Shall I put the question?
Committee on Finance. - Land Bill, 1949—Committee (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 12.
I think we have talked enough about it.
I am putting the question that——
I am in possession.
I thought the Deputy agreed when I said I was putting the question.
I made a very specific objection to the inclusion of the words proposed by the Minister. Deputy Vivion de Valera afterwards gave a very clear legal exposition of the meaning of those words. I pointed out that it is not the opinion or views expressed by the Minister that will count exactly, but the words included in the Bill.
I think that the Minister has been most unreasonable in his attitude towards the proposal made by myself and Deputy Cogan. The Minister for Agriculture, who is here, said a few days ago, on the Holidays Bill, that it was difficult to frame in specific words proposals which are mentally well defined. I think that I can see that the Minister is aiming at a certain power which he thinks he needs and is not really retaining the exceptions which should be retained. At the same time, he is making provision to give himself power.
I would like the Minister to accept the point of view that we are really anxious to find a solution for the congested districts. I am not optimistic about the tremendous amount that can be done, but I am most anxious to be helpful to the Minister in trying to retain, for the solution of congestion, every acre that can be acquired or resumed. The Minister and other Deputies made play with the 1946 Act by which they said Fianna Fáil had tried to retrieve itself. The measure of error was the measure of the amount of work done by Fianna Fáil in bringing migrants from the West. In trying to be helpful towards reaching a solution of congestion, we had, unfortunately, in Meath and elsewhere to give way to a local demand. It was undesirable that we should so give way, but the opposition was so great that we had to meet people half way so as to be allowed by them to bring in people who heretofore had no touch with the counties into which they were brought.
Now, we really do want to find a solution for congestion. I do not think the Minister's proposal is going to lead to speed in the matter of rearrangement. Instead, I think it will slow down the process. Since the Minister has asked us to put to him a form of words he might accept, I have already put it, and Deputy Cogan takes the view that my suggestion is workable.
What I want to say to the Minister is that it is desirable that this authority, which the Minister seeks, should be in the hands of the judicial authority and should not be under the control of any politician or any political Party. No matter what suspicion is cast upon the Minister, or on the commission that works under him, that does not matter so long as the Minister's conscience can be completely clear that he is not interfering with the judicial authority.
Now, if it is impossible and undesirable, and I think it would be, that the present commissioners should be asked to pull up stakes in Merrion Street or open their offices in Donegal, Kerry and Mayo, the Minister might devise, with his advisers, the idea of creating the posts of two further commissioners who would be directly associated with the work in the congested areas, and who could give, under judicial authority, swift sanction to the proposals that he now hopes to get by way of directing a senior inspector to make a decision. The Minister is unwise in seeking to secure for himself this authority. Even if he does deny that he is so seeking it, we on this side of the House are convinced by the words included in the Bill and their obvious meaning that the Minister cannot escape accepting the responsibility which will thrust itself upon him.
I am interested in the relief of congestion and at the speed at which it can be carried out. I desire very much that we should ultilise all the land possible for the relief of congestion and nothing else, but I do think the Minister is wrong, and that he cannot persuade me or anybody else on this side of the House that the words in the Bill mean anything other than what they say. I again suggest to him that he should retain the judicial authority by the appointment of commissioners who would function in the congested areas and give the decisions that he now wishes to put on civil servants.
May I put the question now?
If nobody else wishes to talk.
I have no doubt with regard to the Minister's attitude so far as this matter is concerned. From my little experience of the Minister and of the Land Commission working under his direction during the past two years, I can say that I have found that everybody gets a very fair crack of the whip. I could not say the same of the administration under a Fianna Fáil Government.
What is before the House is amendment No. 12.
With regard to congestion, if I am in order, I should like to speak of the congestion that was around Doneraile when the estate there was being divided.
That has nothing to do with the amendment.
One man got approximately 100 acres.
The Deputy is discussing administration, not the Bill.
Did not Deputy Moylan deal with administration?
No. We are dealing with amendment No. 12.
I am convinced that if the Minister assumes the powers he will act as a Minister fairly and above board.
The Minister tried to leave the House under the impression that in fact he was taking no powers to himself. He said he had no intention of taking powers over the allotment of holdings or additions to holdings. The Minister must have forgotten what he said previously. The impression he left on Deputies on his own benches was that he was in fact taking powers which the Land Commission exercised heretofore. The Minister must have forgotten the White Paper issued in connection with this Bill. In paragraph 13 of the White Paper, referring to this section and, particularly, to the two paragraphs which Deputy Moylan has proposed to delete says:
"As regards paragraphs (d) and (e) it is considered essential, for the expedition and success of rearrangement schemes, to delegate decisions to local senior inspectors of the Land Commission.... Apart from such delegation, commissioners' independent jurisdiction under paragraphs (d) and (e) remains as fixed in Land Act, 1933."
But their independent jurisdiction has been taken from them by paragraphs (d) and (e). That is indicated clearly in the White Paper, even if we were not able to read the paragraphs with our own eyes and, particularly, in conjunction with the end of sub-section (1) which says that the Minister will have this power over the land to be rearranged in a particular area "whether with or without the distribution of other lands to facilitate the said rearrangement." The Minister himself admitted at one stage in this discussion that it was necessary to have additional lands in order to facilitate rearrangement. These two paragraphs will certainly give the Minister power not only over the lands in rundale, but the additional lands whether situated in the district or in any other parts of the country. My belief is that the Minister has pulled the wool over some of his colleagues' eyes in regard to the powers which the Minister for Lands will have under this section.
You can pull it back now.
The Minister at the same time wants to go around the country and proclaim that he in his own person is in a position to exercise the powers of the Land Commission in regard to allotments and the price of the allotments. I must say that I am amazed that a number of Ministers and Deputies on the Coalition Benches would go to this extent even to keep the Coalition Government in office. I suppose the Minister said to them: "You have got your price in other regards and I will have to get my price in regard to this power."
The Minister also laid great stress upon the fact that it was necessary that he should take this power into his own hands in order to expedite matters. He admitted that, if a Minister was doing his job and tried to do this in detail, he would neglect bigger matters to which he should pay attention. The Minister also pleaded that it was necessary, in order to facilitate the relief of congestion, that power to the senior inspector to O.K. a scheme on the spot should be provided for. Why not provide, if that is the Minister's plea, while leaving the judicial functions which the commissioners have to the commissioners——
None of the judicial functions are being touched. You know it or, if you do not, you should.
