Finance Bill, 1978: Committee Stage (Resumed) .

Question again proposed: "That section 36 stand part of the Bill."

: The debate on this section is, in our view, the most important debate so far on this Bill. The debate ranged over last week and today and would, I believe, range for quite some time yet but for the introduction of the guillotine motion. This section provides for the removal of a tax imposed in the 1975 Finance Act on the very rich in our society. Only two short years have passed since its introduction. Rarely, if ever, has the Labour Party opposition been greater or more sincerely held than on this issue.

The wealth tax was introduced in 1975 against the background of the abolition of death duties. A long campaign was waged against these death duties and the case was made that death duties, because of the way in which they operated, were a penal tax, coming as they did at a time of bereavement and deep distress. There was a great deal of what I would describe as hit and miss about these death duties, the misses being all too often on the side of the better equipped and the better advised sections of our community. For example, if wealth passed to the heirs five years before the death of the holder of that wealth, the heirs were free of tax. If not, then they were liable for death duties. Those whose enterprises were of a magnitude which involved frequent legal dealings were generally those most likely to make provision for their successors. Others not so happily placed had to face crippling death duties, often resulting in the sale of a home or a farm.

The wealth tax was introduced as a substitute for death duties. Its introduction was consistent with the programme of reform implemented by the then Government. Since there had to be a substitute—this is something the present Government are now discovering in regard to their election promises and the fulfilling of them—the wealth tax was the obvious course to follow. The Labour Party held firm views then—we still hold them—on the principle of wealth taxes and we offer no apology for holding the House up, if we can be accused of doing so, on this issue.

Our opposition to its abolition now is sincerely and keenly held. The wealth tax was indeed a relatively ineffective form of tax. It yielded only a marginal sum, but it was a definite step in the right direction and we are incensed that this tax should now be abolished by this Fianna Fáil Government. The capitalist shears of the Fianna Fáil Government is here in action. It is being wielded to cut out the liabilities of the rich and, not alone that, but to cut some of the services for the poor and the disadvantaged, if we are to judge by the proposals and options presented in the Green Paper.

This is not the time to discuss the Green Paper but, so far as the proposals in it are concerned, it is sinister taken in conjunction with the decision of the Government to abolish the wealth tax. A correspondent in The Cork Examiner, Liam O'Neill, who cannot be described as one given to lambasting the Government, had this to say in this morning's issue in regard to the proposals in the Green Paper, and his comments are applicable to the wealth tax as well:

"A BLUEPRINT to "hammer" the small man is one description I heard applied to the Government's Green Paper over the weekend. Not bad either, since it seems to be the small man—financially, that is— who is being asked to make all the sacrifices."

It is he who is being asked to accept less in children's allowances, to pay more for his housing, for his children's education, for his health services.

Not nearly so much is being asked of the better-off people in this document, and the rich are to be let off almost entirely.

A Government which only a few months ago decided to abolish the Wealth Tax—a tax sought only from those with a lot of property or money, or both—now comes along and proposes to tax children's allowances.

It is incredible, and it is to be hoped that their supporters will quickly let them know what Dr. Martin O'Donoghue must be told to do with that one.

That correspondent is not given to undue criticism of this Government.

The wealth tax introduced in 1975 was only a diluted form of what was proposed in the White Paper the previous year. The thresholds were doubled. The percentage was reduced and generous exemptions were provided. The then Minister very correctly said when introducing the measure that a means of tax evasion was about to be denied the better off sections and they were being required to make a modest instalment tax on the top slice of their fortunes. That expresses very well what the wealth tax is all about. There was a single rate of 1 per cent and the exemption thresholds of £100,000 in the case of married couples, £70,000 for single people and £90,000 for widowed persons. That was wealth beyond the wildest dreams and sometimes the imagination of many of the people who contribute 87 per cent of the income tax of this State under the effective PAYE system, an amount out of all proportion to their share of the gross national income, and beyond the comprehension of those unfortunate enough to have to rely on social welfare.

