Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 22 May 1962

Vol. 195 No. 9

Amendment of Standing Order 51: Motion.

I move:

"That Standing Order 51 of the Standing Orders of Dáil Éireann relative to Public Business be amended by the deletion of the words—

`If any member be suspended under this Standing Order, his suspension on the first occasion shall continue for one week, on the second occasion for a fortnight, and on the third or any subsequent occasion for one month'

and the substitution therefor of the words—

`If any member hereafter be suspended under this Standing Order, his suspension on the first occasion shall continue until the fourth day, on the second occasion until the eighth day, and on the third or any subsequent occasion until the twelfth day, on which the Dáil shall sit after the day on which he was suspended'."

The intention is that in future the periods of suspension of a member under Standing Order 51 will be related to sitting days and not to the calendar week or month as at present. The amendment will remedy a weakness in the Standing Order which has been obvious for a long time, that is, that its effectiveness is considerably diminished shortly before a recess. At present it can happen that the suspension of a member covers no sitting day other than the one on which it takes place. The amendment is recommended by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in its recent report.

I have just one question on this. Why is this proposal being brought forward now? Despite the scores of occasions of so-called disorderly conduct on the part of Deputies—some of them now Ministers—why has it never been mentioned until now?

I think it may have been mentioned in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges previously. Perhaps one of the reasons why it is being moved now is that quite recently——

You are growing old and you do not want trouble.

——the gimmick of Deputies getting themselves suspended from the service of the House was becoming quite popular.

It is all right for your Party to do it now; but when it was a case of Deputy Smith and others, there was no question of any punishment then.

I am aware the Government were anxious not alone to suspend Deputies for a much longer period than is recommended in this motion but were also prepared, if it were constitutional, to fine Deputies as well for alleged misconduct. To my knowledge, in 1945, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges brought in a somewhat similar suggestion. I do not accept that the House has disimproved to any great extent since 1945, but it was agreed in 1945 that this motion be not pursued. It was felt by the members of the House at the time and by the Government that it was unwise and consequently the House was not asked to pass this penal measure on its members.

Why is it that from 1945 to 1962 there has been no further move on the part of any group in this House to penalise individual members of the House? Is it not a fact that over the last ten years it was only on very rare occasions that members of the House have been suspended? Does the fact that a number have been suspended justify the thin end of the wedge being got in at this stage by the Government and indeed I must say by the major Opposition Party? I want to be quite fair. I understand the Labour Party have some motion to move at their meeting to-morrow night in connection with this matter.

I should like the House to understand that both of these motions should go together because if we accept this motion—No. 2—and No. 3 is passed, a small group like the one of which I happen to be a member will immediately be thereby deprived of the privilege and the right to move motions in this House. Having deprived us of the right to move motions——

That is not——

I am referring to No. 2. The penalties can be such as to prevent our using Question Time which is one of the most important means at the disposal of Deputies for bringing facts to light. This is a twoedged weapon to prevent motions and Questions. The motions will be dealt with on the next motion. The Questions are indirectly being dealt with by the extra penalties which it is suggested the House should adopt.

The only reason I want to go on record in this connection is that I want it to be known to the public that it is an attempt by the two major Parties to prevent genuine injustices being aired. It is an attempt on the part of the two major Parties to restrict even further the opportunities available in this House to Deputies to express their views and to probe into the hidden secrets of the various Departments of State. There is a number of Deputies here to whom I have listened outside the House over the years and who have talked about guarding jealously the rights of the most humble Deputy in this House. When it comes to practical politics, when the most humble Deputy happens to embarrass these wonderful freedom fighters, then the most humble Deputy gets the mallet.

We are agreed on this Standing Order and it is necessary perhaps for the information of the public, not of the Deputies of the House who know the purpose of this Standing Order perfectly well, to say a word on it. The process of suspension by this House arises, so far as I am aware, in one context only and that is when a Deputy defies the authority of the Ceann Comhairle.

The Ceann Comhairle is not a nominee of the Government. The Ceann Comhairle is the elected representative of all the Deputies of Dáil Éireann and is at this present moment a member of a political Party which is in opposition to the Government. The office of the Ceann Comhairle is primarily designed for the protection of the most vulnerable Deputy in this House. The presence of the Ceann Comhairle in the Chair is the guarantee that the most isolated Deputy will get the same privileges and the same rights as the Taoiseach or the Leader of the Opposition. I know because I was for many years——

You want to change that now.

