Irish Land Commission (Dissolution) Bill, 1989: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Final Stages.

Question again proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."

I understand that the Minister of State was in possession.

We have had a fair discussion on section 11. Deputy Connor has made a good case for individual well qualified agriculture inspectors. Will the Minister give a commitment to the House that these people will be looked after as far as is humanly possible?

My appeal was on the basis that these officers were needed in the locations in which they live to carry forward certain agricultural programmes which will be crucial to the development of the industry here in the future. The Minister replied as if I was only representing the interests of a number of Land Commission officers who find themselves in the unfortunate position of having to be transferred. The more important basis for my appeal is that these people must be retained in order to implement a certain policy which is crucial to the agricultural industry and to the new developments which will replace market intervention and so on. That is the spirit in which I want the Minister to take my appeal. We all wish to be sensitive to workers who have worked in rural locations for most of their lives. About six of those people have been told that they will now have to move to Dublin. None of them should be moved to Dublin as we need their qualifications where they are located. They are well qualified for the kind of advisory work needed in relation to these programmes. That is my point and I hope the Minister will take it on board.

During the lunch break and off the record we discussed this Bill. I support Deputy Connor's contribution. Everyone including the Minister, agrees that these are special people who have acquired skills which cannot easily be duplicated. When the abolition of the Land Commission was first mooted I spoke to some of them and they were unhappy at the prospect of being suddenly redeployed into work that would be alien to them. Before the lunch break the Minister committed himself to being sympathetic with regard to the upheaval which will be caused to families if these officers have to be moved. As Deputy Connor said, there is sufficient work in all the rural areas in which they live. Certainly, pending the disposal of all the land, there is enough work for them. I know the Minister is in consultation with them and their representatives but I need an assurance that the position of the staff is secure, or that agreement has been reached. This situation has arisen because of a policy change announced by a previous Government. We had plans for an alternative policy and other structures.

I am sorry to have to interrupt Deputy Ferris, but I must insist that in the matter of a Committee Stage debate we must confine ourselves to what is provided for in the section.

I was attempting——

Off the record comments, however, desirable, and even though on this occasion there might be a mutual understanding and acceptance of something, are not in accord with the best order of the House. I would ask that we conclude whatever understanding we assumed was in order prior to lunch.

We were trying to progress, and as a matter of fact we had reached a good measure of consensus at the lunch break. The Minister was about to reply to these points. I was concluding by making a point in support of Deputy Connor and other Members. Indeed, the Minister has already intervened and it was his intervention that has caused me some problems. I am entitled on this section to try to elicit further information and a reassurance——

The Deputy is not entitled to do anything other than what is appropriate to the section. The Minister is not excused from the rules of the House, no more than anybody else. I am indicating to the House now that we must confine ourselves to what is provided for in section 11. The comments I have heard here are not appropriate to the section. I would ask that we conclude on section 11 as quickly as possible.

I rest my case and I hope that the Minister in his reply will take account of the points I have made.

I am not sure if I am in order in replying in view of your ruling, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, except to say that prior to the Adjournment I acknowledged the contribution made by the Land Commission officials who for one reason or another will now have their present employment terminated. Employment within the Department is the responsibility of the personnel section and I can assure the House that that section will deal sympathetically with the people referred to by Deputy Connor.

Question put and agreed to.

I should like to tell Deputies that it will be in order under the question, "That the Bill do now pass" to deal with the matters that have been referred to off the record. This is not the last opportunity Deputies will have to refer to matters that are not in the Bill.

Sections 12 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments and received for final consideration.

In accordance with the order of the House today Report Stage will be taken now. As there are no amendments we proceed to Fifth Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, in your absence this morning we debated in some detail the faults and failings of this Bill. As it has now reached the Fifth Stage I would like to recap on my party's view. We accept that the Land Commission have not been effective for the last decade. They have acquired no land since 1983. It is remarkable how slow and tedious they have been in disposing of the remaining land. They have been the subject of an inquiry by the Committee of Public Accounts. Why did it take so long for a decision by the Government in October 1984 to be implemented? The difficulty we have is that the Government are throwing out the baby with the bath water. In simple terms, by selling the ACC and dissolving the Land Commission they are putting no proper structure in place to observe and implement land policies relating to structural land reform and land mobility. It is obvious from the Minister's contribution today that he can give no assurances, and in relation to the staff of 100 he cannot say how many will be retained in that unit. He cannot say what the budget or functions of the unit will be. It is all subject to someProgramme for Economic and Social Progress committee that is not accountable to this House. That is unacceptable in our view.

