It is so long since this debate first took place that it is difficult for some of us to remember exactly the point at which we left off.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 6—Office of the Minister for Finance (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March, 1963 for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Finance, including the Paymaster-General's Office.
On a point of clarification, I take it Vote No. 18 can be moved after Deputy Sweetman's speech? I just want to get the matter clarified.
Both Votes may be discussed at the moment. Vote 18 will be put separately when Vote 6 has been dealt with.
Are we having separate discussions?
We are having separate decisions. Both are being discussed together.
At that time, when the debate did adjourn, I was discussing the Income Tax Commission and wanted to take the opportunity then, as I do now, having read since the Seventh Report, of putting on record my appreciation of the work done by the members of that Commission in a most wholehearted national way. Whether we agree or disagree with all their recommendations, we must all agree that they certainly did go out of their way to encompass as widely as they possibly could the various details of income tax law in so far as it affects not merely the nation as a whole, but the taxpayers individually. I appreciate the volume of work it threw on them and the volume of work it threw on the Revenue Commissioners, particularly at a time when PAYE was suffering, as any system just introduced was bound to suffer, from pretty substantial teething troubles.
The Minister, in his Budget speech last year, promised us a White Paper on taxation early this year. I should like him to give us an indication tonight of the date upon which that White Paper will be published. It would, I think, be quite disastrous that it should be published on the eve of the Budget, before there had been adequate time and opportunity to study it when the Minister comes to the House with his budgetary proposals.
Apart from the broad principles dealt with in the Seventh Report of the Commission, there are an enormous number of small points of procedure, the clarification and the simplification of which would, without costing anything of any consequence in terms of revenue, ease the burden on the taxpayer and certainly oil the wheels by which the whole process is dealt with. I do not propose at this stage to say any more on the general headings in that report because I assume that either in the general Budget debate or on the Vote on Account, if the White Paper is published before the Vote, there will be adequate opportunity of discussing the taxation policy the Government will put before the Dáil in the light of that undertaking and those reports.
Apart from the revenue, there are a couple of other matters in relation to other individual Votes about which I should like a little information. The Valuation Office methods are not understood at all by the ordinary person. The methods on which revisions of valuation take place may be entirely clear to the initiated but to those whom those decisions and revisions affect they are a completely closed book. There should be a great deal more clarification and less hugger-mugger in relation to the revision of valuations. It would be far better if the Valuation Office came out into the open in relation to their rent valuations and made the basis upon which they were justifying their decision much clearer rather than adopting their "I do not like" formula which nobody appears to understand. I want to make it clear I am saying that in relation to rent and not in relation to stamp duty or death duty purposes. Under the two headings, stamp duty and death duty, the matters are perfectly understandable.
I want to put it on record that I consider it, to say the least of it, unfortunate that when an undertaking is given in certain circumstances by a responsible official, that steps are not taken by the Minister to stand over that undertaking and to provide the means by which it can be implemented. When a responsible official gives an undertaking in good faith and when it is accepted in good faith by taxpayers, they have the right to expect that the undertaking will be implemented and that if the existing law does not allow of its implementation, the good faith will be adopted by the Minister concerned in that he will find a way of saying that justice is done in the individual case. I regret to say that I am aware of a case in which that was not done, and which affected many people.
Considerable anxiety has also been expressed by the farming community in relation to the Agricultural Grant as to whether the reduction made in that Vote this current year, 1962-63 is a permanent reduction or whether it was for one year only. As I understand the legislation, it was for one year alone, but as against that, it may well be that while that was the form of the legislation, it was likely that in subsequent years it would be put in the original Book of Estimates and would not require the additional legislation of last year.
The original Book of Estimates, I know, will be out some time soon but how soon none of us on this side of the House is able to tell. In fact, when I asked the Minister the other day, he and the Taoiseach both reminded me of certain discussions that always take place at this time of the year before the publication of the book.
The Votes we are discussing include not merely No. 6 itself, about which I will come back and say something in a minute, but No. 18 as well. In relation to that Vote, I made my position and the position of my Party reasonably clear when this matter was discussed on 20th July, 1961. We felt, and we are clear that the country felt, that in relation to the Shanahan Stamp affair, there had been bad bungling by the administration in that regard. We felt, without in any way attempting to retry or rehear an issue in Dáil Éireann, which, I think, would be most undesirable, that the courts were not given the proper opportunity of expressing a verdict on the occurrences that had taken place because the framework of the position had been grossly mishandled.
