I move amendment 1:—
Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) The Executive Council may at any time by order revoke or suspend for such time as they think proper any pension granted under this Act.
In Committee on Finance. - Gárda Síochána (Pensions) Bill, 1933—Committee.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
(1) Every pension granted under this Act shall be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas.
(2) The provisions in relation to the following matters contained in the orders for the time being in force regulating the grant and payment of pensions to members of the Gárda Síochána, that is to say:—
(a) restrictions on assignment of such pensions, and
(b) forfeiture of such pensions for illegal or improper conduct, and
(c) suspension of such pensions on appointment to and during service in other forces or offices, and
(d) mode of payment of such pensions, and
(e) penalties for fraud in relation to the grant of such pensions,
shall apply to every pension granted under this Act in like manner as they apply to pensions granted under the said orders.
This is an amendment which I think the Government would be very well advised to reconsider. I wonder whether they have given due consideration to the proposal at all.
This measure is one much on the lines of the Military Service (Pensions) Act, 1924. On its introduction it was explained that the purpose was to pay compensation for the interruption of the careers of persons who had been engaged in the national movement. The interruptions took place at a time when they were in a position to start life in any of the professions, in education, business or any other calling. In those cases there was a small number of years from 1916 to 1923, about 7 years affected. In this case, although the Act will run on and affect other people, an additional ten years of a man's life was taken. Every member of the Ministry will admit that it is a very serious proposition for a man in any occupation, to take ten or 16 of the best years of his life, and then to have an amendment like this introduced:—
The Executive Council may at any time by order revoke or suspend for such time as they think proper any pension granted under this Act.
That is an unusual power. It is possible that we may hear some of the nonsense that was spoken when there was a motion before the House in connection with this particular officer, that the late Administration had put it in the Act that an officer was removable at the will and pleasure of the Executive Council, and that he was not in a position different from that of any other civil servant. What is the opinion of the Ministry as regards the term of office, or the conditions that ought to have been implied? Did they think that when the Executive Council was introducing the Gárda Síochána Bill of 1924, they ought to have put in a clause that it was only with the concurrence of both Houses of Parliament, and by resolution, that such alterations in the occupation of this office ought to have been made? I never heard of such a proposal as is contained in the amendment, in any Pensions Act. I do not know what is the meaning of it. If we are to interpret what we heard on Tuesday night from the President of the Executive Council, I should say that this order will be made very shortly. I do not think it is a wise power for an Executive Council to possess. No reason need be given. The Executive Council may make an order "at any time they think proper." There is not even that clause in respect of civil servants who hold office at the will and pleasure of the Executive Council who, when they think proper, may dismiss them. That is not done. In the case of any official who is dismissed there is a series of reports, and the file is sent to the Department of Finance with a recommendation by the Minister. The various charges against the official are set out, and even after submission to the Department of Finance, there is examination.
There is no machinery here for doing that. The Executive Council has not the Departmental file regarding the activities of every person in receipt of a pension from the State. I presume they will act, if they act at all, in the normal course of events. When the file goes from the Department of Justice it would be dealt with by the police department. That connotes some activity which would be hostile to the State. Let us understand what is meant by hostile to the State. If one were to venture an interpretation of that term by the present Ministry it would be, hostile to the present political Government of the State. I do not know if that is intended. In a case of this sort where there is an implied admission of compensation for interruption of a man's life, why not have it a gracious act, and give it in accordance with the terms which govern any other allowance, compensation, pension, or whatever it is called? Why have this one difference? Is it because of the individual? Remember that the authority which is exercised in the State, and respect for that authority, depends, to some extent, on the respect that that authority has for authority. In a case such as this, a person who held very high office in this State, who has the confidence of very large numbers of persons in the State, and who occupies a very fine niche in the whole national traditions of the State, there ought not to be an attempt to belittle an officer of that sort by such an amendment as this. I should have liked to have heard the Minister explain what reasons actuated the Executive Council to introduce such an amendment on the Committee Stage of this Bill. What was it they wished to guard against? What was wrong when they departed from the customary procedure in the giving of pensions? I oppose the amendment.
