Wednesday? If he cannot meet us, I am sure he will be able to——
I could not hold out any hope of any reconsideration of this matter at all.
Amendment agreed to?
No.
I was trying to avoid getting the Minister into that situation.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 35.
Tá
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carty, Michael.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Collins, James J.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Cummins, Patrick J.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Mick.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Donegan, Batt.
- Dooley, Patrick.
- Egan, Kieran P.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Fanning, John.
- Faulkner, Padraig.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Galvin, John.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Johnston, Henry M.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Loughman, Frank.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Moher, John W.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Moran, Michael.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Ceallaigh, Seán.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Toole, James.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Sheldon, William A.W
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
Níl
- Barry, Richard.
- Belton, Jack.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Burke, James.
- Carew, John.
- Casey, Seán.
- Coburn, George.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dillon, James M.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Hogan, Bridget.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Lindsay, Patrick.
- Lynch, Thaddeus.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Manley, Timothy.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, William.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Denis J.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tierney, Patrick.
- Wycherley, Florence.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman; Níl: Deputies Kyne and Casey.
Amendment declared carried.
Amendment reported and agreed to.
The question is: "That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration."
Next Wednesday. The Minister is going to get a soft heart between now and Wednesday.
Why not take it now?
Because that does not give the Minister enough time to soften his heart.
There is no amendment on the Fifth Stage.
The amendment just passed was the recommittal. We have not had the Report Stage yet on this amendment. This amendment was recommitted. Is that not so? The amendment was passed just now by the division.
On the division.
No, sir. The division has been announced.
That is so.
When the division is announced, it has to be taken on Report Stage.
No, the Bill is now on Report.
I still want some enlightenment. The amendment was recommitted and the division was on recommittal.
On the amendment, yes.
Once you have had recommittal do you not have to have that recommittal reported?
The Bill as amended on recommittal is reported.
Are you ruling that when you have a Committee Stage you have no further Report Stage?
The Report Stage is now.
That is what I am asking, but the Chair has just said it was the Fifth Stage now. If it is the Report Stage the Minister is asking for now, I am suggesting the Report Stage be put back to next Wednesday and that the Minister might get qualms about it between this and Report Stage and bring in an amendment on Report. That is what I am trying to do.
The Bill is reported, I understand.
The amendment is finished with.
The Report Stage is not finished.
Surely it is a question of getting agreement as to when the Report Stage will be taken?
It was ordered for today.
That is so. The amendment was recommitted and the amendment has been passed.
In Committee.
That is all that is required for it.
And we are now resuming the Bill on Report.
And I am putting the question that the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration.
Question put and agreed to.
When is it proposed to take the Fifth Stage?
Now.
We are not prepared to give the Fifth Stage now.
Not in view of this.
I am proposing that it be taken now.
I do not think it is customary for the Government to press its view if the Opposition is not prepared to take it now. We would object to taking it today and we would prefer to have the Fifth Stage postponed until next week.
All right.
Fifth Stage ordered for Wednesday, 25th November, 1959.