Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 10 Apr 1935

Vol. 55 No. 16

Courthouses (Provisions and Maintenance) Bill, 1935—Report Stage

Mr. Brennan

I should like to make a few remarks on this matter, Sir, if I may, before proceeding with amendment No. 1. It was rather unfortunate that the Second Reading of this Bill was presented only a few days after the House sat after the recess and it went through the House almost unnoticed. Unfortunately, I was absent for the Committee Stage, and I should like to put a few points to the Minister now, with your permission, Sir.

This is a Bill which we ought to be unanimous about passing, in so far as the provision of courthouses is a necessity and will, I hope, always be a necessity. I mean that whatever Government may be in power in this country they must look to it that there is accommodation for law and for the maintenance of order. There has been in this country a system of dual control so far as courthouses are concerned—dual custody and dual control—which has never been satisfactory and, in fact, has been far from satisfactory. I must say that the drafters of this Bill do not seem to be aware of that. This Bill is an attempt to perpetuate a system that has never been accepted as a satisfactory system by anybody. My suggestion is that the Minister ought to withdraw this Bill as it stands and get together county registrars and either county surveyors or the secretaries of the county councils and have a consultation with them. If he does that, I have not the slightest doubt that he will get a much better Bill for the provision and maintenance of courthouses than this Bill is.

As I have said, this Bill is an attempt to perpetuate the type of dual custody which is enshrined here in Section 2 and which, I would point out to the Minister, really governs the whole Bill. Section 2 says: "Where a part only of a building is provided and maintained and is used as courthouse accommodation within the meaning of this Act and the residue of such building is provided and maintained and is used for other purposes, nothing in this Act shall apply to such residue of such building." There is a type of dual custody which we have all over the country in large courthouses. Let us imagine a courthouse where a county registrar has his office and where he has to carry on at the present time the duties of a sheriff, and where you have also the county offices in the same building and there is need for an extension of offices and office accommodation. That sort of thing is arising every day. What is going to happen in that case? Who has the right to say which office belongs to the county registrar and which shall be used by the county secretary? That section really governs the whole spirit of the Bill and right through the Bill we have instances where the county registrar and the District Court clerk have the right to do certain things, such as letting and hiring out courthouses, which, to my mind, is extremely absurd. I think that there ought to be some one party or person in control of the courthouses and that party or person ought to be the county council that have the responsibility of erecting them. I object, however, to the county council being put to the expense of £12,000 or £13,000 to build courthouses and then to have them placed in the custody of the District Court clerk I would appeal to the Minister to have a consultation on this matter with the people interested.

I have interested myself, and I have had consultations with at least two county registrars, and the Bill does not please anybody as it stands, and, in my opinion, will not be effective in its present form. I should like to have the Minister's view on the matter.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Ruttledge)

What I would say with regard to that is this. The Department has had representations from time to time from people interested, such as county registrars and other officials through the country, and they are aware of the position that exists, and it is very unsatisfactory in parts of the country. The heads of this Bill were drafted a good many years ago. Since the heads of the Bill were drafted about six or seven years ago various people were consulted. The only change that has been made in the Bill is what arose with regard to Dun Laoghaire Borough, which was a small matter of adjustment between the respective public bodies concerned. The heads of the Bill remained there.

The position as it stands at present is that the sub-sheriff has control of the courthouse so far as the matter of courts is concerned. That is with regard to county courthouses. The position with regard to district courthouses is most unsatisfactory. So far as we can see, proper authority does not reside in anybody. What happens is that courts are held in the great majority of places perhaps once a month, and a room is taken over some business premises when more suitable accommodation could not be got. We are compelled to take up the position that there must be somebody in definite control residing in them. The Deputy knows as well as I do that various county councils and public bodies have the habit of letting or hiring them out to certain people for dances and other purposes. Sometimes they give them gratis. Complaints have very often come in from district justices and other officials concerned as to the condition in which courthouses were often left. Although the Deputy may be a member of a model county council, I suggest that there are public bodies who have been careless as to the way in which they kept the courthouse, and, as the Deputy knows as well as I do from reading newspapers, district justices have been compelled to abandon the holding of sittings in certain places because lights and other things are not provided. We are forced to the opinion, at any rate, that so far as we can see the only way to deal with it is to define the responsibility definitely.

There is nothing reactionary in the Bill. Local authorities are not being interfered with as regards the portions of the building with which they are concerned, but, so far as the courthouse itself is concerned, I submit that it is a matter that should be regulated by the officials concerned who have to deal with the business and get their work disposed of.

Mr. Brennan

I am afraid the Minister misunderstood me.

An Ceann Comhairle

I should like to point out to Deputies that this is the Report Stage.

Mr. Dillon

Might I inquire of the Minister if there was not an agreement on the Committee Stage to recommit the Bill in view of the fact that it was not proposed to move the amendments on the Committee Stage?

Mr. Ruttledge

There was very little discussion about it. The only thing understood was that all these amendments which were then withdrawn could be put down for the Report Stage.

Mr. Dillon

I thought there was more or less of an understanding that there would be a recommittal in view of the fact that the Committee Stage was let go through.

Mr. Ruttledge

I do not think there was an agreement, but I would not object.

Mr. Dillon

I submit for the convenience of everybody that the Bill should be recommitted, as it went through Committee with comparatively little discussion, with a view to a wider discussion on the Report Stage. It will not make five minutes' difference. If the Bill is recommitted we will dispose of it just as well.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should realise that the Second Stage has gone through and that the proper time to suggest the withdrawing of the Bill would be on the Second Stage. However the Deputy has made his point.

