I intend, in accordance with the practice, to call upon Deputy De Valera to conclude the debate upon the amendment and the motion when the opportunity arises.
PRIVATE DEPUTIES' BUSINESS. - LOCAL AUTHORITIES (OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES) BILL—SECOND STAGE (RESUMED).
Debate resumed on following amendment:—
To delete all words after the word "That" and substitute the words "the Second Reading of the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Bill, 1928, be deferred until a Select Committee, empowered to send for persons, papers and records, has inquired into and reported upon the working of the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926."—(Tomás O Conaill).
I rise to support the amendment proposed by Deputy O'Connell, as I consider that it will serve a better purpose than the Bill presented by Deputy de Valera. No matter what the Government may say, there is a feeling in the country that the Local Appointments Commissioners are not doing things in a straightforward manner. I have not sufficient information to enable me to accept that view. I do not believe that there is any kind of corruption, so far as the Commissioners are concerned, but with a case on record, such as was mentioned by Deputy Ryan, which happened in County Wexford, there is certainly reason for people to entertain such a suspicion. It is no harm to cite that case again. It was a case of a young man in Wexford who was appointed by the Board of Health in May, 1926. From that time he had attended a thousand eye cases and there has been no complaint of his work, either from the Board of Health or the Local Government Department. He performed any eye operations that were necessary, and there was no fault found with anything he did. His qualifications, so far as one can see, are everything that could be desired. He had been six months in the Victoria Eye and Ear Hospital in Dublin; two months in an eye hospital in London; and three months in the School of Anatomy in Paris. The man who was appointed in his place, I understand, has been barely two years qualified.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce stated here the other night that certain things were taken into consideration by the Commission when they were examining candidates. One of them was the question of experience, and the other, local knowledge. I submit that this young man had both. He is fortified in his experience by reason of the fact that his father has been dispensary doctor in Wexford for practically forty years. His father comes in contact with the poor every day, and therefore was in a position to advise his son, who held this position for two years, as to what attention was necessary for the different patients under his control. As I said no objection was made either by the Local Government Department or the Board of Health to his work.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce stated that the Government were prepared, in a limited way, to accept Deputy O'Connell's amendment to deal with the functions of the Local Appointments Commission in the future, but that they would not agree, under any circumstances, with documents in the possession of the Commissioners being presented to that Committee for perusal. He stated that the reason for that was that it might damage the reputation of any person who had been before them, and who had not, according to the Commissioners, been qualified for certain positions. I think that what the Commissioners have done in this case in Wexford has been far more damaging than anything that could be done by the presentation to the Committee of the documents of the Commission. If a man is employed for two years in a certain position and is thrown out at the end of that time, I think it would be only reasonable for anybody to think that his qualifications were not what they should be. The Minister for Industry and Commerce also stated that there were no cases mentioned other than vague and general suggestions. I submit that that is a very definite case and that nobody on the Government side has made any attempt to deal with it. The Minister for Industry and Commerce merely played with it, and then turned away from it. A case of that kind certainly sets people thinking, and gives some justification for the suspicion in their minds. The President mentioned the other night that it was impossible to obtain a man for the Selection Board other than the man that was Chairman. I do think that he will agree that if an assistant of his——
Not impossible, but that he was the best selection.
I think we are entitled to draw that inference from what the President said—that it was impossible. If the Chairman was the man with whom this particular person who was appointed qualified, people are inclined to think that there is some semblance of corruption. I do not suggest for a moment that it was corruption. But, in view of the fact that there is this suspicion going around since the Appointments Commission were set up, the Government should endeavour to get somebody to sit on the Selection Boards who would be above suspicion. I know very well that the President will say that this particular gentleman is above suspicion. That may be, but the ordinary man in the street does not accept that view.
took the Chair.
I believe, as I said, that the amendment proposed by Deputy O'Connell will serve a better purpose than the Bill, because I have no doubt, whatever, that if the Government were to accept the Bill, and if three names were sent down, the same objection would be raised to the three as to the one, because, as everyone knows, the ambition of the local boards all over the country is to get local men appointed. There is no use hiding that fact. We would all like to see the local man appointed, provided he is qualified, and that is what the local boards want. I do not think if three names were sent down that that position would be reached either. I would suggest to Deputy de Valera and the Fianna Fáil Party that they should fall in with this amendment. I do not see why the Government should insist that the Bill should be withdrawn or defeated altogether before they agree to amendment. Surely the Government would be in the same position when that Committee meets and deliberates as they are to-day. I do think that it is rather drastic, and not meeting the situation in the spirit in which it should be met, to insist on the Bill being withdrawn before they accept the amendment.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce dealt with this amendment only in a very vague way. He has not given any definite indication as to what the intentions of the Government were in accepting the amendment. I think we are entitled to some clearer statement from the Government as to their intention and as to the spirit in which they will accept the amendment.
There is a complaint from midwives about the fees that are being charged by the Commission. I know it is included in the Act that certain fees should be charged, but I am of opinion that some of the fees should be returned to the midwives. If a midwife has to go up two or three times before the Board in a year she has to pay on each occasion a fee of 7/6 or 10/-. That is rather too much. Some effort should be made to relieve them of these fees. We all know that midwives' salaries are comparatively small and they are not in a position to pay these fees time after time.
I wish to say that the statement made during the debate by Deputy Daly, that the South Cork Board of Public Assistance sent up the name of a Free State doctor for ratification and that that doctor was turned down and a Republican doctor appointed, is a fact. I say that in fairness to all concerned. But, of course, the Republican doctor had qualifications that the Free State doctor had not. I shudder to think what must have been the fate of the poor during Deputy Daly's period of guardianship; during the time when, as he told us, he was neither dry nor hungry when appointing good, bad or indifferent doctors.
I always voted for the best doctor. There were no such things as political claims at that time.