The Minister may try to smother his own particular benches with honey, but there is no use doing it to me or any person who approaches the matter with an open mind. Of course, he is interfering with the judicial functions.
Of course I am not.
This section starts off by saying: "The following matters shall be excepted matters for the purposes of this section". The Minister, however, takes out of the excepted matters these two particular functions.
Which are not judicial functions.
Which have been judicial functions up to now.
It was ruled by the Supreme Court over 20 years ago that they were not judicial functions.
The Supreme Court have been——
I suppose they know nothing, but you do.
If the Minister wants to get obstreperous, it is all right.
That comes more from the opposite side than from this.
The Supreme Court is jealous and has shown itself to be jealous of the exercise of judicial functions by lay personnel. In order to meet the attitude rightly taken up by the Supreme Court that people should not be kicked around simply by ministerial decree or at ministerial will, that if their property is to be taken and given to somebody else in the public interest it should be done by due process of law and not in some back room by a Minister or by anybody else. One of the most essential things dealt with in the Constitution is that people should have security of ownership of property unless it is taken from them in the public interest and according to due process of law. Here the Minister is putting himself in a position not only to take a portion of land and to say to whom each particular section of it shall be given, but he is also taking the right to say in relation to these sections the price at which they should be given to the various allottees. That is a power which the Minister should not have and which this House should not give him. If the Minister makes such a fuss about getting sanction from the Land Commissioners, he could quite easily have put a section into this Bill to the effect that the Land Commissioners would have to give a decision within a certain number of days subsequent to their having empowered an inspector to make a rearrangement. Instead of giving the Land Commission any additional powers, the Minister is taking these powers unto himself. The Minister, being a politician, is naturally subject to much greater pressure than a person who is in a judicial or semi-judicial capacity and whose tenure of office is fixed.
We have fought too long for the rights of the people to see these rights now swept away in this arbitrary fashion without pointing out to the Minister and his colleagues in government that they are doing something disastrous to the public interest. The Minister has challenged us about amendments. Two amendments were circulated to this particular section. They were circulated months ago. Yet, a fortnight ago the Minister challenged Deputy Moylan to produce an amendment and said that, if he produced it, he would get his officials to examine it. Surely the Minister knew a fortnight ago when the Debate started on this section that Fianna Fáil objected to it in principle. He should then have asked his officials to produce an amendment which would safeguard the public interest in this matter. It is no use asking us now to produce new amendments. We have already produced them. I am sure the Minister submitted those we did produce to his officials for examination and got their advice. Can he give us now any assurance or any indication that he will amend this particular section in order to safeguard the public interest? If he cannot do that it is no use trying to palm us off with a promise to consider further amendments. We believe the two amendments tabled are necessary in order to ensure that judicial functions will be left in the hands of those people who have the tenure of judges and not in the hands of a Minister who is subjected to all manner of pulling and pushing from day to day.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Tá: 70; Níl: 56
Tá
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, John.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Connolly, Roderick J.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, John A.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Davin, William.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell Maurice E.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Esmonde, Sir John L.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finucane Patrick.
- Fitzpatrick Michael.
- Flanagan Oliver J.
- Flynn John.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keane, Seán.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kinane, Patrick.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, James.
- Lehane, Con.
- Lehane, Patrick D.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Collins, Seán.
- Commons, Bernard.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- McQuillan, John.
- Madden, David J.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, William J.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Gorman, Patrick J.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Sheldon, William A. W.
- Spring, Daniel.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Timoney, John J.
- Tully, John.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Carter, Thomas.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Colley, Harry.
- Collins, James J.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Davern, Michael J.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- De Valera, Vivion.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Friel, John.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lydon, Michael F.
- Lynch, John.
- McCann, John.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- Maguire, Patrick J.
- Moran, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Walsh, Thomas.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Doyle and Kyne; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy.
Question declared carried.
I move amendment No. 13:—
In sub-section (1), paragraph (e), lines 52 and 53, to delete "(other than any determination arising in or being part of a rearrangement scheme)."
The paragraph as it stands in the 1933 Act was designed for the protection of the Minister, to ensure that the functions in this case would be divorced from politics and to protect the Minister from undue representation and influence. The Minister's proposal is directed towards giving him power to determine the price of land to allottees in the rearrangement scheme. That would be pretty undesirable but, unfortunately, in the manner in which the section is worded, the final paragraph of the sub-section not merely gives him power to deal with land in rundale but practically gives him power in regard to all land. Paragraph (e) as it stands is included in the Bill. What effect would paragraph (h) have? Paragraph (e) says "the determination (other than any determination arising in or being part of a rearrangement scheme) of the price at which land is to be sold to any such allottee." That is what the Minister wants. On the other hand, there is a sub-section included in the section to the effect that the determination of any standard purchase annuity is a function of the commissioners. It seems to me that the two are quite conflicting. I hope that some of our legal lights on both sides of the House will address their minds to it. I should like to know, if the Minister insists on having the words he wants inserted, what effect that insertion is going to have on (h) which keeps for the commissioners and in their power the determination of a standard purchase annuity? I think it is most undesirable that the Minister should have the power of selecting allottees as he has in the section that has just passed. On top of that it is still more undesirable that the Minister should have power to decide not merely who the allottees are but the price at which land is to be sold to them. I think it is a most impudent demand to make on the Dáil and I must resent it and oppose it with all the power at my command.
Major de Valera
All the objections that were voiced against the previous amendment which has now been rejected by the Government Parties hold good for this amendment too. This matter is, in the first place, objectionable because it is the taking of power into the Minister's hands by an indirect method—what I have called already on the previous amendment the taking of power by way of an exception to an exception. I have no intention of repeating all the arguments that went before but, in all seriousness, I invite Deputies to read the submissions that have been made on the debate on the previous amendment and to ask themselves if it is a good or a proper thing for a Minister to take power which not only is power that of necessity interferes with private property but power which relates to the doing of justice as between individual citizens.
