Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 16 Feb 1949

Vol. 114 No. 1

Summer Time Order, 1949—Motion.

Minister for Justice (General MacEoin)

I move:—

That Dáil Éireann hereby approves of the Summer Time Order, 1949, made by the Minister for Justice under the Summer Time Act, 1925 (No. 8 of 1925).

This Order is similar to that operating in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The purpose of the Order is to synchronise our time with Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Some time ago an inquiry was held into summer time and in the report of that inquiry it was recommended that the same time should operate here, provided that the Government of Great Britain and the Government of Northern Ireland made an Order regulating summer time, so that there might be no difference between our time and the time obtaining in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In making this Order, we are accepting the report presented, and it means that the same times will operate in this country as in Northern Ireland and Great Britain and that postal, train and shipping times will be the same in the two countries.

Mr. Allen

What report is the Minister referring to?

General MacEoin

The Report of the Summer Time Inquiry of 1941.

Mr. Allen

There were other recommendations in that report.

General MacEoin

I have not got it with me at the moment, but it is the Report of the Summer Time Inquiry set up by the previous Government.

Mr. Allen

There were other recommendations in that report. Does the Minister propose to implement them?

General MacEoin

This Order does it for this year.

Mr. Allen

In respect of one particular matter only. There were a number of other recommendations in the report and I should like to know the Minister's views on them. Does he propose to accept them?

General MacEoin

This only synchronises the times in this country and Northern Ireland. We are accepting the date set out in the Order as the date for both areas.

Mr. Beegan

Away back in 1915, this matter of the altered time first came into operation, when a difference of 25 minutes was provided for. I do not know who got the idea that it would confer a great benefit—some theorist in middle Europe, or somewhere else, I expect—but it was put across and put into force by the then British Government. At a later stage, a further hour was added and that position has been accepted by the various native Governments in this country. I am at a loss to know what are the arguments for it. I am at a loss to know what are the great reasons for it, or what are the great savings that will accrue to the country as a result. It is all very well to say that we must agree to it in order that our time will synchronise with the time in Northern Ireland and in England, but there are other considerations which should be taken into account before we follow suit in the matter. I often wondered why, if we wished to have the times synchronising, we could not do it by another method —by Government Departments, transport companies and all the others concerned commencing work an hour earlier—rather than by advancing the clock. That method would be much more acceptable, so far as the agricultural community are concerned.

I am not alleging anything against the present Minister — I am merely voicing what I felt during the term of office of similar Ministers under previous Governments. We have a position now in which the time is advanced not merely by an hour, but by an hour and 25 minutes, as compared with 1915. The period during which this new time order operates is the period when the farmers are most concerned with the sowing and harvesting of their crops. There are various other sets of workers whose conditions of employment are, if not provided for in the Conditions of Employment Act, well guarded by their organisations, and for the farmer, particularly in the harvesting season, the best part of the day is the period from 5.30 until 7.30 or 8 o'clock on a summer evening. It is all very well to say that farm labourers do not go to work as early as other workers. In some parts of the country they go to work as early as, if not earlier than, road workers and other persons employed on public employment schemes. I want to bring to the Minister's notice and to the notice of the House that that has a very serious effect on those engaged in agricultural production. Whether it is the hired worker on the farm or the members of the farmer's family, the fact that they see these people going home, their day's work finished at 5.30 in the evening at the very time which is most useful to the farmer, particularly in the harvesting season, has a very dampening effect on the energies and work of the people engaged in agriculture.

There is another aspect of it, too. I do not claim to be an expert by any means, or to know very much about health matters, but we are spending millions of pounds, and there is a clamour for the spending of more, on improving the health of our people and preventing disease. I do not think that the operation of this new time is in any way helpful in the matter of giving us a healthy people. It is all very well for the people in the cities whose children can go to the nearest school by bus or tram at a cost of a penny each morning, but I am thinking of the children of the rural community who live three and four miles in many instances from the national school. These children have to be in school about 9.45 a.m. That hour corresponds to the time of 8.20 a.m. when we were youngsters, and in order to have them in time for school they have to be wakened about 6.30 a.m., that is the normal 6.30 a.m. of our time. I hold that that is far too early an hour to get children of six, seven, eight and nine years out of bed. It is all very well to say: "Why should they not go to bed in time?" As the old saying goes, it is impossible to put them to bed at the time the hens go. If they were put to bed at that time, they would not go off to sleep. They go to sleep according to nature's own time. It is a humbug to be wasting so much money on health services while at the same time we are doing something which is most injurious to the health of the children.