Mr. Brennan

My endeavour is, if possible, to provide a reasonably good working instrument if we can. I am as interested in the matter as the Minister, and I am afraid that the Minister has misunderstood me. As to having somebody in the courthouse, I am entirely at one with the Minister in that. This Bill does not at all preclude the giving of a courthouse for the purpose of dances or entertainments. It simply takes it out of the control of the county council and puts it into other persons' hands. What is really objectionable in the Bill to my mind is that it does not give effective control. You have dual control as far as the large courthouses are concerned and, in the case of the small courthouses, you have the District Court clerk in control, and not the country council. If a courthouse wants repairs the county council has its county surveyor, who is an expert in these matters, which the county registrar or the District Court clerk is not.

I would like to see the Bill withdrawn and that some consultation should take place with the people concerned, so that we should have proper control of the courthouses, that they would be properly maintained and that the custody of them would be unquestioned and unquestionable. I should like to hear the Minister on that point, because no matter how you manage this Bill, as it stands with Section 2 there you cannot properly effect the reforms which we all desire.

Mr. Ruttledge

We do not want to interfere in any way with any local authority except so far as the courthouse accommodation is concerned. In the opinion of the Department, and I think Deputies themselves know it is essential, that matter should be put under the control of the officials who have to deal with the working of the courts. There are certain public bodies who have created considerable difficulty about doing anything with courthouses, or making them fit or suitable for justices to preside in them. This is as far as we can get to try and provide that courthouse accommodation shall be reasonable and suitable. It is the only means that we can see to do it effectively.

Mr. Brennan

I am afraid the Bill is not going to do it. If the Minister consults county registrars, county secretaries, and county surveyors, who really ought to know about these matters, he will find that they do not at all agree that this Bill will meet the requirements of the situation. On the question of the courthouse accommodation being in the custody of the officers of the court, the difficulty arises with regard to the larger courthouses where there are other offices. It is a question of where the custody begins and ends —at which office door. The office requirements of county councils and county registrars are increasing daily. As I say, I should like to see an Act passed which would ensure that we would have proper courthouses all over the country because, as I said, no matter what Government is in office that must continue. I do not at all agree that this is the best way to do it.

Mr. Ruttledge

We have tried to get as much information as we could in the matter. If the Deputy has any information as to any better solution of it which we think will do the thing more effectively, I am prepared to have the matter looked into before it goes to the Seanad, but I am not prepared to withdraw the Bill.

Mr. Brennan

If the Minister is not prepared to withdraw the Bill I must only go ahead with the amendments. I am afraid there is not much use in going ahead with them because they are all based upon establishing some type of single control and custody so far as courthouses are concerned.

Mr. Ruttledge

There is clear control defined in the Bill. It is as clear as is possible in any Bill.

Mr. Brennan

Surely the Minister does not mean to say that Section 2 gives clear control of a building?

Mr. Ruttledge

Control of any portion used for courthouse accommodation.

Mr. Brennan

Imagine a courthouse such as we have in Roscommon with a certain number of apartments. The county council occupies a certain number and the county registrar and the District Court clerk occupy others. If the country registrar wants increased accommodation and the county council wants increased accommodation and there is an office vacant who is to get it? If there are external repairs required, who is to be responsible for them? Here we have the county registrar under Section 2 responsible at least for the custody of a certain portion of the building together with a room three or four doors away. The whole thing to my mind is very badly mixed up. I do not think the Bill is going to effect the purpose which it is thought it will. I think it is really beyond all reason to say that the District Court clerk should have the letting or hiring out of a courthouse. The Roscommon County Council recently built some courthouses—one at least very recently—in which they provided accommodation for technical classes. Now they will not have the letting or the hiring of this accommodation. It will be in somebody else's hands and may be let for some other purpose. I do not think that is good enough. I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 3, line 4, Section 3 (1) (b), to delete all words after the word "times" to the end of line 5.

Paragraph (b) reads:—

(b) for the transaction of the business by law assigned to or usually transacted in or by any office or officer of any such court, both during the sitting of such court and at all other times, whether such business is court business or not.

The words I should like to have deleted are "whether such business is court business or not." There is a further paragraph, (c), which says: "for the transaction of the business of the office of the under-sheriff where and so long as such office exists." I think it is wide enough to embrace everything without adding these words. What are we to read into it? Can a county registrar or his clerk or some of his typists carry on some business in any of those courts, whether it is court business or not? I think the situation is fully covered by sub-section (c), which says: "for the transaction of the business of the office of the under-sheriff where and so long as such office exists," and I do not see any necessity for adding to the section the words "whether such business is court business or not."

Mr. Ruttledge

I might explain that there are certain duties, such as registration of voters, which would have to be carried out by county registrars. That is the only point for having that reference inserted. There may be certain other work, but that is the only thing that occurs to me at the moment.

Mr. Brennan

If that is the proposal, I think that it is fully covered by the beginning of the previous sub-section, which says: "for the transaction of the business by law assigned to..." The work of registration is work that is assigned to the sheriff; it is his job, and, therefore, I do not see that these offices should be made available "whether such business is court business or not." If it merely refers to business already assigned, I think that the matter is fully covered.

Mr. Ruttledge

I think it is purely a matter of drafting.

Mr. Brennan

Do you not think that it really leaves——?

Mr. Ruttledge

Those people to whom the Deputy refers are not employed for any work except the business which they are appointed to do.

Mr. Brennan

But they can apparently do other business?

Mr. Ruttledge

They are not entitled to, and we have adequate control over them.

Mr. Brennan

But in view of the words at the commencement of the sub-section, I do not understand why it is proposed to put in these words.

Mr. Ruttledge

They were put in by the draftsman, and I have explained what they are intended to cover.

Mr. Brennan

Though it was already covered?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Brennan

I move amendment No. 2:—

"In page 3, line 16, Section 4, after the word "shall" to delete all words to the end of the section and substitute therefor the following words: "be vested in the council of the county in which such courthouse accommodation is situate."

An Ceann Comhairle

A decision on this amendment will cover a whole series of further amendments—Nos. 3, 9, 16, 18 to 24.

