Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 10 Jun 1932

Vol. 42 No. 8

Dublin and Blessington Steam Tramway (Abandonment) Bill, 1932—Committee.

Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 5.
(4) The County Councils and the Corporation may each, with the sanction of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, offer or bid for and purchase any land (not having buildings thereon) offered for sale by the Committee in pursuance of this section which is situate within their county or the county borough, as the case may be.
(5) The County Councils and the Corporation shall each of them execute at their own expense such conveyances of property of the undertaking sold by the Committee under this Act as shall reasonably be required by the respective purchasers of such property or by the Committee.

I move amendment No. 1:

In sub-section (4), page 4, line 36, before the word "any" to insert the words "for any purpose for which they are authorised to acquire land" and in lines 36 and 37 to delete the words and brackets "(not having buildings thereon)."

This amendment is for the purpose of clarifying the position of the County Councils and the Corporation and to make clear that any new additional powers are not being conferred on them.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendment No. 2, in the name of Deputy Finlay, is being met by a Ministerial amendment.

Amendment not moved.

I move amendment No. 3:

In sub-section 5, page 4, line 41, to delete the words "their own expense" and substitute the words "the expense of the Committee."

This is merely a drafting amendment, and it describes more correctly the procedure than the original wording did. The result will be the same eventually, as the Committee of Management are acting for the County Council and the Corporation.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Sections 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 8.
(9) In each of the first eight of the financial years mentioned in the first column of the First Schedule to this Act the Dublin Council shall raise the amount by which the sum payable under this section by that Council to the Commissioners in that year exceeds the sum payable under this section by the Corporation to the said Council in that year and the said Council shall raise the said amount in the same manner and in the same proportions off so much of the guaranteeing area as is within the county of Dublin on the appointed day as moneys payable by the said Council in respect of the maintenance and working of the undertaking and the dividends on the guaranteed shares were raisable immediately before the passing of this Act.
(10) In each of the first eight of the financial years mentioned in the first column of the First Schedule to this Act, the Corporation shall raise the sum payable under this section by the Corporation to the Dublin Council in that year by means of the municipal rate in the same proportions off the portion of the guaranteeing area situate within the county borough on the appointed day as moneys payable by the the Dublin Council in respect of the maintenance and working of the undertaking and the dividends on the guaranteed shares were raisable off the said portion of the guaranteeing area immediately before such portion became included in the county borough.

I move amendment No. 4:

In sub-section (9) page 7, line 35 to delete the words "in the same proportions."

This is also a drafting amendment.

The words being deleted are not necessary.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 5:

In sub-section (10) page 7, line 45 to delete the words "in the same proportions" and to delete all from the word "as" in line 47 to the end of the sub-section.

This is also a drafting amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 8 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Sections 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 11.
(1) Every person who was in the employment of the Committee on the 20th day of April, 1932, shall, unless (either before or after the passing of this Act) he voluntarily retires or is dismissed for misconduct from that service before the appointed day, be entitled to be paid by the Committee compensation calculated and payable in the manner set out in the Second Schedule hereto.
(3) The Chief Justice, whenever requested by the Minister so to do, shall appoint a practising barrister to be the standing arbitrator for the purposes of this section and shall fix the remuneration to be paid to such barrister for his services as such arbitrator.

I move amendment No. 6:

In sub-section (1), page 8, line 43, to delete the word "paid" and substitute the word "awarded."

This is also a drafting amendment. Compensation will be awarded by the Committee of Management and paid by the County Council of Wicklow and the Corporation in the proper proportions.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 7:

In sub-section (3), page 8, line 58, after the word "and" to insert the words "the Minister for Finance."

It is considered that in the case of the arbitrator, should his services be required at all, the fees to be fixed should not be greater than those sanctioned by the Minister for Finance if they come to be paid out of public funds.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 8:

At the end of the section, page 10, line 3, to add two new sub-sections as follows:—

(7) Where a county council is authorised by this section to borrow money, such council may borrow such money under Article 22 of the Schedule to the Local Government (Application of Enactments) Order, 1898, in like manner as if the purposes of this section were mentioned in that Article, and money so borrowed shall not be reckoned as part of the debt of such council for the purposes of the said Article.

(8) Where the Corporation is authorised by this section to borrow money, it may borrow such money as if the purposes of this section were a purpose for which the Corporation is authorised to borrow under the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, and money so borrowed shall not be reckoned as part of the total debt of the Corporation for the purposes of any limitation on its borrowing powers.

This amendment is being inserted at the request of the Department of Local Government and Public Health. The object of the amendment is merely to specify the powers under which the County Councils and Corporation respectively are enabled to borrow money for the purposes of the section.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 12.
(3) All moneys payable by the Corporation to the Dublin Council under this section shall be raised by the Corporation by means of the municipal rate in the same proportions off the portion of the guaranteeing area for the time being situate within the county borough as moneys payable by the Dublin Council in respect of the maintenance and working of the undertaking and the dividends on the guaranteed shares were raisable off the said portion of the guaranteeing area immediately before such portion became included in the county borough.