I understand it is generally understood that the Bill now under consideration is one to provide a pension for one man, and possibly for some other person who may succeed him later on, and who may be treated —as I hope no one will be treated— in the same way. I am informed that the man concerned will be entitled right away to receive a pension of £180 under the Military Service (Pensions) Act. If I am wrong the Minister can correct me. Under that Act, a pension cannot be withdrawn or cancelled except for a conviction in court, which involves hard labour. That is generally understood to be the only reason which can justify a Government in withdrawing a pension. Therefore if the man concerned commits such an offence as will warrant the censure of the Government, for some trivial reason the Government may be in the position to withdraw, revoke or suspend the pension of £320 while they will not have the same power, so far as I can follow the procedure, to interfere with the pension of £180. It is a peculiar situation, if that is correct.
I think it would be a generous act on the part of this Government, bearing in mind the circumstances under which General O'Duffy was removed, to reconsider their present attitude. The Leader of this Party has already expressed the definite views of the Party in respect to Government action in connection with that matter. Bearing the whole situation in mind and having in mind, as I hope the Government have, the idea of attaining national unity in the country, I think they would be well advised to reconsider their attitude towards this amendment. I hope the two big Parties in this House will endeavour to forget the bitter memories of the past. This amendment is a peculiar one to find in any Pensions Act. I do not think the circumstances of the time, or the atmosphere in which we have been living for the last couple of weeks, would suggest to any sensible public man that this is the right moment to bring in an amendment of this kind.
I know several supporters of the Fianna Fáil Party in my constituency who did not agree with the Government action at the time General O'Duffy was removed. I certainly disagreed with that action very much because his removal, at that time, might suggest to the minds of certain people that he was associated with another incident. It was quite clearly proved afterwards that he had nothing whatever to do with it. There is certainly a feeling of demoralisation in the minds of a great number of people, and it has been largely brought about by the discussions that have been taking place in this House since the last general election. There have been attempts, on several occasions, by certain people—I am glad to say only a very small number—in this House to rehearse the history of the Civil War period. It is about time the Government set a good example. They are the people who can set a good example. They should nedeavour to let the memories of that period rest somewhere outside this House. Let them give a good example to the people outside and give them a lead to forget all these things.
It would help considerably in that direction if the Government would reconsider their attitude in relation to this amendment. There is a feeling that the Government are anxious to take a power which was not secured by their predecessors in office to revoke, without the authority of the House, or cancel a pension given to a man for services rendered. If General O'Duffy is entitled to a pension under the terms of this Bill, give it to him with good grace and do not interfere with it until such a time as General O'Duffy brings himself within the penalties of the law. If he does anything like that, then he should be treated the same as every other citizen in the State would be treated in similar circumstances.
The position of Commissioner of the Guards, I think it will be admitted, is a rather unique position. He is placed at the head of the police force, where he is in receipt of confidential information from all over the country and, therefore, he occupies a very responsible position. Whether that was what was in the minds of the late Executive, when they repeatedly made provisions that he could be removed from office at any time, I do not know. They are not inserted in any Act dealing with any other official of the State. I quoted them here already on the debate raised by the Opposition when the motion about General O'Duffy was before the House. Under the Gárda Síochána (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1923, Section 3, provision was made that the Commissioner could be removed by the Executive Council at any time. Under the Gárda Síochána Act of 1924, Section 2, a similar provision was made, and under the Police Forces (Amalgamation) Act, 1925, Section 6, there was a similar provision.
Now, let us bear in mind that General O'Duffy, although this Bill does not deal with him in particular, did represent to the Ministry of Justice in the late Executive the insecurity of the position, and did make representations to that Ministry to have his position clarified and put on a basis, where he would be entitled to pension rights. I do not know why that was refused. There is nothing to indicate it was refused except that it was not acted upon at that time. It has been stated here that this is something new. The amendment that has been put before the House is, in effect, the same as is embodied in the Military Service Pensions Act, 1925. Section 2 of that Act sets out:—
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Executive Council may at any time by order revoke for reasons stated in such order any pension granted under the Principal Act whether before or after the passing of this Act.
(2) No such pension shall be revoked in consequence of any act committed prior to the passing of this Act.
