I move:
That Government business, as ordered to-day, be not interrupted if under consideration at the time fixed for taking Private Members' Business.
Private Members' Business: Motion.
The motion may now be debated. I wish to point out that the debate is restricted to the question as to whether Private Members' Business should be allowed today. The merits of any motion or business on the Order Paper cannot be discussed.
I accept that stricture entirely. I submit that the Taoiseach's motion violates the Standing Orders providing for Private Members' Business. It flies in the face not only of that Standing Order but in the face of the rights of individual Deputies. To put the Standing Order on the record I shall quote it. It is Standing Order No. 83 and it is:
The Order Paper shall be confined to Questions. Private business and Government business on Thursdays and on Tuesdays and Wednesdays during the period when the ordinary yearly resolutions voting money for public services or imposing taxation or the Bill implementing such resolutions are under consideration. On other Tuesdays and Wednesdays, Government business or Private business, as the case may be, shall be interrupted between 6 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. to take Private Members' Business: Provided that a member of the Government may move, without notice, at the commencement of public business on any Tuesday or Wednesday that, on that day, specified Government business, or Private business, as the case may be, shall not be interrupted if under consideration at that time fixed for taking private members' business. Such motion shall be decided without amendment.
I should like to make a number of points directly on this Standing Order. I should like, by way of explanation for some Deputies, to explain that private business as referred to in conjunction with Government business is not Private Members' Business. I understand that private business in this context is business of the nature of a Private Bill in connection with the statutory provision for a hospital or some other institution. We have had some instances of this. I remember the Meath Hospital Bill, and, in current time, we had the Leopardstown Hospital Bill.
These institutions were set up by ancient charters and for which provision was not made in our ordinary statutory legislation. Apparently, in the early days of this Assembly it was decided that there should be some provision and that provision is under what is known as, "Private Business". Apparently, it gets precedence because otherwise a Bill prepared by a parliamentary agent outside this House may have to wait a long time before coming to the House. That has nothing whatever to do with the Private Members' Business to which I now refer.
The provision in this Standing Order is that the Order of Business shall be confined to such business, that is, Private Business and Government Business.
... during the period when the ordinary yearly resolutions voting money for public services or imposing taxation or the Bills implementing such resolutions are under consideration.
The ordinary yearly resolutions were before this House in the pre-Christmas session and it was only because sufficient time was not available to discuss these yearly resolutions, in other words, the Estimates for some of the Departments, that they were passed en bloc. It was agreed that a token Estimate for £10 in the case of each Department whose Estimate had not been passed during the ordinary period of business would be introduced in this session. Therefore, this session provides for extraordinary financial resolutions and, consequently, this is a period when, under this Standing Order, Private Members' Business must be taken unless the motion as moved by the Taoiseach defeats the right of Members in this respect.
The financial business now before the House is not financial business in the ordinary course. It is not financial business such as that described in this Standing Order—ordinary yearly resolutions. Therefore, the Taoiseach cannot rely on this Standing Order as a means of denying Private Members' Business. He can rely on it only to the extent that he moved a motion deliberately under this Standing Order to prevent Private Members' Business being taken.
Having said that, and I think what I have said will stand up to any examination, I may comment on the fact that this Government announced that they would be open Government. This is one occasion on which they are definitely closing the ordinary Members' opportunity to examine Government policy in one crucial and important respect. When we were in Government there were frequent requests from Deputies who are now on the Government benches and, more particularly, Deputies of the Labour Party, seeking longer time— time over and above the ordinary—for Private Members' Business, but we never denied Private Members' Business where an objection was taken by the Opposition against any such denial. I am not suggesting that in our time we did not announce on the Order of Business, as the Taoiseach has announced, that it was proposed not to interrupt Government Business to allow time for Private Members' Business but we never denied a specific request for taking Private Members' Business in any period when Standing Orders provided for the taking of such business.