I move amendment No. 9:

In sub-section (3), page 10, line 27, to delete the words "in the same proportion" and to delete all from the word "as" in line 29 to the end of the sub-section.

This is a consequential amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Section 13, 14, 15 and 16, inclusive, and the First Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECOND SCHEDULE—CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION.
1. For the purposes of this Schedule—
(a) employment by the Company, employment by the Interim Manager, and employment by the Committee shall each of them be deemed to be employment by the undertaking;
(b) the service of any person shall be deemed to continue up to the day on which he ceased or ceases to be in the employment of the Committee;
(c) the expression "the critical date" means, in respect of any person, the day before the appointed day or the day on which such person ceased or ceases to be in the employment of the Committee, whichever first occurs;
(d) references to the earlier or to the later of two dates shall, where those dates coincide, be treated as references to both those dates.
2. The compensation payable to a person who, on the critical date, had been in the employment of the undertaking for a period not exceeding five years shall be a gratuity calculated on the basis of one-sixth of the amount of his annual remuneration and emoluments on the critical date for every completed year of his service.
3. The compensation payable to a person who, on the critical date, had been in the employment of the undertaking for a period exceeding five years shall be an annual sum to be paid to him during his life not exceeding in any case two-thirds of his remuneration and emoluments on the critical date and, subject to that limitation, to be calculated at the rate of one-sixtieth of such annual remuneration and emoluments for every completed year of his service with an addition thereto based on the number of completed years of his service and calculated according to the following scale:—
if he has twenty or more completed years of service, an addition of ten-sixtieths of his said remuneration and emoluments;
if he has fifteen or more completed years of service and less than twenty such years, an addition of seven-sixtieths of his said remuneration and emoluments;
if he has ten or more completed years of service and less than fifteen such years, an addition of five-sixtieths of his said remuneration and emoluments;
if he has five or more completed years of service and less than fifteen such years, an addition of five-sixtieths of his said remuneration and emoluments;
5. (a) Where any person who is entitled to receive compensation was temporarily absent from the employment of the undertaking and during the whole of such absence was engaged in service in any of the military forces serving under the authority of the First Dáil Eireann, the Second Dáil Eireann, or the Provisional Government of Ireland, or the British Army, Navy or Air Force, or in either of the opposing forces during the civil strife in the years 1922, 1923, 1924, or was interned or imprisoned in consequence of such civil strife, such temporary absence shall for the purposes of this Schedule be reckoned and included in the period of his service.

I move amendment No. 10:

At the end of Rule 1 to add a new paragraph as follows:—"(a) the expression ‘annual remuneration' shall, in the case of persons employed at a rate of wages per hour, be calculated on a basis of fifty-two weeks of forty-seven hours each."

For the information of the House I might state that this amendment refers only to eleven shop men who have worked for a number of years for the Tramway Co. Some 18 months or two years ago, as we are all aware, when the Blessington Tramway was not a paying concern, those eleven men, in order to facilitate the company, agreed to work for 48 hours per week. It does not mean a whole lot to ask that these men be put on a 47 hours week now. It amounts only to 1/6 per week for some of them and to less for more of them. The Dublin County Council has agreed to this and I would ask the Minister and the House also to agree to it. It is only for the past two years that the men have been working 48 hours.

The compensation terms provided for in the Schedule are similar to those provided under the Railways Act and it seems to me undesirable that they should be better in the case of this concern, which is practically bankrupt and on the point of closing down, than those provided for redundant workers following the amalgamation of the railways. I think it is undesirable that we should limit a clause of this Schedule in a way in which a similar clause in the Railways Act was not limited. I appreciate the amendment is designed to meet the position of men working short time, but on account of the bad financial condition of the Company, I think all the circumstances must be taken into account. Although I appreciate the point of view put forward by the Deputy, I think it would be better that this amendment should not be inserted, as it raises these larger issues to which I refer. The men will be compensated upon the basis set out in the third paragraph of the Schedule, that is, annual payment equal to two-thirds of the remuneration received by them on the critical day. Taking it all in all, that appears to be a fair basis.

I would again urge the Minister to consider the amendment, as it only affects 11 men. These men at the time agreed with the county surveyor to facilitate the county council. It would not create a precedent in regard to the other railways, and the Minister need not fear that he is giving very much away in treating these men in the way I suggest. They facilitated the Dublin County Council and the Wicklow County Council in falling in line with their request. I have the names of the 11 men who are tradesmen and workmen, working in the shop.