A lot more could be done for those people if this Government had collected and distributed the £10 million and more which would have accrued under the wealth tax. What is wrong with us as a people when we can tolerate such enormous differences in wealth, much less buttress the wealthy as this Government are doing under this measure? This is a tax on personal wealth of very great magnitude by my terms, if not by the Minister's. That is precisely the point I am complaining about—that there should be two standards of what constitutes the needs of a human being.

The Irish Independent of 9 June, carried a report by Colm Rapple which said that two bosses of a well-known company in this country took

"£14,000 a week from the company last year for services rendered. That is apart altogether from the dividends they got from substantial shareholdings in the company."

He went on to say they were entitled to £393,000 apiece. In the case of one of these bosses,

even assuming that he puts in a 60-hour week—which is possible—that works out at £136 an hour or over £8,000 a week.

In less than four-and-a-half hours that man could make what a person on unemployment assistance gets in a year or what a single woman's allowance would be in a full year. How can there be such mind-boggling disparities between the values society places on human beings when one person has 650 times more to live on than the other, and that is unearned wealth. We could talk about earned wealth. The lucky few who earn £80 a week for a 40-hour week still get only one sixty-eighth of the amount earned by the man I mentioned.

There is no question of cherishing all the children of the nation equally. How can it be reasonable that the boss I have mentioned should be given tax relief while no reliefs are given to taxpayers in respect of dependent children or to mothers in the form of increased children's allowances? It is scandalous to suggest that the wealth tax be abolished. According to a survey carried out by Brian Nolan of the Central Bank one quarter of the total income of the country is taken by the top 10 per cent and only 1.5 per cent is retained by the bottom 10 per cent. It is the top 10 per cent who were defended by this Government when in opposition and to whose aid they have leapt the moment they were returned to power.

In the apportionment of the £70 million tax reliefs in this Bill only £70 a year could be afforded for a widow, no matter how many children she had. The individual worker still pays tax as soon as he earns more than £16 a week. Retired workers are still taxed on their pensions. The just call of the people who must use their cars to commute for tax reliefs has once again been ignored. The abolition of car tax was no substitute. The bigger your car the more you gained. The worker who must use his car going to work has a very good case for tax relief. There have been suggestions of savings in social welfare, cuts in expenditure on health and education while our friend getting £136 an hour is given more into his bulging pockets. This is incomprehensible.

Workers are constantly reminded of their duty to the unemployed. There have been calls for income restraint by workers but apparently the contribution of the very wealthy is only available at a price, their price, at whatever price they command, regardless of the consequences that might have on the weaker sections of the community. That is a terrible indictment of capitalism. It appears to us to be the law of the jungle.

The Minister argues that this is the time to create jobs, that the people with a disproportionate share of the wealth of the State will not give of their talents, of their ability, of their brains, unless they are allowed to make unlimited profits. They have been given exemption on what must be assumed to be substantial houses. They have been given exemption, too, in respect of their livestock, their bloodstock, their pensions and so on, but yet they are unhappy. At least those who have the ear of the Minister for Finance have not expressed themselves as being happy with the situation. As a result of an amendment in last year's Finance Bill private non-trading companies that have control of trading companies were exempted so that genuine commercial arrangements would be exempted from wealth tax. The outright opposition of the privileged people in our society to the principle of a wealth tax has prevailed.

In defending his action, action that is diametrically opposed to everything we on these benches stand for, the Minister makes the case that a wealth tax is disastrous economically. He argues as if wealth taxes did not apply in any other country whereas approximately half the countries in the EEC have a wealth tax of some kind. How do these countries survive? There is opposition to the whole principle of wealth tax at any stage of economic development but in Denmark, for instance, there is a wealth tax and the threshold is only one-fifth of what it has been here. Various arguments have been put forward in seeking to justify the abolition of wealth tax but what has emerged is a total reliance on people who are the holders of wealth of the magnitude necessary in order to be liable for wealth tax. These are people, who, even according to what was said by Fianna Fáil in opposition, have not done their duty so far as the country is concerned, especially during the time of the recession. Despite this there is a frightening reliance by the Government on private enterprise to solve the unemployment problem.

