Courts (Supplemental Provisions) (Amendment) Bill, 1962—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."

I should like to say in conclusion that I think the increases are extravagant, unwarranted and unjustifiable. If the Government are not prepared to listen in this House, the people outside will deal with them afterwards.

The debate on this Committee Stage has taken some considerable length of time. As I said yesterday, I am at a loss to know why it should have taken so long to get through the House or why, in particular, such opposition should have been expressed to this proposal by two members who, as I said, represent a minority group. It could not possibly be the amount of money because the amount of money involved is, in terms of our budgetary position, infinitesimal, so that if one rules out that aspect of it, then one becomes more and more puzzled as to why there should be this opposition.

I mentioned yesterday that I felt Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy McQuillan should be even more concerned than I about the prestige and the position of the judiciary and that they should be concerned along with me to ensure that that position was safeguarded. I think Deputy Dr. Browne was less than fair to me in the manner in which he interpreted my view. He seemed to think that I had said that Deputy Dr. Browne himself and his colleague, Deputy McQuillan, should be careful because the judiciary would take it out on them at some stage. That is absurd and is in no way related to what I actually did say.

My point was that the institution of the judiciary is a valuable safeguard of our democratic rights. It is an essential part of our Constitution. I think that minorities in a democracy should be more concerned to ensure the integrity and independence of the judiciary than the majority because, after all, in certain circumstances, one could envisage a situation where the judiciary would be the only ultimate protection a minority could have. That was the proposition which I was putting to Deputy Dr. Browne and his colleague. I think it is a valid one. I feel that——

The Minister is not trying to kill time?

He is not short of troops?

Not a bit. I am concerned to put my position on the record and explain exactly what I meant because I do suggest to the House that Deputy Dr. Browne, possibly mistakenly, misinterpreted my point of view.

Deputy McQuillan raised again last night, just before we rose, the question of referring the matter of judicial salaries to a Select Committee. I should like to reiterate my reasons for not invoking that procedure on this occasion and why I am not suggesting to the Government or to the House that this Select Committee should be set up. In the first place, I do not think the time was opportune for the sort of fundamental re-examination the Select Committee would carry out. That was done in 1953. It was gone into very thoroughly at that time. I do not think that any factors have entered into the situation which would necessitate a further fundamental re-examination at this stage, particularly having regard to the fact that the Select Committee in 1953 did advert to and take account of the proposed reorganisation in the district and circuit courts. In fact, their recommendations were based on the assumption that the reorganisation and the extra sittings would take place.

Bearing all that in mind, I think that on this occasion there was no need to go through the elaborate machinery of setting up a Select Committee and having it report to the House and then taking a decision on the report. Particularly am I of that view because there is no doubt that even if we did have a Select Committee, despite the fact that Deputy Dr. Browne would promise that he would accept the report of such a committee, we would still have a debate on whatever report the Select Committee might make. The Labour Party would not be prepared to participate in such a Committee and we would have a debate in the House on the recommendation. So I think we are justified in not establishing a Select Committee.

If we do not decide upon a Select Committee, what alternative have we? Deputy Dr. Browne has said that this Bill was brought into the House frivolously, that no thought was given to it, that it was just rushed in here without preparation or consideration. That is simply not true. We had cognisance of the situation which obtained in 1961 when the majority of the salaried classes in the country moved ahead and procured greater or lesser increases in wages and conditions. They were participating in a general increase in the national income which was approximately about five per cent. in 1961.

We then had to examine the situation in the light of our obligations to the judiciary and I explained to the House last night what those obligations are and how they arise. There is an onus on the Government, and on the Minister for Justice in particular, to protect the institutions of the State and in particular the constitutional institutions of which the judiciary is probably the most important. That is the duty of the Government and it would be dereliction of duty on the part of the Government not to fulfil that duty. In the light of that obligation we examined the situation and decided that the proper thing to do was to give the judiciary an increase on their 1953 basic salaries which would be proportionate to the increases given to those sections of the community with which they are traditionally related and compared.