I will be told, I am sure, by the present Minister for Justice much the same as I was told by previous Ministers for Justice, that this is a matter for arrangement between the managers, the teachers and the parents. We know very well that the teachers are human just the same as everybody else and that they are quite anxious to enjoy a few hours of sunshine in the evening. That is well known to the parents and even though it might be the feeling of the parents— as I am quite sure it would be if a plebiscite were taken—at the same time they do not want to do anything that might rile the teacher in any way. After all, the teacher is either living within 100 yards of the school in his residence, or if he has no residence he is living in some town a distance away and has a motor car to bring him to the school. It would be no great inconvenience or loss to him, but certainly those children who have to travel distances of two or three miles, as I know, on Shank's mare at that early hour in the morning, must be called out of bed at an unnatural hour; and that is causing untold hardship to the health and physique of the rising generation.

I have not discussed this with any members of my own Party. I expect their views are divided upon it and I am expressing my personal opinion. The sooner this Order is set aside the better, unless we are given strong, logical arguments to show how it is benefiting the country materially, financially and physically. Otherwise, an Order of this kind should not be made; and if this House had the interest of the rural community at heart, it would not agree to the Order.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

We hear it said very often that agriculture is the principal industry of this country. I would like to remind the Minister and Deputies that agriculture must be carried on in accordance with nature. Nature regulates the time of the rising and setting of the sun and so regulates the time when agricultural operations should be carried on. The proposal at the moment is more or less a detail— to synchronise the coming into operation and the ending of summer time with that in operation in Great Britain and the north-eastern counties of Ireland. The whole principle of summer time as applied to those engaged in our principal industry is unnatural. Just imagine a farm worker endeavouring to make hay during the summer months at approximately 6 o'clock in the morning by the sun. The thing is unnatural. The important time for harvesting work—it does not apply in the same way to spring work—is the afternoon and this new time is a great disadvantage.

I do not propose to go into the disadvantages to the commercial and urban portions of the population. I am sure that, if I belonged to any of those classes, I would be just as anxious as they for summer time, as in the cities people are glad to get out in the summer during the sunlight of the day. Even as a Deputy, I would be glad to have summer time, so as to escape from here three hours before midnight, as it would be if we had the original natural time of one hour and 25 minutes later than at present. The agricultural community is at a disadvantage under this summer time regulation and I have no hesitation in saying that it causes a considerable amount of loss in crops at harvest time. I would suggest that a further inquiry be undertaken to see if some other method could not be adopted to leave the agricultural industry at peace in the one sphere in which it can operate both profitably and smoothly, that is, in accordance with natural sun time.

Mr. T. Walsh

Like the speakers before me, I speak from the agricultural point of view. I would like to bring other views before the Minister that do not seem to have been brought up before. When this Act was introduced, it was known as the Daylight Saving Act in Britain and was then introduced for the purpose of saving light at a particular time. In my opinion, there is no necessity for us to save light now in the cities. If we take it from the city man's point of view, he closes his shop now at 5 or 5.30 in the evening, whereas in 1917, when this Act was introduced, his shop closed at 8 or 9 in the evening. Possibly there was a case to be made then for a Daylight Saving Act, to increase the length of our day by an hour and save an hour's light. These conditions do not obtain to-day. We have changed, our shops have changed their hours of closing, and consequently there should be no necessity whatsoever for continuing this system of extending the light of the day by one hour into the evening.

It affects agriculture very seriously at a particular time of the year, at haymaking and harvesting periods. Men come into work in the morning at 8 o'clock the whole year round, as it is a standard hour, but when we come to the daylight saving period our hour is driven further and our men come in at 9 in one sense or at 7 in the other. At 7 o'clock in the morning you cannot do agricultural work. You cannot save hay, as there is a dew on the hay at that hour. The same thing applies in the harvest time. From the 1st June to the 1st October there is a dew in the morning, to defeat the Daylight Saving Act in so far as it was meant to help the people. It may have helped those in the towns in the past, when you had a late closing hour, but that does not obtain to-day, when shops are closed in the City of Dublin at 5.30 in the evening. There is no necessity for this extra hour as far as saving light is concerned, but there is a necessity in the country to remain at the old time, where men come in and start work immediately in order that you do not lose an hour one way or another. The position, as I see it, is that if you have this new time in the country you are losing this hour. Consequently, I am opposed to what is known as the new time. I agree with Deputy Beegan and Deputy O'Reilly in asking the Minister not to enforce this. If there is no reason in our own country for enforcing it, do not enforce it because it suits somebody else to do so. If you think it is for our benefit, then enforce it. Speaking as one coming from an agricultural community, however, I say do not.