(3) No such pension shall be so revoked unless or until the reasons for such proposed revocation have been communicated in writing to the person in receipt of the pension and such person has been given a reasonable opportunity of making to the Executive Council such explanation, answer, or other case as he may think proper in relation to such proposed revocation or the reasons therefor.
The only difference between the amendment that is tabled and Section 2 of the Military Service Pensions Act, 1925, is that under the Military Service Pensions Act the person whom the Executive Council sought to deprive of his pension would be given an opportunity of stating his reasons why he should not be refused a pension. There is no provision whatever that binds the Executive Council to accept that or to act upon it. The reasons must be stated and an explanation given. There is nothing, however, to bind the Executive Council to accept those reasons as being satisfactory, so that it can be said there was absolute power in the Executive Council to refuse a pension under the 1925 Act. That is the reason it is being inserted here. We think it advisable in this particular position that such a power should be asked for and we are asking for that power.
I am afraid it is impossible for me to describe the Minister's speech in any other terms than as exceedingly disingenuous. Let us consider with what we are dealing. We are dealing with a pension relating to an officer of the Civic Guards. There has been a departure from the general principles governing pensions awarded to officers, sergeants and men of the Civic Guards. Why that departure? What is the explanation? Why should one particular Civic Guard pension be on a different footing from every other Civic Guard pension? The Minister has not attempted, in the slightest way, to give any explanation of that. He talked about the Commissioner having a great deal of secret information at his disposal. No doubt he has, but so has every single officer in the Guards. There is not an officer in a high place in the Guards who does not get a great deal of secret information in the ordinary discharge of his duties. Yet all those officers are entitled to pensions on ordinary terms.
This particular pension, however, is going to be given with this utterly unprecedented clause in it, unprecedented not merely in the Gárda Síochána code, but unprecedented in any Statute upon our books. I would be justified in feeling perfectly satisfied, and I think the House would be justified in feeling perfectly satisfied that there is some reason which the Minister has not given to the House why there is a departure from the Gárda Síochána code in this particular respect. I think the House is perfectly satisfied that that in itself requires an explanation. The effort made to show that in a completely different code there is a statute which has a similar provision has broken down absolutely. If there were 100 statutes, with 100 similar provisions, and yet there was no such provision in the Gárda Síochána code, why there should be a departure from that code would require an explanation.
The Minister refers to the Military Pensions Act of 1925 and he proceeds to read a section which puts his case completely out of court, because he has to admit that there a pension cannot be taken away until reasons are stated for so doing and an opportunity given for an explanation. There is no necessity for stating any reasons here—that is a tremendous departure—and there is no opportunity of asking for, or getting, an explanation before the pension given under this statute is taken away.
There is a passage of a well-known English writer: "Condemn no man unheard is a rule of natural justice seldom violated in Turkey." But here you have got an Executive Council who can award a pension one day and take it away the next without giving any reason or any sign for so doing, and without giving a man any opportunity of making an explanation of any conduct of his which they may think to be blameworthy. No opportunity is to be given. The Minister says that the taking away of a pension as it is prescribed in the Military Service Pensions Act of 1925, where the reasons for so doing must be stated, where explanations must be offered, is exactly the same thing as taking it away where no reason may be given, and where no opportunity of making an explanation is afforded. Does the Minister think that with that parallel he will convince the House? He says there is nothing to bind the Executive Council to accept the explanation. Of course there is not. The Executive Council before it takes away anybody's pension under the Military Service Pensions Act has to weigh up the man. Of course they are not bound by any explanation, but they are bound as honourable men, bound in discharge of their public duties to give due weight to every single thing that is contained in the explanation, and if the explanation is satisfactory then they are bound in discharge of their public duty not to take away the pension.
I again say that there is not the slightest precedent there in that statute for this particular amendment which is before the House. Even if there were a precedent for it in that or in any other statute it would not be a justification for the departure from the ordinary principles of pensions for the ordinary member of the Gárda Síochána. I stated here the other night that the Minister was not master of the situation. The Minister cannot do what he likes. At least I give the Minister credit for believing that this particular section here is a horrible section. This particular power given under this amendment is a horrible power. I give the Minister credit for believing that. But I saw posters up around Dublin, and when I saw those posters stating that pensions must not be given under this Bill I was not at all surprised to discover that this amendment was brought in to defeat the object of the Bill.