Is it a good thing for the Minister to take such power by such a method? I think not. I think in principle it is highly objectionable and whereas I have carefully safeguarded myself throughout this debate—because I lack personal factual knowledge I have refrained from commenting on what the Minister should do or should not do— I nevertheless have suggested and still do suggest, that whatever the Minister wants to do under this section should be done directly in a straightforward, honest manner. In other words, if he does not want this power but if this power on the legal construction of the section as it stands is to flow into his hands, let him divest himself of it. On the other hand, if he wants it, why not take the power in a more straightforward and direct manner which would make it apparent to the country and to everybody in the House where precisely we stand? As I say, I put that as my main contribution to this part of the debate and I leave it to Deputies who have a more intimate knowledge of the situation to deal with the merits of what should or should not be done. The section as it stands is objectionable from that point of view.
Again, since the opportunity arises— I stress this—and I particularly commend it to the consideration of certain Deputies of the Fine Gael Party who opposed this principle in the past as being very solicitous in regard to the rights of others and as people who were very conservative and apprehensive of any interference with the rights of others by such a method—that here we have a Minister in a Coalition which is dominated by Fine Gael obtaining power in this particular form. For that reason I commend it to Deputy O'Higgins and his confréres in that Party in all seriousness. That is the first objection, an objection on principle, but there is something more objectionable still. It is a section as I have shown—and nobody has attempted to get up to contradict me or to show how the argument failed— which puts power into the Minister's hands. What is the practical result? The practical result is that in regard to the determination of allottees and, as we now propose, in regard to price, the Minister will be in a position, qua Minister, to decide both allottees and price, once the thing has been embraced within a rearrangement scheme and a rearrangement scheme, of the widest nature, is made possible by virtue of the concluding words of the first sub-section. Having said that a scheme is a rearrangement scheme, under the very wide description of a rearrangement scheme set out in the section, the Minister can do what he likes in regard to allocation or price.
Then to add, so to speak, insult to injury where he does such a thing, by virtue of sub-section 5 he may do it in his own name, in the name of the Land Commission or of the lay commissioners. In other words, if the Minister—and I say this objectively without any reference to the Minister personally—were to see a way by which he could exercise personal influence under such an arrangement for any political purpose whatever, and then cover it up by laying it at the door of the Land Commission, if that were his motive, he could hardly achieve it by any better method than the method which is in effect provided in this Bill.
I am not saying that that is his intention. Some Deputies are only too keen to attempt to put personal interpretation on all these things. Will they please realise that what I am trying to establish is that by virtue of the draft of the particular form of words in this section, it has this legal effect whether the Minister wants it or not? Is it desirable in principle that we in this House should legislate in that manner? Is it desirable, in cases where such rights are concerned, that the Minister should be in a position to ask somebody, some officer who will be in effect dependent on him, to frame a scheme and then that scheme having been framed—which in effect anyway will be framed if the Minister wants it —that the Minister can then proceed to deal with the determination of allottees and price as he personally may think fit and, having done that, be in a position by virtue of a later sub-section to say: "This was done by another body" because he will do it in the name of the other body? Is it desirable that he should be enabled to put up that facade? Is it a wise thing to do as a matter of principle? Let us look to the future. Some time, somehow, somewhere, acquiescence in such a situation can lead to trouble, if not in the immediate future. That is what we are up against in this Bill.
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present. House counted and 20 Deputies being present,
Major de Valera
Perhaps the Chair will permit me to retrace my steps very shortly, as the Minister has come in? The arguments we have already advanced on the last section are relevant to this, but I am not going to pursue them in detail. They stand. Will the Minister appreciate this, that, first of all, there is a direct and an indirect way of doing the thing, but that it is better to do it in the direct way? If the Minister wants these powers, I would say, let him take them directly. If he does not want them, then I will ask him to shed these powers incidentally given to him by virtue of the wording of the section. I am leaving the merits to be discussed by Deputies who know more about the facts.
That is point one. Point two is, does the Minister think it desirable to take unto himself powers which are overriding powers? There is a radical departure from Section 6 of the 1933 Act, which is repealed, and which this Bill replaces. By virtue of the whole section as it stands, the Minister is in the position of being able to direct his officer. Being in that position, he can direct the type of rearrangement scheme he wants. Being in that position, once the rearrangement scheme is formed by that officer, who already is acting on the Minister's direction—and the definition of the scheme is so wide as to embrace practically everything—the Minister has complete power in regard to allocation and price and he can exercise that power in his office without any reference to the machinery of the Land Commission.
Is it wise to take that power and, on top of that, to take the power of covering all that up? I am using that phrase without any imputation on the present Minister. He will be in a position to cover the whole thing up by a provision later on which enables him to do it in the name of the Land Commission. I am saying all this objectively, without any reference to the present Minister. Let us take a hypothetical Minister of the future who may be inclined to act improperly. He is in a position to do exactly as he wants to his own political advantage and cover it up. It is bad enough to be accused of allocating, but it would be worse to be accused of rigging the price. Even if the Minister behaves in the most exemplary manner possible to any human being in the discharge of these functions there will, nevertheless, be mud slung by somebody and accusations will be made. It always happens, because you cannot satisfy everybody.
They must all be satisfied in a rearrangement scheme.
Major de Valera
Is it wise for the Minister to put himself in that relatively open position? The arguments are already on the records and it is unnecessary to go into them again. If the Minister will not divest himself of the powers that have been referred to, we must assume that he is anxious to take these powers. If that is so, I suggest he should take them directly and openly rather than in this indirect manner.
I wish to direct the attention of the House to the common or garden interpretation of paragraph (d) of Section 10:—
"the determination (other than any determination arising in or being part of a rearrangement scheme) of the persons to be selected as allottees of any land."
What other interpretation is there on this section unless it is that the Minister is reserving to himself the right of determination arising out of rearrangement schemes of the persons to be selected as allottees?
The next paragraph sets out:—
"the determination... of the price at which land is to be sold to any such allottee."
I am suggesting that the only interpretation of paragraph (e) is that the Minister is reserving to himself in any matter of rearrangement the determination of the price at which land is to be sold to any such allottee. It is the only interpretation that can be given to that paragraph outside this House. The Minister must remember that the sub-sections he wants to put into the Statute Book will be interpreted outside the House and the least the House might do is to make clear what it intends.