Mr. Brennan

The section as it stands reads:—

Subject to the general or particular directions of the Minister, the custody and control of courthouse accommodation which is provided and maintained under this Act shall, where such courthouse accommodation is used for the purpose of a District Court and no other court, be vested in the District Court clerk for the district in which such accommodation is situate, and shall, where such accommodation is used for the purposes of any court other than a District Court (whether it is or is not also used for the purposes of a District Court), be vested in the county registrar for the county in which such accommodation is situate.

My amendment, as the Ceann Comhairle points out, really covers all the following ones, that is that the custody ought to be vested in the county council. It is the authority responsible for the erection of the courthouses and I am prepared to accept that the council must provide by order of the county registrar or by order of the Minister, accommodation for the courts. I think, however, it is manifestly unfair that a county council having been obliged to provide £600 or £1,000 for a village courthouse and having erected it, making accommodation as we have endeavoured to do, for cookery classes under the Vocational Education Committee, finding the control as far as letting or hiring was concerned, placed in the hands of the District Court clerk over whom the council has neither control nor authority. Further, that clerk can, according to a further sub-section, with the consent of the Minister, procure the supply of firing as well as lighting to an amount not exceeding £10 and as far as I can see there is no method provided for checking his account. I maintain that the proper people in whom the custody of the courthouse should be placed are the local council, the people who erected the courthouse and if the Minister feels that the county council is not of itself, without being pushed by some higher authority, providing proper accommodation for the carrying on of court work, I am quite prepared to accept that the county registrar or the Minister should be the people to compel them to do it. I do not accept anything like what is in this Bill, that the county council must erect everything they are told to erect and having erected it, cease to have control of it, allowing it to pass into the hands of the District Court clerk or registrar who have no qualifications as far as engineering qualifications are concerned, to see what is really required with regard to alterations. The county council, through the county surveyor, can deal with those matters and particularly in respect of rural courthouses, the council ought to have the right to say who is going to conduct classes or who has the right to have entertainments. I am afraid that the District Court clerk might possibly be open to persuasion to allow entertainments that might not be possibly of the same type as would be allowed if the county council had control.

Where you have control like that vested in one person you are always up against the possibility of there being considerations other than the merits of the case. I would press the Minister very hard to see if we could get some accommodation on that. I still have no doubt that if the Minister had a consultation with the various interests concerned in this matter he would alter his mind considerable. However, I must only move my amendment as it stands, if the Minister is not prepared to meet me on the other matter.

Mr. Ruttledge

I think we have discussed this point already. There is no revolutionary change; the position obtains already, though some county councils do not seem to understand it.

Mr. Brennan

It was always unsatisfactory.

Mr. Ruttledge

The under-sheriff has got control of the courthouse accommodation. We have seen the position where some county councils attempt to let some portion of their courthouses as accommodation for certain classes. The Deputy has experience on that matter. I think he mentioned that they let the courthouse in Roscommon for the purpose of technical education, and the sub-sheriff who has been in control has apparently put no difficulty in the way. When you have the county registrar in charge instead of the under-sheriff, with his authority very clearly defined, you are not going to have any more difficulty than there was in the past.

In regard to the supply of light and heat, if the county council neglects to do so, then where the amount does not exceed £12 the District Court clerk can get that done himself, and the bill is submitted to the county council in the ordinary way. There is nothing attempted in that other than what was the previous position, except to clearly define it, and to secure that public bodies who have neglected in the past to supply suitable and proper courthouse accommodation will not be allowed to hold up the position as it has been held up in the past.

Mr. Brennan

The Minister is apparently going on the assumption that what prevailed in the past was a satisfactory position.

Mr. Ruttledge

From the Department's point of view it was most unsatisfactory.

Mr. Brennan

From everybody's point of view. I can instance for the Minister a case where a county sheriff refused permission for a certain function in the courthouse. The secretary of the county council and the county registrar were anxious to meet the people. There was very bad local feeling in the matter, and the Department of Justice had to interfere. Until the sheriff ceased to be sheriff the principle which prevailed in that county was that there was never permission given for any function there without the consent of the sheriff, the county registrar and the county secretary combined. Does the Minister want a continuance of that? I certainly do not. I want to get the matter cleared up. I want to get it under somebody's control, so that you will have nothing like that arising. I have not objected to the county registrar having certain control. The point which I laid most stress on, and which the Minister avoided, was my objection to District Court clerks having control of the rural courthouses. Those are the places where we have the classes. The county registrar, either in the past year or under this Bill, has no control whatever over them, but the District Court clerk has control under the Bill. I object to that. I think it is uncalled for. I think he ought not to have it. In the series of amendments which I have put down I have given control to the county councils, but I have provided that the consent of the county registrar and of the District Court clerk must be got when the portion they require is being used. I think that is quite enough.

Mr. Ruttledge

The Deputy knows what is going to happen. When too many people are in control there is really nobody in control.

Mr. Brennan

That is exactly what I am trying to avoid.

Mr. Ruttledge

Take the position of District Court clerks. The Deputy may be thinking of many years ago when there was very little business transacted at petty sessions. Under the 1924 Courts of Justice Act the business was considerably increased. You had greater jurisdiction given to them. All those District Courts clerks are people who—except in the very initial stages— have been appointed by selection boards.

Mr. Brennan

The District Court clerks?

Mr. Ruttledge

That is the position which obtains. Any District Court clerk appointed at the present time must be appointed by selection board.

Mr. Brennan

Those appointed at the present time—not the existing ones?

Mr. Ruttledge

I said except in the initial stages.

Mr. Brennan

And they are nearly all continuing.