——and stormier years than the Deputy ever knew, an Independent Deputy of this House. The purpose of this amendment to the Standing Order is simply and solely to sustain and strengthen the authority of the Ceann Comhairle of Dáil Éireann. Government by a parliamentary democracy must be the most difficult form of government to carry on. We take the trouble to carry it on only because it constitutes the securest guarantee of individual liberty of any system of government that I know. The keystone of the arch of parliamentary government is the authority of the Ceann Comhairle. If that is not sustained by this House, this House cannot function.

We carry on parliamentary government here by accepting certain limitations on our complete freedom of action within this House of which our own Ceann Comhairle whom we, not the Government, choose, is the judge and interpreter. We have had since this Dáil was founded several Cinn Comhairle. There are times when one feels deeply about certain issues and when one may feel individually the Ceann Comhairle has not treated you fairly. There are occasions when in the heat of controversy—and it is a good thing there should be heated controversy in this House; it would be a sad thing if we all became so mealymouthed that we were afraid of heated controversy; that is what makes parliament live—one feels one's rights have not been adequately defended by the Chair but there is a remedy for that under our procedure, a remedy which can be used in this House and which is open to any Deputy, and that is to put down a motion——

You want to get rid of that under motion No. 3.

Not at all. The Deputy does not understand procedure—but we shall teach him. You may put down with absolute priority to every motion on the Order Paper a motion of censure on the Ceann Comhairle and you are entitled to have that motion taken and discussed. I know——

A private member cannot do it.

——because I have done it.

The Deputy is the exception to everything.

No, I am not; but I understand the procedure of this House because I love it. I understand it as a great instrument of parliamentary government. If there is a grievance against any specific ruling of the Ceann Comhairle any Deputy may put down a resolution of censure on the Ceann Comhairle which must be debated in this House. The fundamental principle underlying this proposed amendment of Standing Orders is this: If we do not all accept the authority of the Ceann Comhairle whom we ourselves choose, Parliament cannot function. It is to ensure that that authority is effectively maintained that this amendment is proposed. I have no apology to make for it. I am satisfied that far from operating to abridge the rights of Independent Deputies or Deputies belonging to small groups, this amendment of Standing Orders, in strengthening the authority of the Ceann Comhairle, provides an added guarantee for every right of every Independent and of every Deputy belonging to every group, however small. To those who do not appreciate that and vote against this amendment, may I say I am convinced of the rectitude of the amendment and so will vote for it.

I think it right to say that, in a Parliament such as ours, the Leader of the principal Opposition Party has a very special responsibility in a context such as this to do his part in asserting the rights of minority Deputies, on whatever side of the House they sit, and he has a very special duty to consent to no amendment of Standing Orders that would in any degree prejudice the fundamental rights of any such Deputies. It is in the full consciousness of that responsibility that I recommend this amendment of our Standing Orders to the approval of the House, in the conviction that it is designed to strengthen the position of the Ceann Comhairle of Dáil Éireann, elected by us all, and, in strengthening that, we strengthen and fortify the rights and privileges of every Deputy, no matter where he sits.

In case there may be any misunderstanding as a result of the statement by Deputy McQuillan, as one of the Labour representatives on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, may I say that Motion No. 2, as set out, was discussed by my Party and agreed to by my Party? The statement made by Deputy Corish was made in relation to Motion No. 3, which is to be deferred.

As has been said by Deputy Dillon, this is not an attempt to stifle anybody in this House. This is merely support for the Chair to ensure that the procedure of this House is complied with and that the rulings of the Chair are carried out in a proper manner. No Deputy need be afraid. Should a Deputy slip into error in the heat of the moment, necessitating his removal from the House, he has an opportunity, if he so wishes, of coming forward later and expressing to the Chair and to the House his regret. Usually, the House accepts that apology and reinstates the Deputy. I am sure there is no reason for fear, except on the part of the person who deliberately wants to be put out. If a Deputy seeks that situation, then it is only proper that a firm decision should be taken to support law and order in the House.