I want to repeat that in 1924 when judicial salaries were first established they were consciously related and tied to the Civil Service salaries, to the salaries paid to the higher civil servants. We examined what increases the higher branches of the Civil Service had procured and we prepared, very carefully, a suitable scale for the judiciary which would be as closely as possible related to the increases which had taken place in the Civil Service. If Deputies go through the table of salaries which is now before us, the increases which are proposed, the percentage increases in relation to the different branches of the judiciary, they will find that there is a logical pattern running through the proposal and that that pattern is very closely related to the Civil Service.

How can the very bitter complaints arise in this regard? It cannot be the money. No Deputy can suggest that the amount involved, £21,000, reduced to half at least by taxation, can be of great importance in this regard. Therefore, is it that they want the judiciary to fall behind the other sections of the community? That is what would happen. If we do not do this now the civil servants and executives of the semi-State bodies will all move ahead of the judiciary and the position of the judiciary will worsen to that extent. Why should we allow that to happen? If the amount of money were important and we could not afford it there would be some case for holding that opinion. When one considers the exceptional position of the judiciary it would be negligence to let that happen, to have a judiciary which felt dissatisfied and aggrieved and left under a sense of injustice. I cannot see the reason behind the attitude expressed here by the Labour Party and by the National Progressive Democrats.

I said that it seemed to me that it could only be explained as an attempt to achieve political advantage over the Government, that it was felt that the proposal to increase judicial salaries would be unpopular with the general public. As the debate has gone on I have heard nothing that would indicate to me that that is not so. I have listened very carefully for one solid, concrete argument which would establish that that is not so but I have not heard it. There has been a great deal of criticism of the proposal to pay the Chief Justice a salary of £6,000. I want to point out that in very many sections of our economy salaries and wages have increased by 200 per cent. since 1924. The salary of the Chief Justice in 1924 was fixed at £4,000. It will be £6,000 if this proposal is adopted.

No man is worth more than £1,000 a year. Who said that?

I have no idea.

Somebody else said that £2 10s. 0d. a week was enough for a working man.

One would have to have regard to the position obtaining at the time when the figure of £1,000 was mentioned. A sum of £1,000 in Disraeli's day would, I suppose, be worth £5,000 today.

The same man said he would break stones.

It is strange to hear the former Taoiseach confounded with Disraeli.

Order. The Minister for Justice, to continue.

I was making the point that where incomes and wage rates generally have increased over the whole economy by something like 200 per cent. since 1924, the Chief Justice, if this proposal of mine is accepted, will be in receipt of a salary which is 50 per cent. more than was paid to his predecessor in 1924. I do not think it can be seriously argued that we are being excessively generous in that regard. In 1953 the Chief Justice was one of 451 persons with incomes exceeding £4,000. In the same year, 776 persons had incomes of £5,000. At present I estimate that about 300 people are in the same income category as the Chief Justice, with between £5,000 and £6,000.

Is that salary or income?

Salary, but I shall not be dogmatic about that. Certainly, at least 300 people in the country at present have incomes of between £5,000 and £6,000. At least 700 persons—probably slightly more— have incomes exceeding £6,000, so that the Chief Justice is in the company of approximately 1,000 persons as regards income bracket.

I suppose it is difficult to measure the worth of any job but it is very unlikely that there are 1,000 persons in the country performing more valuable service than the Chief Justice. I mention the Chief Justice in particular because the main criticism in the debate seemed to be directed at his salary and what is proposed in regard to it. I feel this is a consideration I should point out to the House, that there are approximately 1,000 persons who have incomes equivalent to, or greater than, that of the Chief Justice. In these circumstances the figure assumes its proper perspective. In my opinion it is certainly not extravagant when rates of taxation and so on are taken into account. This is settled policy by the Government and by myself and put to the House on the basis that it is reasonable to try to give this small but very important section of the community a fair crack of the whip.