In the White Paper which the Minister has circulated he suggests in paragraph 13—whoever is responsible for the White Paper suggests it, and I am sure the Minister is—that all these sub-sections have certain interpretations. The White Paper says:—
"As regards paragraphs (d) and (e) it is considered essential for the expedition and success of rearrangement schemes, to delegate decisions to local senior inspectors of the Land Commission."
Does the Minister want to delegate powers to senior inspectors of the Land Commission locally? If he does, there is a simple way. What is wrong with saying that the Judicial Commissioner shall delegate to the local senior inspector any particular power? Why should the Minister come in under this section, under the various sub-sections of it, and set himself up as the individual who will delegate this, that or the other? Why not the lay commissioners or the Judicial Commissioner? Why should the Minister come out, for the first time in the history of the Land Commission, and take this power unto himself?
This is a simple matter, a matter the Minister can put right if he wants to. If the Minister feels that all these accusations may be made against him, that he is taking political power for the purpose of paying a particular price for land or allotting land, what is wrong with the Minister saying now, without further discussion: "I am prepared to say in this Bill that the Judicial Commissioner shall have power to delegate to a senior inspector whatever authority he wants to give him." Does the Minister suggest that by the mere fact of being empowered to pick and choose under this scheme he will be able to speed up land division and the alleviation of the conditions in rundale areas? Does he suggest that, by using his name, it would speed up anything throughout the country?
It is the main objection of the Opposition that the Minister, as political head of the Department, is taking this specific power to pick and choose not alone the allottees, but the prices that will be paid in certain instances. Can he not see what suggestions these powers are open to and, if he is sincere in meeting the wishes of the House, why not delegate those powers to the Judicial Commissioner or one of the lay commissioners of the Land Commission? Whether it is the Minister or a lay commissioner has this particular power, how is that going to speed up the solution of the rundale system or of a rearrangement scheme? If the Minister thinks there is anything in the talk or suggestions that have been made about political pressure being brought to bear, why should he take this power to himself, because both in law and in fact he will be the man who will be responsible? I cannot see the reason why the Minister should take this power to himself unless it be the reason the Opposition has suggested. If the Minister were to say that he was prepared to give this power to a Judicial Commissioner or to one of the lay commissioners who could delegate it to the man appointed to work out a rearrangement scheme, that would meet with the wishes of the House. By refusing to do that the Minister leaves himself open to all the charges that have been made from this side of the House, as well as to all the types of abuse that can arise under this legislation. I invite the Minister to reconsider the matter even now. If he is prepared to say that he will delegate these powers to one of the lay commissioners or to the Judicial Commissioner, we will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Major de Valera
On the question of speed, it should be possible, as Deputy Moran has said, to let an inspector go down and deal with the matter in the manner the Minister contemplates and then come back and report. That system would work just as expeditiously as the proposal which the Minister has in the Bill. I take it for granted that the Minister himself is not going to go down and arrange these things. If he is not, the speed will be achieved by some others doing it. When the officer comes back and makes his report, why cannot a decision be taken by the Land Commission as well as by the Minister? The argument as regards speed does not stand a very close analysis.
This form of attacking this problem is very objectionable in principle. I would invite the Minister to consult with, say, the Minister for External Affairs, the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance, who in the past have expressed very definite views as regards the dangers of this type of legislation. They have shown themselves as being very much aware of it. If the Minister has not already consulted with them on this matter, I think he should because this is a new departure and the Government, as a collective body, will have to take responsibility for it. As I say it is most objectionable in principle.
Is the Minister going to give any justification for this section?
Sub-section (1).
Will the Minister say what justification he has for taking to himself the power to put his hand into the public purse and give a price to the individual of his selection? The price at which land is going to be allotted under this subsection is going to be determined by the Minister. That means in effect that the Minister is going to have the power to declare that a loss on resale must be borne by the taxpayers in some form or another. What justification is there for that? Surely to goodness a judicial function of that type should be carried out by men who are not subject to all the pressure that individuals who can gain something for themselves in a legitimate way by putting on pressure will bring to bear on the Minister.
I told the Deputy before that it is not a judicial function. You might as well call scraping the road with a shovel a judicial function.
I see.
I am not prepared to accept the Deputy's interpretation of what a judicial function is, but I am prepared to take the Supreme Court's ruling on the matter.
Major de Valera
Quote the decision.
The case of Lynam v. Butler. It is old enough to have whiskers on it.
The Minister is not attempting to deny, I hope, that hereafter the Minister for Lands, if this Bill is passed, will have the right to determine the price of a particular allotment in connection with a rearrangement scheme. He cannot deny that he will do it in his own individual capacity. Will the Minister tell us whether the price is going to come out of his own pocket or not. We know perfectly well that it is not, but that it is going to come out of the public purse. I think this is a most scandalous and outrageous innovation. I do not believe that the members on the Coalition Benches would have listened to it for one moment except under the threat from the Minister that he would break up the Coalition if he did not get this particular provision.
There is no other explanation for it. They had been talking for years about the right of this Dáil and of the Comptroller and Auditor-General to have full and absolute accountancy for every penny that is passed by the Dáil, and quite rightly so; but how is any Dáil going to determine whether or not the Minister is carrying out his function to fix prices, to take money out of the taxpayer's pocket in regard to a rearrangement, unless there is to be a full-blown judicial inquiry into the Minister's acts on every occasion where it is stated that he has given an excessive price or suffered an excessive loss, with the taxpayers' money.
On a point of order. I want to direct attention to the fact that the Minister for Lands stated today that there were no Fianna Fáil people taking an interest in this debate. There is no member of the Clann na Talmhan Party doing so now.
What is the point of order?
That there is not a quorum present.
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted and 20 Deputies being present,
When the count was being taken, I heard the Minister for Lands saying that there were a lot of "mugs" down the country waiting for this Bill. I suppose that is how he regards them.
That is how you regard them.
I suppose that is how the Minister regards the people who are going to be deceived by his activities in this regard.
It has no relevance to this amendment.
When the Minister makes a statement like that I think we have a right to resent it.
There was not a quorum when it was used.