As a member of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, I do not object to Motion No. 2. It is fair enough. For the first offence, one is suspended for three days. The penalty is not retrospective. A Deputy can kick up plenty of rows without necessarily being put out by the Chair. A Deputy can be asked to leave the House, as I was asked to leave once. I have never been suspended. It is within the power of any Independent Deputy to protest as much as he likes, without going too far. I do not think there is anything unfair in Motion No. 2. I am glad No. 3 is to be reconsidered.

Why is it being brought up now? Why was it never mentioned before now? Half that Party over there have been suspended or put out at various times. Is that not so?

No, it is not so.

I support Deputy Dunne and Deputy McQuillan in their queries on the extraordinary timing of this proposal. The degree of severity of the penalty is only relative. Whether it should be a week or a month is debatable; whether it should be increased or reduced is debatable. The important point is that the Dáil has been in operation for the best part of 40 years now and the existing penal clauses have been adequate in all those years. As Deputy McQuillan has said, there has not been an undue amount of abuse of Standing Orders and privileges by Deputies. I do not think any responsible Deputy would willingly go to the extent of having himself named and removed from the House, or even asked to leave the House.

It seems to me the timing of this must be taken in the context of the general attack on minority groups in this country over the past four years. We had the major attack launched by the Government in their attempt to alter the system of proportional representation. Had that attempt succeeded, there would now be no minority point of view here at all. There would be the mutual admiration society, constituted of the Government and the main Opposition, accusing one another of what they had not done yesterday, and doing nothing about what should be done today, and the day after. There would be no minority point of view. There would be no non-conformist or heterodox—whatever you like to call it—point of view, no non-acceptance of the Party line on either side.

Surely, freedom of the right of expression and freedom of minorities to that right of expression are freedoms about which we hear a good deal from various Deputies as being one of the most appealing attractions in the whole concept of Parliamentary democracy. We are, at least, unlike some of our critics today, some of the smug, complacent old men with a fairly hectic record of nonconformity behind them. They not only refused to accept any part in the activities of the Dáil, but they also refused to recognise the existence of the Dáil, going so far as to carry out a most brutal and terrible civil war because of their repudiation of the very existence of Parliament. That was only 40 years ago.

No sanction.

This is a minor amendment of Standing Orders.

Very well. There is nothing any of us can do to stop this being steamrolled through by a united front of the two great Parties in this House.

Three great Parties.

They have us absolutely where they want us. The two propositions must be taken together. Clearly, this proposal to increase the severity of the penalties will be used in relation to questions and the third will ensure that there will be no non-conformist point of view put forward. The attempt to abolish proportional representation having failed, a most outrageous gerrymandering of our constituencies having failed, we are now in Parliament, in spite of every effort made by the biggest Party in this House. That Party is now attempting to suppress the minority point of view in this House altogether.

You people are the keepers of our freedoms. We have no control over the decisions of this Dáil. We have no power of defending—we are help-less. I am surprised at Deputy Dillon, of all people, talking the attitude he has taken; he has often said here how glad he was to see those with a left wing point of view coming into this House, going to the street corners, getting support at election time and coming in here to state their point of view, even though it was a minority point of view. His attitude always was: "I disagree with your point of view, but I shall do everything in my power to defend your right to express it".

That is the kernel of the proposi-tions in Motions Nos. 2 and 3. We will discuss No. 3 at a later date, but the two motions are necessarily inter-woven. Deputy Dillon puts the theoretical case, the independence of the Chair. With all due respect to the Chair, whether he means it or not, we know that he appears to defer to the most powerful group and the second most powerful group in this Dáil. I do not wish to bring the per-sonality of the Chair into this. We find at times that we are refused the right to discuss matters we think important in the public interest because we have not access to the time of the House. Perhaps that is understandable. There is a strong Party on one side. There is a minority group on the other and we cannot, I suppose, be allowed to trespass on public business.

Private Members' Time was a very useful amenity to Deputies in relation to Question Time, which is the other aspect of it. We have found on a number of occasions that not only have we difficulty as far as the ruling of the Chair is concerned but that our Questions are not allowed to reach the House at all.

We have found a greater restriction in the Questions which may be asked in this House. In the time which is now ahead of us, a very difficult time for the Government in relation to the Common Market, very difficult problems will have to be decided upon by this House and by the people. I feel we must have as much freedom as possible to come, as a minority, to ask the unpopular questions, to take the unpopular stand, to put the other point of view. Otherwise, it seems to me that you negative the whole conception of this very unwiedly and inefficient machine for which we all have so much admiration, namely, parliamentary democracy.