The Taoiseach reminded us that at our request time was given last week to debate a motion. We requested Government time, not Private Members' time, to debate a Government motion on a matter of grave concern to the people. I am still within the restrictions imposed on me by the Chair but I wish to comment only on what the Taoiseach said. The Government did not give us time to debate that motion; instead, they introduced a substantive motion of their own and our motion on prices was treated as an amendment to that substantive motion. Therefore, Government time was taken up with a substantive Government motion and not on an amendment from the Opposition. The amendment happened, then, to be incidental by deliberate Government decision, to the Government's motion. On the grounds of fair play I appeal to the conscience of this open Government to permit open discussion in this House. In recent times we have had displays of arrogance from members of the Government. We had such a display no later than today when the Minister for Finance displayed not only arrogance but cynical arrogance in replying to questions from Deputies on this side of the House. We had another incidence of similar behaviour on Sunday last when, on Radio Éireann, the Minister responsible for these services was arrogant to a person who, in one sense or another, might be deemed to come within his employ.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I shall not proceed further on that but if we are talking of open Government, of the people who are now in Government and who complained of arrogance on the part of the Fianna Fáil Government, I can say only that they are giving very bad example at present. I submit that we are completely within our rights under this Standing Order to request the ordinary facility for discussing Private Members' Business. If we are not given this facility it will be only because the Government move deliberately and by their majority will ensure that time would not be given us.
On a point of order, what is the position in regard to contributing to this matter? Is the Taoiseach to get in now or at the end?
Members will contribute and then the Taoiseach will conclude. Thereafter, the House may divide.
The statement by the Taoiseach in introducing this motion could, with fairness, be described as a tissue of inaccuracies. A number of those inaccuracies have been pointed out already by the Leader of this party but I would like to add to them by indicating that the Taoiseach referred to the fact that in this session last year there was no Private Members' Time. May I point out to the Taoiseach that this House did not meet for this session last year, that it did not meet until after the general election when the Government were faced with a budgetary situation, that it adjourned for a month or so, having already adjourned for a week, and that the Government then prepared their budget. Of course, we were then into financial business. Therefore, the case put forward by the Taoiseach so far in support of this motion has been singularly unconvincing.
Under the proposed amendments to the Standing Orders of this House, amendments that were supported enthusiastically by Deputies opposite, including members of the Government, it was proposed that Private Members' Business be carried on in this House throughout the year and not merely as is the present arrangement in sessions when major financial business is not before the House. We are entitled to ask what is the reason for this sudden lack of enthusiasm for Private Members' Business? The Leader of this party has pointed out fairly that this Government are a self-styled open Government but that more and more they are closing in on themselves and are beginning rapidly to be reminiscent of one at least of their Coalition predecessors which arranged that this House would meet on one day per week only so that they might cover up their internal difficulties and avoid being exposed to the questioning and criticism which is normal here and which is normal in any healthy democracy.
Having regard to the fact that under the Rules of this House certain Private Members' motions are able to obtain precedence, that precedence had been claimed for a motion in my name which is on the Order Paper and which calls for substantial reliefs in various forms of income tax allowances and for adjustment thereafter in relation to the cost of living index, I submit every Deputy was entitled to assume that that motion would be debated this evening. Therefore, the Taoiseach's motion now before the House is directed not only to the proposition that we should not have Private Members' Business today but is specifically directed to the proposition that we should not discuss today the motion in my name.
That motion asks Dáil Éireann to call on the Government, in view of the inflation now raging in the economy and the consequent hardship being inflicted on most income tax payers and in particular on those with very low incomes who were never intended to be subject to income tax, to increase substantially the personal, earned income, marriage, child and age allowances under the income tax code and to provide by legislation that, thereafter, such allowances be adjusted annually in relation to movements in the cost of living index.
Despite their self-styled open form of government, I submit the entire attitude of this Government is the direct opposite to that, that their actions are building up more and more to those of a Government who are trying to avoid discussion, to cover up, to avoid criticism and who are unduly sensitive to criticism from whatever quarter. I have given some examples of this. Another instance I might give is the fact that this Government, by deliberate decision, brought about a situation in which we did not proceed with a series of programmes on television in which there would be discussion between members of the Government and the Opposition in relation——
I do not think that matter is in order at this juncture. The Deputy must confine himself to the subject matter of the motion, which is purely a procedural one.
I submit there is more involved in this than procedure. What is involved here is a proposal by the Government to stifle further the criticism they would normally expect to get from the Opposition even if they were doing a reasonably good job and, in the light of the job they are doing, the criticism they are certain to get. I suggest it is relevant to consider the general attitude of the Government in considering the merits of the motion in the name of the Taoiseach. The record of the Government in the matters I have mentioned is such that it is clear the Government are endeavouring to prevent, wherever they can, any means of discussion or criticism and, as I said earlier, they are becoming unduly sensitive to criticism from whatever quarter. This motion is simply another example of this mentality on the part of this self-styled open Government.