We got a definite pledge here from the President of the Executive Council that a pension would be awarded to General O'Duffy. Everybody in the House understood, and I believe at the time the President himself meant to convey, that that was going to be the ordinary pension given upon ordinary Gárda Síochána terms. We now discover that it is not. There is not a single person in this House who is not satisfied that a pension is going to be given to-day and that it is going to be swept away in an infinitesimally short period of time after the time at which it is granted. In other words, we have a Bill brought in here and afterwards an amendment to it which makes it perfectly plain that faith is being broken with this House. Yes, faith is being flagrantly broken with this House.
There was the pledge there that the pension was to be given to an officer who had been removed from his post without any cause whatsoever. That pledge is going to be kept in the letter, but it is not going to be kept in the spirit. What is the sense of saying: "Oh! yes, we gave you a pension for a week or a month, and that is what we meant when we said that a pension was going to be given." This is a breach of faith with the House and a gross breach of faith at that. But I do wish that the Minister now, at any rate, on this one particular occasion, would stir himself up and stand against any opposition that there may be to his acting straightforwardly towards the House in this matter. A pledge to the House was solemnly given here by the President of the Executive Council. The House expects that that pledge will be honoured, and I hope that is the course which the Minister will pursue—the honouring of that pledge.
There has been no attempt to break the pledge in this matter. All through the Executive Council has acted in a perfectly straight and, I submit, in a perfectly honourable way so far as General O'Duffy is concerned. When he was removed from his post he was offered an alternative post at the same salary. He was removed from his post under one of the statutes passed by the previous Administration. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney tries to suggest that in bringing in this Bill we should follow the Gárda code as it refers to other sections of the service. But there is no precedent for giving a pension to a Commissioner of the Gárda in the circumstances under which General O'Duffy left the service.
There is a precedent for it under the ordinary code for giving pensions.
If Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, when he was in office, had acted on the wishes and advice offered now to the Dáil and had brought in a Bill in the terms that he now suggests it should be brought in, this position would not have arisen. When we want a precedent we will go to the precedent established by the previous Administration in dealing with pensions under the Military Service Pensions Act. Because it is not stated, the Deputy suggests that the Executive Council is going to suspend a pension or revoke a pension for no reason. Now, if action is taken by the Executive Council, the matter can be raised in this House, reasons got and so on. The fact that it was provided in the Military Service Pensions Act that reasons would be given in writing, and that an explanation would be sought, did not bind the Executive Council to act on that explanation. This amendment here has the same effect as that Section 2 of the Military Service Pensions Act—absolutely the same effect in its result. That he is asked to give an explanation of a reason stated to him in writing—what effect has it? The Executive Council need not act upon it. Will not the Executive Council, before they can revoke or suspend a pension, have reasons for doing so; have to give to the House reasons if it is raised afterwards? It is on all-fours—it is the only precedent we have and we followed it.
I was very much shocked by two references in the Minister's speeches, one in his previous speech in which he said the Executive Council were not bound to act on any representation that the person affected would make to them. I do not know whether he intended that in its full implication or not. But, if he did, it is a most unfortunate observation to have allowed to pass. The Ministry admits that this officer was removed from office for no reason other than their will and pleasure. There was no charge, no complaint, no dereliction of duty, nothing of the kind. In other words, he went out with high character even from those who disagreed with him. The second thing I object to is that the Minister, and even a more exalted person than the Minister, stand up here and point to the fact that General O'Duffy was offered two posts. I suppose the Minister has often heard the American's description of an honest man—that he is bought and he stays bought. Here is a man that cannot be bought, at any rate. Here is a man who will not take an office in this State, who has no interest in money. He wants it as well as anybody else for his livelihood, but the pursuit of money is not his sole object. That is the Executive Council mind I am afraid with regard to officials.
It is not their mind.
It is a most unfortunate observation to have made.
A man may not be considered suitable in one Government post and he may be considered suitable in another. That is all I wanted to convey.
That is a nice observation also—a man may be suitable in another post. Was not the Government's whole desire to park him somewhere or other?