It is you who are attenuating the quality, the fineness, the whole idea of parliamentary democracy, by penalising your minority, by restricting the freedom of the minority. Forty years have gone by and our Parliament has acted reasonably efficiently with the Standing Orders as they are at the moment. The introduction of the other attitude, penal attempts to limit minority activity, is particularly suspicious at this time.

As to Deputy Dillon's point and the motion on the Ceann Comhairle, it might be interesting if the Taoiseach would tell us the position of the Ceann Comhairle. We had a motion of censure on the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. We did not get priority for discussion of that censureship motion.

We oppose this motion, simply because we believe it is a further intrusion on the rights of a minority in our Parliament. We believe, for that reason, it must be opposed. We are particularly surprised that the Opposition should lend themselves to this further limitation of the minority position in Parliament.

My approach will be somewhat different from that of Deputy Dr. Browne. I am of opinion that the penalty contained in this proposal is not half severe enough. At this stage of our existence and after all the talk here on the Common Market, it is past time we grew up and stopped acting in this House like spoiled children. With regard to Motion No. 3, I am at a loss. If my reading of this document is correct, I am now a group: Deputy Sherwin is a group; Deputy Dr. Browne is a group; and each of the other Independents is a group.

Motion No. 3 is not being discussed. The only item under discussion is Motion No. 2.

The trouble is that those two will eventually go together.

It would be rather unfair that the few small Parties left in the House should in any way be victimised. Perhaps it is a tribute which has been paid unexpectedly to the importance of the Independents in this House.

I should like to preface my remarks by saying that at all times, whether in this House or at an ordinary committee meeting, it is my objective and my ideal, which I hope I never change, to respect the man or woman in the Chair. May I say that that tuition was given to me 40 years ago by possibly one of the best tutors. He tried to teach me how to conduct a meeting, how to disrupt a meeting, how to protract a meeting, as the case might be. Yet it has in no way changed the fact that the Chair must rule.

I hope I am never guilty of losing the respect I have for the Chair. Nevertheless, I could not agree more with Deputy Dr. Browne in this particular instance. It would seem that this time, above all times, this matter can be deferred. The number of instances that have happened in regard to this matter since I came into the House would, I am sure, be pardoned by those most critical of procedure. In the light of some of the debates of our friends across the water or, indeed, across the Border, I do not think that we should feel ashamed. However, I hope that, this time, this matter will be deferred. It seems to me that, with all my good resolutions, I could be provoked and provoked again and still further provoked. What would that mean? It could mean the denial of my right to exercise my vote at maybe a critical period.

The Leader of the Opposition cannot take from any of my remarks anything other than what normally I would be prepared to concede. I shall take off my hat to the Leader of the Opposition or to the first person who puts down a motion of censure on the Chair here and has it given the priority that he has been so lucky to receive.

I said that I was never personal. However, a situation has arisen on a couple of occasions in this House when remarks were made but the Chair did not hear them. That may be attributed to the bad acoustics. Nevertheless, if those remarks had been directed to me, personally, I am afraid I would have to say some prayers to help me to keep that respect. I hope further consideration will be given to this matter. When Deputy Sherwin speaks as a member of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, it must be remembered that I have not been asked my opinion so that Deputy Sherwin might express it accordingly. In conclusion, I am not——

Is this not a waste of time?

Somebody has said something about a waste of time.

Mr. Donnellan

Not at all.

I am speaking to the House, through the Chair. I may be wasting my time. I may not have the perception, possibly, the Leader of the Opposition would have but I can readily perceive a situation.

Nobody said the Deputy is wasting time.

On many occasions, the Leader of the Opposition stood there and to me it seemed he was getting greater consideration than even the Leader of the Opposition should get. I have no personal axe to grind. I have not been named in the House. I hope I have treated the Chair with respect but, in this matter, a mere matter of principle, I can do nothing else except, as referred to by Deputy Dr. Browne, maybe rebel against authority. It seems to be a mortal sin to think about that. I do not feel that way. If it had to happen tomorrow, I would do the same thing.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach, to conclude.