I submit also, that because the motion in my name had obtained precedence under the Rules of the House and, therefore, was due to be discussed this afternoon, it is open to us to examine why the Government particularly did not want to have this motion discussed today, which is what the Taoiseach is proposing. I am suggesting the content of this motion is a matter of urgent public importance for the reasons set out in the motion. Apart from that, I submit one could reasonably have expected that the Government would welcome the opportunity of having the motion discussed at this time having regard to the situation in relation to the proposed national pay agreement. I do not think it is a matter of dispute that what is involved in this motion——
The Deputy cannot advert to the subject matter of his motion now. He will have to confine his remarks to the question of whether the business under discussion should be taken today. We cannot discuss the merits of any other matter or motion.
I am not trying to discuss the merits or otherwise of the motion in my name. I am suggesting I am entitled to argue that the motion in the name of the Taoiseach is a motion to prevent discussion of Motion No. 17 on the Order Paper and that, without discussing the merits of Motion No. 17, it should be open to us to consider the reasons it should not be discussed, which is what the Taoiseach is proposing. I am suggesting also that the case put forward by the Taoiseach is singularly unconvincing, which makes it all the more necessary for us to examine the possible reasons—the reasons he did not give—for supporting the motion, which he is asking the House to do.
On that basis one might have expected that the Government would have welcomed the opportunity to discuss the subject matter of Motion No. 17. I should have thought the Government would have welcomed the opportunity to spell out in as much detail as they thought feasible their intentions in regard to the content of Motion No. 17. Thus, if their intentions were, as one would hope, that by so doing the Government could assist trade unionists in making up their minds as to how they should vote——
The Deputy appears to be moving from the discussion——
The motion before the House in the name of the Taoiseach is:
That Government business, as ordered today, be not interrupted if under consideration at the time fixed for taking Private Members' Business.
Having regard to the fact that Motion No. 17 under the Rules of the House had obtained precedence and, but for the motion of the Taoiseach, if passed, would be discussed this evening, in those circumstances the content of the Taoiseach's motion is, in effect, that the House today will not discuss the motion in my name in relation to income tax allowances. That is my contention. If that is so, we should be entitled to examine the reasons the Taoiseach is proposing such a motion at this time.
The position is that all that can be discussed at the moment is whether Private Members' Business be allowed on the day on which a motion such as this is moved. Any other Deputy who has a motion on the Order Paper equally might go into the merits of whether his motion might be discussed.
I submit that would hardly be so because another Deputy would not be in the position of having precedence for his motion today. The motion in my name is the only one that would be discussed if the Taoiseach's motion is not passed.
The Deputy will appreciate that if a motion takes precedence it puts back other Deputies' motions.
I do not follow.
The position is all motions would go back.
I appreciate that but, in effect, what we are discussing now is a motion from the Taoiseach that we do not today discuss the motion in my name. Is this not the case?
The debate is restricted to the question whether Private Members' Business should be allowed on the day. If we were to discuss the Deputy's motion, it would mean all motions would go back.
I appreciate that, but the motion that is proposed by the Taoiseach relates only to today, and the only motion that would be taken today in Private Members' Time, if the Taoiseach's motion is not passed by the House, would be my motion. We are talking not about other motions, but about a proposal that we do not discuss my motion today. That is what is before the House.
You are making very heavy weather of it.
The motion which the Taoiseach has moved means that Deputy Colley's motion is put back and all other motions are also put back.
As a consequence, yes, but what is being proposed is that we do not, at 6 p.m. today, discuss Motion No. 17. That is the effect of the Taoiseach's motion, not any other motion. I do not want to argue at great length with you on this. I simply want to reiterate that the motion which the Government and the Taoiseach, as proposed on his behalf, do not want us to discuss today is, in my submission, a matter of urgent public importance and of vital importance not only to the various taxpayers who are affected but of vital importance to the economy of this country.
We do not discuss the merits of motions.
It is unforgivable for the Government at this time to adopt the attitude which they are adopting instead of being helpful towards what is said by the Government to be a central theme of importance to the economy of this country. Instead of that, they are trying to hamper every effort being made to assist. I suggest, Sir, that this is simply one more example of the closed mind, the fear of criticism and the endeavour to get away with it which is being manifested more and more by this self-styled open Government.
While agreeing fully with practically every submission made by the previous two speakers, I would like to put on record my displeasure at this departure on behalf of the Taoiseach in suggesting that no Private Members' Time should be made available and that Government business be not interrupted. I do so very much on the grounds already made and that is that the business proposed to be taken is not of the nature that was envisaged in Standing Order No. 83 which would have given to the Government, and has given to Governments in the past and, no doubt, will be given to Governments in the future, the right under that Standing Order to dispense with time being given for Private Members' Motions.