I suppose they were the best. At any rate the Deputy was neither dry nor hungry during that time. That is his own statement. But I shudder to think what must have been the fate of the poor in that area, though Deputy Daly himself does not seem to have suffered from any ill effects at the hands of those doctors, and I am glad to know that. I asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if a definite case was put to him what would he say—if the other candidates who went before the Local Appointments Commission are prepared to come out into the open and lay their cards on the table in order to have the qualifications of all parties examined by an independent Board. I believe that in the definite case I have in mind it could be definitely proved that there was unfair treatment. That was the case of the appointment of a dispensary doctor in Kerry. There were three candidates for the position. One was a doctor with the highest degrees, with seven years' local experience. The candidate who got the position had no local experience. He was an Army doctor. He had Army practice, but had no outside experience. He got the position. From the certificate it was found out that he served for two years in a special department at the Curragh Hospital. We, however, had definite information that six months of the two years were spent in Cork. We had further information that he spent three months in the Curragh Hospital. The Chairman of the Selection Board, who was his O.C., should have known that he did not spend two years there. That was a special case, and it is one that should be inquired into. It can be proved that one individual got the position because he was an Army doctor and because his O.C. was Chairman of the Selection Board.
What was the district?
Ballylongford Dispensary District, County Kerry. When we are asked to look on the Appointments Commission as being absolutely fair we have to judge it by our own experience. We have been told by Ministers on the Front Bench that preferential treatment, even for the breaking of stones on the roads, is given to ex-National Army men. We are told that in the Post Office the same preference is given. Now, when we see these two cases to which I have referred, what is to prevent the suspicion that the same preferential treatment is being given by the Commission? We can only judge it by what we see. When two individuals look for a job on the roads, one an ex-National Army man and the other a man who was not in the Army, and when we see a definite order from the Minister for Local Government that preference must be given to the ex-National Army man, what are we to think?
Surely the Local Appointments Commissioners have nothing to do with road workers.
I am showing why we have our suspicions of the Commissioners. They can only fall in line with the Executive Council who have decided that preferential treatment must be given to individuals of one definite army. We naturally expect that the same system is carried out by the Appointments Commissioners. Deputy Jasper Wolfe referred to a case of a rate collector which I mentioned, but when I denied that, Deputy Wolfe had not the decency to withdraw his statement. It is, I believe, the common practice here that when a Deputy makes a statement and when it is definitely denied the Deputy who makes it withdraws. If Deputy Wolfe wants any proof of my denial he can get it from the Minister for Local Government. We must not, of course, judge Deputy Wolfe by the ordinary standards by which we judge other Deputies. I have judged him long ago. As I say, when we see this position of affairs we can only judge the Appointments Commissioners by what we see happening. It is the definite settled policy of the Government, which has appointed the Appointments Commissioners, that preferential treatment must be given to one special class in the country.
I believe that the old policy was not a very good one but it was far preferable to the present policy. If there was corruption on the old boards, if a man was appointed who should not have been appointed, the appointment had to be sanctioned by the Local Government Department and there was always, at least, pluck enough left in public boards to have the matter put fully before the Minister before he gave his decision. We had, at least, the matter exposed. It was brought out into the light of day and the dread of having such matters exposed was, in most cases, sufficient to prevent jobbery and corruption. I maintain that the old system by which local bodies elected their own doctors and other officers was far preferable to the present system. During the four years which I have been on public boards in Cork I can, at least, say that we put in certain clauses about competitive examinations and we found that that system worked very successfully. I consider that this plan of having three men, whom nobody knows, making these appointments creates suspicion throughout the country. There is a great outcry against it, and, so long as we have the definite settled policy of the Executive Council whereby preference is given to one particular class, we cannot expect to have anything else.
The Deputy referred to the Ballylongford Dispensary. The person who was appointed was the person who secured the highest marks at the Selection Board. The Executive Council never had anything to do with it.
He got the highest marks on certificates that were wrong.
There was no preference. He got the highest number of marks.
Whether one agrees with the details of the measure put forward, some time ago now, by the leader of the Opposition, I think we must all admit that the fact of his bringing it forward has led to good results. We have an amendment on the Order Paper from Deputy O'Connell, which, so far as I can gather, has in substance been accepted by the Government. I am not going at this late stage to flog a dead horse, but, in fact, I do not think that it is a question of flogging, as I think that the Bill, as introduced by Deputy de Valera, is practically dead. It is dead, because the Fianna Fáil Party, as announced by their leader, seems to be willing to accept Deputy O'Connell's amendment, and the Government also are willing to come a long way in that direction. In fact, if we were to continue discussing this Bill much longer we might all be in agreement on it, and on the course to be adopted in regard to it. What I would like to hear from the Government, if any Minister intends to speak again, is the nature of the Committee, and, if possible, the terms of reference to that Committee which they have suggested should be set up. I do not know whether it is to be a Committee of this House or not. Would it not be possible for the Government to table an amendment on the lines of that which we have before us to this Bill, giving us the terms of reference to the Committee and indicating the nature of such Committee? Before we are asked to vote upon this Bill, or upon the amendment, I think either we should have the alternative proposed by the Government in black and white before us, or we should have some definite undertaking concerning the lines along which they intend to move.
I desire, in company with other Deputies, some independent Deputies, and, I think, one, at least, a member of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party—I refer to Deputy Bennett—to protest against the more or less general onslaught that has been made upon the integrity of Irish public boards. I remember very well, when in my place in the British House of Commons, hearing the constant taunt from the Tory Benches that we were not fit for national self-government, neither were we fit for administering local government. Our answer to that on many occasions was to produce examples of corruption and bribery that occurred constantly elsewhere throughout England, Scotland and Wales. I do not say that our public representatives in the past have been perfect; neither have they been perfect elsewhere, but I do say that they do not deserve that a general stigma should be cast upon them by way of condemnation for the manner in which they have carried out the duties that were suddenly thrown upon them by the Local Government Act of 1898. The Local Government Act of 1898 was as bitterly opposed by those who sought to decry the name of this country as was any previous or subsequent measure of Home Rule, and entirely upon the same grounds, but I do think it ill befits us, as Irish national representatives, to cast an undue slur upon the work that has been done during those years by the people elected by the public to serve upon these public boards.