A proper autonomous authority should have been set up that would, in the first instance, carry out the day-to-day functions that the Land Commission did in recent years, such as the sub-division consent, the controls on the purchase of land by non-EC nationals and by the corporate sector, the promotion of long term leasing and group purchases which cannot work effectively without the staff on the ground. The Land Commission also dealt with the division of commonage and gave annual statistics in relation to land sales and so on. Those day-to-day executive function will be carried out by some faceless bureaucracy within a large Department, which is unacceptable. Secondly, as was argued very strongly on Second Stage by all Members, we need a land usage authority to decide on the optimum usage of land, to decide, for example, in relation to mountain land that if it should be used for agri-tourism, wild fowl, game development or whatever.

Thirdly, we need an authority that would set controls in relation to forestry developments on the one million marginal acres that could be used for that purpose. We will have to consider if that will totally depopulate rural Ireland and whether we need controls on zonings or a code of practice for the acquisition of such land. We also need to have a State agency to implement the EC Habitats Directive and to designate enviornmentally sensitive areas which, as the Minister stated, is only at a pilot stage at present.

More important we need some vehicle within Government to be a policy engine to help young farmers. We know that the door is now shut firmly in their faces with quotas in ewes, sucklers and all breeding animals. The dairy herds already have milk quotas, and there is no possibility of their acquiring the capital to get into farming. We need a package of measures to facilitate the transfer to younger farmers within the 84 per cent of transfers which take place within a family environment and to facilitate the moving on of land from the 20,000 farmers who are over 65 years of age. The Government have no policy in this area.

It is shameful that a living farmer who transfers land to his son has to pay stamp duty when there is no stamp duty payable on land inherited by a son on the death of his father. That anomaly makes no sense. It makes no sense that the thresholds for capital acquisitions tax are still effectively the same as they were in real terms in 1976, leaving aside the addition of quotas. The Minister has the power to change the flexibility of the agricultural installation premium scheme as regards labour units.

On the question of policy, executive land functions and land usage we will be voting against this Bill. The Minister has not given cast iron guarantees and has no legislative proposals to replace the Land Commission. While the Minister has accepted our arguments on this debate, words are not enough. The Minister has not given any personal assurance that the Cabinet are committed to such a change. To be depending on someProgramme for Economic and Social Progress committee to give the green light to this proposed unit is to treat this House with contempt. The original intention that when the Land Commission was abolished some other agency would be put in place has been lost sight of since 1984. This position is unacceptable and we will be voting against the Bill because there is now no vehicle for State policy on land.

The Minister and Deputies may speak only once and the Minister will have to give an omnibus concluding speech rather than speak after every Deputy.

I am sure we will bring this Stage to a very orderly conclusion even though it will end with a division. There will be a division because we have been unable to get a commitment from the Government about a land agency, a land authority or a land usage authority.

There is a question of principle involved in the abolition of Land Commission. In spite of all the criticisms and the problems that some people had with the Land Commission, they had, it is appropriate to say at a time when their death-knell is being sounded, played an extraordinary interventionist role in rural Ireland over the last 70 years. They allotted about 2.2 million acres of untenanted land since 1923, acquired more than 12,000 estates for the purpose of land distribution and made nearly 100,000 separate allotments. It is that kind of performance that made the Land Commission an important instrument for smaller landowners, for people in disadvantaged areas and those suffering as a result of the fragmentation of land. The face of agriculture is changing under the Common Agricultural Policy and we are allowing the land of Ireland — unlike the Danes who have rejected the Maastricht Treaty — to be bought by anybody who has a cheque book big enough to acquire it. We have now subjected ourselves totally to the market place as far as land is concerned and that is contrary to stated Fianna Fáil policy. Fianna Fáil have said always that they would like to be involved in the development of land as an instrument of economic development in rural Ireland. They published a White Paper in 1980 in which they said that the Government at the time, a Fianna Fáil Government, intended to introduce legislation at an early date to give effect to the new measures outlined in the White Paper and that in arriving at their conclusions they had been conscious of the economic and social importance of land tenure and the complex and sensitive nature of the subject. The Minister of State agreed with me today about how complex this whole question of land is, particularly land that is considered to be commonage or which has been occupied by generations of people for up to two centuries. The White Paper went on to say that the Government were satisfied that the policy proposals put forward had significant economic and social effects and would make an important contribution towards creating conditions in Irish agriculture that could be developed in the years ahead. That was just 12 years ago and we have come a long way since then.

We accepted that changes had taken place. We accepted that the whole concept of agricultural development had changed. There are quotas for farmers, payments to farmers for leaving land fallow against a background of hunger and deprivation in countries like Somalia. It is natural for people in rural Ireland to work their land and to produce food and it is almost impossible to explain to them why there should be an incentive to grow weeds and bushes when we could use the land to contribute towards alleviating the problem of world hunger.