Mr. Ruttledge

The District Court clerk is the person who is really in charge of the courthouse, or at least the person who should be held by anybody as being responsible for looking after it properly. It is no use trying to put the responsibility on somebody else. The county registrar lives in the county town. The District Court clerk lives locally. He has to see that the courthouse is in proper condition when the sitting of a court is held—sometimes once a month and sometimes oftener in bigger centres. There is no other person that I can see who can or should be made responsible for looking after the courthouse. The District Court clerk is there and he is officially in charge of that particular building. You cannot be always asking the county surveyor: Who is going to ask him? Are you to be going to the county council about every little matter that crops up? The District Court clerk must be there to see that there is no what I might call foolish letting made by the county council. He must see that the county council or Corporation will not let the courthouse without having regard to the purposes for which it is being used, or to the damage which might be done.

Mr. Brennan

The Minister would appear to be confusing the position of the District Court clerks with that of caretakers. We have various courthouses all over the country in which the caretaker is already living. In those cases the caretaker is paid a certain yearly amount, and it is his job to look after the courthouse. If anything goes wrong by way of leakage in the roof, or as regards cleaning, lighting or heating, it has to be pointed out by him. From what the Minister says, one would assume that the District Court clerk would be obliged to live in the courthouse and be responsible for seeing that everything is spick and span. That is not so. Why he should have the right to let or hire the courthouse I do not know.

Mr. Ruttledge

How could the caretaker keep it properly if some people let it in a way in which it should not be let?

Mr. Brennan

That has not happened. When a caretaker is appointed he is appointed under certain conditions. It is his job to do certain things and he has got to do them. I do not see how the intervention of the District Court clerk is going to be any help to either the caretaker or the county council.

Mr. McGovern

I understand that the District Court clerks or registrars are responsible to the Minister for Justice and not to the Minister for Local Government. The local bodies are responsible to the Minister for Local Government. Does the Minister not think it desirable to avoid a clash between those two Departments in this particular instance? Does he think it is a good principle to compel local bodies to meet expenditure incurred by persons who are under the charge of the Department here? The Minister seems to assume that certain local bodies would not comply with the requirements for keeping those courthouses in proper condition, and that it would be necessary for the clerk or the registrar to recommend the carrying out of repairs. Would it not be possible for him to make those recommendations in the first instance to the local bodies, and when they fail an application could be made to the Minister for Local Government? Would that not be better than the suggestion here? I would like to know what the Minister for Local Government and Public Health would think of any individual under the Department of Justice who would propose to take over control of the courthouses and take on as part of his duty the duty of the local body.

Mr. Ruttledge

That will only be done when the council has neglected or refused or failed to do it. We do not want to interfere.

Mr. Minch

If the Minister takes full control so as to be in a position to decide what these courthouses are to be let for, it will go a long way to remedy the position.

Mr. Ruttledge

The officials who will have control under this measure will be subject to the regulations of the Department.

Mr. Minch

The officials will go where the stronger influence exists. If control of those places is exercised, subject to the Minister's sanction, and if there are regulations ensuring that the courthouses will not be let for this, that or the other political meeting, it will go a long way to improve the position.

Mr. Ruttledge

Suitable regulations will be made.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 55; Níl, 31.

Tá

• Beegan, Patrick.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Cleary, Michael.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Cooney, Eamonn.
• Corish, Richard.
• Corkery, Daniel.
• Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
• Crowley, Timothy.
• Daly, Denis.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Doherty, Hugh.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Gibbons, Seán.
• Goulding, John.
• Hales, Thomas.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
• Jordan, Stephen.
• Keely, Séamus P.
• Kelly, James Patrick.
• Kelly, Thomas.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Kissane, Eamonn.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Maguire, Conor Alexander.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
• Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
• O'Doherty, Joseph.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• Pattison, James P.
• Rice, Edward.
• Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
• Ryan, Martin.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Victory, James.
• Walsh, Richard.

Níl

• Beckett, James Walter.
• Belton, Patrick.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Burke, James Michael.
• Coburn, James.
• Costello, John Aloysius.
• Curran, Richard.
• Daly, Patrick.
• Davis, Michael.
• Dillon, James M.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
• Finlay, John.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Keating, John.
• MacDermot, Frank.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McGovern, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Minch, Sydney B.
• Morrisroe, James.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Mahony, The.
• O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Reidy, James.
• Wall, Nicholas.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.

Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

The decision on that amendment rules amendments Nos. 3, 5, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and probably 23 and 24.

Mr. Brennan

I move amendment No. 4:—

In page 3, line 36, Section 5 (2), to delete the words "the Minister" and substitute the words "the county registrar."

I think it is obvious to the Minister that this ought to be done. I think it hardly needs to have a case made for it. "Whenever a council fails for three months to make any appointment which such council is required by the foregoing sub-section of this section to make, the Minister may make such appointment, and in every such case such council shall duly pay to the person so appointed such remuneration as the Minister shall direct." Why the county registrar should not make that appointment do not know, because the county registrar is given such authority under some other section. "Whenever a vacancy occurs in the post of a caretaker of courthouse accommodation who is appointed under the foregoing provisions of this section or in the post of assistant to any such caretaker, the county registrar having the custody of such courthouse accommodation may appoint a person to fill such post temporarily until such post is duly filled under the said foregoing provisions, and in every such case the council in whose functional area such courthouse accommodation is situate shall duly pay to the person so appointed such remuneration as the Minister shall direct." That is sub-section (3) of Section 5. Now, why the Minister should make the appointment under sub-section (2) and the registrar the appointment under sub-section (3) I do not know, and I should like to know the reason.

Mr. Ruttledge

The reason is that one appointment is temporary and the other permanent.

Mr. Brennan

No; they are both temporary. "Whenever a county council fails for three months to make any appointment which such council is required by the foregoing sub-section of this section to make, the Minister may make such an appointment, and in every such case such council shall duly pay to the person so appointed such remuneration as the Minister shall direct."

Mr. Ruttledge

That is a permanent appointment.

Mr. Brennan

Is that permanent?

Mr. Ruttledge

Yes.

Mr. Brennan

Well, why reserve to the Minister the right to make that appointment?