As regards the action of the Commissioners themselves, like Deputy Corish I do not for a moment doubt their integrity, or even the means at their disposal to make the best appointment they consider fit, but at the same time there is no use blinking the fact that there is abroad a considerable amount of distrust of the appointments that have been made, and the manner in which these appointments have been made. There is no use in endeavouring to get away from that suspicion, because there it is, and therefore I welcome the suggestion put forward by the Government that they are willing to set up some form of investigation into the working of this Act. I think it would be well if, instead of being called upon definitely to reject this Bill, not knowing what is to take place subsequently, the Government would now, at the close of the debate, give us something more tangible, something more definite, to go upon as to what form of committee they intend to set up and what its terms of reference would be. I believe there is a necessity for some form of investigation. I believe that it will serve a useful purpose, and I hope that that will be the result of the measure introduced by Deputy de Valera.
I have already spoken in this debate, but I want to clear up a certain amount of confusion which has arisen in connection with Deputy Corish's speech. He stated that one of the candidates for a position in Wexford was an assistant to, or was in some way connected with, the Chairman of the Commission. Now, there is the Chairman of the Appointments Commission and there is a Chairman, I take it, of the Selection Board. It is a mistake for us to mix up these two persons. The President was to answer certain questions of mine, and I would like also to have information as to whether the Chairman of the Appointments Commission is present at all during the work of the Selection Board, or whether any member of the Appointments Commission is present, and whether they take any part in the deliberations. I think that would clear up a good deal of the confusion that exists in the minds of certain people. At all events, I want to correct Deputy Corish's statement in regard to the Chairman of the Commission.
I meant the Chairman of the Selection Board.
The Chairman of the Appointments Commission was not present at the Selection Board, nor has he anything to do with the Selection Board. In reply to Deputy Sir James Craig's remarks, I may say that the function of Selection Boards is to advise the Commissioners upon the relative technical or professional qualifications of the applicants. The Commissioners must, in the last instance, take the responsibility for the recommendations made by them, and they must, even in these matters, reserve the right to satisfy themselves that no injustice has been done inadvertently or otherwise. But I may say that it is the Commissioners' invariable practice to adopt the report of the Selection Board if they are satisfied that no error or miscarriage of justice has taken place. In the course of the operations of the Act no case has yet occurred where the Commissioners have not adopted the Board's reports on the relative professional merits of candidates. The order of merit in which candidates are placed by a Selection Board may be disturbed by three considerations, namely, a preference for knowledge of the Irish language, a preference, of a very small degree, given for local knowledge or experience when candidates are almost of equal merit, and by the disqualification of the No. 1 candidate on grounds of age, health or character. These are the only cases in which the candidate placed No. 1 on a report adopted by the Commissioners is not automatically recommended for appointment.
I know that I have no right to speak now, but I wonder whether, with the indulgence of the House, I could say something with regard to the position which has been reached?
The Deputy can speak with the permission of the House. I take it that there is no objection.
Mr. O'CONNELL
My object in putting down this amendment was to endeavour to arrive at a position where, as I stated in my opening speech, a Committee of this kind would have the unanimous approval of all Parties. In putting down the amendment we aimed at that. I think, in principle, there is practically no difference between the attitude adopted by the Government and that of Fianna Fáil, because they agreed there should be a Commission. Deputy Corry voiced a sentiment which is abroad when he said that the idea of three unknown men making appointments creates a lot of suspicion in the country. I believe that is true, but Deputy de Valera's Bill accepts the principle that is in the present Act and nobody suggested that we should get away from it. The way to remove that suspicion, in my opinion, is to have a scheme which will have the approval of all Parties and which all Parties in the country will defend.
If that is done, the suspicion will be removed, and that was the object I had in putting down the amendment to reach a position of that kind. There were two points made by the spokesman from the front Government benches with regard to my amendment. The amendment was framed in the usual form of words: "power to send for persons, papers and records." It is said that this will mean that confidential papers must be disclosed. It was certainly not my intention that confidential papers should be disclosed. But will the Minister say, or will be indicate the form of words that would secure the attendance of persons and would secure the production of papers which were intended to be confidential and records which were intended to be confidential?
If the Deputy leaves out "empowered to send for persons, papers and records" it would make the position different. If it should transpire that the Committee is dissatisfied with what it can get, they can report back to us and we can consider it. If those things are in, any limitation of them will probably be found to be imperfect. It does not look well to put in any limitation there. The inquiry can go on and if it is found they have not sufficient power or that they are not getting what they want then they can report.
May I suggest these words really empower the Committee. They do not force the Committee to send for persons, papers or records.
The trouble is that once they are there that will arise. Document A is asked for; then Document B is asked for, and both are confidential. The Committee comes to the conclusion that what they really want will be regarded as confidential; if it went the other way the Committee might get all it would require.
Mr. O'CONNELL
The Committee could do no useful work unless it had power to send for persons and examine persons.
Certainly.
Mr. O'CONNELL
The amendment aims at power to examine certain types of documents and records which would not be regarded as of a confidential nature, disclosing matters of confidence in regard to which promises of confidence were given. I do not want the Government to break any seal of confidence given on these matters, nor do I want the Committee to do so, but I am quite sure that there are many other documents and records useful to a Committee of this kind that would come into the other category. I do not know how that is to be secured. With regard to the other points the Government are insisting on making it a condition that this Bill must be got out of the way, I must say that I do not see any grave reason for making that a condition. I think we could very well agree to leave it over, and if we are prepared to reach agreement, it would be well worth while for the Government to give way on that matter for the sake of agreement on the other matter.
My position in the matter is this, that if there is general agreement, or if general agreement can be reached as to the setting up of the Committee, then I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. I cannot say that I have had any definite statement yet from the Fianna Fáil Benches as to their attitude towards my amendment except the rather vague statement that was made at the beginning of the debate, but my position is that if general agreement can be reached as to the nature of the Committee, then I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. If general agreement cannot be reached then I will let my amendment go to the House.