It is for this reason that the Labour Party want to see a regulatory authority put in place. I am concerned that we are losing the powers we had under the Land Commission to acquire land for redistribution from people who did not want to sell it to us so that it could be used for the common good. Much good work was done in the area but today we have come to the end of that road. Apart from the commitment from the Minister that a particular group in his Department will be answerable to this House for their performance or lack of it in this area, there is no other commitment to the type of structure that people would aspire to. Such a structure was advocated not specifically by political parties but by organisations outside of this House such as the Irish Farmers' Association, the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers' Association, Muintir na Tíre, the General Council of Committees of Agriculture on which the Minister served as a member when this whole idea of a land agency was being promoted. It is a pity that we have somehow lost sight of that. I have a feeling that the dead hand of the Department of Finance was against the idea of any new structure.

I am also concerned about the level of staff still remaining who have no idea where they are going or what they will be doing. I hope the Minister will tap into that expertise and that if they are not available for transfer within the public service because of possible disruption to their lives, adequate compensation will be made available by Government in compliance with the formal representations that will be made on their behalf at trade union level. The Minister has given a commitment in so far as it is possible for him to do so.

It is important that we put on the record of this House our sentiments expressed in these final hours of the Land Commission. No words of mine can pay sufficient tribute to all the staff members in the Land Commission who worked under difficult circumstances, often in hostile territory, to try to come to grips with fragmented holdings and locate farmers in new areas. Much useful work has been done in this regard. I look forward to the distribution of the balance of the land in accordance with the regulations under which we acquired it. I hope that in that way some justice will have been done to the people from whom the land was acquired and who at the time did not want to give it up.

Now that we are coming to the end of the Land Commission's existence I would like to feel that all of the people who have held land on annuity will have an opportunity to redeem their annuities and rid themselves of some of the high costs of repayments. With the possible privatisation of the ACC the possibility of financial assistance to farmers is quickly disappearing. They will have to compete in the market place for funds and we all know how difficult that is. The ACC treated with farmers because they understood the nature of farming. We should look at the possibility of facilitating the thousands of landowners throughout the country who have thousands of acres of land on annuity from the Land Commission by giving them the opportunity to acquire the full title to those lands so that the swan song of the Land Commission will have been to see that justice is seen to be done.

I must oppose the principle of abolition simply because I am not convinced that the necessary structure is in place to redistribute land and to impose some order, not the order of the cheque book which unfortunately, will now come into play when we have taken away the only regulatory body in which there was State intervention in this area of small holdings throughout rural Ireland.

Today we witnessed the demise of the Irish Land Commission. Some of us can look back with nostalgia. The reason it is being abolished is because it has effectively completed its task. From 1881 up to the present time the Land Commission acquired many holdings. Up to 1930 it acquired 400,000 holdings totalling 14 million acres of land. Irrespective of the criticisms we have heard and criticisms we may ourselves have made about the Land Commission, it has done a good day's work. During the thirties it was responsible for giving some semblance of stability to life in rural Ireland.

Nineteen eighty-three was the last year in which land was acquired by the Land Commission. What have we been left with in their absence? In relation to the question of land mobility, this matter has been left to market forces. This is one of the main issues that we will have to address in the future.

In 1983, when the abolition of the Land Commission was first mooted it was agreed by the then Fianna Fáil Government that they should be replaced with some other authority or body, possibly a land authority. When the Coalition Government came to power — of course, nowadays this can mean many things; in those days it meant only the Coalition parties—

The Deputy will be able to take part himself.

The Deputy forms part of it; they gave him Roscommon hospital.

It is the Land Commission and not they who are being abolished. As I said, when an inter-party Government came to power they decided to use some of the staff of the Land Commission to carry out a soil survey, which was then deemed to be a worthy project. However, 18 months later, by which time between 30 per cent and 40 per cent of the soil had been surveyed, the Coalition Government were ousted and the single party Government that took over decided not only to stop the work that was being carried out by the staff of the Land Commission but also to collect the files on the soil survey and destroy them. It was one thing to stop the work that was being carried out but it was shameful that the survey files were discarded. We may yet live to regret the day that decision was taken.

I understand that between 80 and 100 staff remain in the Land Commission. These people are highly educated, indeed most of them have a Bachelor of Agricultural Science degree. Some of these men have worked for 20 to 30 years in rural Ireland and it would be a pity and most unfortunate if the expertise which they have acquired during ten years in dealing with problems not only in rural areas but also in towns, were to be lost. These people could still make a huge contribution in the future provided they are not transferred to Dublin as that is the last place where use would be made of their expertise. Indeed, people who have worked for over 30 years in rural Ireland would be very confined in some section of the Department of Agriculture and Food in Dublin. Therefore a place should be found for them, not for the sake of providing them with employment but to tap their expertise.