As we have said so often before, the purpose of private enterprise is not the creation of jobs but the creation of profit. Jobs will be created in the private sector only in so far as they are needed to create profit. Private enterprise is answerable in the first instance to shareholders. There is evidence that the leaders of the private sector are not totally happy with the over-reliance being put on them by the Government to create jobs. A CII survey published in February last showed that 22 per cent of private firms did not envisage providing additional jobs even if they should increase output by as much as 30 per cent during the next two years. In other words, their aim will be to increase output as cheaply as possible with employment being a feature only in so far as it cannot be avoided. Therefore, there would not appear to be any case to be made for the abolition of wealth tax. Neither is there a guarantee that the abolition of this marginal tax will help in any way to solve the unemployment problem.

The Government's proposal constitutes an injury and an insult to the poor and the deprived, that 10 per cent who enjoy only 1.5 per cent of the wealth of the State. This proposal is an affront to those parents of the 100,000 children who are dependent on social welfare. It is a gross insult, too, to the widow with two children who is being asked to survive on £24.40 per week, a far cry from the £136 per hour I mentioned a few moments ago. These are the people who should be considered in relation to any attempt to redistribute wealth. The Government's proposal is an affront also to those paying tax under the PAYE system, tax which is out of proportion to their share of the wealth of the State. It is a proposal which portrays an extraordinary sense of priority for any party, even for Fianna Fáil. It is astounding that the Government intend going ahead with this measure. After only a year in office there is a frightening shift to the right on the part of the Government. That is a trend that we denounce and will continue to denounce as strongly as possible.

: I spoke on this section already but the Minister failed to answer one of the points I raised. Although he interjected in the debate on several occasions he did not see fit to answer my question. He was sharp in his criticism of Labour Party Deputies and of myself for the attitude we were taking on this section.

The point that the Minister failed to answer related to the level of investment here. He continuously challenged the Labour Deputies, particularly Deputy Horgan, by asking whether they were for or against employment. The substance of the Minister's case seems to be that a wealth tax discourages or interferes in some way with employment. In other words, he would argue that the abolition of the wealth tax would encourage employment. During the Second Stage debate I said that there was no evidence to indicate that the wealth tax had been responsible for money being taken from the country. At the time the Minister said he had found a file that had been submitted to his predecessor by the Central Bank and which suggested that there was some evidence that money had left the country. The Minister said he had found a file which ference that this happened because of the wealth tax. During the weekend I checked with Deputy Ryan on this point. He was the person to whom I referred in the House at the time as having been the one I questioned more than 12 months ago on this matter. Again, Deputy Ryan assured me that he had the position watched carefully from the date of the announcement of a wealth tax until he left office and that there was no evidence to suggest that the wealth tax was responsible for money leaving the country. We know that money is going from and coming into the country all the time but there is no evidence to suggest that money was taken from the country because of the wealth tax.

Jobs result from investment. As reported at column 1189, Volume 307, of the Official Report of 14 June 1978 I said:

"One of the charges against the wealth tax is that it was responsible for money leaving the country. In the three years before we came into office, the proportion of GNP which was devoted to fixed investment was 21.6 per cent in 1970, 22.7 per cent in 1971 and had been declining to 21.5 per cent in 1972. In 1973 and 1974 the amount of investment increased and in 1975, at the height of the depression, it decreased again; but it decreased to 23.7 per cent and this when the wealth tax, according to its opponents, was supposed to be biting hardest. The level of 23.7 per cent of GNP devoted to fixed investment was 2½ points higher than when we came into office in 1973. Last year, when the wealth tax was still in operation, 25.2 per cent of GNP was devoted to fixed investment."

I had hoped the Minister would reply to those points on the many occasions he spoke, but he did not. If the wealth tax was interfering with the creation of jobs how is it that money was invested in the country during the three years when it was in operation and when we all know that we can relate investment directly to jobs? During those three years the level of investment as a proportion of GNP rose. That is the answer to the Minister's attitude.