I regret that I have to speak at a distance from some of the criticisms that have been levelled against this Bill. It would have been much easier to stand up after one of the Ministers had spoken than to try now to bring to the mind of the House those criticisms. They are dead now, and resurrecting them at this particular stage would not serve any useful purpose. They illustrated for the most part, as far as I could see, what one of the Ministers called their technique. They started off by saying the Bill was bad and a mess, and not once did they point out a defect, or where there was anything really bad in the Bill or a mess in it. They did not point it out, not once. They started about the draughtsmanship. Everybody in this House knows that when a Bill is brought in here from one of the Parties in opposition that the Bill is not likely to be drafted with the same care as it will be drafted by the official draughtsman. We heard the other day about a school of draughtsmanship. We all know it is a technical business. When one of the Opposition Parties brings in a Bill it is not expected that it will be in every detail as perfect a piece of draughtsmanship as would a Bill brought in by the Government Party.
There is a very easy remedy for that. One of the ways I have indicated already would be to provide for any private member who was bringing in a Bill, or when one of the Opposition Parties was bringing in a Bill, the services of one of the expert draughtsmen. That is one way. The other way is that when a Bill comes to the Committee Stage that any amendments that are necessary from the legal or technical point of view will be remedied. I suggest that the faults in this Bill are not the faults of draughtsmanship or anything of that kind. As far as the members opposite are concerned, their difficulty about the Bill was that it was very definitely going to provide a system which was going to give much more public satisfaction than their own Bill, and because their own Bill, by comparison, was in a certain amount of danger, they want to damn this Bill by mere expression. I have spoken about the draughtsmanship, and I am not at all convinced even yet that these statements about draughtsmanship could be proved to the hilt. I say that it is likely on general principles that any Bill brought in by any of the Opposition Parties will not be as perfect a piece of draughtsmanship or would not work in as well with the existing Principal Act as will a piece of work drawn up by the men responsible for the Principal Act themselves.
The next thing stated was that we did not know ourselves what we were aiming at; that we had no definite principles in our minds, that we had not made up our minds as to what we wanted. I think anybody who attempts at all to read the Bill in conjunction with the Principal Act will say that there are very clear principles in the Bill which differentiates it from the Principal Act and that there is no difficulty whatever in seeing what the principles of the Bill are and what the Bill was to embody. So I say that there is no justification for that. So far as I can see the attacks made by the Ministers were attacks mainly on vague matters of that kind. The draughtsmanship, they said, was bad, and we did not know our minds. I believe that there was one other criticism of a similar character, and it was that the Bill was an attempt to meet the differences of opinion in our own Party. I want to be quite frank. There are members of our Party who, voicing the popular dissatisfaction, voicing the views as between a continuation of the present system and going back to the old, would choose going back to the old.
That is what we said.
Wait now. I say quite frankly that there are. But they are quite prepared, every one of them, to take the amendment as it is in this Bill. They believe that the public dissatisfaction is common, as pointed out by Deputy Corish—there is no doubt about that—there is no use in blinding ourselves to that fact, there is public dissatisfaction, and remember that, as a rule, there is no smoke without some fire. The members of our Party, therefore, are quite satisfied to take this. But again, just as we were quite satisfied to take election of the Seanad by the Dáil, yet if we had to choose having the election in the form in which it is now we would prefer the old system of election direct by the people. So, too, it is in this; if they were to choose between the present system and the old they would prefer going back to the old system of making appointments. They were aware of the dangers of the old. These were known to everybody. It was done in the open, and these things could be publicly known and strong public opinion could rectify them.
They are opposed, and very rightly opposed, to this whole idea of centralisation. It would seem as if the people in Dublin were perfect and the people in the country were quite of the opposite kind. We do not believe in overcentralisation. We believe that the Executive here and the Central Commission in Dublin have quite enough to do if they do their own proper work, and the country would be better off if, as much as possible, local matters were left to the local people. The President said we are contributing and we have a right to a voice in the appointments of local officers. Certainly we have a right to see that these appointments are properly made, and that the right is properly preserved in the old and in the new systems we maintain is the case, because the Minister for Local Government has the right to refuse the sanction in any appointment which he considers has not been properly made. If that right were properly exercised he could see that the appointment of local officers was properly made.
I hold that it is the general interest of the community to see that local government is properly carried out, leaving administration, as far as possible, to the local people who know the local conditions. Reference has been made to the merits of the old system as against the new system. Most of the criticism against our amending Bill was directed against going back to the old system. Personally, I think we should not go back to the old system without adding to it the safeguards that will be got by having a central examining body. It is because the Civil Service Commission stands in the public mind for a central examining body that I prefer to have the Civil Service Commission carrying on examinations and seeing that the examinations are conducted by them; in the public mind that would be understood very much better than having examinations by a Commission called the Local Appointments Commission. In one case it gives the idea not of examination, but of appointment, and appointment at central headquarters gives to the public mind largely the idea that the central body, having exhausted all their powers of patronage, having filled up the Army and the Civie Guards, have a lot of other discontented followers to be satisfied, and they use this other means of getting jobs for their friends.
I do not want that opinion to go abroad. I want to see machinery set up to remove that discontent. That discontent is there and we approach this Bill for the purpose of trying to allay suspicion. I said at the very start that I was in no position to give details. I had heard people speaking on occasions of corruption, using it in a very broad sense. Statements were made to me by outsiders and members of our own Party and having heard them, I simply said that probably in the course of the debate those who had been talking and had these views would give expression to them. I made no further promise, and the statements that were made by Deputies who dealt with particular cases were in line with what I had in mind.
I think there is a good deal of truth in some of the remarks made by the Labour Deputies, and that is that there is some sort of underlying principle more or less the same in the amending Bill and the original Act. They differ in two respects, mainly as far as principle is concerned. The first difference is that the appointments will be made locally. The other point in which they differ is that the examination, whatever kind it be, will be conducted by a certain Commission that will be responsible for examinations for the whole of the country. That is common, and the only difference is that to have the examination in the hands of the Civil Service Commission would be understood better locally, and it would be accepted more readily. That was apparently in the minds of the Executive Council when they brought in the original Act, because the excuse given for not having the Civil Service Commission made the Appointments Commission was that they had a difficulty about the personnel.