There are only 11 men involved, but, in this Bill we are following the precedent established by the Railways Act. The same question might arise in a case under different circumstances in which a much larger number of men would be involved, in which case it would not be desirable that the precedent which the Deputy wishes to establish should be established. Although it only applies to a small number of men in this case, it establishes a new principle in the calculation of compensation in accordance with the Schedule to the Railways Act and this Schedule. I am anxious that that principle should not be established in one particular case involving a small number of individuals.

Will the Minister consider the matter further before Report Stage?

I will do that, and take the views of the County Council.

The Minister said that he stood on principle. Now he is going to consider something. If he is not going to stand on principle, he might as well give in to the compassionate appeal made by Deputy Curran, that there are only 11 men involved. The question may only involve 11 men, but the principle is one that may work down to thousands of men hereafter. It is gratifying to hear from the Minister that the Railways Act Schedule is a sound one, and one that should be followed. I see in that the birth of sanity.

I did not say that.

The Minister is following the precedent established in the Railways Act, and he is not going to change it for Deputy Curran, although there are only 11 men involved. The sum which would accrue, as Deputy Curran pointed out, would be small, and it would not be a burden on State funds, as Deputy Curran might have said. The Minister is right, and I hope he sticks to his first point—the point of principle. The extension of those precedents has to be watched. I should like Deputy Curran to consider this as a matter of principle. Here is a business which has gone out of operation, not because of any adverse action by a Government, but because a particular form of transport in a particular area is found to be unsuitable. When you come to the end of the life of that concern, why should you take, as a basis for either pensions or gratuities, the terms of employment or the hours worked when this concern was at its best? That is the precedent the Deputy is seeking to establish in putting forward the case of these 11 men. Although he can make a very compassionate appeal on the basis that the change will not cost much, and that the cost will not be borne by funds raised by the State, there is this to be remembered—that, in the interests of the classes for whom the Deputy speaks, it would be a wise thing not to put any difficulties in the way of compensation being given at any time by insisting that compensation is to be marked at the highest point to which men might have gone when a concern of this sort was in a state of prosperity.

I am not accepting as my own the words that the Deputy has put into my mouth. What I am anxious to secure is that no change in the basis of compensation shall be made until all the possible consequences shall have been examined. It is undesirable, where only a limited number of individuals are concerned, that because of compassionate appeals made on behalf of that number a change should be made which might have very wide ramifications. I am not accepting the basis of compensation laid down in the Railways Act as the fairest basis that could have been secured.

You are not changing it at the moment?

Other principles have been introduced into this Bill, and I do not see that the introduction of this principle would disturb matters very much. I would ask the Minister to get into communication with the two county councils concerned. If they have no objection to the proposal of Deputy Curran, I do not see why it should not be introduced, having regard to the fact that other new principles have been already introduced. The cost will not be borne by State funds, and if the local people have no objection to the course proposed I would ask the Minister to make the necessary provision on the Report Stage.

If this were a matter that affected only the county councils and the people concerned in this particular case, it would be quite easy to deal with it, but it may affect a much larger number of people, and may have other reactions in the future. That is why it is not considered desirable that the basis of calculating compensation should be altered until all the consequences can be examined.

Does the Deputy ask for leave to withdraw the amendment?

I suppose there is no option but to do that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendments 11 and 12:—

11. In Rule 2, page 12, line 21, to delete the words "not exceeding" and substitute the words "of less than."

12. In Rule 3, page 12, line 27, to delete the word "exceeding" and substitute the words "of not less than."

These amendments are to correct a drafting error and make clear the compensation terms of the employees. A man who has less than five years' service will receive a gratuity. A man who has five years' service or over will receive a pension. The terms of compensation are the same as in the Railways Act.

The terms as they are to be amended are the same?

This only affects a person who is actually five years in employment—neither more nor less. Are there any people in that position?

I could not say.

Amendments agreed to.

I move amendment 13:—

In Rule 5 (a) page 12, lines 59-60, to delete the words "the Provisional Government of Ireland" and insert in lieu thereof the words "in the National Forces, or in the Defence Forces of Saorstát Eireann."

This amendment is to correct what, in my opinion, is a drafting error. When I asked the Minister why the Defence Forces were so described in this amendment, he said it was simply as a matter of convenience. I submit that the most convenient way in which to describe the forces acting under the Provisional Government or the Government of Saorstát Eireann is the way in which they are already described in existing legislation.

I take it that it is the intention of the Deputy to ensure that any person who was absent from his employment in consequence of service given against the National Forces should be debarred from having that period taken into account?

Not on this amendment. That is quite a different thing and we can argue it on its merits.

The Deputy is moving to delete the words "the Provisional Government of Ireland." The wording contained in the Bill is that which was in it when the change of Government took place. It is necessary that these words should remain. Otherwise, certain confusion would arise and people whom the Deputy is anxious to safeguard might find themselves at a disadvantage.