While the Private Members' Motion that would have immediately come on and will come on at the commencement of Private Members' Time, is undoubtedly of very great importance and significance and timely from the point of view of its introduction here prior to the composition of the various elements of the budget that we will see in due course, I think that this operation of precedents procedure, which is laid down in Standing Orders, is one which, perhaps, is really the cause of the whole situation here this evening. To explain that I should say that the motion which stands in my name, following the motion in Deputy Colley's name, is the one which sparked off the precedents procedure and that when I put in this motion as the only way in which a Private Member in the true sense in this House could get a say on the most vital issue that may be before us either now or in the future, it was by the operation of this particular Standing Order that I sought precedence for Motion No. 18 on the Order Paper today. Subsequently, as was his right and the right of any other Deputy who had a motion prior to that for Private Members' consideration, Deputy Colley would then have claimed precedence and, therefore, is entitled to precedence for his Motion No. 17 on today's Order Paper, as against my motion.
I suggest that it is not item No. 17 that the Government are really backing away from, but item No. 18 which is not only topical but, perhaps, would be highly embarrassing to the Government and, indeed, to the Taoiseach himself and to those who spoke in 1949 on the subject matter of which Motion No. 18 now forms a part.
The Deputy appreciates that he is moving very close to discussing the subject matter of his motion.
I appreciate that fully, but in my efforts to try to be relevant and understood in what I am trying to contribute on this matter of my objection—the cessation or the non-provision of time for Private Members' Motions—I think it is necessary to differentiate between the motives underlying the Government's and the Taoiseach's denial of this right here this evening. That should not possibly be confused in the public mind with a rejection of Deputy Colley's motion in regard to taxation and the reliefs of taxation, but should be directly related to what I think it is—a backing away or a shying away from a firm resolution of May, 1949, which, as I say, would be highly embarrassing to the Government and front bench spokesmen.
Having said that, let me now say that if I were given time it was my intention to have sought from the Fianna Fáil Party precedence over their precedence, but in this event neither of us apparently, is going to have an opportunity to discuss either of the two motions. Therefore, my appeal in that regard does not properly arise until this matter has been determined by the House. I think that item No. 18 on today's Order Paper is the more vital and embarrassing one. It is that item from which the Government are backing down. They have to face it sooner or later. Putting back the business today and not giving us time will mean that if, in fact, we get time tomorrow evening it will be the week after next before item No. 18 on today's Order Paper will be arrived at. If we are denied time today and tomorrow it will be a fortnight from today before the item will be taken. I cannot see that that duration of time will save the Government the embarrassment that Motion No. 18 will create. Neither can I see how any Government at this juncture in this session can really put to this House with a straight face the proposition that the business to be conducted here today is of such a nature that it is entitled to preclude the right of Private Members or Members of the House discussing Private Members' Motions.
I persist in saying again that there is no other way open to me, or to the only other Deputy who does not belong to one of the organised parties, in which my right and the right of my other Independent colleague in this House can be preserved, except by preserving the traditional and long-established right of time being provided a couple of times a week, particularly from this session onwards, to enable any and all Deputies, regardless of whether they belong to a big party, a small party or no party at all, to have an equal say and an equal right to put before this House, the Deputies and the Government, their views on any particular issue.
This is a denial of that right particularly in the case of the Independent Deputies. There are only two Independent Deputies. The fact that there are only two does not take away from the fact that their right is being filched from them. The Opposition can and will in various ways fight the issue with the Whips of the Government Parties to provide for time for any particular matter. Independent Deputies have no such right or facility. This is a denial that should not be lightly passed over by this House.
I appeal to the Taoiseach, no matter what are his reasons at the moment—and those reasons do not seem to conform with what is contained in Standing Order No. 83—to reconsider the idea and to let us get on with Private Members' Time, beginning this evening, so that these rights will be preserved and the voice of those who do not belong to an organised party of any size will have that right continued and maintained.
I do not want to be unreasonable about this but I would like to point out to the three Deputies who have spoken, all of whom are former Ministers, that the procedure adopted here is nothing new. I have here before me a report of a Dáil Debate in 1961. The then Taoiseach, the late Mr. Seán Lemass, moved precisely the same form of motion as I moved. As most Deputies know—and certainly as the three former Ministers know—it is not the practice, when financial business is before the Dáil to take Private Deputies' Business.
Ordinary financial business.