I hold we ought not to be making our machinery absolutely to suit the personnel. We ought to have the machinery we require, and get the suitable machinery to fill these posts. The Ministers talk as if everybody should be satisfied that there will be no such question as any unfair or improper influence taking place here in the appointments made. That will not satisfy us. The Ministry and the Dáil, the Ministry in particular, have divested themselves of powers of patronage. That is only narrowly true; it is not generally true. The Executive Council have the selection of the Civil Service Commission. The Commission personnel have the selection of the Local Appointments Board. Naturally if they are able to select a personnel they will select one in which they have confidence. I do not suggest they would select a personnel that will carry out their will and make appointments that will suit their particular Party or anything of that kind, but, putting it on a more general basis, they will have confidence in that body, because they appointed the personnel. They believe the personnel will be what they want as far as the general administration is concerned, but they are not going to expect that others who had nothing to do with the appointment of these individuals will have——
The local authorities can promote.
They can promote? We will come to that. That is another point. The local bodies have not the same confidence, and we, on these benches, have not the same confidence in that body. It was said our Bill was going to bring back local "pull" and local influence. As far as we are concerned, we prefer facing the disadvantages and the evils that are attendant on that system, where we can see the thing operating and check the open evil, than to have all the secret influences and the secret pull of one form of secret society or another. The people of the country have a naturally right instinct in this matter. They feel that while local people might have an influence in the appointment of doctors, up here the select few can do it in roundabout ways. There is only one fault in our Bill, and if anybody could remove that it would make me very happy. I do not see any way of removing it. The fault is that, ultimately, if three names are sent down there will be a certain amount of local canvassing. I am afraid that is inevitable. I do not see any way out of it, but, of the two, I say that canvassing cannot result in having foisted on the community a non-qualified or a bad appointment. I would prefer to face that as an evil that can be corrected than take the alternative, in which we will have the people who are in the know going about and using all sorts of influences in private.
A DEPUTY
Would you suggest sending down Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and number them accordingly?
As far as I am concerned I do not mind. In fact, if I were choosing for myself, what I would say would be that the names should be sent down with the qualifications of the first three, so that there would be a standard of comparison. The value of sending down three names ought not to be pushed aside. It is of great value from the point of view of public confidence. If you get three names and see that certain standards have been reached, and that certain qualifications are possessed, that they have been examined and "placed," so to speak, a layman on the board who would not have any technical knowledge which would enable him to distinguish between the relative merits of certain candidates, if he gets them in a definite order of award and the examiners stand by it, I would accept that. If I were a member of the board I would be prepared to make an appointment in that case, and I would not hesitate, if my common sense told me that there were other considerations which were greater, to take the amount of responsibility that would be involved in saying that while No. 1, from the expert point of view, might be the best, for the particular purpose required and in view of local conditions other marks should be added which would justify me in selecting another candidate. What do the Selection Boards do? They see that a man is paraded before them; they look at his qualifications. They put down roughly so many marks for apperance, address, parlour manners, and all the rest. I would admit that it is a very important thing that a doctor should have proper address in order to inspire confidence in his patients.
Why talk of parlour manners for a professional man? Why not deal with the profession? Is it not bedside manners he would require to have?
Bedside manners if you like. Deputy Dr. Hennessy referred to the Comeragh Mountains. If I were making an appointment where the man, as a matter of fact, would have to go over the mountains to attend patients who could not get other doctors, and who would send in red tickets, I would prefer a man who was physically able to do that than a man who had obtained marks for address.
The Selection Boards take that into consideration.
The local people themselves, when they see the results, are able to say what they would do if they were choosing themselves. Here are two or three people between whom there is hardly a mark, and the only difference is that one of them has gained an advantage as regards address, or bedside manners, as the President says.
There has never been such a case.
I am taking cases which common sense suggests are likely to occur.
They have never occurred, so common sense must be wrong.
Of course it will not be wrong when the papers which could tell are to be kept back.
Those papers are not kept back.
I should be prepared to put my general a priori judgments against the facts alleged by the President, except he can prove them by documents.
The papers are confidential.
I know that.
How does the President know they are confidential?
So far as we are concerned, we believe that in sending down three names, if there is agreement that they should be marked 1, 2 and 3, the finding of the Selection Board should be attached, so that the local board, if they want to depart from it, will have to give good reason to their people for doing so. I would be quite prepared to accept that myself, but I do not know whether every member of the Party would be agreeable to it. I put myself in the position of a member of a local board who is anxious to make an honest appointment. It would be a help to him certainly. I would not like to get one name alone. I would have nothing to compare it with. I want something to show that if A is first what B and C were like. I should like to have some idea which would enable me to judge of the merit of this particular man, and, for that reason, I would like to have other names as well. There is a point in this amending Bill that has not been adverted to at all. If the local body wish to have only one name sent down—if I were a member of the local body I would stand over the views I have expressed and would rather get down three names than one —if it were held by the body as a whole that there might be some undue influence which would prevent a fair appointment being made, then it is permissible under this Bill to ask them to send only one name. You have a chance there of saying to yourself: "Of the two choices, which am I going to have? Can I depend upon this appointment being made properly, and can I say that no undue influence will go towards the making of the appointment? If I thought there would not, I would prefer the three names, because it would enable me to arrive at a better judgement. On the other hand, if there was likely to be canvassing or anything of that sort, then the local body could do what this Dáil has done, and I would depend upon them to do it." They would say: "This power of patronage will not be exercised properly in a particular case. It is possible that that is much better for us because there may be two candidates between whom we might not feel ourselves competent to judge. Very well, let the central examining body send us down in this case only one name and then we can be satisfied." It does not exclude the idea of the local bodies of their own choice asking only for one name. That provision has not been adverted to at all. The only defect I can see in the Bill is that there will be a certain amount of canvassing between the three. What are we aiming at there? Is it the inconvenience which will be caused to the local councils—that they will be pestered with friends of the applicants? Surely we ought to let them protect themselves against that. We need not be very much concerned about them here. They can very well protect themselves. No man who lets it be clearly understood that he is not going to be affected by canvassing of any kind will be canvassed. That depends on the individual himself and on the body. There is no difficulty about it. I know a chairman of a county council who is known also to a number of members on the opposite benches. That chairman let it be generally understood that he would not be canvassed by anybody. And he has not been. He is a popular man in his area and was elected, time after time, as chairman of the county council. He was not canvassed, because he said, "I am not going to be influenced in my decision by canvassing of any kind. I will make my inquiries myself. I will take the intiative in trying to get the information that will be necessary to enable me to judge as to the relative merits of the candidates." We need not concern ourselves here with protecting the individual councillors from any inconvenience which may be caused by the fact that they permit themselves to be canvassed. What evil is in this course of sending three names? The only evil that can be suggested is that possibly the third person would be appointed instead of the first. I will admit that if there was any infallible way by which we could arrive at the first, second and third, that argument would be sound. But there is no infallible way by which we can say "Here are a number of applicants; this is the best." No body of men can say that. Time after time, they are wrong in their judgements. We would be saved a great deal of trouble if there was any way by which we could get the square man for the square hole and the round man for the round hole.