Mr. Cogan

For a number of years I have on every possible occasion been advocating that this Summer Time Order should be discontinued. I am glad that there are quite a number of Deputies in the House who share my views on that matter. I have often wondered why we, in an agricultural country, allow ourselves to be dictated to in a matter of this kind by purely city interests. Nothing as much as this system of time, which is altogether contrary to our interests and to our way of life, reveals the inferiority complex of the whole rural community. As Deputy O'Reilly has pointed out, the people who work in the agricultural industry work close to nature and nature cannot be dictated to by manmade laws. No Act of the Dáil will compel the sun to rise an hour later or to set an hour later than it does at present. I think it is time that the Minister who, I know, has a very sympathetic view in regard to rural matters and who understands rural life just as well as anyone, should have this whole matter reviewed. He should try and bring our time into conformity with what is necessary and desirable for agriculture. Some people will say that those in rural Ireland who do not like this summer time can ignore it and go on with their work just as they have done heretofore. That is all right in theory but it is rather difficult in practice. To begin with, as it has been pointed out, the law provides for this change of time. Professional people, such as teachers, who find that this change is advantageous to them, will press very strongly to have it brought into effect. It is difficult for people in rural Ireland to resist that demand. In the same way people working for local authorities, county councils and in factories, will also insist on summer time as it gives them a longer evening. Thus we have a number of people working this summer time and the difficulty of people in the scattered rural areas resisting the change becomes all the greater.

With regard to children, the position is particularly objectionable. If people in the rural areas continue to work according to the old time, it means that the children go to bed at the old time; but if the schools open at the new time the children have to rise in the morning an hour earlier. That means taking one hour off their rest and that fact cannot be disputed. There is also a considerable amount of confusion prevailing. People are told that a bus arrives at a certain time and they have to inquire whether it is the new or the old time. As a matter of fact, I introduced a farmer into the Gallery of this House and he found it necessary to ask whether the time the Dáil was going by was the old or the new time. This state of confusion is undesirable and unnecessary. There is no national or economic advantage in having this summer time. We do not save electricity by it as some people have pointed out. A summer day is short enough; it ends at 6 in most industrial occupations. It ends at 7 or 8 in practically all business houses, and, therefore, closing an hour earlier saves no light. It might, perhaps, save an hour's light in the public houses, which are open until 10.30 p.m. That would be only a very insignificant saving and against that we have all those disadvantages.

It might, of course, be contended that it would be a disadvantage to have a different scale of time from that in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I think we ought to assert our independence in this matter. We have, so to speak, kicked the British Crown into the Irish Sea. Why not kick the English clock into the Irish Sea also and adopt our own time here? If trading and transport conditions require that all clocks should be set by the same time, why do the British not insist that the Americans go by British time? There is as much, if not more, commercial and passenger traffic between Great Britain and the United States as there is between Great Britain and Ireland, but nobody suggests that those two countries should adopt the same time. I think, therefore, that there is no case for summer time as far as this country is concerned and since there is no case for it, the logical thing to do is to discontinue it.

Mr. Corry

I should like to support the proposal made here against summer time. It is rather peculiar that the Government of this country seems to be catering only for the favoured few, or this Dáil is always catering for the city as against the country. You have the same thing in regard to Licensing Acts and you have the very same conditions as regards this proposal.

A large proportion of the milk of this country is now sold in liquid form in cities and towns. Once you come on to summer time, it means that those farmers and their men must be clear an hour earlier in the morning. During the summer and the harvest time, men have to be in the yard at 6 o'clock to milk the cows. The milk must be sent off and the men come back at 9 a.m. new time and they cannot work on the hay field before 11 a.m. They lose very precious time during the hay season and the harvest season owing to the same thing. That is a major consideration and I cannot see any justification for it.

Of course, I am one who has given up hope of seeing anything like common sense in this House. I never saw it yet and I do not expect I ever will—in so far as the country people are concerned anyway. I have seen Deputies here, even Deputies like the Minister, representing rural constituencies coming in and saying that the city fellow should have his pint and that the countryman I represent should not. This Order is what might be described as a continuation of that attitude of mind towards the ordinary country community, and I cannot see any justification for it. I can see no good in it. I cannot see anybody standing up in this House to defend it.