I wish the Minister luck in relation to what he was suggested here today. No doubt he will give it his best shot but it remains to be seen whether this will be good enough — only time will tell — and if it is not, it will not be his fault. The Land Commission have done a good job and have served the country well. We wish the staff well irrespective of where they go next.

When the Fine Gael-Labour Coalition Government instigated this legislation in 1984 they stipulated that the Land Commission should be replaced with a land authority to finalise the work which remained to be done. Both Deputy Yates and Deputy Ferris referred to this matter. It is a serious fault that no authority was set up or will be set up. The Minister of State should communicate this to his senior Minister and to the Cabinet. Indeed, it is unfair that the Minister for Agriculture and Food is not present in the House to oversee the demise of the Land Commission with all due respect to the Minister of State, Deputy Hyland, because this is a momentous decision and a major step. Even though it has been in train for eight years we would still like to express our views to somebody in the Cabinet on the necessity for a replacement body which would have a lesser and narrower role.

For Deputy Foxes's information, that Coalition Government were also called an inter-party Government. It is amazing what politicians can do with words; indeed, the Taoiseach described the present Coalition Government as "a temporary little arrangement". We have, therefore, moved from an inter-party Government to a Coalition Government to a temporary little arrangement. I do not know the reason, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, you are looking at me so sceptically because at one stage we did not think that you would be a Member of this House.

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle is not a member of anything except that which requires him to see that order is carried out. Seeing that we are dealing with something that is fixed and permanent now in the matter of the demise of the Land Commission we will take appropriate comments on it.

For all practical purposes, the Land Commission were dead 20 years ago when the then Minister for Lands, the former Deputy Séan Flanagan — there was a Minister with specific responsibility for the Land Commission — announced that he did not see any function for the Department of Lands because he felt that he was virtually redundant. He was honest enough to admit at the time that the Land Commission was a fading light.

While this legislation is necessary it is also necessary that we replace them with a land usage authority — the words I used on Second Stage. I would envisage that land usage authority embracing a number of Departments, in particular the Department of Energy who are responsible for forestry, the Department of Finance who are responsible for the Board of Works who, in turn, are responsible for the protection of wildlife, the Department of Marine who are responsible for inland fisheries and the Department of Tourism, Transport and Communications who should have a considerable say in relation to how our land is used for amenity purposes. Therefore, apart from the Department of Agriculture and Food, four other Departments would be involved in a land usage authority.

As Deputy Yates said, we need such an authority. Indeed, I think he was reading from my Second Stage speech when he said that. We need to know how wildlife is going to be protected, how habitats are going to be preserved, what land should be used for grazing, tillage, forestry and amenity purposes. The question of using land for amenity purposes is increasingly becoming more important, yet no provision is being made to ensure that such an authority would be set up, following the abolition of the Land Commission.

I agree fully with Deputy Ferris when he says that the problem is that the dead hand of the Department of Finance is in action once again. The Department of Finance have only one objective and that is to squeeze as much money as they can out of the system and not to create any bodies which might cost money. This is a horrible way to run the country. The Department of Finance operate purely on a monetary basis without considering what should be done in the interests of the common good. This is a sad reflection on both our system of Government and our society.

I will conclude by asking the Minister what will happen to the buildings which were occupied up to quite recently by the Land Commission in Merrion Street? They have become derelict and are an eyesore. They have become overgrown with weeds, particularly at the front of the building. They are part of our wildlife habitats, although not of the type that is desirable. They are a disgrace and a blot on Dublin. What hope has Dublin of winning the Tidy Towns Competition if the Department of Agriculture and Food are going to allow growth of noxious weeds in the centre of the city, for which they should be prosecuted? The Minister should let us know what is happening on the other side of Merrion Street.

We will have another Georgian mansion.

It is, as Deputies have suggested, a momentous and historic occasion for me to have the last say in relation to the final winding down of one of the greatest national agencies ever established in this country. That agency did an excellent job in creating the maximum number of economic family holdings. There are many farm families throughout Ireland who bear testimony to the success of the operations of the Land Commission down the years. On behalf of the Department of Agriculture and Food and the Minister, Deputy Joe Walsh, I would like to pay tribute to those people who have done an excellent job for the nation. We have had today a very interesting, constructive, objective and, in many respects, politically united debate. All of us assembled here have a common goal, to maximise the potential of our national land resources for the overall betterment of the country.