: In discussing this section of the Finance Bill the question arises about who should carry the burden of the State. This is a section in the Finance Bill which results from the Budget Statement. There is a proposal, on the one hand, that wealth tax should be abolished and, on the other, we have a situation where children's allowances were not increased. This is in breach of an undertaking to ensure that such payments would be increased in line with inflation. There is a further suggestion emanating from the Green Paper that children's allowances should be taxed. I am not an economist but when I am faced with a situation like this—a suggestion, on the one hand, that wealth tax should be abolished and, on the other hand, that children's allowances should not be increased but in fact should be taxed—I can only come to one conclusion.

Fianna Fáil must now accept the tag of the party of the wealthy. As a result of this measure they are taking a step which will be of substantial benefit to the wealthiest 5,000 people in the country. Those people have got a present of approximately £2,000 each per annum. Do they need it? They would not have to pay wealth tax if they needed it. On the other side of the coin we have many thousand children in the country who are solely dependent on children's allowances being paid to their mothers to provide food and clothing for them. Many mothers of those children may not be at this level, but I am aware that there are many children in this country for whom children's allowance is an absolute necessity. They are the people of this State who are supposed to have a guarantee under the Constitution of being cherished equally. Fianna Fáil have turned their backs on them.

It is not merely a question of asking whether one is for or against wealth tax. We have to accept that some people have to pay a certain amount to carry the burdens of the State and that there are others who are in need of help from the State. It is when this choice is before us, as it was put before us in the budget and in this Finance Bill, that there can be no doubt about what attitude one must take. I have not seen in any of the statements from the Fianna Fáil benches any justification of the barefaced neglect of some of the weaker sections of the community. Fianna Fáil must accept that there are people to speak for those children. We will continue to remind the Government of their responsibility to those children. If the Government feel that they can go through this measure, help 5,000 people and neglect those others, I can appreciate their embarrassment and their decision today to cut off discussion on this Bill.

Perhaps I am out of order in referring back to the closure motion, but there is a question of the damage to democracy which is done by a Government who are taking this step and, being embarrassed, are prepared to ram the Bill down the throats of the legislators of this House so that the matter will be forgotten once and for all. This is a measure of their embarrassment on a controversial section of this Bill, which cannot be taken in isolation but has to be considered in the context of the whole approach of this administration to the financial and social affairs of the State.

While one is in the situation that one has to levy taxes to pay for the services of the State, while one has to consider who is or who is not deserving in the State, surely one has to accept that it is indefensible to isolate the 5,000 wealthiest people in the country to be beneficiaries of Fianna Fáil largesse? It is not their largesse since they are only—temporarily, we hope— looking after the largesse of the State. We have to look at this in the context of the full Finance Bill and in the context of the past, the capital tax package which was introduced by the previous Government. It was made clear at that time that this was introduced in substitution for a totally iniquitous penal tax, estate duty, which was permitted to continue in the country for most of the time under the Fianna Fáil administration and caused great hardship.

: In view of the fact that this section has now been debated for well over a day-and-a-half, might I propose that the question be now put?

: I have other points to make on the section and I think there are other Members who wish to speak also. I have not completed my contribution and I object to what the Minister is proposing.

: The Minister has made the proposal that the question be now put. Is that agreed?

: I must put the question as proposed.

: The Minister has done enough today with regard to orders limiting the debate. This is a strange request on his part. Perhaps he would explain his reason to the House?

: We have debated this section for a day-and-a-half. It does not suggest that Deputies had any sincerity in their arguments against the guillotine when they were talking about other sections.

: The decision to curtail discussion on this Bill was made by the Executive. It was they who introduced the guillotine motion. It is special pleading on the part of the Minister to try to shift the burden of blame in respect of this section. The Minister cannot be serious in his proposal. Surely it is a rhetorical question on his part? The guillotine motion will be put at 6.45 p.m. Further, there is a Deputy in possession.

: We put it to the Chair to use his discretion.

: Is it not the situation that the Chair must consider such a request? Is not a period of 20 or 30 minutes general in that regard?

: We are discussing section 36. The Chair is of the opinion that ample discussion has taken place over a number of days. I am putting the motion.

: When a Minister puts the question "That the question be now put", is it not the case, under Standing Orders or precedent, that the Chair must consider such a request? The Chair gives a decision within a relatively short period of time, but nonetheless it is after a period that the decision is made.