General MacEoin

What?

Mr. Corry

Summer time.

General MacEoin

The Act or the Order?

Mr. Corry

Summer time. I cannot see anybody prepared to stand up in this House to defend it or to give us any fair reason for bringing it into force, as one would expect from the Minister introducing it. Let the Minister get up and defend this Order if he can. That is what we should like to hear—some reason for it that will outweigh the harm that the Act is inflicting on the rural community. Let us have some fair reason for it, otherwise I think the Minister should withdraw the Order.

Mr. Palmer

It is rather surprising to hear Deputies from the other side objecting to the enforcement of summer time. For a long period now we have had summer time and we still have the same sun, the same summers and the same country. So far as the rural community are concerned— and I would be interested in anything conducive to their convenience and welfare—I do not think it bothers them one way or the other, whether they have summer time, old time or new time. It is perhaps a fact that in some districts where they may have to attend creameries and deliver milk— a matter in which Deputy Corry of course would be interested—they may have to rise a bit early. So much the better, because I believe that in this country we sleep too much. Farmers generally would be much better off if they were out earlier and so would all of us. I think the time has come in this country, if we want to make any progress, when we must get out early and even work later. If the enforcement of summer time is regarded as being beneficial or necessary for that purpose, I see no reason why it should not be continued. In all other States in Europe summer time was enforced whenever it was considered necessary for the benefit of the people, especially during the emergency periods. We still have a period of emergency and therefore I think we should continue anything which we consider necessary in order that we may work in harmony with neighbouring countries with which we have dealings of a commercial type and in order also to facilitate the passage to and fro of people from these countries. I fail to see how anybody should object at this period to the enforcement of summer time or how it affects the farming community because, as I say, except in a few cases they regulate their own time.

Mr. Moylan

Since the embattled farmers are all aligned against the Minister I should like to say a few words in his defence. It was a builder who first introduced the Summer Time Act and my experience in the building trade enables me to say that it has been a very valuable Act for the building trade. Listening to the speeches of farmers, not merely on the Fianna Fáil side but on the other side of the House, it would seem that anything that would lengthen the day would be valuable because we hear so many long speeches. I have always regarded the present Government as a Government of subterfuge and this is a very justifiable subterfuge—the idea of getting us up a bit earlier in the morning. I do not believe for a moment it will injure the health of the people. I think it is a very valuable thing and I give the Order my entire support.

Captain Cowan

I should like to say a word in support of the motion introduced by the Minister.

Mr. Corry

Another early riser.

Captain Cowan

I certainly consider myself an early riser but I do not know what that has to do with it. When I was living in an agricultural community down in County Cavan, not very far away from Deputy O'Reilly's district, we did get up very early in the morning in my young days. I agree with Deputy Palmer that it is necessary that more people in this country should get up early in the morning. There is too much laziness, too much of the habit of sleeping in bed in the morning when people should be out. My principal object in rising, however, is to point out that old ideas die very hard. For the last 34 years we have been listening to the type of objections raised here to-day by Deputy Beegan, Deputy Corry, Deputy O'Reilly, Deputy Cogan and other Deputies who have spoken. They have been at it for 34 years and they are not beaten yet. It reminds me of what happened when the date of Christmas was changed. You had at that time also quite a volume of opinion which adhered to the old date for quite a considerable period. The same thing applies in this instance. It is the same type of mentality which says that you always thresh your wheat or oats best when you use an old flail. Some people say that you get a better yield by threshing with the old flail and that you should not have anything to do with up-to-date machinery. We have heard Deputy O'Reilly suggest that we should try to run agriculture by the sun but not so very long ago I happened to see threshing mill contractors going out and working by artificial light in the middle of the night. That is not in accordance with nature but it is in accordance with common sense.

This motion is based on common sense. The statute of 1925 gives the Minister power to make the Order. I have not looked up the statute and I hope I am correct, as I think I am, when I say that what we have to decide is whether we agree with the dates prescribed by the Minister in connection with this Order. If we want to change the whole conception of the Act some Deputy should introduce a Bill to do away with the Summer Time Act of 1925. That would be a straightforward way of disposing of it. However, the Order is there. The Minister has made the Order. It is a sensible Order brought in for the purpose of synchronising the time between Britain and this country. I understand that this arrangement is not confined to Britain and this country; I understand that it is adopted in many other countries in Western Europe. I believe that the Orders made under this Act are very useful.