There was a quorum when the Minister called the people of this country Judases. If the Minister is pretending that he is anxious to get this Bill quickly, he should refrain from that sort of language. It is obvious that what he wants to do is to string this out because he believes that the people of the country are "mugs", as he described them. What right has the Minister to say in Roscommon and in this House that we want to delay this Bill? That is the alibi of members of the Coalition with regard to a number of Bills. The Minister has been in office now for over two years. He has been talking about this Bill for well over a year. The Bill was brought in before Christmas. During this Session it got a Second Reading. For a couple of weeks past, the Dáil only got an opportunity of discussing it for 15 minutes at a time. If the Government think this is an important Bill, why did they not give it an important place on the agenda, rather than taking it in between other Bills which are not so important?
Will the Deputy address himself to the amendment?
I want to know what excuse the Minister has for taking to himself this function of determining the price at which people are to get land. Is it for speeding up purposes or so that he can outbid Deputy Commons in Mayo for votes? The White Paper quite clearly sets out that sub-section is taking from the independent jurisdiction of the Land Commissioners functions which they had heretofore. These functions are being taken from the independent jurisdiction of the Land Commissioners and being given into the jurisdiction of the Minister, who is not independent, who is subject to all sorts of pressure from the people involved.
When a count of the House was called for, I was saying that, naturally, every person interested in a rearrangement scheme wants to do the best he can for himself and his family. A person who has got a new portion of land does not want to pay an exorbitant price for it, or what he will regard as an exorbitant price. He wants to get it at the lowest price possible. We all know that when anybody in the country goes looking for any commodity he will try his best to beat down the price, to get it at the cheapest possible price. We know how difficult it is to get these people in these rundale areas to agree to a redivision of the land included in the rundale. They want all sorts of perquisites and additions to the price. Heretofore, the price was finally fixed and the allotment arranged by men who were independent of the support of Deputy Commons or of the favour of the persons to whom the land was being allotted. They could exercise an independent judgment. They could act independently, knowing that their careers and their salaries were not dependent upon the people on whom they were imposing a fair rent and they could exercise their jurisdiction, as the White Paper says, in an independent fashion.
It would be impossible, if this Bill were in operation to-morrow, for the Minister to exercise an independent judgment in relation to the rearrangement of a rundale or to the price at which the land was to be given while he was being trailed all over the rundale holding by people like Deputy Commons. Deputy Commons would, naturally, be saying to the people: "The Minister has power to give the land to you for nothing." He has the power in his own right to give it for nothing and make the taxpayers pay for it.
I hope he will not listen to people like Deputy Aiken anyhow.
This is a new price to be fixed. I am perfectly certain Deputy Commons will use it to advantage in bringing pressure to bear upon the Minister. After all he used the stumps of a cheque book against him in the last election and he succeeded thereby in getting rid of Deputy Cafferky. Next time he may succeed in getting rid of the Minister.
What happened in the last general election is not relevant to this amendment, and that line of argument should not be pursued. It does not lead to decorum. It certainly does not add to the dignity of the House. Deputy Aiken should know that perfectly well.
The last election is passed and done.
I do not want to hear another word about the last election.
It is the next election I want to speak about in relation to this.
On a point of order. I submit there is nothing whatever about the next election in this Bill.
On a point of order. Surely, the Minister is out of order.
I am waiting to hear Deputy Aiken.
The Minister has been going around the country trying to make political propaganda out of the alleged fact that we are attempting to hold up this Bill. What he is trying to do is to blackmail the Opposition in order to get them to agree to things that are, of their very nature, outrageous.
Deputy Aiken should deal with the amendment. He is not dealing with it.
The amendment is that the Minister shall have the right to fix price in regard to rundale holdings and their rearrangement.
Deal with that, then.
That is a power which can be abused in the hands of a Minister for Lands. If that power resides in the Minister it leaves him open to pressure. It leaves him open to outrageous pressure from colleagues in his own constituency. We know there are a number of rundale holdings in County Meath. When the Minister invokes this particular section he not only takes power over the rundale holdings in Mayo but he also takes power over holdings in any other part of the country which may be associated with a particular scheme of rearrangement.
It is stated that a rearrangement scheme means a scheme approved by an officer by virtue of this sub-section, whether with or without the distribution of other lands to facilitate the said rearrangement. If the Minister wants to elbow the Land Commissioners out of practically all these excepted matters he has only to declare that he wants land in County Meath, or County Tipperary, or anywhere else——
A Deputy
Or County Louth.
——or County Louth, in connection with the rearrangement of a holding in Mayo. When he does that he immediately elbows the Land Commission out of their function. He can subsequently determine to whom the land in County Louth, or County Meath, or County Roscommon is to be given in connection with this rearrangement.
Or the Six Counties.
He can also determine the price at which the land in Louth, or Meath, or Tipperary, or Mayo is to be given to the new allottees. The Minister may try to pull the wool over the eyes of a number of people, but those are the facts and he cannot deny them.
You certainly pulled the wool over plenty of eyes and we are pulling it back again.
That sort of ignorant comment is not worthy of a debate in this House.
Do you hear the high-priest?
Not only can the Minister elbow the Land Commissioners out of these functions, which have hitherto been excepted matters, but he can, under sub-section (5) of this section, actually force the Land Commissioners to sign a document as if they themselves had taken the decision, because in sub-section (5), where the Minister or an officer exercises or performs by virtue of sub-section (2), which is the sub-section we are presently discussing, any power or duty, including the fixation of price, he may exercise the power or duty in his own name or, if he wishes, in the name of the Land Commissioners or the lay commissioners. Not being a judicial person or a person whose tenure of office is in any way guaranteed, as is the tenure of office of the Land Commissioners, he can not only elect the allottees and fix the price at the public expense but he can in public pretend that it was the Land Commissioners who did it.
I think the people are entitled to an explanation as to why this is necessary. The Minister made the excuse that it was necessary to relieve congestion. In the two years in which he has been in office he has relieved less congestion than did Fianna Fáil even during the war years. He broke the record for the lowest possible figure for the relief of congestion at any time since 1923, not excluding the war years when the bulk of the Land Commission's staff was engaged on other duties.
Give us the figures.
We will take all the war years.
No, just the last.
In 1940 there were 41,000 acres divided; in 1941, 27,000 acres; in 1942, 23,000 acres; in 1943, 23,000 acres; in 1944, 13,900 acres; and in 1945, 22,600 acres. The lowest figure was 13,900 in 1945. What did the Minister do in 1948, several years after the war had finished? He divided 12,200 acres, or 700 acres less.
In what year.
1948.