Mr. Ruttledge

To make a permanent appointment? For a very good reason. It is done in most of these cases. It is generally done on the suggestion of the county registrar, subject to the sanction of the Minister. As regards temporary appointments the registrar always does these things. Under sub-section (1) of Section 5 it is set out that the county council is really the authority for making such appointments.

Mr. Brennan

But it says:—

"Whenever the custody of any courthouse accommodation is vested under this Act in a county registrar the council in whose functional area such courthouse accommodation is situate shall, as often as occasion requires, appoint and shall pay..."

Now they are the persons making the appointment. If the council fails to make it, the registrar makes it. If the county council fails for three months, the Minister makes the appointment himself, and the county council pay whatever the Minister shall direct. I do not see the sense of it.

Mr. Ruttledge

Surely the county council cannot object to that, when they have the opportunity of making the appointment and do not make it.

Mr. Brennan

Agreed. But this permanent appointment is made by the Minister. What knowledge would the Minister have of making an appointment of that nature himself? He has already referred to the advantage it would be to have the District Court clerk, living in the district, know to whom he would be letting the courthouse, as distinct from the county registrar. Now, whatever knowledge would the Minister have of appointing a courthouse caretaker?

Mr. Ruttledge

The Deputy may be sure that the registrar's suggestions will be considered.

Mr. Brennan

Then I would certainly say that sub-section (2) ought to be reconsidered in conjunction with sub-section (3); that is, that in a case like that, the county registrar makes the temporary appointment that is afterwards, if you like, confirmed by the Minister. I do not like the idea of the Minister coming down and making the appointment himself, and I do not think it should be insisted on.

Mr. Ruttledge

I do not think the Deputy has any complaint. If the county council fails to make the appointment the Minister makes it.

Mr. Brennan

What sort of knowledge would the Minister have?

Mr. Ruttledge

He will have the knowledge he has in all these matters, I am sure. Officials and all the others under the control of his Department give particulars of the various applicants and their qualifications, character, and so on.

Mr. Brennan

But why not adopt the same procedure as you propose to adopt for a temporary appointment under sub-section (3)?

Mr. Ruttledge

Is not that obvious In one case you are putting him in a permanent position; in the other case only for a limited period.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Brennan

I move amendment No. 6:—

In page 3, line 49, to add at the end of Section 5 (3), the words "for such temporary period."

I think those words ought to be added there.

Mr. Ruttledge

That is not considered necessary. The Deputy cannot, I think, see a case where any Department would pay a person for time he was not employed.

Mr. Brennan

Very well. I think it would clarify the situation, though.

Mr. Ruttledge

The draftsman has clarified it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Brennan

I move amendment No. 7:—

In page 3, line 56, Section 5 (4), to delete the words "or by the Minister."

An Ceann Comhairle

If the words stand, of course, the Minister will have power of dismissal. Then No. 8 would not be needed.

Mr. Brennan

"Every caretaker and every assistant to a caretaker of courthouse accommodation appointed under this section may at any time be dismissed from his post as such caretaker or assistant by the council by whom his remuneration is payable or by any judge of the Supreme Court, the High Court, or the Circuit Court presiding at a sitting of any such court in such courthouse accommodation, or by the Minister," I do not think the Minister ought really to take that power to himself. I do not think there is any necessity for the Minister taking power of dismissal in a case like that. I cannot really visualise any case in which it would be necessary for the Minister to have powers of dismissal.

Mr. Ruttledge

There may be a case where the judge would not be sitting. Is that accepted?

Mr. Brennan

Very well.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Brennan

I move amendment No. 8:—

In page 3, before Section 5 (5), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

The county registrar may lodge a complaint in writing against the caretaker (or assistant caretaker) of a courthouse with the council in whose functional area such courthouse is situate, setting out the reasons for such complaint and if the council refuses or fails to take the steps necessary to have such caretaker (or assistant caretaker) carry out his duties properly and courteously the county registrar may report the matter to the Minister and in such case the Minister shall have the power of dismissal.

Well, Sir, if the Minister is to retain the powers of dismissal, then I would move amendment No. 8. I think it would be absolutely unfair that a court caretaker would be subject to dismissal and the loss of his office without being first arraigned on some charge before his employers, that is the county council.

They ought to be told why he is being dismissed and, if they do not act, I am quite prepared to submit that the Minister then ought to be in a position to deprive the man of his office. I think, however, that it would be manifestly unfair that because somebody might lodge some kind of secret report against a courtkeeper, which might or might not be true, the Minister should have the power of dismissal over that man without the courtkeeper getting any opportunity of explaining his conduct or defending himself against the charge.

Mr. Ruttledge

I do not think that the Deputy knows of any case, in that Department at any rate, of a person been dismissed without getting an opportunity of explaining. The general practice would be to ask for a report on the particular case but it is not necessary to put it into the Bill.

Mr. Brennan

Under this Bill, neither the county registrar nor the county council, who are the man's employers, need make any complaint and yet he may be dismissed by the Minister. Is not that so?

Mr. Ruttledge

The Deputy could assume that even a judge of the court could act in the same way.

Mr. Brennan

I think it is very unfair.

Mr. Ruttledge

But it is never done.

Mr. Brennan

Even if it has never been done, I think we ought to see, for everybody's sake, that it is not open to anybody to do it. I think that a man ought to have some rights and that if he is to be deprived of his post as caretaker, his employers, the county council, ought to be notified of the reasons for his dismissal and that he should be given an opportunity to defend himself. I do not want to create any situation which might make the thing unworkable, but I think that a courtkeeper should be entitled to that much consideration.

Mr. Ruttledge

In practice, he will get it and always does get it.

Mr. Brennan

The Minister will admit that we are leaving the door open there for an abuse.

Mr. Ruttledge

I am sure that the man would not be dismissed without cause.

Mr. Brennan

But there have been people dismissed without cause. As a matter of fact, we have had evidence in this House, in connection with another matter, where there was no fault to be found and yet people were dismissed.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the Deputy withdrawing his amendment?