In the absence of that, it is better to get the most fallible method.
That is the type of argument that we are supposed to accept from the President. The President made a remark which I proposed to pass over in the charity of silence. I took a note of it, and I will refer to it now. Just listen to this type of criticism. It is in line with what we have heard: "The main consideration is to secure that some person other than the best qualified should be appointed."
That is right.
I do not like to say what I think of that statement. I suppose I would not be permitted.
We can imagine it.
The President knows some of us over here, and he knows perfectly well that the main consideration with us was never to act in that manner. He knows very well that he could not stand over that remark anywhere. It is part of the parliamentary technique, and I wish to goodness that a lot of this parliamentary technique was put aside and we sat down to discuss matters on their merits and not be making statements for the Press. What the President stated is not and was not the main consideration of this Bill. I would not suggest as against anybody on the opposite benches that their main consideration was to get a bad appointment. I do not think that anybody here would believe that any responsible people would go out for the deliberate purpose of trying to set up a scheme not merely to secure that the best person should not be appointed, but the main consideration of which was that some person other than the best qualified should be appointed.
That is right.
That is typical of the arguments which we hear sometimes from the Front Bench opposite when they do not want to deal with a matter on its merits. You have the Principal Act, this Bill, and the system as it was.
Will the Deputy explain how that is to be avoided?
How what is to be avoided?
What I stated.
There is no use whatever in the President trying to get out of it in that sort of way. He knows as well as I do that that is a statement that could not be stood over by any person who intended a statement to be taken seriously. I will leave it at that.
Very well.
There are three principles. There is the principle of the Principal Act, in which the appointments are made at headquarters, because the only name sent down is to be appointed. They might on a rare occasion say: "Very well, we will send down three." If they send down three, you do not avoid canvassing. There is the second method, by which the local body is responsible altogether for the appointment, and there is the method outlined in this Bill. The arguments I listened to from the opposite benches were very curious. They nullified one another, as a matter of fact. I am leaving out the extraordinary argument of the President—but I had forgotten Deputy Gorey. Deputy Gorey said that our purpose was to get all the disgruntled bodies in the country on our side, and that we wanted to use them for political purposes as the elections were pending.
No qualifications there.
That was answered very effectively by some other people, who said that the purpose of the Bill was quite the opposite; that the Bill would not satisfy the local people at all, as it was worse than the original Bill. We had the two arguments—that the Bill was intended to give back power to the local bodies in order to get all the disgruntled people on our side, and, on the other hand, the argument that it was not going to satisfy local people at all.
I stick to my argument.
There was a better solution offered by the general reserve, Deputy Cooper. The general reserve came into action immediately he saw the obvious contradiction between the two things. His argument was that we were not even trying to make the best of both worlds, but that we were trying to make the worst of both worlds —that the Bill has the evils of both systems and the advantages of none. I would suggest to Deputy Gorey that that is better than sticking to his own explanation. It is a beautiful way of trying to have it both ways. Deputy Gorey is only trying to have it one way.
I am sticking to my argument.
From the point of view of trying to get out of the situation, I would suggest that Deputy Cooper's is far the better way. We had people talking about examinations. One Deputy told us that we were sweeping aside examinations, that we did not want examinations, that instead, as we used to say long ago, of letting the best horse leap the ditch, we were introducing a corrupt system. It was rather interesting to notice the people who were against competitive examination. Deputy Sir James Craig said that that was not an infallible method, and the Minister for Education and the Minister for Industry and Commerce told us that we need not pin our faith to competitive examinations too much. Of course, everybody who has had experience of competitive examinations knows full well that they do not always get the best results. But they have been accepted generally. Why? Because we cannot do this thing the President seems to suggest can be done; we are not able to determine by any general process who is the best qualified candidate. It is an open question. We can easily test the opposite. We can very often tell when a person is unsuitable.
There are various things you know are necessary, the absence of which would make the candidate unsuitable. For instance, if a person was not qualified in medicine at all we would know he would be unsuitable. There are various defects of character which are best known to the local people. These defects of various kinds would make it obvious that the person would not be the proper person to appoint. But in the long run we must admit that there is no infallible way of getting the best candidate. All we can do is to set up the best machinery by which we can get the nearest to it and try to make mistakes as seldom as possible. There may be differences of opinion on what would be the results of the machinery, but surely we ought to face the thing. We ought not to face it, as the President did, with the statement that there is some political motive at the back of it.
I did not say that, as well as I remember.
You said more than that. We all know perfectly well that once the majority Party in the House take up a certain attitude with respect to a Bill there is very little use in trying to give any arguments whatever for it. The decision is taken and, therefore, any efforts to put the Bill through are going to fail. We recognise that fact, but we believe that the Government is very unwise in doing that, that if they persist in that attitude and if the dissatisfaction which is common spreads then we will be forced to go back to the other alternative. My view in the matter was that, by having the methods of appointment made clear, by making it obvious to everyone that there was no favouritism, and that the best attempt possible was being made to get the most suitable candidate it would save us from being driven to, perhaps, a line of action which may not by any means be the best. If you have sensible means, very often you will avoid driving people to certain extremes. I say that the whole policy of the Executive in these matters of centralisation is a wrong policy, that it dissatisfies people because it betokens unnecessary and wrongful distrust of the people. No attempt has been made by the Executive to take into account the differences of opinions that there are likely to be on matters of this kind, and to enable local people to have their way as much as it is possible. One cannot be very enthusiastic in arguments in favour of a particular thing when one knows that the result will be that you might as well have been talking to a stone wall.