Not at all.
Was he asked at any time what post there was that he would take? I do not know that in the experience of any Government anywhere, with such traditions as we are hoping to have here, such a case as this has ever occurred. He is held up to the public view as a man who would not accept a post at so many hundred pounds per annum. If that is the mind of the Executive Council, it is a small mind and the sooner they get rid of it the better. Then we had the other explanation from the Minister, which I hope is not a full and complete representation of what is in his mind, that the Executive Council are not bound to accept the representations put before them. They are bound. They are bound to consider them and to judge them—bound by all the laws that govern their authority to weigh them up.
Certainly.
The Minister did not give us that interpretation of his statement. I am glad he is correcting it.
That is what I wanted to convey.
I am very glad to hear it. I certainly did not infer that. As I have said, this from the point of view even of the most friendly critic of the Government is an unfortunate incident to have occurred because from the commencement it is not creditable to them. Their own endeavours to get out of it shows that that is so. Here is an opportunity of doing something gracious. Will any member of the Ministry, or any member of the Party, say that if you take a man away from his ordinary pursuit or avocation in life for 16 years and then cause him dissatisfaction by the way in which you treat him, particularly a man of the ability of General O'Duffy, that he is not entitled even to a larger sum, free from any condition, than £500 per annum? If I were arbitrating in such a case my decision would be that that man is entitled to about £10,000 compensation for his loss. If the Ministry were not blinded by political conceit or prejudice or something of that sort, that would be their decision too. £500 per annum, having taken 16 of the best years of his life, and putting him out now, and the only explanation that the Minister has got is that he was offered a post and he would not take it! They have looked for precedents. This Ministry, who spent 10 or 12 years in criticising everything done by my Administration, when they want light and leading look up the precedents established during that period. I do not think I have ever got such a compliment paid me.
Are you sorry you created some precedents?
At any rate, nobody will look up the precedents they are creating, if this be one of them. The Military Pensions Act was framed in a very difficult time—I presume Ministers will realise that—framed after a very large demobilisation. Certain restrictions, which it may have been thought wise to insert, may have affected their purpose. What is the history of the administration of these particular clauses which the Minister read out? Were any of these pensions suspended or revoked?
Were not some held up?
Supposing there were. Were there any revoked?
They were suspended.
Were they denied subsequently? Why? Because the mind that went to the consideration of them did not go according to the headline that the Minister told us of and which on reflection he stated was not really what he meant, that is, that they were empowered to stop this. It was a mind to administer impartially and the mind which seeks to insert this particular amendment is not an impartial mind? Why? Because, even if they were to be placed in the difficult position we were in, when the Minister who had just come into the House was Minister for Defence in another Government, or something of that sort——
I am glad to know the Deputy is as humorous as ever.
What is their objection to having "reason stated?" They came to the House to answer for their misbehaviour in removing this officer from his position in the Gárda. What were the reasons they gave? Seventy-six of them. These are the reasons and no other. If they were depending on the Labour Party at the time, they would not have done it. They had no excuse to offer except the one—we had power to do it. That is all. Now they have power to revoke this pension—just power. In their own interests I would advise them strongly to reconsider this, not in the heat of political turmoil, not with any prejudice towards the officer concerned, but remembering that one day they will have to give an account at the seat of judgment for all their acts.
I believe that General O'Duffy had the necessary qualifications for at least one of the jobs I understand he was offered by the Government and, personally, I would very much prefer to see him in that position than the position he occupies to-day. I listened very attentively to President de Valera's speech when he was defending the removal of General O'Duffy from the office of Chief Commissioner. In answer to a question addressed to him in the course of his speech he said, quite plainly, that if there was no other reason to give for his removal there was the fact that he had served the previous Government for ten years. To any plain man, that meant that General O'Duffy was removed from office for political reasons. I asked the Minister for Justice to tell me what attitude he would take up if, after being in office, he were confronted with a proposition for the removal of some officer whom he or his successor had placed in office, and if a proposal of this kind were put forward by his successor in office. The peculiar thing that presents itself to my mind in considering this amendment before the House is, I understand—and I want to be contradicted if I am wrong—that General O'Duffy is entitled to and can get a pension of £180 a year which he was granted under the Military Pensions Act. Is he in receipt of that pension?