Mr. Brennan

No, Sir. I am not prepared to withdraw the amendment. I think that the Minister ought to meet me in this matter for the sake of the Bill itself.

Mr. McMenamin

Would the Minister agree with the drafting of that on the Report Stage?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is the Report Stage.

Mr. Ruttledge

These are the same provisions as apply to court messengers and similar officials.

Mr. McMenamin

Surely, you must give a man an opportunity of clearing himself. You cannot dismiss a man without his being heard and you are taking power here to dismiss him without hearing his case. Must a man come into court and involve himself in costs in order to prove his case against wrongful dismissal? You cannot do it. It is ridiculous law. It is stupid.

Mr. Ruttledge

I do not know what the Deputy is talking about. In several Acts that have been passed in this House similar powers were given and for more responsible position than that of which we are talking, and the Deputy knows it.

Mr. McMenamin

The Minister knows that nobody can be dismissed from an office without being given an opportunity to defend himself. You cannot do it. It is ultra vires. It is bad law and contrary to justice. Many a man cannot afford to go to law and in such a case he would have no redress. A man who had backing and who had somebody to stand up for him could go into court and could win his case. Why is this arbitrary power taken? The poor courtkeeper has no friends to come in and fight for him in the court and he has to walk the plank. Would it not be easy to draft this so as to give an opportunity to the man to give an explanation and to be heard in his own defence?

Mr. Ruttledge

To listen to the Deputy one would think that this was something that had never happened in this House before. He sat here in this House for a great many years, except for a few years that he was out of it, and he has listened to several Bills being passed on the same lines as this. It is a wonder that, when similar court officials were being dealt with in the same manner in these other Bills, we did not hear all about these men walking the plank and so on. The same effort was made by the last Administration to remedy that position. The Deputy knows that no Administration tries to interfere with an official except on reports from the officials responsible and he knows that there is no attempt in this Bill to undo natural justice.

Mr. McMenamin

The Minister is talking as if he were born only this morning.

Mr. Ruttledge

The Deputy seems to have been born only this morning.

Mr. McMenamin

I protested here on several occasions about this matter. I do not care if it was done by 100 Governments. If it is wrong, it should be remedied. I had to go to the courts recently to upset a case arising out of the rules made in this House, and tore them asunder.

Mr. Ruttledge

The highest civil servant in this State holds his office, technically at any rate, at the will of the Executive Council, but in practice it does not operate.

Mr. Brennan

The Minister has endeavoured to draw an analogy between courtkeepers and civil bill messengers and other officials of that description. There is no analogy between them. Courtkeepers are people provided with living accommodation in the courthouses. They are living there with their wives and families. Under this Bill there is no safeguard and the man can be fired out without any inquiry. There is no analogy there with the case of a court messenger. Can the Minister give us any assurance that the position will be safeguarded and that the man will not be thrown out without inquiry? The Minister says that in practice it never happens. Let us be sure that it cannot happen. There does not seem to me any reason for objecting to this.

Mr. Ruttledge

The Deputy should bring it in to deal with all these other positions in the country.

Mr. Brennan

Will the Minister give us an instance where somebody is dismissible from his living where he and his family are and where he can be evicted and thrown out merely on the word of the Minister without any complaint?

Mr. McMenamin

It cannot be done.

Mr. Ruttledge

There are people in a very different position in life, such as the highest officers in the State, who hold their positions, technically, at the will of the Executive Council.

Mr. Brennan

Yes, and they are paid by the State. Here is a man, however, who is paid by the county council and appointed by the county council, and yet the Minister takes the power to dismiss him without telling the county council the reason for his dismissal.

Mr. Dillon

Surely it is true that any servant of a local authority has some rights in respect of his appointment, and if he is dismissed without cause stated he would have ordinarily an action against that local authority for wrongful dismissal, and would be entitled to recover a week's, a month's or six months' wages according to the terms of his contract of employment. There does not seem to be any reason whatever why the Minister should take the right to dismiss this particular servant of a local authority when he has no such power in respect of any other servant of a local authority. Why is it necessary, by statute, to withdraw from him his common law right to reasonable notice of the proposal to terminate his contract of service? Why is it desired, without any reference to anything that previous Governments or previous Dála may have done, to establish the principle set out in this Bill that the Minister should have an arbitrary right to dismiss a man from his employment without assigning any reason? In so far as such a system obtains, it is a bad system.

Why extend it? The Minister says quite casually: "Who can conceive that anybody is going to have his employment terminated other than justly under the power conferred on me by the section?" We have every reason to apprehend that there may be grave differences of opinion between us and the Minister as to what is a fair termination of an employee's contract of service such as is contemplated here. I know of a number of temporary postmen who were told that they would not be employed because they belong to a certain political organisation. I know a number of members of the Army Reserve who were dismissed from the Reserve and no reasons were given. When the Minister was asked for reasons, he said he would not give any reasons in the House, but was eventually forced to confess that he dismissed them because they belonged to a certain political organisation of which he did not approve. Surely the type of person contemplated under this section is entitled to be informed why he is dismissed and, if he can convince a court that he has been unjustly dismissed, surely he is entitled to proceed against his employer in the way that the common law provides for such an injustice? What valid reason can the Minister give for taking statutory power to abrogate the common law in this matter? There is no valid reason. I submit that the amendment ought to be accepted, and that these people should get ordinary justice and that is all they want.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 33; Níl, 50.

Tá

• Beckett, James Walter.
• Belton, Patrick.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Bourke, Séamus.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Broderick, William Joseph.
• Burke, James Michael.
• Coburn, James.
• Costello, John Aloysius.
• Curran, Richard.
• Daly, Patrick.
• Davis, Michael.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dolan, James Nicholas.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
• Finlay, John.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Holohan, Richard.
• Keating, John.
• MacDermot, Frank.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McGovern, Patrick.
• McGuire, James Ivan.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Morrisroe, James.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Reidy, James.
• Wall, Nicholas.