Mr. J. Brennan rose.

Surely the Leader of the Government has something to say?

Or has he abdicated his functions altogether? The Leader of the Government has a duty to perform, or is he giving it up?

I am calling on the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach.

Mr. Donnellan

Is he concluding?

Yes, of course. This is the Dáil in session, not in Committee.

Mr. Donnellan

Sure. It occurs to my mind, at any rate, that this is the last resort of political Parties. This is an attempt to stifle anything that might be raised here by an Independent, or a member of a small Party, who has been elected to Dáil Éireann. I have been 20 years in this House. I have been here during stormy periods. I have been here on the eve of executions by the Party now in power, but to my great pride I have always obeyed the rulings of the Ceann Comhairle, and I always will, please God.

I should like to congratulate Deputy Dr. Browne on his speech. He certainly went to the kernel of the matter. I listened also to the Leader of the Opposition. Of course that co-operation to which he referred is there, and has been there for a long time. It is a pity the Government and the Opposition do not sit on the same side of the House. It would be a good job for the country if they did. It has always been the idea of the Fianna Fáil Party, and indeed the Fine Gael Party as well, to wipe out every small Party they could, by any way in the world in which they could do so.

This motion is a tragedy. Its sponsors on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges must have read Mein Kampf, because that is what it amounts to. We used to hear Deputy Dillon in his heyday, when he did not belong to any Party, speaking of the rights of the man who is elected to Dáil Éireann. He said that he is elected by the people, and that the humblest Deputy in this House has as big a say as the Taoiseach. Does the Deputy remember that? Now he comes along to co-operate with the other section of Mein Kampf to wipe out the so-called humblest Deputy who has been elected by the people, and by a majority of the people in his constituency, just as the Taoiseach is, just as Deputy Dillon is, just as Deputy Corish is and just as anyone else is elected.

This is resurrecting the Parties again. As a Party Fianna Fáil know there is no such thing as Fianna Fáil, and as a Party, Fine Gael know there is no such thing as Fine Gael, either. At every election, they are kicking football with some personality in order to have him elected and have Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael branded on him.

What about the hurlers?

What about the golfers?

Mr. Donnellan

I regret that the Tánaiste is not here. He was a great student of Mein Kampf. I hope there will be a division, and I hope we will see Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael coming together, as they should have done a long time ago.

I think I should intervene at this stage to get this discussion back to reality. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges which represents all sections of the Dáil——

It does not.

——which represents all sections of the Dáil——

It does not.

(Interruptions.)

This is the type of disorder which is bringing the Dáil into disrepute.

On a point of order, is it correct for the Taoiseach to say that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges represents all sections of the Dáil——

That is not a point of order.

The Committee on Procedure and Privileges which represents all sections of the Dáil——

That is not correct.

——has proposed to this House——

It does not represent all sections of the Dáil.

——a comparatively minor amendment of Standing Orders——

Why bring it in then?

——for the purpose of strengthening the powers of the Ceann Comhairle to enforce rulings on relevancy and standards of behaviour——

The Taoiseach is a good one to talk.

The Deputy does not understand good behaviour.

Mr. Donnellan

When Deputy Dr. Browne was a member of the Fianna Fáil Party, he was a great fellow.

——and in the interests of freedom of debate. Some Deputies think they have a right to monopolise the time of the House. That is a denial of the rights of other Deputies. You can have full freedom of debate only——

When it suits the Taoiseach.

——in the absence of disorder. The flagrant promotion of disorder is intended to deny freedom of debate. That is why we must have Standing Orders. A lot of the comments made on this motion were arrant nonsense. This Dáil is the Parliament of the nation. Here we discuss matters of concern to the country, and we must discuss those matters under some rules of order. If Deputies violate the rules of order, there must be some punishment. We all know that no Deputy is ever suspended from the service of the Dáil, except by a vote of the House, for flagrant and persistent disorder. Is that what we want? Do we want a Deputy to have the right persistently and flagrantly to defy the rulings of the Chair and promote disorder, and have no rules of procedure? We have had a procedure up to now which the Committee on Procedure and Privileges decided was defective in some respects. They have proposed an amendment. It is a minor change and rearrangement and one which is intended primarily to strengthen the power of the Chair and to ensure freedom of debate for all Deputies.