In legislation already introduced the words "the National Forces" have been given an interpretation. They mean and include the armed forces maintained by the Provisional Government or the Government of Saorstát Eireann. The "Defence Forces of Saorstát Eireann" mean the forces established pursuant to the provisions of the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923.

The Deputy is trying to alter the drafting?

I submit that the description should be the same as has hitherto been used for the sake of clarity, simplicity and the convenience that the Minister speaks about.

I shall have to look into that. I have explained that the wording here—"Forces serving under the authority of the first Dáil Eireann, the second Dáil Eireann or the Provisional Government of Ireland or the British Army, Navy or Air Force"—is the wording which was in the draft in my Department when the change of Government took place. It has not been changed by me.

In legislation, the forces of the Provisional Government have already been described as the National Forces. I have no objection if the Minister wants to get in the forces of the Provisional Government, but I submit that the forces established under the Defence Forces Act and the forces that operated between the cessation of the Provisional Government and the coming into force of the Defence Forces Act ought to be described in the way in which they have hitherto been described.

I would like to make clear that in determining the form of words which is contained in this paragraph I did not intend to place any slight whatever upon the forces that served during the civil war under the authority of this Dáil. The wording which is contained there was decided upon for convenience mainly in order to sidestep the difficulties that would arise if we were to try to get a legal phrase to describe the various forces during that period. It was decided that they should be considered upon an absolute equality in legislation of this sort and that no privileges or concession should be given those serving on one side as against the other. I submit that the Deputy is supersensitive in thinking that any slight whatever was put upon the forces serving under this Dáil.

I am not concerned with the insult in any way at all. I am only concerned with having things described in a way in which there can be no question of want of clarity arising. The two forces are described quite separately. One is described as "The military forces serving under the authority of the First Dáil Eireann, the Second Dáil Eireann, or the Provisional Government of Ireland, or the British Army, Navy or Air Force." We have already described in legislation in very definite terms the forces set up and acting under the Provisional Government and the Government after the Saorstát was founded. I submit that these ought to be so described now, and that there is no necessity for the addition introduced by the Minister.

Mr. Hayes

I take it that the Minister alluded both to "the forces serving under the Provisional Government of Ireland" and the next phrase, "or in either of the opposing forces during the civil strife in the years 1922, 1923 and 1924." What is the Minister's objection to describing the National forces or Defence forces in the usual statutory manner? There is an overlapping there. The present phrasing is confusing the forces during the civil war. The Provisional Government lapsed during the civil war. There is nothing to prevent the Minister from defining the State forces in the proper statutory way, and, for the purpose of conferring a particular benefit upon other forces, defining them as opposing forces.

The Deputy will remember that it is not possible to regard the events of that period apart altogether from the light of the present. When the Deputy talks of State forces he immediately raises the issue—on which side were the State forces? I determined upon this form of words in order to avoid the necessity of having to describe either force during that period in a way that might be regarded as derogatory to those engaged on either side.

Mr. Hayes

I use the words "State forces" for the purpose of making myself clear now, but they are defined in a statute as National or Defence Forces. Why cannot the Minister adopt the statutory name for these forces now, because it seems to me quite clear that there is much more than the simple avoidance of a difficulty in the phrase the Minister uses "opposing forces." It enshrines a principle. It enshrines a view of history.

It does.

Has the Minister any objection to saying "the forces that during the civil strife in 1922, 1923 and 1924 opposed the National forces, or the Defence forces," and to describe them as the Irish Republican Army of these particular years?

I have no objection except that I do not think the term might cover all those whom it is desired to cover. I am not sure that that is so. It seems to me that the situation is met in the easiest manner by the words inserted in the Bill. If the Deputy is prepared to submit that amendment on the Report Stage to embody that description——

I submit to the Minister that that is not my business.

I am quite satisfied with the wording as it is there, but the Deputy desires to change it. I take it that the position is this: that there should not be any advantage given to one side or the other.

We have not come to the discussion of that point at all. I make no suggestion as to that.

I thought that was the point we were discussing.

The only point that we are discussing here is that we are supposed to take cognisance of the services of certain bodies and for that purpose certain forces have been described as forces acting under the authority of the First Dáil Eireann, the Second Dáil Eireann, or the Provisional Government of Ireland or the British Army, Navy or Air Force; and then the forces that were engaged in what is called the civil strife in 1922, 1923 and 1924. I pointed out that there is already a statutory description given to the forces that acted under the Provisional Government here, and a statutory description given to those forces continuing under the Government of the Saorstát and that it is unsound and unreasonable that these forces would not be described in the way in which they have been described already by statute quite apart from whatever forces the Minister desires to add to the list.