: I can tell the Deputy from my experience on his side of the House that that did not happen when he was on this side of the House.

: The Chair must be satisfied that ample time has been given for discussing the section or motion or whatever business is under consideration. The Chair is satisfied that this section has been under consideration for a long time, and therefore, I do not feel justified in refusing to put the question.

: What is happening here this evening is that the Government will not even allow discussion on the section.

: May I make a point as the speaker in possession——

: The House has already passed the motion with regard to the time limit and I am making provision for what must take place at the appropriate time. Therefore, I am putting the question now.

Question put: "That the question be now put."

: As a new Deputy, may I not make a point?

: This is a completely new departure——

: The Government will not allow discussion for a miserable 12 minutes.

: I have put the question.

: Is it the position that the Chair is agreeing to the Minister's request?

: The Chair has to consider the matter. If the Chair is satisfied that the matter has been discussed fully he must put the question.

: Will the Chair say under what Standing Order this is being done?

: The Chair has put the question and I have said Tá. Is it accepted?

: As a new Deputy who has never spoken on a Finance Bill, it appears to me that I should have been allowed an opportunity to develop a point I was making.

: I would ask the Deputy to resume his seat.

: I wanted to contribute to the debate also.

: The Chair is acting in the full authority of precedent and Standing Orders. The Chair has given ample consideration to the only point he has to consider, namely, whether section 36 has been discussed properly. In my opinion it has. I have put the question. If there is no division——

: Under what Standing Order is the Chair making the decision that sufficient time has been given?

Question put.

: I am putting the question "That section 36 stand part of the Bill."

: On a point of order, I wish to call for a division.

: We have not agreed to the motion.

: I understand a division has been called.

: We are contesting the ruling of the Chair. We are asking under which Standing Order has the Chair made his decision.

: It is Standing Order No. 55 on page 41. It sets out the position quite clearly. It is not a new procedure.

The Committee divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 44.

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Kit.
  • Allen, Lorcan.
  • Andrews, Niall.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Brady, Gerard.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Callanan, John.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Colley, George.
  • Conaghan, Hugh.
  • Connolly, Gerard.
  • Cowen, Bernard.
  • Cronin, Jerry.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Farrell, Joe.
  • Filgate, Eddie.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin South-Central).
  • Fitzsimons, James N.
  • Flynn, Pádraig.
  • Fox, Christopher J.
  • French, Seán.
  • Gallagher, Dennis.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Haughey, Charles J.
  • Herbert, Michael.
  • Hussey, Thomas.
  • Keegan, Seán.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Killeen, Tim.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lemass, Eileen.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leonard, Tom.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lynch, Jack.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Moore, Seán.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • O'Connor, Timothy C.
  • O'Donoghue, Martin.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Malley, Desmond. Reynolds, Albert.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Woods, Michael J.
  • Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

  • Barry, Peter.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Belton, Luke.
  • Bermingham, Joseph.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Burke, Joan.
  • Clinton, Mark.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan-Monaghan).
  • Gilhawley, Eugene.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hegarty, Paddy.
  • Horgan, John.
  • Keating, Michael.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Kerrigan, Pat.
  • L'Estrange, Gerry.
  • McMahon, Larry.
  • Mannion, John M.
  • Conlan, John F.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Michael J.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • Crotty, Kieran.
  • D'Arcy, Michael J.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • Donegan, Patrick S.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • O'Brien, William.
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Donnell, Tom.
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Leary, Michael.
  • O'Toole, Paddy.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Ryan, John J.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Tully, James.
  • White, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies P. Lalor and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies B. Desmond and Creed.
Question declared carried.

: I take it that we cannot now proceed with the motion as we have exceeded the time?

: Will the Deputy please resume his seat? As it has now gone 6.45 p.m., in accordance with the orders made by the Dáil to-day the Chair must put the motion as on the Order Paper.

: Is the Chair not bound by the rule under item No. 4 of the Order of Business that he should put the motion at 6.45?

: That is a technical point.

: It does seem to make a nonsense of the Order of Business.