Níl

• Beegan, Fatrick.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Cleary, Micheál.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Corish, Richard.
• Corkery, Daniel.
• Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
• Crowley, Timothy.
• Daly, Denis.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• Doherty, Hugh.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Gibbons, Seán.
• Goulding, John.
• Hales, Thomas.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
• Keely, Séamus P.
• Kelly, James Patrick.
• Kelly, Thomas.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Kissane, Eamonn.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Maguire, Conor Alexander.
• Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
• Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Briain, Donnchadh.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
• O'Doherty, Joseph.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• Pattison, James P.
• Rice, Edward.
• Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
• Ryan, Martin.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Victory, James.
• Ward, Francis C.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Bennett; Níl: Deputies Little and Traynor.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 9 not moved.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 10 and 12, which are next on the Order Paper, may be discussed together.

Mr. Brennan

I move:—

In page 4, line 9, Section 6 (1) after the word "maintain" to insert the words "and after attention has been called to the matter".

Section 6 of the Bill reads: "Whenever a council fails or neglects to maintain in proper repair and condition any courthouse accommodation which such council is required by this Act to maintain, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—" and it goes on to set out that the Minister shall have the right to call in the Board of Works and take other steps. My amendment seeks to have the words "after attention has been called" after the word "maintain." I think it would be unfair that a county council would have this work done behind their backs, because somebody like the county registrar or the Minister said that the council had neglected to do its duty. I want proof of that neglect —that they should first be obliged to call the attention of the council to the matter.

Mr. Ruttledge

If the Deputy would look at Section 3 (1) he will see that it provides for such accommodation as the Minister shall give notice of to the council. He directs them, and the word "accommodation" includes those works that the Deputy refers to, and also includes gas, coal and so on.

Mr. Brennan

Am I not right in saying that the court clerk is not the Minister? Neither is the county registrar. The District Court clerk has the right under this section to get in fuel and light to the extent of £10. My point is that in all those matters the council ought first to be asked to carry out the repairs, alterations or whatever they are. I think it would be unfair that somebody would come in over their heads and carry out elaborate schemes, saying afterwards that the county council neglected the matter. There ought to be some evidence that they did neglect it and there should be some notification served on them to carry out those repairs. That principle has been observed in many cases in Bills which have been passed here. With regard to the repair of houses, tenants have been empowered to carry out repairs but they must first draw the attention of the landlords to the necessity for the repairs. I think that principle should be extended to this Bill.

Mr. Ruttledge

Section 3 (1) covers that point. The Minister will direct their attention to it.

Mr. Brennan

I submit that it does not cover it and it is not by any means covered by sub-section (2) of Section 6.

Mr. Ruttledge

Accommodation includes repairs and includes coal, gas and so on. The Minister will direct the attention of the local authority to the particular work necessary and direct them to provide accommodation. Accommodation is construed as including repairs, etc.

Mr. Brennan

It is a very wide construction to put on Section 3. If it really does, then what is the need for this further provision in Section 6? If it is a thing already covered in sub-section (1) of Section 3, what is the necessity for sub-section (6) at all?

Mr. Ruttledge

Section 3 tells them what their duties are.

Mr. Brennan

Is the Minister prepared to insert the words I have suggested in Section 6?

Mr. Ruttledge

The point is already covered by Section 3 (1).

Mr. Brennan

I do not agree at all.

Mr. Ruttledge

I am quite definite on it.

Mr. Brennan

I think that the ratepayers of the county as the people who are responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of those buildings ought to be told what is needed before this work is done behind their backs.

Mr. Ruttledge

That will be done by Section 3 (1).

Amendment No. 10, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13 not moved.

Mr. Brennan

I move amendment No. 14:—

In page 4, before Section 6 (3), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

Whenever a county registrar provides the necessary requirements for courthouse accommodation under the previous sub-section, the council alleged to be guilty of such failure or neglect shall be furnished as soon as may be with a bill of the costs incurred by such provision together with a copy of the Minister's sanction for such provision.

Sub-section (3) of Section 6 sets out that "Whenever the commissioners have executed repairs, or done other work under this section, or a county registrar or a District Court clerk has under this section procured repairs or other work to be done or procured the supply of any substance or thing...." I wonder is the Minister really satisfied that in that case the county councils will be notified by the Minister? The sub-section goes on: "...the following provision shall have effect, that is to say." I am proposing to insert there the new sub-section set out in the amendment. I think it is reasonable.

Mr. Ruttledge

It is not necessary.

Mr. Brennan

It is not necessary from the Minister's point of view, nor is it necessary for the county registrar, but I maintain that it is absolutely necessary from the point of view of the county councils. They ought to be told at once where they are. What we have in this Bill, and particularly in this Section 6 and all those subsections, is the right of other people to come along and execute repairs, without, as far as I can see, notifying the county council that they are going to be carried out. They can run up bills of any amount, and the county council need not be notified for a considerable time.

Mr. Ruttledge

That is not the effect of the Bill. The Deputy has very little grievance. The county councils have got ample opportunity to carry out those repairs, and have refused to do so. Those repairs are then carried out under the commissioners. The commissioners certify the amount and the county councils will get particulars in due course.

Mr. Brennan

What is the ample opportunity? The fault I find is that they get no opportunity. As far as I can see, there is no provision in any part of the Bill that the things they ought to do will be pointed out to them.

Mr. Ruttledge

They are asked to provide accommodation.

Mr. Brennan

Agreed.

Mr. Ruttledge

And they refuse to do it.

Mr. Brennan

The sub-section reads: "Whenever the commissioners have executed repairs or done other work under this section or a county registrar or a District Court clerk has under this section procured repairs or other work to be done...." Is there anything in that which shows that the county council will be notified as to the things that must be done? Nothing whatever.

Mr. Ruttledge

Does it not appear before that?