You would like to shoot those who disagree.

The Taoiseach is a good one to talk about law and order.

Order. Deputy Browne has made his statement already.

It is the time of the full moon and I suppose we must expect this.

The amendment of this Standing Order does not appear to be fully understood by those who have opposed it. Deputy Browne himself said that no responsible Deputy wanted to be put out of the House. That is the kernel of the whole matter.

What about undue provocation?

There is still a safeguard left in the Standing Order. If someone is unduly provoked and is suspended, if he regrets it, he can come back immediately if he apologises to the Ceann Comhairle in writing——

Who is the judge of that?

The Ceann Comhairle. What we are seeking in the amendment of the Standing Order is simply to make the suspension effective for a number of sitting days of the Dáil rather than a week, as specified in the original Standing Order. Standing Order 51 is being amended and what could happen under that Standing Order is that a Deputy who had already been suspended twice and had been subjected to the full penalty of the suspension, could on the day the Dáil was due to adjourn for the Summer recess—which is usually at the conclusion of the debate on the Taoiseach's Estimate—have himself suspended for the third time and not suffer one day's suspension.

The Standing Order as it stands is ridiculous. We are simply seeking to remedy that position and make it sitting days rather than a week.

Why did it take 40 years to do it?

I am sure we will learn more as time goes on because there are a few others we could amend, too. Any Deputy who does not intend to defy the Chair at some time and have himself suspended for some purpose need not fear in the slightest anything in the proposed amendment. It is the person whom the cap fits who will be the one who will feel that something is being done that he does not like. It is the simplest possible amendment of the existing Standing Order which should be welcomed by every member of this House.

Is it correct for the Taoiseach to state here publicly that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, as at present constituted, represents the Deputies of the whole House?

It was elected unanimously by the Dáil and therefore represents the Dáil.

Our group was not consulted. We were not allowed any representation on the Committee and were not consulted, or asked, or told anything about any of these new proposals. It is a damnable thing for the Taoiseach to say that that Committee represents the body of the Deputies.

The Deputy should have raised that matter when the names of the members of the Committee were proposed.

It is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

They were proposed and agreed to unanimously by the Dáil.

It is a scandalous abuse of your position.

Question put and declared carried.

Deputies

Votáil.

Would the Deputies challenging a Division please rise in their places?

Deputies Dr. Browne, Carroll, Donnellan, S. Dunne and McQuillan rose.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 77; Níl, 5.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Barry, Richard.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Belton, Jack.
  • Blaney, Neil T.
  • Boland, Kevin.
  • Booth, Lionel.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Coughlan, Stephen.
  • Crinion, Brendan.
  • Crotty, Patrick J.
  • Crowley, Honor M.
  • Cummins, Patrick J.
  • Davern, Mick.
  • Desmond, Dan.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Henry P.
  • Dolan, Séamus.
  • Dooley, Patrick.
  • Dunne, Thomas.
  • Egan, Nicholas.
  • Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
  • Fanning, John.
  • Farrelly, Denis.
  • Faulkner, Padraig.
  • Geoghegan, John.
  • Gibbons, James M.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Haughey, Charles.
  • Hillery, Patrick.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
  • Jones, Denis F.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Kenny, Henry.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Burke, Patrick J.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Carty, Michael.
  • Childers, Erskine.
  • Clinton, Mark A.
  • Colley, George.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Cotter, Edward.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Lemass, Noel T.
  • Lemass, Seán.
  • Leneghan, Joseph R.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • Lynch, Jack.
  • Lynch, Thaddeus.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McLaughlin, Joseph.
  • Meaney, Con.
  • Medlar, Martin.
  • Millar, Anthony G.
  • Moher, John W.
  • Mooney, Patrick.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Mullen, Michael.
  • Norton, William.
  • Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
  • O'Connor, Timothy.
  • O'Malley, Donogh.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick.
  • Ormonde, John.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sherwin, Frank.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Sweetman, Gerard.
  • Timmons, Eugene.
  • Tully, James.

Níl

  • Browne, Noel C.
  • Carroll, Jim.
  • Donnellan, Michael.
  • Dunne, Seán.
  • McQuillan, John.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies J. Brennan and Geoghegan; Níl: Deputies S. Dunne and McQuillan.
Question declared carried.
Top
Share