This is merely a discussion about terminology. The thing which we are anxious to provide is this: that if any employee of this concern was absent from his work because of service during the civil war period with either force engaged in it, that that absence would not count against him when calculating his pension under the scheme set out here. I submit that if we achieve that, the manner in which we achieve it is of minor importance. I submit that the manner in which we achieve it by this paragraph 5 seems to be quite satisfactory. I have an idea that this discussion is purely academic, because probably there is nobody affected by it. It would be quite satisfactory if they are provided for as set out here irrespective of what particular form of words is considered necessary.

How will it be possible to get records as to those who served with the forces opposed to the State forces? Naturally the records from the Free State Army will be available, but I am not sure that there are any means of ascertaining the names of the others if there are such.

Mr. Hayes

The Minister stated that the use of the words "the State forces" raised the whole question of the civil war. It is a strange irony that the only vehicle that this House has so far found on which Deputies might, in an orderly fashion, travel back to the civil war is the Blessington steam tram on the Dublin and Blessington Steam Tramway Bill. You may be reassured, sir, that I have no intention of going on that journey. From my early childhood I have been only too well acquainted with the Blessington steam tram, and the House may be assured that I will not do it the injustice of travelling back on it to the civil war.

With regard to this particular section, when I heard the Minister on the Second Stage, it occurred to me that there were two very different things involved. The Minister, on the Second Reading, said in effect that he did not want to let down the people with whom he fought. That sentiment is quite easy to understand, and one can quite appreciate that the Minister could hardly be in any other position. I suggest, however, he is purporting to do that in a way which is quite unnecessary and which goes much further than the actual conferring of any benefit on any member of any of the forces. What struck me most about the drafting of this particular paragraph 5 (a) in the Schedule were the words "or in either of the opposing forces during the civil strife in the years 1922, 1923, 1924," and the careful omission of any reference to the National Forces or the Defence Forces. It struck me that it was purely a political thing, and that it was an endeavour to enshrine in legislation a certain political outlook or certain political propaganda.

I must say the Minister has, to some extent, convinced me that that is not quite so; but, at the same time, I find it hard to get over that interpretation. I certainly object to the words used, and I support the amendment proposed by Deputy Mulcahy to insert certain other words. I adopt that attitude on the ground that in this House we have control of an Army, and that Army has a statutory name. If that Army is going to come into any part of any statute of ours, it should have applied to it its proper statutory name and no other name, no subterfuge and no concealment of any kind. The amendment to insert the words "in the National Forces, or in the Defence Forces of Saorstát Eireann" seems to me to be absolutely correct in so far as I have been able to examine it. These words should be used for the purpose of describing people who fought in these forces at the time.

That is my first objection to the words the Minister uses; the drafting is bad. Secondly, it is a misnomer; it is a concealing of the name of the National Forces. The Minister stated that he had no intention to insult them. It would be strange indeed if he had, considering that he shares, with the Minister for Defence and other Ministers, collective responsibility for the control of these forces. It seems strange that the Minister does not want to mention in the Bill the name of the force of which his colleague, the Minister for Defence, is Commander-in-Chief. It is difficult to understand that. Simply to put down in legislation, with the consent of this House, these words, "in either of the opposing forces during the civil strife," enables people to think that we believe in the propagated notion that what happened in 1922 was an armed faction fight.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Hayes

I do not want to say what it was, but I do not subscribe to that principle or that theory. I object to it being enshrined in legislation passed through this House that it was any such thing. I think, therefore, these words enshrine a distortion of history to which we should not give our consent. There is, perhaps, another and a more important— perhaps the most important—objection, and that is the effect of the use of these words upon the future. The Minister, after all, is the Minister for Industry and Commerce in this House because of the victory of one of those opposing forces over which he now has control. He sits in this House by no greater title and by no better right than his predecessor in 1922 and 1923 who controlled that force. If he does not simply state the name of that force in this Schedule it seems to me that he abandons some portion of his own rights and enables people who want to take up arms against this Government and against him as a Minister to hold the view that they—and this is the way he describes it himself—are merely an opposing force.

Apart from the merits, are those who fought against the National Forces in 1922 and 1923 in the same position as those who fought in these forces? That is a type of drafting which is open to very serious objection. I suggest that the Minister should take the statutory name which has been established for one of these forces and, for the accomplishment of his own object, assuming and accepting his complete bona fides in the matter, he should frame for the other force some suitable term. As he has phrased it now, he mentions the British Army and Navy, the British Air Force and then "either of the opposing forces", and he leaves out the force which is the force of this House, and which has a statutory name, which name the Minister ought to continue. In the light of what the Minister said so far, he would be prepared to accept that, to put these words in, and if he wants other words to describe other forces he can put those in, too. It is not for me to suggest what they should be.

On a purely technical point one of these forces did not get a statutory title at the time it was an opposing force. The statute was passed subsequently giving them a name. Actually you are avoiding that difficulty by not referring to them in the Bill.