We are prepared to listen.
Consequently I feel that very little will come from what I am saying. But perhaps something might come if there was an inquiry. I do not wish it to be a whitewashing inquiry, and the people will not be satisfied with a whitewashing inquiry. If there is an inquiry of this particular kind, and if there is a withholding of papers which ought not to be withheld, then you will not have a right inquiry. I suggest that, instead of restoring anything like public confidence, it would do the reverse.
Does the Deputy say that we ought to give papers that are confidential?
No, I do not. I say that there are certain papers that could not be given if you gave a promise beforehand that you would not reveal them, but I say that if that is so you will not have an inquiry that can restore public confidence.
I think it could be.
I doubt that. Let us try it. We are quite prepared to have this postponed. I believe that if this Bill were postponed a number of people here would listen with much more open minds to the discussion on this question than they listened a few days ago when Ministers were on the rampage.
The Deputy is very reasonable.
Yes, I have always been reasonable.
He has three chances—this Bill, this amendment, and another amendment.
I believe that when you go out for something you ought to try to win it. I do not believe in giving up before I have to. But in this particular case I hold it is a very important matter. I would point out something to the President, something that will show him how this statement that "We have divested ourselves of patronage," and so on, does not cut any ice, to use a common expression of the people in the country. Look at the Chairman of this Commission, who is a member of the Civil Service Commission. The fact that I am introducing personalities in this shows the fact that we are using the Civil Service Commission. Did the Executive Council, when they were divesting themselves of patronage, go, for example, to some non-political people, as we might call them? Did they go, for instance, to the University? They wanted to get people in whom, from their own point of view, they thought they would have confidence. But I say that they cannot expect that the average person would have the same confidence in them. They took the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission. They did not take some people in the University or some people who were non-political.
We went very near it.
"Very near" is different from putting one of their closest colleagues on it. Look at the Chairman, for example. We are not saying anything against the Chairman, and I hope that nobody will take it that we are, but I say that he does not inspire confidence, and he does not inspire it in me, and I believe that in matters of this kind, I am as fair as most people are. Knowing the difficulties, and knowing that at some time or other such a Commission had to be appointed by the Executive Council, I realise some of the difficulties of the case. But I say that if the Executive Council wanted to get real confidence in their Commissioners they should not have taken immediate colleagues of their own and put them into this position. When they did that they can no longer say that they have divested themselves of patronage. They cannot have it both ways. If they want to do it they will have to do it boldly and say that there may have been things done out of ignorance by people who were not associated with the Executive Council. I am using the word "ignorance" in its fundamental and proper meaning. I have often looked for excuses for their actions. Unfortunately it is a failing of mine that, instead of trying to do what, I think, Morley said, that nobody in a debate should do when he hears an argument from the opposite side—that is, ask himself how much truth there is in it—he should ask himself how it can be answered, my attitude as a rule has been to see what truth there is in the statements made by the other side. Even when our political opponents have set up this machinery, I have asked myself if there is any good reason for it, and I could only find one for that particular type of appointment, and the only one I could discover was that in this case they knew the general policy of the Government and so they might be useful and proper instruments for the carrying out of that policy. But if that is so do not say that you have divested yourselves of political patronage, because you have not. If you were to put people there who would not make the mistakes that outsiders might make, through ignorance of the general trend of policy, if the Executive Council wanted to get confidence they would have done far better, in making appointments for this purpose, to set up a board that could not be associated directly with them in politics.
As I have said, I have not attempted to go through all the arguments in detail. The Bill would do a number of things. It would give extended power of promotion to the local bodies. I think the Minister for Industry and Commerce said that the local people would have to say whether they were to take the initiative of doing without competitive examination. Suppose they had to do so, do you not think that a local board ought to be competent to decide for itself whether appointments ought to be by competitive examination, or whether, in view of what was required, it would be necessary to have the examination in another form? They could not do it themselves; they would have to do this dispensing in conjunction with the Minister, so that at every stage the Minister would have an opportunity of dealing with it.
There seems to be agreement about the setting up of this Committee. We are prepared to support that amendment, because we believe that if there is an inquiry, and if it is not a whitewashing inquiry, there will be sufficient material to show that the system as it exists is not a good one, and that sufficient material would come from its deliberations to show that it would be wise to send down to a local body, not one name but three. As far as I am concerned, I want it to be quite clearly understood that even if the Committee showed that nothing wrong was done, as a general system I would prefer the system in this Bill. I see only one evil in it, that is, that there might be a certain amount of canvassing under it, but the avoidance of that evil would be easy. As long as it cannot do any harm to the community by foisting somebody on to the people who is incompetent, it is a matter of protecting members of councils from individual annoyance by means of canvassing, and they can very well protect themselves from that point of view. We are prepared to support the amendment on the understanding that we get a report from the Committee, and that then the whole question concerning this Bill can be considered.
I am glad to have that declaration from Deputy de Valera. Might I ask him would he be prepared to accept an amendment omitting the words "papers, persons and records," on the understanding that we would get all that were not confidential?
Why not say "except such papers about which there have been confidential agreements"? I do not mean confidential in any sense, except where they are explicitly precluded by having made agreements that certain things were confidential.
I am afraid that would not do. I saw one of those files in connection with certain suggestions that were made when some of the boards were set up, and there were candid comments by some persons who would not wish to have those comments disclosed. In that case I do not think they ever anticipated that they would be disclosed. I do not think it would be fair to do so. I do not know if anyone would learn anything from those comments, except to have remarks passed about them.
To say how much was given for bedside manners.
There is nothing of that sort. As far as the Selection Board is concerned there would be nothing of that sort, but there are other remarks which, though not made in a confidential way, they assumed were given in confidence. There is no attempt to burke anything, but I would like to make sure that, even in a certain case where it was accepted that they were made in confidence, that would be respected, I am not claiming any general dispensation in respect of documents at all.