We voted against the Second Stage of this Bill and it is really a Second Stage Bill. The Minister has sought to establish that the opposition to it is unreasonable in consideration of the comparisons that can be made between the rates of salary payable to other persons in the State and the rate of salary prescribed for the judiciary in 1924. He has sought to make the case that rates of salary today in other walks of life are approximately 200 per cent. higher than the corresponding rates in 1924. I believe that is the thread of the argument. All those considerations applied two years ago when we had this matter under review. The rates appropriate to the judiciary were fixed by Dáil Éireann in 1960 and it was expressly stated then, and stated with general approval, that the Oireachtas should not make a practice of reviewing judicial salary scales at frequent and capricious intervals but that from time to time the Oireachtas should take the matter under review and determine scales of salary and then allow those scales to operate for a reasonably protracted period.

I put it to the House that it is wholly illusory today to seek to justify this Bill in relation to conditions obtaining in 1924 when in fact the Minister's duty is to justify a departure from the scales fixed so recently as two years ago. The Minister stultifies himself and the Government for which he speaks when he introduces into the discussion manifestly invalid arguments which can be demonstrated to be invalid by reference to his own and his predecessor's speeches on a Bill identical to this which the Oireachtas disposed of as recently as two years ago.

That deals with one aspect of the unsuitability of this legislation but there is another aspect to which the attention of the House should be directed and it is a grave aspect. Of course it is unreasonable to compare the scale of salary to be paid to the Chief Justice or to High Court or Supreme Court Judges with a scale of salary to be paid to somebody engaged in a very much less significant occupation outside. One does not expect him to receive the same salary as a junior barrister practising in his first term at the Bar; one does not expect him to receive the same salary as a public servant charged with far less responsibility than that which devolves upon a judge. It is reasonable and right to relate remuneration to the responsibility and status of the public service that any person gives. But if we are to act rightly we must regard every section of the community with equal solicitude for their legitimate claims and it is to me no less than a shocking position that, when we are revising, for the second time within two years, salary scales for the judiciary which are in a relatively high bracket, we make these salary scales retrospective by seven months to 1st November in the same year as we increase old age pensions by 2/6d. a week and make the increase prospective, conditional on the old age pensioner living for six months more before he qualifies for the extra 2/6d.

I am not comparing, and I do not believe any rational Deputy wants to compare, what is fit and proper as a monetary measure of what should be paid to an old age pensioner and what should be paid to the Chief Justice but there is a basis of equality of treatment between the most exalted in the State and the most humble. If that be violated by this Oireachtas, then we do a very real injustice and we cause a bitter resentment for which I know no answer.

I do not know how to answer an old age pensioner who says to me: "If the Oireachtas gave us half-a-crown, why were we told we would get it only if we lived to next August when you are giving a very large sum to the judiciary and not only giving it to them from the date of the introduction of the Bill where under they were to get it but backdating it to last November, a wholly arbitrary date which operates to give the recipients of the increase, over and above the increased salaries scale they will enjoy in the future, a very large sum which in some cases will be more than the entire old age pension that I will collect for the rest of my life."

How do you answer that? Why is it proposed we should do that? I have heard no word from the Minister at any stage of this debate to justify that differentiation in treatment of the different categories of persons for whom we in the Oireachtas are responsible. Nobody has asked for this. Nobody has attempted to justify it and I say quite deliberately that if I were asked to explain it by any old age pensioner in the country, I would be wholly unable to do so.

It is therefore right, when the Minister seeks to disown all comprehension of the attitude adopted in regard to this Bill, that these simple facts should be restated: When we reviewed judicial salaries two years ago, it was stated, with the unanimous approval of every side of the House, that this was a matter that should not be undertaken frivolously or unduly frequently; that we should weigh up all relevant matters, fix judicial salaries and leave them be. We are prohibited by the Constitution from reducing the salary of any judge. Therefore, we approach this matter with circumspection and it always seems to give rise, if there is not unanimous agreement amongst us all as to what should be done, to the very doubtful advantage of a discussion of an acrimonious character in this House of the judiciary. In my judgment, that is a bad thing, and one of the most powerful reasons for dealing with judicial salaries once and for all and approaching the matter thereafter with reluctance is the knowledge that legislation of this character can give rise to acrimonious discussion and the intervention of individuals like Deputy Corry making shocking suggestions and disgraceful suggestions, to prevent which little or nothing can be done.