Mr. Brennan

It is not anywhere.

Mr. Ruttledge

They are notified that the repairs have to be done.

Mr. Brennan

Where is that in the Bill?

Mr. Ruttledge

You have that in Section 3, sub-section (1).

Mr. Brennan

That they shall provide accommodation?

Mr. Ruttledge

Yes, and the accommodation includes those repairs.

Mr. Brennan

Sub-section (2) reads: "Whenever a council fails or neglects to provide a sufficient supply of coal. gas, electricity or other substance..." Are we to read into that sub-section that in that case the county council will first be notified by the Minister of their failure to supply those things?

Mr. Ruttledge

Certainly. They will be required to provide them. Surely that is notice enough?

Mr. Brennan

There is nothing in the Bill to show that they are going to be notified.

Mr. Ruttledge

There is Section 3, sub-section (1).

Mr. Brennan

That does not give any assurance.

Mr. Ruttledge

What is wrong with the Deputy is that he does not accept the view that accommodation includes repairs.

Mr. Brennan

What I do not accept is that while the Minister has the right to demand accommodation, other people also have the right under that section. That is my complaint.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 17 seems to me to be out of order, as creating a charge. I should like to be clear on the point as to whether the effect of passing that amendment would be that irrecoverable costs or expenses would have to be borne by the Exchequer.

Mr. Brennan

No.

An Ceann Comhairle

I should like to hear the Deputy and the Minister on the point as to whether irrecoverable costs would have to be borne by the Exchequer if the amendment were inserted.

Mr. Brennan

No. My contention on this matter was that the Minister or the Commissioners, or whoever was executing the repairs, was being sufficiently met in sub-section (3) (a) which says: "The Commissioners or such county registrar or District Court clerk (as the case may be) shall be entitled to recover the costs and expenses incurred by them or him in the execution or procuring the doing of such repairs or other work or procuring the supply of such substance or thing (as the case may be) as a civil debt in any court of competent jurisdiction..." Sub-section (b) provides that the Minister for Finance shall have the right to deduct those expenses from the grants payable to the county councils. In the first instance the Minister and the Board of Works get the right to proceed in court, to give evidence of the extent of the repairs which have been done, and they have the right to recover. I think that ought to be sufficient without further having the right to deduct those amounts from the grants payable to the county councils.

Mr. Ruttledge

I do not think, a Chinn Comhairle, that the amendment would impose a charge on the Exchequer. It is merely a matter of accountancy. The work is carried out. The Commissioners make up the amount, and the Minister gives a certificate. It is purely a matter of accountancy.

Mr. Brennan

The Minister is mistaken. He is apparently referring to paragraph (c). I am speaking about paragraphs (a) and (b).

Mr. Ruttledge

Amendment 17 relates to sub-section (3) (c). It is to delete that paragraph.

Mr. Brennan

The amendment in my name reads: "In pages 4-5, Section 6 (3), to delete paragraph (c)." In view of the fact that the Minister or the Commissioners have the right to go into court, I think they should be obliged to give evidence in the ordinary way. They should not have rights which any ordinary individual would not have with regard to the costs incurred. I do not think it is fair for the Government to adopt the attitude that a certificate from the Minister, to the effect that certain sums of money had been spent, is in itself evidence of those sums having been spent.

Mr. Ruttledge

It is purely a matter of accountancy. The necessary supplies are required by the District Court clerk. He has to get receipts for those from the people from whom he gets the supplies. He also has to get receipts from the people who are employed. The same applies to the county registrar and the Commissioners. It is purely a matter of accountancy. Those accounts having been examined by the Commissioners, who are satisfied that they are correct, we ask that the certificate of the Minister certifying them to be correct shall be evidence in court.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Ceann Comhairle

As regards amendment No. 19, apart from its dependence on No. 12, I think it would divert to the councils moneys that would otherwise flow to the Exchequer. Therefore, it is a potential increase in charge. The same remark would apply to the succeeding three amendments.

Amendments Nos. 18 to 22, inclusive, not moved.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 are consequential on No. 2. They assume that the county councils have control of courthouses.

Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.

Question—"That the Bill be now received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

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

Mr. Brennan

We are opposing the Fifth Stage because I think this Bill is an infringement of the rights of county councils. I think there has been a rather want on neglect of the rights of county councils and I certainly do not agree that the Bill is going to meet the situation that it is endeavouring to meet. Instead of having some kind of unified custody or control, you will have a continuation of a type of dual control between the county councils and the county registrars. On the whole, I do not think the Bill is going to meet the situation it originally set out to meet. I am opposing it particularly because of the right which the Minister reserves to himself and his successors of dismissing a courtkeeper without any intimation whatever to him of the reason for his dismissal.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 35.

Tá

• Beegan, Patrick.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Clery, Michael.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Corkery, Daniel.
• Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
• Crowley, Timothy.
• Daly, Denis.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• Doherty, Hugh.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Gibbons, Seán.
• Goulding, John.
• Hales, Thomas.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Jordan, Stephen.
• Keely, Séamus F.
• Kelly, James Patrick.
• Kelly, Thomas.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Kissane, Eamonn.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Maguire, Conor Alexander.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
• Norton, William.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
• O'Doherty, Joseph.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• Rice, Edward.
• Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
• Ryan, Martin.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Victory, James.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C.

Níl

• Beckett, James Walter.
• Belton, Patrick.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Broderick, William Joseph.
• Burke, James Michael.
• Coburn, James.
• Costello, John Aloysius.
• Curran, Richard.
• Daly, Patrick.
• Davis, Michael.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dolan, James Nicholas.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
• Finlay, John.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Holohan, Richard.
• Keating, John.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McGovern, Patrick.
• McGuire, James Ivan.
• Minch, Sydney B.
• Morrisroe, James.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Mahony, The.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Redmond, Bridget Mary.
• Reidy, James.
• Wall, Nicholas.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Traynor; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.

Question declared carried.