Deputy O'Connell's amendment gives power to send for persons, papers and records. Papers and records are only useful in so far as they concern business. If there was general agreement to drop the words "papers and records," and to let the Committee send for persons who have been influenced by these papers and records, perhaps that would do. I know that there has been considerable talk outside about people who have been members of Selection Boards since appointments were made. I think it is only right to give them an opportunity of being brought before the Committee and of giving evidence. After all, if the persons are available, papers and records are not an advantage.
Could not the President find wording that would meet with the approval of the House, and that would protect him in connection with any undertaking he gave in regard to these confidential documents? If persons, papers and documents were sent for, except papers and records which must be regarded and treated as confidential, would the President agree to accept that form?
It is the sort of resolution that I would not like to see passed by the Dáil. I think there is danger in that. If the Committee, in the course of its investigations, finds that it cannot pursue these investigations, it can report back. I think that would be better than limiting by a resolution of the Dáil the scope of the inquiry.
I submit that we are in this position: that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who spoke more definitely from the Government Benches than anyone else along these lines—that if there was willingness to have this, that and the other in black and white when the President is to meet cases put forward——
The Deputy did not give me any notice of that.
Yes. You got it the other night.
What I suggest is to leave out power to send for persons, papers and records until the Select Committee has inquired into and reported on the work of Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act.
Might I ask what does the President expect would come from such a Committee? Is it not obvious that if we were to inquire into the working of that Act we can find out without any inquiry? Is it not obvious that if we are not to inquire into particular appointments that were made in the past you will not get a proper inquiry? Is not the whole question that there is public dissatisfaction because of the feeling that certain appointments in the past have not been properly made? Surely you will not dispel that suspicion unless the Committee is able to examine into these appointments, and say if, in fact, they believe they have been properly made? The best way to dispel suspicion in the public mind is for a Committee representative of all parties to bring in a report stating that they have examined into the appointments, and that they are satisfied that they have been made without any question of undue influence, as far as human beings could arrive at the best results.
I am in agreement with the President. After every examination in Trinity College I suppose there are from twelve to twenty of the students who have to seek appointments elsewhere than in Ireland. Some of them are seeking assistantships or are trying to get into the Army and Navy. They usually give my name as a reference. I receive documents marked "confidential" asking me to state certain things and saying that under no circumstances will my statement be revealed. I give an honest opinion, and I would consider it a very serious breach of confidence if the contents of a document that I signed was revealed. I do not see how the President could give way there.
I would like to get agreement. Some candidates, after the Selection Boards have reported, have written to the Local Appointments Commissioners expressing satisfaction with whatever investigation or examination there was, but they asked that their marks should not be published. Deputies have put questions to me here in connection with this matter, and I find it difficult to think of what precautions I must take to ensure that a certain amount of respect is paid to the confidence reposed in us. Other than that, I see no objection to the normal inquiry proceeding until there is either satisfaction expressed at the course of its work, or they report back saying that it is not possible to go on.
I understand the President's difficulty, and I quite appreciate the views expressed by Deputy Sir James Craig, that if information of a confidential character is given no Executive has any right to reveal it. I quite understand that. I think it would be altogether wrong to do so. We do not ask for that, but surely in regard to the marks, for example, that an examining board sends into the Central Commission there ought to be no question of confidence or secrecy about them.
They could only be given in confidence. On representation from, I think, two members of the Dáil, I have given the marks in particular cases, but I have only given them in confidence.
Could you give the marks?
I cannot say right off, but I think so.
I think it is wrong that the Executive should hold that the marks should be regarded as confidential. I mean that the Executive ought to draw the line in certain cases. We can understand a private statement with regard to character, as mentioned by Deputy Craig, being got and accepted under the strict seal of confidence and secrecy. But I see no reason why the Board of Examiners should not put down their marks in black and white.
The Executive Council have on no occasion received a report as regards marks—never at any time.
I would imagine that as far as a regulation of that kind in connection with the Local Appointments Commissioners is concerned there should be a clear understanding between the Local Appointments Commissioners and the Executive. The Executive Council are answerable to the members of the House for various Executive functions, and they are answerable to the House, for instance, in the case of an inquiry of this kind, and in order that such an inquiry would protect the Executive they ought to make arrangements that marks, except where it is held they are absolutely confidential, should be available.
This is a statutory body and it is independent of the Executive Council. The Executive can change it and alter its personnel, but as long as it is there it is as independent of the Executive as the judiciary.
Surely it is not going to be claimed that a lay board is to take these marks, analyse them and see whether they were properly apportioned, especially when they would not have even seen the candidates?
My point is that they should take the marks and see whether the person appointed is the person who got the highest marks. We do not want an inquiry at all—for I suppose we would get the same distance without it—as to ordinary procedure.
I think we have reached a fair measure of agreement in this matter. Having regard to that, I am prepared to leave out of the amendment the words "empowered to send for persons, papers and records" on the pledge that I have from the President that apart from anything that must be regarded as confidential, because there was the seal of confidence in it, persons and other records will be available. I understand that from the President, and I would be prepared to leave out the part of the amendment that I have mentioned until the Committee found, as they might, that they could not make any progress without such papers. Then they could report back to the House. If there is general agreement, I suggest to Deputy de Valera that the amendment should stand as it is with the omission of the words "empowered to send for persons, papers and records." Meanwhile the Bill is there still.
Oh, no.
Mr. O'CONNELL
I understood that was so, but that not being the case I will let the amendment go.
resumed the Chair.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 64.
Tá.
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Clancy, Patrick.
- Clery, Michael.
- Colbert, James.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Holt, Samuel.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Killane, James Joseph.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Redmond, William Archer.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipperary).
- Smith, Patrick.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Davis, Michael.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cooper, Bryan Ricco.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Cassidy and G. Boland; Níl: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.
Amendment declared lost.
Question put: That the Bill be now read a Second Time.
The Dáil divided: Tá 47; Níl 76.
Tá.
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carty, Frank.
- Clery, Michael.
- Colbert, James.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Holt, Samuel.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Killane, James Joseph.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
- Smith, Patrick.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Clancy, Patrick.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Everett, James.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Hassett, John J.
- Haffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cooper, Bryan Ricco.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davin, William.
- Davis, Michael.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies G. Boland and Allen; Níl: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.
Motion declared lost.