To respond to some of the points raised — I will not be too aggressive in my use of words at this time in view of the historic occasion——

There are some funny fish around.

Deputy Yates expressed disappointment that I am not putting in place an effective structure to deal with the outstanding problems arising from the dissolution of the Land Commission. When he was speaking I looked at the wording of his amendment, part of which was not in order.

It would have been ruled out of order if I put down anything else.

The Deputy suggested in that amendment that the Minister may authorise the establishing of a monitoring unit within his Department.

If I mentioned an authority it would have been ruled out of order.

If the Deputy's amendment had been in order he would have been asking me to establish a monitoring unit. That is in conflict with the point made by his colleague, Deputy Deasy, in his request for a land authority. As I informed the House today, we are setting up within the Department a special unit to supervise and monitor all the activities which are being transferred from the Land Commission to the Department of Agriculture and Food and to the Minister. Effectively I am doing what the Deputy was asking me to do in his proposed amendment.

In addition, I expressed the personal point of view, which I also expressed during the debate on the Land Commission Bill some months ago, that there is a need for the establishment of an umbrella authority for the purpose of monitoring everything that takes place in the natural environment. That point was correctly made by Deputy Deasy on the last occasion and again today. When I spoke on the last occasion I gave an assurance to the House that I would forward that proposal, which coincided with my own, to the expert review group underProgramme for Economic and Social Progress who are examining and preparing plans for the future development of the agricultural industry. That recommendation from me, and supported by my senior colleague, Deputy Joe Walsh, has gone to that committee.

The Department of Finance will shoot it down.

That remains to be seen. I checked today the timescale involved for that committee to report back and I am informed that they hope to report before Christmas. I cannot anticipate the committee's recommendations in relation to that proposal but I am committed to the view that we need an overall co-ordinated body dealing with agri-tourism, the natural environment and forestry. I dealt with all these matters at length this morning in the House. I am committed not only to the establishment of a group within the Department, to which I have given a commitment and which has been accepted by the officials of the Department of Agriculture and Food, but also to the establishment of a broader umbrella group for the purpose of dealing with the matters mentioned by a number of Deputies.

With reference to the Department of Finance, that Department have to exercise strict monitoring control of public expenditure. I have to give credit to the Department and the Minister for Finance who assisted me in my efforts to bring about a resolution of the Land Commission annuity problem. I have discovered from this debate that no matter how many good things you do in public life——

The Minister will not let us forget that.

——not many people are willing to come into the House to give you credit for them.

There is a sufficient number of PR people in the Department for that purpose.

They decided that half a loaf is better than no loaf.

Considerable doubt was expressed on the other side of the House whether I was serious about dealing with the problem of Land Commission annuities. I gave a categorical assurance on that occasion that I would, to the best of my ability, try to find a resolution to that problem. In co-operation with the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Joe Walsh, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Bertie Ahern, and the Taoiseach, we brought forward what is generally regarded as one of the most practical, radical policies ever introduced in terms of dealing with the massive problems facing farmers. I was delighted — I am not claiming personal credit for it — in the early days of my appointment to be able to find a solution to that national problem. Similarly today I am doing my best to establish an overall national monitoring committee. I cannot say categorically that eventually it will be set up but time will tell.

The Minister deserves credit for what he does and we give him credit for it.

I thank Deputy Deasy. I appreciate that. I have dealt as best I can with the many matters raised by the Deputies who spoke here this evening. I thank all the Deputies who contributed to the debate. From the commencement of the debate — it has taken quite a long time — the contributions were always practical and certainly not over-politically orientated. On that fitting and proper note I will pull down the blind on the Irish Land Commission.

I hope that the dissolution of the Land Commission will eventually lead to better things in terms of new structures as far as agriculture and rural Ireland are concerned.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 52.

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Brennan, Mattie.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cullimore, Séamus.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
  • Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
  • Flynn, Pádraig.
  • Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Hillery, Brian.
  • Hilliard, Colm.
  • Hyland, Liam.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kelly, Laurence.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lyons, Denis.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDaid, Jim.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Noonan, Michael J.
  • (Limerick West).
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • O'Toole, Martin Joe.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Stafford, John.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wyse, Pearse.


  • Ahearn, Therese.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connor, John.
  • Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Dukes, Alan.
  • Fennell, Nuala.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Foxe, Tom.
  • Garland, Roger.
  • Harte, Paddy.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • McCartan, Pat.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • Mac Giolla, Tomás.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Gerry.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Sheehan, Patrick J.
  • Sherlock, Joe.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Kenny and Howlin.
Question declared carried.