That is one reason why we have opposed this Bill. We believe there is no reason for this proposed change so soon after the last and the Minister's reference to 1924 this morning is irrelevant and a manifest attempt to sidestep the objection I have just mentioned. The second objection is that if there is to be deferment for the old age pensioner, who can justify retrospection for the judge? These are the grounds on which this Bill is being opposed, and I see no argument advanced by the Minister to meet either of the grounds I have put forward.

Even at the end of this debate, the Minister still appears to be surprised that there is so much objection to the proposals to increase these salaries. He says he has not heard any sound argument to justify this opposition. Surely at a time when there are people living at subsistence level, he must appreciate that asking the public to pay the judiciary these salaries must create great resentment particularly amongst the poorer sections of the community. The Minister should understand that he is not handing out this money from his own private purse. This money is coming directly from the people we have mentioned, the old age pensioners, the unemployed, everybody who pays indirect taxation in the many ways in which they have to pay it now in our society. It does create resentment amongst people who have to look for free fuel vouchers, to wait at a dispensary for the type of medical care they can get there, who are finding it difficult to give their children food, to pay their school fees, and so on. They constitute the mass of the people, who are finding it difficult to live at present with the increasing cost of living.

The Minister has tried to suggest that we should relate like with like and justify these salaries because of those paid in other countries. However, there is no comparison between the type of society here and that in other countries because there is not the great gap between the very poor and the very wealthy which we have in Ireland. Until that gap is narrowed, until there are fewer people existing at subsistence level, as are the old age pensioners, the widows and the unemployed, it shows a very serious lack of understanding of the society in which the Minister is living and for which he is asking us to legislate to put forward such a proposal.

The Minister suggests one should be concerned for the minority. That is an interesting academic point in which he knows there is not much validity, because, in our society, it is a minority which is particularly well able to look after itself. The members of the judiciary do not really need to be assisted by us. I do not think anybody seriously believes that the judiciary, above all, need anybody to look after them. If we were to accept the Minister's suggestion that the granting of these increases was, in effect, to protect the integrity and independence of the judiciary, to ensure they would be just in their decisions, then, of course, we would have to accept the Minister's whole thesis that, if these people are not paid excessively high salaries, they cannot be trusted to do their work in a just manner.

Our difficulty is that the Minister, on the one hand, makes this case; then, when we accuse him, as I think we can with justification, of suggesting that the judiciary will not stay straight unless they are paid to stay straight, or stay honest, or stay honourable, and give just decisions, the Minister immediately says he does not make any such case at all. Yet he wants us to join with him in giving these increases in order effectively to ensure that the judiciary retain their independence. It is astonishing to us that the Minister should have the slightest difficulty in seeing how he must inevitably, with these extravagant propositions, exacerbate in our society the great feeling of resentment which already exists because we have the Government, in one direction, worried about inflation and inflationary trends, lecturing the workers on every possible occasion about wage restraint, admonishing them that they cannot possibly expect increases in wages unless they give increased production to justify any increase they get.

This comes at a time when it is proposed to bring in legislation to restrict the worker's right to take industrial action if he does not feel satisfied with whatever income he happens to be getting from the company employing him; and this comes at a time when we had just fortunately got rid of legislation threatening people with jail sentences because they looked for increases in wages. The Minister must understand that in this way he highlights his own extravagant approach to the attitude of mind which divides society up into the greatly privileged class, on the one hand, and the underprivileged classes on the other.

As Deputy Dillon pointed out, the final insult above all others is the Minister's suggestion that this money should be given retrospectively at a time when he has decided that the Exchequer is not sufficiently in funds to give the old age pensioner his increase for some months yet. I do not believe the Minister has any difficulty at all in understanding the position we outline here. The people we are speaking for are the vast masses who seriously resent, and rightly resent, these propositions.