As regards the opposing forces, one of the opposing forces for which Deputy Hayes speaks——

Mr. Hayes

On a point of explanation, I did not speak for any opposing force. I was simply speaking on the amendment.

——and for which he wants a statutory imprimatur for all their deeds, was not set up by any Act of the Dáil. It was constituted because of the passing of the Treaty. There was a certain state of things then. There was a Pact election, and the Dáil had not met. The National Army was afterwards constituted.

If the Minister, in the light of what he himself has stated, wants to think further over this matter and to see what kind of drafting he might suggest in connection with it, so as to make the thing more satisfactory from every point of view, I would be prepared to withdraw this until the Report Stage.

I do not think it will get us any further. I think the wording is the very best in all the circumstances. It is quite simple for Deputy Hayes to stand up here in 1932 and look back at 1922 and give his interpretation of the events of that period.

Mr. Hayes

I want to protest. I gave no interpretation of events in 1922, but I contend that the Minister is giving an interpretation of those events in this particular paragraph.

Two forces contended against each other in a civil war. One force won. Having won, it became the State force and the organisation it endeavoured to establish became the Legislature. If the other force had won it would have become the State force and the organisation it was trying to maintain would have become the State Legislature. We can argue about that until Doomsday and get no further. One side won the war and, having won it, was able to appropriate to itself all these titles and descriptions which the Deputy is now trying to retain. Let us consider that the Civil War period was an abnormal period. Let us make whatever provision we like for those engaged in the strife on either side. The side I was with was beaten; the side the Deputy was with won and a new situation was therein created.

Mr. Hayes

I am not going back to the Civil War question, but I would like to point out that the Minister's own words make it quite clear that he intends, by the drafting in this paragraph, to filch from the National Forces of Saorstát Eireann, the title which is by the statute of this House their proper title. I suggest in doing that he is doing for himself, as a member of a Government responsible to the House and having no more right or title than the Government had in 1922, a most dangerous thing, and he should not do it. There is no insult to anybody involved in adopting calmly and quietly and without fuss the sta- tutory title for the force over which the Minister has control.

When did they get it?

Mr. Hayes

We are sitting in a Parliament in 1932, and if this is the beginning of a process whereby the Minister is going to undertake the examination of names and titles and put them right in the light of a particular view and a particular set of events, then we are going to do what the Minister suggested we ought not to do—that is, to discuss things until Doomsday and get no further.

The Minister should adopt the statutory title for these particular forces, and he should not favour another title for the other forces. As far as I am concerned, I am not going for a moment into the merits of the various forces. I can understand the Minister wanting to make provision for certain members of certain forces. That will have to be discussed calmly and quietly, and certain kinds of provision may have to be discussed sympathetically, but there is a question here quite different altogether from the making of any provision for anybody who suffered from anything during the civil war.

The Deputy wants me to put into this Bill words which would mean that I accept this interpretation of that period. The facts are that during that period both sections were calling themselves the Irish Republican Army. Is not that so? Deputy Mulcahy cannot contradict me on that

That is not so.

Every Deputy, possibly, knows quite well that for a long period during the civil war it was being asserted continually by Deputies opposite that the forces under their control were the Irish Republican Army, and that they were going to be kept as such, and that the opposing forces were mutineers from their army. Obviously, we get into that whole issue if we raise this matter. We are trying to avoid these issues, and it is in order to make the provisions which we want to make in this Bill without asking the Dáil to determine the rights or wrongs of 1922 and 1923 that we want to put in the words that I have suggested.

If the Deputy wants to go into the question of the Dáil forces of January and February, 1922, and the forces that were serving the Provisional Government, he can look back over the records of this House in 1922. We are not here discussing the forces that served the Provisional Government and those that served the Government of Saorstát Eireann when the Government of Saorstát Eireann replaced the Provisional Government.

In September, 1922, orders and communications were issued from Portobello Barracks under the heading "Oglaigh na hEireann," translated Irish Republican Army. He cannot deny that, and our forces took the same name and used it.

No one has explained why the Minister is not prepared to describe the forces that opposed the National forces at that time as the Irish Republican Army of 1922, 1923 and 1924.

I am only anxious to determine why we should include the forces on both sides during that period. I am not at all clear that those who opposed the Irish Republican Army at that period were or could be properly described as the Defence Forces of Saorstát Eireann, or the National Army or anything of that kind. There were quite a number of forces taking part in that struggle, some uniformed and some ununiformed and some with quite fancy titles. We are trying to side track all these difficulties by putting in the term "either of the opposing forces." When we use that term we want to include all those who are entitled to come under this without raising any of these political or constitutional issues or setting out ourselves to determine now in 1932, what were the true historical facts relating to 1922. There was a Government here with defence forces under its control and another Government was established with forces under its control. These two Governments fought for supremacy. One Government won and succeeded in putting the other out of existence and that is why we are sitting here at the present moment discussing it. If the fortunes of war had gone the other way, an entirely different situation would have been created. That was not my fault at any rate. But let us, here in 1932, shut down on that period and see that these issues need not be revived. It is my opinion that the reviving of these issues may be avoided by utilising some such term as I have used here.