He is not in receipt of it at the moment, but he would be entitled to receive it. I think the figure is £160 a year.
He would be entitled to receive that pension. If he is lucky enough to get that pension it cannot be suspended or withdrawn from him by the Executive Council except "for reasons stated." But under this proposal he would get a further £350 a year or thereabouts, and that can be suspended without any reason. That is a very peculiar position. I think that this amendment was not fully or fairly considered before it was put down. What was the reason for putting this amendment on the Order Paper after this Bill was introduced? I read in to-day's paper a suggestion made by General O'Duffy in a statement made by him, in addition to the many other statements he has made, that the Government were not going to grant him his pension. I have never discussed the question of his pension with General O'Duffy but, in company with the Leader of this Party, I did endeavour to persuade him to accept the offer made to him by the Government. I am sorry he did not do that. If he had done so, he could have rendered greater service to the State in that position, having the necessary qualifications as he had for it, than he could render to the State in his present position. Let us be generous towards a person to whom a large number of people in this country feel an injury has been done.
Is the Deputy's contention that any man holding an office in the State should dictate to the Government?
Certainly not. But I do not believe, especially in the peculiar circumstances we are living in, at variance with a foreign country, that serious issues, on large matters of this kind, should be introduced, and friction created that could possibly be avoided. I hope the Minister will reconsider this matter. I hope he will state quite emphatically whether the original intention of the Government to grant General O'Duffy a pension referred to when a motion by Deputy Cosgrave was under consideration, and subsequently, confirmed on his refusal to take on a new position offered him, has been rescinded by the same Cabinet. Is there any justification for the statement which appeared from General O'Duffy that the Government do not intend to grant him a pension? If there is such a thing in the mind of the Ministry let them withdraw the Bill altogether and let us not bother wasting time in discussing it.
The Minister referred to a precedent. Will he state why this precedent is only talked about in this particular instance? Why did not the Minister and his colleagues accept that precedent when the Pensions Bill which gave pensions to the Army of which the present Minister for Industry and Commerce was Minister for Defence was put through? That Act is remarkable for the absence of any provision whereby these pensions can be revoked by the Executive Council. In other words, the political friends of the Ministry are to have their pensions permanent, without any possibility of their being revoked, whereas those who are considered to be the political opponents of the Government are to be otherwise treated.
If the Minister wished to refer to precedents surely there is a nearer precedent and that is the 1932 Pensions Act. It is not necessary to go back to the Military Service Pensions Act which was introduced by the Leader of the Opposition when he was at the head of the Government in the year 1925. I am afraid this argument about a precedent was introduced by the Minister at the last moment. Why is not the President of the Executive Council here tonight? The day before yesterday, we had a similar example of the Minister for Justice being put up to make a case, but, then, the President came in towards the end of the debate and let the cat out of the bag. Unfortunately the President is not here this evening. If he was we know very well, he would reveal the real reason for this amendment which is, I am afraid, really personal and political spite. For my part, I can only say that I lost £1 over this amendment. I made a bet that the Government, whatever their shortcomings might be, would sink their personal feelings and would act in a sportsmanlike manner in this matter. The Minister might have thought of the precedent created by his own Government last year when they were awarding pensions to their own particular friends rather than go back to an Act of the Cosgrave Administration.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 52; Níl, 33.
Tá
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Burke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carty, Frank.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Victory, James.
- Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
Níl
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Davin, William.
- Davis, Michael.
- Davitt, Robert Emmet.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Dolan, James Nicholas.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGuire, James Ivan.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- O'Connor, Batt.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Reilly, John Joseph.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Bennett and O'Leary.
Amendment declared carried.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In sub-section (2), lines 13 to 14, to delete the words "on appointment to and during service in other forces or offices."
The object of this amendment and the following one is to ensure that the conditions as regards forfeiture and suspension which attach to the existing pensions orders should apply in full to this particular pension.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In sub-section (2), lines 11 and 12, to delete the words "for illegal or improper conduct.
Amendment agreed to.
Question—"That Section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage fixed for Tuesday, 8th August, 1933.