Nobody objects to people being fairly remunerated for any job they do. Judges have great responsibilities but they have, at the same time, as the Minister said, a certain prestige and a certain standing; they have security of employment. Their employment is pensionable. These are all great benefits which most people in industry do not have. They are benefits most people at the Bar do not have. Consequently, I do not think it is fair to compare the salaries of the judiciary with what the ordinary barrister earns. The ordinary barrister has a very much tougher time and a much shorter earning life.

Even if that were not so, it seems to me that people in a democracy such as ours should be ready to make some contribution to serving society generally. I do not see why the judiciary should be outside that. I do not think anybody in this State, including the President, has a greater responsibility than the Taoiseach has. He has very important problems to deal with. He has very difficult problems to meet; he has to make decisions of far-reaching importance from the point of view of the whole of our society and from the point of view of the historical development of the nation. Yet successive Taoisigh have done the job to the best of their ability for a relatively tiny salary compared with what is proposed for the judiciary and compared with what is paid to the President.

I do not see why a similar attitude should not be adopted in relation to the judiciary. Pay them well certainly, but surely we should expect a certain modicum of public service? Surely we should give them some credit for being prepared to make some contribution to the general public to further the interests of the people generally and help develop our State. Surely they are not so completely materialistic and mercenary in their approach to service to the community? Politicians and many other groups in our society give a certain amount of their time to serving and helping the public. Why cannot the members of the judiciary be given a fair salary and then, after that, have the satisfaction of knowing that they are doing a good, important and valuable job for society as a whole?

We have no hesitation at all in asking the Minister to reconsider this whole Bill and to withdraw it. We have no hesitation in asking him to realise that he has made a very serious and fundamental blunder in now relating these people in their salary payments to the general salary increases paid to the rest of the community. The Minister is now giving them a vested interest in inflation. For that reason, he can no longer call on them, as he suggested he could in the past, to help resolve difficult arbitration cases of one kind or another because from now on, knowing that the faster salaries and wages increase, the faster their own salaries and wages will increase, they will be happy in the knowledge that their salaries are dependent on percentage increases elsewhere; and their de facto increases will be fabulous compared with the increases given to the old age pensioner, the civil servant, the industrial or the agricultural worker.

This is a very serious mistake on the part of the Minister. It is unwise of him to do this. The original proposition put forward by the Taoiseach that these people should be remunerated at periodic intervals fairly generously, and entirely independent of other salary movements, was a very much more desirable proposition indeed. It did not lend itself to the serious possible weaknesses which I foresee in the new development introduced by the Minister. The Minister has made the case repeatedly—I do not subscribe to it—that these people are subject to the influence of salary increases. His suggestion is that, unless the salary goes up regularly and substantially, they cannot be expected to retain their independence. That clearly means that they are subject to any compulsion there may be as a result of a general desire for bigger salaries and more money. They will now be put in the position of being asked to arbitrate on their own case. In all the circumstances, I think the Minister should reconsider the Bill, and withdraw it.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 36.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Lorcan.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Blaney, Neil T.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Calleary, Phelim A.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Clohessy, Patrick.
  • Colley, George.
  • Collins, James J.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Cotter, Edward.
  • Crinion, Brendan.
  • Crowley, Honor M.
  • Cummins, Patrick J.
  • Cunningham, Liam.
  • Davern, Mick.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Dolan, Séamus.
  • Dooley, Patrick.
  • Egan, Kieran P.
  • Egan, Nicholas.
  • Fanning, John.
  • Faulkner, Padraig.
  • Flanagan, Seán.
  • Gallagher, James.
  • Galvin, John.
  • Geoghegan, John.
  • Boland, Kevin.
  • Booth, Lionel.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Gibbons, James M.
  • Gilbride, Eugene.
  • Haughey, Charles.
  • Hillery, Patrick.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Kitt, Michael F.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Lemass, Noel T.
  • Lemass, Seán.
  • Leneghan, Joseph R.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • MacCarthy, Seán.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Meaney, Con.
  • Moher, John W.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
  • Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
  • O'Connor, Timothy.
  • O'Malley, Donogh.
  • Ormonde, John.
  • Sherwin, Frank.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Timmons, Eugene.