1947/48—the last year you were in office. I was wondering would you skip that.
The first year you were in office.
The first year this Government was in office we divided 22,200 acres approximately.
The Minister divided in 1948 a total of 12,280 acres, or 700 acres less than Fianna Fáil divided in the worst year of the war years. If the Minister is being so anxious to speed up the division of land, surely he could have done a little better than Fianna Fáil did in the worst year of all the war years. But that is not the real reason for the introduction of this Bill. I suspect that the real reason is that the Minister wants to be in a position to avoid the cold war with some of his colleagues in Mayo.
I think it is Deputy Moran who will get the chill.
Since we started the discussion on this particular sub-section the Minister has not got to his feet once to explain to the House why this departure is being made. Apparently he has not thought it necessary to do so. Of course, we all know that the Minister can drive all the Deputies of the Coalition into the lobby in front of him to vote on this. We know that they are all scared stiff of a general election and that they must vote for it. However, the Minister should at least go through the motions and make some excuse to the Dáil as to why he is putting himself into a position of putting his hand into the public purse in order to——
Deputy Aiken said that at least three times before. I have made a note of it.
And the Minister has not answered my question. I now ask him to answer it.
I cannot understand what the objection is on the part of Fianna Fáil to (d) and (e) of Section 10. To my mind, the purpose behind the Bill is the solving of the land problem. We want to finish, as far as we can, the problem of congestion that exists in a good number of counties. I am afraid, however, there is congestion in more places than in the West of Ireland. I suggest it exists to a great extent in the Fianna Fáil Party and that some of the members ought to hold a rearrangement scheme amongst themselves and decide on some kind of constructive criticism towards this Bill. If they would do so it would be better for themselves and for this House and for the country.
Last night we were treated to the spectacle of Fianna Fáil Deputies deploring the fact that the Minister for Industry and Commerce was waiving his responsibility under the Industrial Development Authority Bill. It is an about face to-day—it is quite the opposite. Here they are deploring the idea that the Minister for Lands is about to take more power into his own hands from the Land Commission.
Can they make up their minds on what they really want? Is it not beginning to be quite evident that their contribution to the debate is more for the sake of obstruction than for anything else?
I welcome Section 10 and the sub-sections (d) and (e) which these Deputies were annoyed about. I think the Minister deserves great credit for taking this power in connection with the determination for rearrangement schemes and also with regard to the price in this particular sub-section.
Price is the one before the House now. There was a vote on (d). That has been passed.
Both, in my opinion, are very closely associated with each other.
The House has decided on one.
When one is passed I think that it is absolutely ridiculous to obstruct the other because both go hand in hand. If, as has already been decided, we give authority to a senior inspector under the Minister to reach a decision with regard to rearrangement surely the power to reach a price must also be given or one sub-section will nullify the other? Seeing that the first has been passed I think these Deputies should not criticise the Minister any further. We have listened for a very long time to Deputy de Valera on the legal end of it. I am not a legal expert—I have never claimed to be such—but I think he has saved himself to a great extent by saying that he has not any practical experience of the problem of congestion. Because he has said that I would be inclined to forgive Deputy de Valera for his contribution to this debate.
A certain Deputy on the other side of the House took occasion to say that the Minister would now go around the country and arrange for his friends to get holdings and arrange the prices. I think that that is a very shabby type of criticism and it carries no weight under these particular sub-sections. My name was actually mentioned by this particular Deputy. He said that the Minister visited my constituency recently and that he deplored conditions as he saw them in the county. I see nothing wrong with the Minister for Lands visiting Roscommon, Galway or any other county in Ireland. He is to be congratulated on that. It is not so very long ago since the late Minister for Local Government, Mr. Murphy, did a tour of the county councils which was followed up by his successor. The late Mr. Murphy wanted to see the housing situation first hand. The gentlemen opposite, including Deputy MacEntee and his pals, criticised the late Minister for going down the country and taking an active interest in what was his work. I should like to see the Minister for Lands going through all the counties. I should like to see the Minister for Agriculture doing the same thing. They were put in to do a job and that is the way to do it. They were not put into office to hide in a big house in Dublin and to live like a Maharajah and to send their inspectors down the country to do the work. There is nothing like the personal touch.
Particularly when you can fix the price.
In relation to this problem, I would say that the country people would like to see the Minister —they would like to see any Minister no matter what his politics might be and no matter whether they were opposed to him or not—taking an active interest in their welfare. The only time they used to see a Minister or his pals was when these gentlemen were looking for No. 1 a week before the election. They trudged in then over bad roads, drains and so forth but it was the only time they saw them.
I wanted to deal with the remarks made by a Deputy—I think it was Deputy Kennedy from Westmeath—to the effect that the Minister for Lands visited Roscommon.
Deputy Kennedy did not speak on this amendment.
He spoke on the other amendment.
We are now dealing with this amendment.
I had not an opportunity of replying to him at the time. In connection with this particular sub-section, the amendment in the names of Deputies Moylan and Cogan is absolutely of no benefit now seeing that the other section has been passed. I would ask the Deputies on the Opposition side of the House to let this go through now without any further obstruction.
I invited the Minister, in a reasonable way, to give an answer as to why he would not shed these proposed powers to one of the lay commissioners or to one of the Judicial Commissioners. If the Minister could give the answer now it would determine what point of view this Party would take and it would help to shorten the debate.
I want to give the powers to the inspectors to facilitate rearrangement. The system that was in operation for the last twenty years was there but it did not work. It was thrashing the wind but it produced no results. I am not accepting the amendment because it would be a reversion to an obsolete, archaic, out of date system which will not produce results. I want the Bill to produce results.
I wanted to hear what the Minister had to say. I understand that he is going to stand over his opposition to these amendments instead of accepting the amendments put to him from this side of the House as to giving these powers, not to himself but to a Judicial Commissioner or to a lay commissioner. I have already made a case—and I do not propose to go over it again—as to why there can be no speeding up, no quickening of the system by substituting the Minister's name in this sub-section instead of one of the lay commissioners or one of the Judicial Commissioners.
Has the Deputy not already told us that?
I invited the Minister, before you took the Chair, to tell us in what way he thinks this is going to quicken certain operations of the Land Commission. I got no reason and the House has still got no reason. I invited the Minister, in order to meet the wishes of the Opposition and of the House generally, to shed these powers to somebody else in the Land Commission.