This question has been raised by the Deputies opposite on a Bill in which eleven persons, we are told, are involved. Of these eleven persons not a single one is likely to be involved in this issue, and with that kind of very shadowy and nebulous objective we have the opportunity taken by the Ministers and Deputies on the other side to take advantage of an electoral decision given on the basis of promises to bring prosperity and do away with unemployment in this country. We have that majority made use of to wipe out their sins of 1922, 1923 and 1924.

Where are the sins of 1922?

Deputies

We are absolved.

That is all this amounts to.

All of us are in entire agreement with the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the leaders of the Opposition in reiterating their emphatic desire not to discuss at this juncture the merits of the occurrences of 1922, 1923 and 1924. I would suggest to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, from whose observations I gathered the impression that he sincerely wishes to avoid giving offence to any section, that we have here a statutory form for describing the forces which are described as:

The armed forces maintained by the Provisional Government or the Government of Saorstát Eireann. The Defence Forces of Saorstát Eireann mean the forces established pursuant to the provisions of the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923.

That is the statutory form describing these forces, for which the Minister personally may have no responsibility. The Dáil has prescribed it, and if it gives offence to any section of our people to alter that statutory form I do not believe that is the intention of the Minister.

As the leader of the Opposition pointed out, they have not the slightest objection to any terminology he chooses to employ to describe the forces of which he was a member in those years. I do, respectfully, submit that where there is a statutory form that describes certain forces for which there is joint responsibility in the Dáil and not exclusive responsibility in the Minister, there could be no suggestion that he was accepting any view, or rejecting any view implied in the statutory form that has been employed for several years, in employing what would be deemed a more suitable term to describe forces to which he and many of his colleagues belonged. I cannot but think at this juncture, although Deputy Mulcahy says it might be a trivial matter, that if occasion is taken to alter an established statutory form, whether the Minister has made it clear or not, a great many people might take the view that he was using this Bill for the purpose of raising an issue that he does not want to raise, and that none of us wants to raise. If he does employ the old statutory form nobody would attempt to saddle upon him expressed acceptance or implied rejection of that form. It is simply the statutory form which the Dáil has used and endorsed for a number of years.

Its employment now implies no passing of judgment on the events of recent years, but it avoids the possibility of anybody who feels deeply about these matters feeling that the Minister has taken the opportunity, in a side-long way, of doing something calculated deeply to wound feelings deeply felt. He has the opportunity, as the Opposition pointed out, of using words to describe forces which they believed to be the defence forces of the time, as is implied in the statutory form, as suggested by Deputy Mulcahy; and making any such amendment as the Minister might suggest, in view of the employment of that form, which would avoid the possibility of anyone thinking that it was the object of the Minister to give offence.

If we are to avoid the issues that were fought out in 1922, all the effort must not come from this side.

Certainly not.

Deputies opposite previously referred to the forces with which I was associated as irregulars, mutineers, rebels against lawfully constituted authority. It is to maintain that description that they want to insert in the Bill a term of that nature that would apply to them whether they fought or not. What was it that happened at the time? There was a Government established here. To that Government I and those associated with me gave allegiance. Attempts were made to establish a rival Government, and civil war ensued. War took place and we were beaten. The forces that served under the then established Government dominated the situation here. Then the legislature met, and decided to apply to those forces, and to apply retrospectively to them, the term "National Forces." Those belonging to the other side thought otherwise. If the forces with which I fought at that time triumphed, no doubt the legislature that we would have established would have met and applied retrospectively to us the term "National Forces." Now, if all that the Bill desires to give expression to here is to ensure that the interpretation of these events accepted by the majority Party in this House is the only one to be enshrined in legislation, then I can see Bills introduced again as amending Bills, and again re-amending Bills, as the electorate changes and one party or another comes into power here. We are anxious to avoid that, and to get the form of words that will enable us to avoid that. We say, whatever the situation was after the Civil War was over, one side had won. There is no need to go on arguing about the situation that existed before that. We are not accepting the term "either of the opposing forces" merely because they are acceptable to us, but because we are anxious to ensure that their interpretation would be acceptable to all, and would not need to be amended by further legislation.