Níl

  • Barrett, Stephen D.
  • Barry, Richard.
  • Blowick, Joseph.
  • Browne, Michael.
  • Browne, Noel C.
  • Burton, Philip.
  • Casey, Seán.
  • Clinton, Mark A.
  • Coogan, Fintan.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Desmond, Dan.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dunne, Seán.
  • Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
  • Gilhawley, Eugene.
  • Governey, Desmond.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
  • Jones, Denis F.
  • Kenny, Henry.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • Lynch, Thaddeus.
  • McAuliffe, Patrick.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McLaughlin, Joseph.
  • McQuillan, John.
  • Mullen, Michael.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • Murphy, William.
  • O'Donnell, Thomas G.
  • O'Keeffe, James.
  • O'Sullivan, Denis J.
  • Reynolds, Patrick J.
  • Spring, Dan.
  • Sweetman, Gerard.
  • Tierney, Patrick.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies J. Brennan and Geoghegan; Níl: Deputies O'Sullivan and Jones.
Question declared carried.
Section 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

I propose that we take the next Stage on Tuesday next, June 26th, 1962.

Far too early.

There is no hurry.

The six months' retrospection is there.

I do not suppose it will be taken next Tuesday. It could be ordered for this day week and then we will see whether we can take it or not.

I do not agree with that. I think the next discussion on this Bill should not take place for at least a month, until the Government have had time to think over the very serious implications.

We have no objection to its being put down for next Wednesday, on the understanding that if a further week's consideration is necessary, the Bill will be deferred.

That is agreed.

It is not. I propose that it be postponed until Wednesday week, July 4th, 1962.

I support Deputy McQuillan in that proposition.

The question is that the Bill be set down provisionally for next Wednesday.

What is the use of doing that if we have no intention of taking it?

The main Opposition Party are agreed that the Bill should be ordered provisionally for next week and I do not see why it should be held up further.

Question put: "That the Report Stage be ordered for Wednesday, 27th June, 1962."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 13.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Lorcan.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Blaney, Neil T.
  • Boland, Kevin.
  • Booth, Lionel.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Calleary, Phelim A.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Clohessy, Patrick.
  • Colley, George.
  • Collins, James J.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Cotter, Edward.
  • Crinion, Brendan.
  • Crowley, Honor M.
  • Cummins, Patrick J.
  • Cunningham, Liam.
  • Davern, Mick.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Dolan, Séamus.
  • Dooley, Patrick.
  • Egan, Kieran P.
  • Egan, Nicholas.
  • Fanning, John.
  • Faulkner, Padraig.
  • Flanagan, Seán.
  • Gallagher, James.
  • Galvin, John.
  • Geoghegan, John.
  • Gibbons, James M.
  • Gilbride, Eugene.
  • Haughey, Charles.
  • Hillery, Patrick.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Kitt, Michael F.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Lemass, Noel T.
  • Lemass, Seán.
  • Leneghan, Joseph R.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • MacCarthy, Seán.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Meaney, Con.
  • Medlar, Martin.
  • Moher, John W.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
  • Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
  • O'Connor, Timothy.
  • O'Malley, Donogh.
  • Ormonde, John.
  • Sherwin, Frank.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Timmons, Eugene.

Níl

  • Belton, Jack.
  • Browne, Noel C.
  • Casey, Seán.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Desmond, Dan.
  • Dunne, Seán.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • McAuliffe, Patrick.
  • McQuillan, John.
  • Mullen, Michael.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • Spring, Dan.
  • Tierney, Patrick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Brennan and Geoghegan; Níl, Deputies Kyne and Mullen.
Question declared carried
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 27th June, 1962.