The Deputy must not repeat his statements.
I take it now from the Minister that he is definitely sticking to the wording of this section as it stands. If he is, I invite the House to analyse the wording as it stands and to let the country see where we are going to find ourselves. Deputy McQuillan talked about the personal touch of the Minister. His personal touch will be tremendous under this sub-section if he has a Land Commission cheque in his pocket to pay the price to individuals from whom land is being acquired throughout Ireland. He has the finest personal touch of any Minister this House has ever seen— the finest personal touch any possible Minister could ever have—because he will have the public purse to write the cheque for a political supporter.
It is a price that was never before given by this House because the determination under this amendment we are discussing is "the determination (other than any determination arising in or being part of a rearrangement scheme) of the price at which land is to be sold to any such allottee.""Any such allottee" I presume must refer to paragraph (a)—"the determination of the persons from whom land is to be acquired or resumed." Land cannot be resumed willy nilly. There are certain statues under which land can be resumed and one of the main reasons why land is resumed——
May I submit, on a point of order, that there is not a single word in this section or in the amendment about resuming or acquiring land?
I submit that under paragraph (e) the Minister purports to seek power for the determination of the price at which land is to be sold to any allottee. I am proposing to show to the House that virtually 90 per cent. of the land acquired by the Land Commission is acquired for the purpose of rearrangement and therefore the Minister will have the personal touch with the Land Commission cheque.
That is a complete falsehood.
I want to refer you, Sir, in case there is any question about it, to the wording of paragraph (e) which must definitely be referred to paragraph (a)—the determination of persons from whom land is to be acquired or resumed. Do we not all know that practically all the land acquired or resumed is being acquired or resumed for the relief of congestion? There are only certain specific cases in which the Land Commission can acquire land. The first purpose, the principal one, is the relief of congestion. There are other purposes such as the provision of town parks ——
On a point of order, I suggest it is quite clear from the sub-section in question that paragraph (e) refers to a rearrangement scheme, which is defined in the main section and not in paragraph (a) of this section.
That is so. It is defined in sub-section (I), at the end of the sub-section. There is nothing there about the resumption of land.
May I refer to the sub-section which says: "In this sub-section, the expression ‘rearrangement scheme' means a scheme which is framed or approved by an officer by virtue of sub-section (2) of this sub-section for the rearrangement of land held in rundale or intermixed plots whether with or without the distribution of other lands to facilitate the said rearrangement." I am submitting to the House again that 90 per cent. of the land acquired under the Land Acts is acquired for the purpose of the relief of congestion and the relief of congestion is dealt with in the main in accordance with the definition here for rearrangement schemes. Lands are being acquired by the State for the purposes of rearrangement and when notice is published in Iris Oifigiúil in regard to the acquisition of certain lands, one of the things the Land Commission must set out is that the lands are being acquired by them for the purposes of the relief of congestion.
That is not rearrangement.
With great respect the relief of congestion and rearrangement are——
They are not identical in my opinion.
The expression "rearrangement scheme" is limited under the definition to the rearrangement of lands held in rundale or intermixed plots.
I would again invite the Deputy to read the definition. It deals with the rearrangement of land held in rundale or intermixed plots "whether with or without the distribution of other lands to facilitate the said rearrangement". We have there the expression "with or without the distribution of other lands" and I am dealing with the situation as if it were concerned with the distribution of other lands because you can never, as has been stated here, deal with a rearrangement problem unless you have some other lands to distribute. Otherwise there is no point in trying a rearrangement scheme. There is no way of getting the tenant to agree unless you have other lands to give him. The Minister on this sub-section is taking power for the determination of the price at which land is to be sold to any allottee under a rearrangement scheme. I invite the Minister, if this does not contain the sinister meaning we think it will, to divest himself of this power and to give it to the Judicial Commissioner or a lay commissioner.
I invite the Minister to give his reasons as to why he thinks that would involve the slowing up of any such scheme. The Minister remains quite silent but the Minister knows quite well that the price for land acquired, in 90 per cent. of the cases, is going to be determined by the Minister for Lands and not by the people who formerly determined the price. Ninety per cent. of the land that is acquired is taken for the purposes of the relief of congestion and for rearrangement schemes. The Minister knows that quite well and to try to suggest that this has nothing——
On a point of order, surely this sub-section refers to the price at which land should be sold to allottees and not to the price at which it is to be acquired? It is to the latter point that Deputy Moran is addressing his remarks.
May I add that Deputy Moran is clearly disgruntled, that I have not taken the powers that he is trying to put across the House, I have taken.
Which price is the Deputy referring to?
The determination of the price that is going to be paid to the man whom the Minister under this Bill will remove elsewhere.
That is the price to be paid to the allottee.
The paragraph says: "the determination... of the price at which land is to be sold to any such allottee." That is one matter. What the Minister is reserving and what I am objecting to is the wording in brackets:
"(other than any determination arising in or being part of a rearrangement scheme)".
That is contained in paragraph (e) and that is what I am objecting to. That is an excepted matter and it will be left to the Land Commission—that is, the determination of the price at which land is to be sold to any such allottee.
There are brackets in paragraph (e) but not after "allottee".
I am particularly concerned with the words in the brackets:—
"(other than any determination arising in or being part of a rearrangement scheme)".
My submission is that the implication of that is that it is giving the Minister power to determine the price at which land is to be sold. That is what I am objecting to.
The acquisition of land does not arise there. The paragraph deals with the determination of the price at which land is to be sold to any such allottee. It is not the price paid for it but the price at which the land is to be sold to the allottee.
The determination of the price is a matter for the Land Commission. It is the wording in the brackets that I am objecting to.
The word "price" is after the brackets; it cannot refer to what is in brackets. I am sorry to dispute in law with the Deputy, but it strikes me that "price" is after the brackets and refers to the allottee only.
If the Chair and the House take the view, and if the Minister accepts it, that the words in brackets are so innocent, then I invite the Minister to withdraw them altogether. My construction of the wording in brackets is that the Minister is given power to determine the price of land in any question of rearrangement or resettlement. If the Minister says that is not so, and that he is taking no such power, I do not see what is the objection to withdrawing these words from the sub-section. There will then be no objection from this side of the House to letting the section through.