: It cannot be exactly on the minute.

: If I could draw the attention of the Chair to the precise wording of the motion? It states "6.45 p.m.". It does not state, as it would normally state, "not later than".

: The Deputy and the House know quite well that there is always time permitted for a division.

: The division was called by the Minister.

: It now being 6.45 p.m., I am, in accordance with the order made by the Dáil, putting the question:

"(a) That (any amendments set down by the Minister for Finance and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill) the Bill as amended is hereby agreed to and as amended is reported to the House.

(b) That the Fourth Stage be taken on Wednesday, 21 June 1978; and

(c) That the proceedings on the Fourth and Fifth Stages, if not previously concluded shall be brought to a conclusion at 6.45 p.m. on Wednesday, 21 June 1978, by putting from the Chair the Question necessary to bring them to a conclusion; and the question to be put from the Chair shall be "That (any amendments set down by the Minister for Finance, including any requiring Recommittal, and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill and Recommittal and Fourth Stages are hereby completed and) the Bill is hereby passed"."

I am putting the motion as agreed to by the House earlier to-day in relation to the timing of the Finance Bill. Does the House wish me to read it again?

: The Chair is not putting the motion. He is departing from the motion which was to be put at 6.45 p.m.

(Interruptions.)

: Order, please. Would Deputies please refrain from smart remarks?

: On a point of order, while everyone recognises that the Chair has and should have considerable discretion in the running of the House, I am sure the Chair will accept that that discretion does not extend to going totally and blatantly against the specific wording of the motion.

: The Chair is not against the specific wording of the motion. If a division is in progress, time is permitted for putting the following business. The Deputy is well aware of that and there is no need to question it. If the Deputy's point had any logic, the motion would have to be put on the exact minute, and not a minute after or a minute before. It does not apply.

(Interruptions.)

: I have put the motion. Does the House wish me to read it again?

: It is on the Order Paper.

: Before the vote is taken, could I ask the Chair to read the motion into the record? Surely that is a reasonable request.

(Interruptions.)

: Could I ask the Chair to read into the record the precise motion the Chair is putting to the House?

: I have put the motion.

: There are many amendments in the Minister's name which we would not normally vote against because they are technical amendments. We are voting in protest against the behaviour of the Government in this House today.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 45.

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Kit.
  • Allen, Lorcan.
  • Andrews, Niall.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Brady, Gerard.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Callanán, John.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Colley, George.
  • Conaghan, Hugh.
  • Connolly, Gerard.
  • Cowen, Bernard.
  • Cronin, Jerry.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • de Valera, Sile.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Farrell, Joe.
  • Filgate, Eddie.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Dublin South-Central).
  • Fitzsimons, James N.
  • Flynn, Padraig.
  • Fox, Christopher J.
  • French, Seán.
  • Gallagher, Dennis.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Haughey, Charles J.
  • Herbert, Michael.
  • Hussey, Thomas.
  • Keegan, Seán.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Killeen, Tim.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lemass, Eileen.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leonard, Tom.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lynch, Jack.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Moore, Seán.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Murphy, Ciarán P.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • O'Connor, Timothy C.
  • O'Donoghue, Martin.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Malley, Desmond. Reynolds, Albert.
  • Smith, Mchael.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Woods, Michael J.
  • Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

  • Barry, Peter.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Belton, Luke.
  • Bermingham, Joseph.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Burke, Joan.
  • Clinton, Mark.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Conlan, John F.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Michael J.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • Crotty, Kieran.
  • D'Arcy, Michael J.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • Donegan, Patrick S.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Cavan-Monaghan).
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Gilhawley, Eugene.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hegarty, Paddy.
  • Horgan, John.
  • Keating, Michael.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Kerrigan, Pat.
  • L'Estrange, Gerry.
  • McMahon, Larry.
  • Manaion, John M.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • O'Brien, Fergus.
  • O'Brien, William.
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Donnell, Tom.
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Toole, Paddy.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Ryan, John J.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Tully, James.
  • White, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies P. Lalor and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies B. Desmond and Creed.
Question declared carried.