There is no intention of compelling the Minister to adopt any particular title for the forces he may have been associated with but that of the statutory description of the "National Defence Forces." I have no desire to see them referred to as irregulars, rebels, anti-Free State forces or anything else. The Minister, in becoming a Minister of the Irish Free State, accepted a great many things. The Minister stands for the control of those who are the heirs and successors of the very force that won, and which the Minister says won. He accepted all these things, and it is only now for him to accept this statutory title. One simple solution would be to take that statutory title and to add to it from his point of view. He need not call them anti-Treaty or anti-anything else. I do not propose to discuss what they were or what they should be called now—it is not my business; but there is no difficulty in the Minister taking the established statutory title and adding to it for the purpose of bringing in his point of view if he wants to do so, which would bring in his own forces, and everybody will be happy except the people of the Blessington Steam Tram Company.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided
The Dáil divided: Tá, 65; Níl, 38.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Bryan.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, William Frazer.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Clery, Micheál.
  • Colbert, James.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Crowley, Fred Hugh.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Curran, Patrick Joseph.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • Dowdall, Thomas P.
  • Everett, James.
  • Flinn, Hugo V.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Geoghegan, James.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Gormley, Francis.
  • Gorry, Patrick Joseph.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • Keyes, Raphael Patrick.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • Powell, Thomas P.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sexton, Martin.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).

Níl

  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Bourke, Séamus A.
  • Brasier, Brooke.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Byrne, John Joseph.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Conlon, Martin.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Desmond, William.
  • Doherty, Eugene.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Duggan, Edmund John.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Gorey, Denis John.
  • Hayes, Michael.
  • Hennigan, John.
  • Kiersey, John.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Minch, Sydney B.
  • Mongan, Joseph, W.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Connor, Batt.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Neill, Eamonn.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • White, John.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies G. Boland and Allen; Níl: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.
Question declared carried.

I move amendment 14:

In rule 5 (a), page 12, lines 61-62, to delete the words "or in either of the opposing forces during the civil strife in the years 1922, 1923, 1924."

As is clearly shown from the statements of the Minister, this matter is introduced into a Bill with which it has nothing whatever to do, as there is not in the employment of the Dublin and Blessington Steam Tramway Company, according to him, anyone covered by this provision.

I did not say that. I said that I did not know whether there is anybody affected, but surely the Deputy appreciates that if he presses this amendment, and succeeds in carrying it as the Bill stands, he not merely deprives those who participated in the Irish Republican Army in the civil war, but also those who participated in the opposing forces, from having that service taken into account when assessing compensation.

The position here is that the Minister told us eleven men are engaged. He does not know whether anyone is covered; implying that no one is covered. I think the insertion of these words should be opposed.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 65; Níl, 37.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Bryan.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, William Frazer.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Clery, Micheál.
  • Cobert, James.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Crowley, Fred Hugh.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Curran, Patrick Joseph.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • Dowdall, Thomas P.
  • Everett, James.
  • Flinn, Hugo V.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Geoghegan, James.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Gormley, Francis.
  • Gorry, Patrick Joseph.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • Keyes, Raphael Patrick.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • Powell, Thomas P.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sexton, Martin.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).

Níl

  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Bourke, Séamus A.
  • Brasier, Brooke.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Conlon, Martin.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Desmond, William.
  • Doherty, Eugene.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Duggan, Edmund John.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Gorey, Denis John.
  • Hayes, Michael.
  • Hennigan, John.
  • Keating, John.
  • Kiersey, John.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Minch, Sydney B.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Connor, Batt.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Neill, Eamonn.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • White, John.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies G. Boland and Allen; Nil: Deputies Duggan and Doyle.
Question declared carried.

I move in Rule 5 (a) page 13, line 1, to delete the words "civil strife" and substitute therefor the word "service."

I submit that this is a drafting amendment.

If the Deputy will leave the amendment over, I shall look into the point before the Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hayes

On the schedule itself, I notice that in paragraph 5 (a) the Minister makes provision to allow for service in various forces, including service, I take it, in the British Army and Navy, or for any period under the authority of the First Dáil, the Second Dáil or the Provisional Government. The First Dáil began in 1919. I do not know how many people are involved but it is quite clear that there is no provision made for any period of absence on national service during the period 1916 to 1919 before the First Dáil began. I have no knowledge whether any member of the staff of this particular tramway company was interned in 1916 either in consequence of service or not or whether any of them was on active service or interned in 1917. I do not know whether the Minister would be able to look into that but it does seem that when he is making this very wide arrangement he should provide for any member of the staff who was in fact engaged on what we are all prepared to agree was national service at that time.

I shall have the matter looked into and see if there is anybody affected. The provision made is identical with that in the Railways Act, but if there is anybody affected in the manner suggested by the Deputy I agree that provision should be made.

When the Minister is enquiring into that, will he examine the question further and tell us whether in fact anybody connected with this railway is affected by this section at all?

Very good.

Schedule put and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage fixed for Tuesday, 14th June.
Barr
Roinn