The Leader of the Opposition is aware that it has now become a well established practice in this House to take Token Estimates, mainly because they are not disposed of; this did not arise only last year; it arose in previous years. Deputy Colley referred to the fact that last year the House did not sit; that is true; it did not sit until after the election. In 1969 the election was not until the Summer. Private Deputies' Time in that period was taken on ten occasions. In 1970— the year in which there was no election—it was taken on one occasion only in that period of the year. It has been, as I say, the practice not to take Private Deputies' Time when there is financial business. The reason financial business was put down today was precisely to facilitate the Opposition who asked that the Constituencies Bill be not taken. In order to accommodate the Opposition, we deferred the taking of it and now we are criticised for not giving time to Private Deputies' Business even though we gave it six hours last week. Although the Dáil disposed of the Second Stage of the Constituencies Bill in December, the Opposition still asked us to postpone it and we agreed to do it.
So far as the Government are concerned, we want to be as reasonable as possible in the ordering of Business, and that includes Deputy Blaney's motion or anybody else's motion. As far as I am concerned, I do not mind where criticism comes from, inside or outside the House. I have taken a fair amount of it in my time, sometimes at close quarters and it does not upset me. I suppose I should pay particular attention when I find Deputy Blaney, Deputy J. Lynch and Deputy Colley on the one side. Maybe Deputy Blaney will be in the RDS before the weekend is out.
Is there a show on?
As far as we are concerned, I want to be reasonable about this but we fixed the Business precisely to suit the Opposition. Having done that, we are now criticised for the way in which it was ordered. As far as the Government are concerned we are prepared to discuss with the Whips any reasonable arrangement for the ordering of Business. But it was in order to accommodate the Opposition that we deferred taking the Constituencies Bill and ordered Business in the way in which it has been done. I think that is a reasonable approach. The procedure in most recent years shows that there was no very clear pattern; in fact, on other occasions the time given was: nil in one; one day in another; ten in another and, in two other years, it varied between 20 and 13.
As the former Taoiseach, Mr. Lemass said, in regard to the general practice—it was not the procedure, when there was financial business before the House, to provide Private Deputies' Time. That was in 1961——
The Taoiseach is going back a long way.
Well, there will be no disagreement among Fianna Fáil about Mr. Lemass, I suppose, anyway.
What I said was— any time there was objection raised——
I want to be quite reasonable on this but we deferred taking the Constituencies Bill in order to accommodate the Opposition and, having done that, we are now criticised——
The Taoiseach has nothing else ready except stale Estimates.
Yes, we have. The Deputies are asking for the Estimates to be discussed. We have the Constituencies Bill ready.
I just want to know now exactly what we are voting on. The Taoiseach, in opening his remarks, in moving the motion, and in reply, said that this was a time when Estimates are being taken. Standing Orders say that the period when the ordinary yearly resolutions, voting money for public service or imposing taxation, is not the time when Private Members' Business may be taken. If that is the case, Sir, this motion is not necessary. If it is not the case—that it is not a time when ordinary yearly resolutions be taken—this motion is necessary. I am just asking the Taoiseach on what is he going——
He is following the precedent——
——that the late Seán Lemass——
(Interruptions.)
It is not clear to me from what the Taoiseach said. Are we to take it that as long as there are Estimates—whether or not they be token Estimates—it is not the intention of the Government to give Private Members' Time?
We fixed this Business in order to accommodate the Opposition this week.
Well, if the Government were not trying to accommodate us, I do not know what they would do.
I want to suggest, Sir——
We ordered this Business to suit the Opposition and then they say we are afraid of discussions.
(Interruptions.)
We put this exactly as they asked.
One observation, because I want this as a precedent now: if this motion is put, Sir, it means that it is to deny Private Members' Business during a period when ordinary Financial Resolutions are not being discussed; that is the only purpose and function of that motion.
Could I ask also——
(Interruptions.)
——I could not even interpret the motion that way myself if I wanted to.
Could I ask a further question: does the decision now about to be taken refer only to today's sitting?
Yes, the motion deals with today. I am putting the motion——
You can have a debate every week——
—— that the Government's Business, as announced today, be not interrupted, if under consideration, at the time fixed for taking Private Members' Business.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 60.
Tá
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice.
- Donegan, Patrick S
- Donnellan, John.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Fugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Keating, Justin.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Henry.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Níl
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, Seán.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Dublin Central).
- Flanagan, Seán.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Leonard, James.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Patrick.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.
Question declared carried.
That includes the fact that the Opposition refused to pair, breaking all established practice.