I am asking the House to give me these words and no amount of talk will change that.
Will the Minister say that my interpretation of these words is incorrect? If he withdraws those words, he will save a lot of the time of the House.
I am not too clear as to what the Deputy means, and I do not mean that as a joke.
Does the Minister know the meaning of the words that are set out in the sub-section that is before him? If he does know, perhaps he will tell us what he means by these words in brackets:
"(other than any determination arising in or being part of a rearrangement scheme)".
What is the meaning of these words?
What is the meaning of fillibuster?
If I were a railway boss I would know all about it.
The determination of all land outside of what is in a voluntary rearrangement scheme is an excepted matter for the commissioners. The price will be determined by a senior officer of the Land Commission.
By the Minister.
If you want to say that.
I do not say it, the Bill says it in sub-section (2). This is simply playing with the House; it is not being honest with the House. I will bring the House back to sub-section (2):—
"Any power or duty for the time being vested by law (including this Act) in the Land Commission or the lay commissioners may, save in relation to excepted matters, be exercised or performed by—
(a) the Minister, or
(b) any officer of the Minister..."
Of course, it is the Minister. Does the Minister not admit that he is taking the power under these words in brackets that we are objecting to? What is the use of clouding the issue?
I am not clouding the issue. I am making it perfectly clear.
It is giving the inspectors power to O.K. a rearrangement scheme.
Stick to the powers you are taking. Let us forget about the personal touch referred to by another Deputy. It is what the personal touch might become under this sub-section that I am objecting to.
There are some strange personal touches.
There is a section under which the Minister can determine the price arising out of any rearrangement scheme. The Minister knows that for the purpose of such a scheme he has to get land. What is the meaning of the words in the sub-section unless it is that the Minister is reserving to himself the right to fix the price in connection with rearrangement schemes?
The price to an allottee.
The person to whom the land is to be sold.
What I suggest is the obvious meaning of the word?
The Deputy has said that eight times already.
I have been trying to get information. The suggestion that some powers will be given to some official by the Minister does not solve the problem. I ask the Minister seriously to reconsider what he is doing under this sub-section. If he is going to steamroll it through the House he must remember that when he sows the wind he may reap a whirlwind.
I move that the question be now put.
I am accepting that.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 69; Níl, 56.
Tá
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, John.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Collins, Seán.
- Commons, Bernard.
- Connolly, Roderick J.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, John A.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Davin, William.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Sir John L.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Flynn, John.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- Hickey, James.
- Hogan, Patrick.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keane, Seán.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kinane, Patrick.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, James.
- Lehane, Con.
- Lehane, Patrick D.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- McQuillan, John.
- Madden, David J.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, William J.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Gorman, Patrick J.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Sheldon, William A. W.
- Spring, Daniel.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Timoney, John J.
- Tully, John.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Carter, Thomas.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Colley, Harry.
- Collins, James J.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Davern, Michael J.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- De Valera, Vivion.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Friel, John.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lydon, Michael F.
- Lynch, John.
- McCann, John.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- Maguire, Patrick J.
- Moran, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Walsh, Thomas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Kyne ; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy.
Question declared carried.
Amendment No. 13. The question is that the words proposed to be deleted stand.
Question put.
The Committete divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 56.
Tá
|
Beirne, John.Belton, John.Blowick, Joseph.Browne, Noel C.Browne, Patrick.Byrne, Alfred.Byrne, Alfred Patrick.Coburn, James.Collins, Seán.Commons, Bernard.Connolly, Roderick J.Cosgrave, Liam.Costello, John A.Cowan, Peadar.Crotty, Patrick J.Davin, William.Desmond, Daniel.Dillon, James M.Dockrell, Maurice E.Donnellan, Michael.Doyle, Peadar S.Esmonde, Sir John L.Everett, James.Fagan, Charles.Finucane, Patrick.Fitzpatrick, Michael.Flanagan, Oliver J.Flynn, John.Giles, Patrick.Halliden, Patrick J.Hickey, James.Hogan, Patrick.Hughes, Joseph.Keane, Seán. |
Keyes, Michael.Kinane, Patrick.Kyne, Thomas A.Larkin, James.Lehane, Con.Lehane, Patrick D.McAuliffe, Patrick.MacEoin, Seán.Mcfadden, Michael Og.McGilligan, Patrick.McMenamin, Daniel.McQuillan, John.Madden, David J.Mulcahy, Richard.Murphy, William J.Norton, William.O'Donnell, Patrick.O'Gorman, Patrick J.O'Higgins, Michael J.O'Higgins, Thomas F.O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun).O'Leary, John.O'Sillivan, Martin.Pattison, James P.Redmond, Bridget M.Reidy, James.Reynolds, Mary.Roddy, Joseph.Rooney, Eamonn.Sheldon, William A.W.Spring, Daniel.Sweetman, Gerard.Timoney, John J.Tully, John. |
Níl
|
Aiken, Frank.Allen, Denis.Bartley, Gerald.Beegan, Patrick.Blaney, Neal T.Boland, Gerald.Bourke, Dan.Brady, Seán.Brennan, Thomas.Briscoe, Robert.Buckley, Seán.Burke, Patrick.Butler, Bernard.Carter, Thomas.Childers, Erskine H.Colley, Harry.Collins, James J.Crowley, Honor Mary.Davern, Michael J.De Valera, Eamon.De Valera, Vivion.Flynn, Stephen.Friel, John.Gilbride, Eugene.Gorry, Patrick J. Ryan, Robert.Sheridan, Michael.Smith, Patrick. |
Harris, Thomas.Hilliard, Michael.Kennedy, Michael J.Killilea, Mark.Kissane, Eamon.Kitt, Michael F.Lemass, Seán F.Little, Patrick J.Lydon, Michael F.Lynch, John.McCann, John.MacEntee, Seán.McGrath, Patrick.Maguire, Patrick J.Moran, Michael.Moylan, Seán.Ó Briain, Donnchadh.O'Grady, Seán.O'Reilly, Matthew.Ormonde, John.O'Rourke, Daniel.Rice, Bridget M.Ruttledge, Patrick J.Ryan, James. Ryan, Mary B.Traynor, Oscar.Walsh, Richard.Walsh, Thomas. |
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Kyne; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy.
Question declared carried.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.