I do not agree with Deputy Corry when he says that the people who live in the cities are the favoured few. We in Dublin comprise at least one-fifth of the population of Ireland. We are not a favoured few. If you add to that the population of Cork City, of Limerick City and of other citities and towns I think it cannot be said that we are the favoured few and that this motion is being introduced to benefit the favoured few. It is not. It is introduced to benefit the majority of the people of this nation and, therefore, I support it.

Mr. Allen

I support this motion. Although I come from a rural area I do not object to summer time. I should like Deputy Palmer to know that an Order under the Summer Time Act is not needed to make the people in the country get up early.

Mr. C. Lehane

In Wexford?

Mr. Allen

Anywhere in the country. The people in the country rise earlier than any other section of the community. Deputy Palmer, and others like him who live in towns, goes to work at 9.30 a.m. or 10 a.m., by which time the farmer has half a day's work done. I suggest that the Minister should extend the summer time period. I believe that it would be in the interests of the agricultural community to have the period extended from the 1st March to the 1st December each year. I have seen summer time in operation amongst farmers and I never saw them any the worse for it. They got their work done just as well as those who kept to the old time.

I can understand Deputy Beegan's objection and, in fact, the objection of anyone who comes from the West of Ireland to this motion. We, in the East, are one hour and 25 minutes in advance of the sun. In the West they are one hour and 40 minutes in advance of the sun. The point must be kept in mind all the time that—in addition to the one hour and 25 minutes that we, in the East, require to bring us up to Greenwich mean time—there is a lag of 15 minutes in the West of Ireland. That is the difficulty which the people in the West of Ireland have in regard to this matter. They are up in the middle of the night, according to summer time, if they like to think of it that way. My belief, however, is that summer time is an advantage to the agricultural community just as it is an advantage to every other section of the community. It is particularly so at this time of the year and in the late autumn. In the months of October and November a farmer will have more daylight during which he can work in the fields, if summer time is in operation during the whole of these months. I would ask the Minister to consider, for future reference, my point about the extension of the period of summer time next year, if he should be the Minister who happens to be making the Order.

Seán Ó Tiománuidhe

Táimse i gcoinne an rúin seo agus is an fáth amháin go bhfuilim ina choinne ná go sílim nach rún macánta é. Bheadh sé i bhfad níos fearr dúinne dá mbeadh sé ag teastáil uainn tosnú ar uair níos luaithe ar maidin, tosnú ar uair níos luaithe ar maidin agus é sin a rá agus é sin d'admháil. Más mian liomsa dul go dtí m' oifig ar a 9 a chlog is féidir liom dul ann agus deire a chur leis an obair ar a 5 a chlog in ionad a 6 a chlog gan bheith ag cur dallamallóg orm féin agus ar dhaoine atá ag obair liom.

Sin fáth amhain go bhfuil mé i gcoinne an rúin seo.

Táimse im chónuí fén dtuath agus im thigh féin ní déantar aon athrú ar an gclog agus nuair a théim go dt an baile ina bhfuilim ag obair bíonn an clog im oifig ann uair níos déannaí ná an clog atá againn im thigh cónaithe. Sílim gur rud gan ciall é sin. Mar dúras bheadh sé i bhfad níos fearr dúinn bheith macánta linn féin agus gan bheith ag cur dallamallóg orainn.

General MacEoin

The only purpose of this Order is to synchronise the time for a very short period, at the beginning of the Summer Time Order and the ending of it, between the two countries. Whether this Order is approved or not, the Summer Time Act of 1925 is not under review. The Summer Time Act of 1925 will operate whether I like it or not until this Parliament changes or abolishes the Act. The only question that confronts the House and on which it has to decide is whether summer time should commence on the 10th April or on the 3rd April—seven days—at the beginning of the period, or whether it will finish on the 2nd October or on the 30th October. Deputy Allen says that he would like to see summer time in operation from the 1st March to the 1st December. The help that he has given me is very sound from the Ministerial point of view but it is not good from the point of view of the farmer and, as I am a farmer, I should like to be able to take his point of view. However, all I am asking is that we will do this for the sake of everybody concerned. When I say "everybody" I have in mind, among others, the farmers and the Dublin Cattle Market. Mark you, if the cattle were an hour late to meet the train the farmers would not be pleased and if the prices were bad, because of some miscalculation of the time, the farmers would not be too pleased about it and they would ask why the Government did not avoid such a contingency by arranging the times in such a way that everybody could understand them. I am not going to go into the arguments which have been made during this debate but I should like to remind the House that the Order is made under Section 3 (2) of the Summer Time Act of 1925, Section 1 of which reads as follows:

"(1) The Minister for Justice may, whenever it appears expedient to him so to do, by Order appoint that the period appointed by this Act or by any previous Order made under this section to be the period of summer time for the purpose of this Act shall, either generally or in any particular years or year, not be the period of summer time for that purpose, and that in lieu thereof some other period specified in such Order shall, either generally or in such particular years or year (as the case may require), be the period of summer time for the purpose of this Act."

The sub-section under which I am making the Order is sub-section (2) of Section 3:—

"An Order made by the Minister for Justice under this section shall not come into operation unless or until it has been approved by resolution of each House of the Oireachtas, but such Order when so approved shall have statutory effect as an amendment of this Act."

In introducing the motion, I said that I was giving effect to the report of the Summer Time Committee set up by my predecessor in 1941. Evidence was received by that committee from every section of the community. The committee was representative of business, farming and labour—a very good committee. They made a recommendation that the Minister should retain summer time but that, if the British changed the time or the period, the Minister should make a similar Order. The wording of the recommendation is as follows:

"Provided that the British Government made a similar change, the period of summer time should be extended so as to commence on the 1st day of April and end on the first Sunday in November."

Because of the Order that the British have made, which is that summer time should commence on the first Sunday of April and end on the last Sunday of October, I have made a similar Order. That is for the better management and arrangement of the affairs between the two countries and for the convenience of everybody.

On the question of schools, which Deputy Beegan raised, everybody knows that whatever time is decided by the local manager is the time that shall operate. The Minister for Education has given an instruction to that effect. If Deputy Beegan has any difficulty, let him use his good offices and influence with the local manager so that the children about whom he is so perturbed will not have to get up too early. If he uses as much persuasion with the manager as he used in the Dáil, I am sure it will be effective. I do not think that any school teacher is anxious to get up too early in the morning, because he is tired after a long, arduous day. The teacher and the children, I believe, are probably of the same frame of mind, that the later they get in and the earlier they get out, the better they would like it. As I have said, I shall not follow all the arguments that were used. I am glad that Deputy Moylan has pointed out that the Summer Time Act was designed by a builder. There is much building required in the world to-day and I trust that the plan of the builder will be given effect to by the Summer Time Act or by the endeavour of the people of the country.

I move that the Order—not the Summer Time Act—the Order made under the Act by the Minister for Justice, be approved by this House.

Motion put.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will Deputies who are asking for a division on the motion please stand in their places?

More than five Deputies having stood in their places,

The Dáil divided: Tá, 76; Níl, 36.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank
• Allen, Denis
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beirne, John.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Dan.
• Brennan, Joseph P.
• Brennan, Thomas.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Butler, Bernard.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Coburn, James.
• Colley, Harry.
• Collins, Seán.
• Commons, Bernard.
• Connolly, Roderick J.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, John A.
• Cowan, Peadar.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Davin, William.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Dunne, Seán.
• Esmonde, Sir John L.
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Finucane, Patrick.
• Flynn, John.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Halliden, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Hughes, Joseph.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Kinane, Patrick.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Lehane, Con.
• Lydon, Michael F.
• Lynch, John.
• McAuliffe, Patrick.
• McCann, John.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McGrath, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• McQuillan, John.
• Madden, David J.
• Maguire, Patrick J.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Murphy, Timothy J.
• Norton, William.
• O'Gorman, Patrick J.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Sullivan, Martin.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Pattison, James P.
• Redmond, Bridget M.
• Reidy, James.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Roddy, Joseph.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheldon, William A.W.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Spring, Daniel.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Traynor, Oscar.

Níl

• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal T.
• Brady, Brian.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Buckley, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Carter, Thomas.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Collins, James J.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Crowley, Honor Mary.
• Davern, Michael J.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• Rice, Bridget M.
• Ryan, James.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Friel, John.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, James.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lahiffe, Robert.
• Little, Patrick J.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• O'Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• Ormonde, John.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Timoney, John J.
• Walsh, Thomas.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Doyle and Keyes; Níl, Deputies Beegan and Corry.

Motion declared carried.