We all know that what occurred at that time was that the charges were not brought before the court in proper form and that, because they were not brought before the court in proper form by the Executive, acting through its appropriate officer, the courts were never given the opportunity they should have had fully and completely to pass a verdict on these charges. Many people in this country, and in other countries, who suffered because of what occurred in relation to that company, feel, and are entitled to feel, a deep sense of grievance against the Government, against the Executive that failed to provide that our courts here would be able adequately to judge, and to pass judgment, on the events that took place.
I do not propose tonight to go back on the individual circumstances to which I referred on 20th July, 1961, except to say that, when speaking on the Law Charges Vote then for the previous year, the matters had not been fully completed. Reading back over that debate now, and looking back now, and knowing now what we did not know then, it seems clear to me that the charges made by me, speaking on behalf of the Fine Gael Party at that time, were absolutely justified and it is the Government who must be held accountable for the fact they failed to fulfil their duty as the Executive in ensuring that the matter was properly before the courts.
I want also to refer to another matter, and to refer to it especially because of the power of the Minister for Finance, the function that is vested in the Minister for Finance under Section 112 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908. Under Section 112, it is provided in subsection (1):
Every company shall at each annual general meeting appoint an auditor or auditors to hold office until the next annual general meeting.
The section goes on to provide in subsection (7):
The remuneration of the auditors of a company shall be fixed by the company in general meeting....
In the Adjournment Debate which, in the events that happened, took place before this debate was resumed, the Leader of the Opposition referred to an appointment that had been made of an auditor to one of the State-sponsored companies. The State-sponsored company is, of course, Irish Shipping, which has a capital of £11,000,000 in £1 shares; of these 11,000,000 shares, all but, I think, 11 are vested in the Minister for Finance. Even the 11 that are not vested in him are vested in his nominees. It is therefore clear beyond question, clear beyond challenge, beyond doubt, and beyond contradiction, having regard to the section of the Companies Act to which I have referred, that the appointment of the auditor to Irish Shipping lies and vests ultimately in the Minister for Finance, and in no one else. The directors can, of course, of their own volition, if they so desire, bring to the general meeting of the company a recommendation that X, or Y, or Z be appointed auditors. But it is the shareholders at that meeting who vote on that issue and who decide, and it is the Minister for Finance himself who will be represented at that meeting and who will be asked at that meeting to cast his 10,900,000 odd votes for or against the proposition that may be put up.
What has occurred? I want to deal with this matter as dispassionately as I possibly can. Some people take the view that when a professional person becomes a Minister, he should take his name off the notepaper of his firm. I want to make it clear now that I do not subscribe to that view. In my view, a professional person is entitled, whilst severing his connection with the firm during the period in which he is a Minister, to retain his connection with the firm so that his business will be there for him to go back to after his term of office as Minister has terminated. I, therefore, want to make it perfectly clear that, so far as I am concerned, I make no charge whatsoever against the Minister for Justice for retaining his name as a partner on the notepaper of the firm of which he was a member prior to the time he was appointed Minister. But, if a member of a professional firm does that, it is by his own volition that he does it and he is equally bound to ensure, when he does it, that certain other things are done. He is equally bound to ensure that, by retaining his name there for the purpose of ensuring that he has a business to go back to, that retention of that name not merely is not used for the purpose of getting Government business but that his firm will not, in the public interest, take any Government business during the period in question.
The option and the choice that was made in relation to this matter was an option and a choice that was made alone by Deputy Haughey when he became Minister for Justice; and he was, if he so wished, entitled not merely to sever himself from the work of the firm but to sever himself additionally from all possible connection with the firm. Of his own choice and of his own volition, he decided not to do that. He, of his own choice and of his own volition, decided that he would retain his name, even though he was a Minister, on the notepaper as a partner in the firm.
When a person does that, there is a strict obligation on him not merely to do his utmost, and on his colleagues equally, as members of the Government, not merely to do their utmost, but to ensure that in the national interest and in the interest of public life as a whole, that firm does no Government business and is not remunerated for the doing of Government business. As I said, I do not know what transpired between the Minister for Justice and his colleague partners. That is his affair; that is their affair. But I do know that the Minister for Finance is the person who holds the key in his own hand, because of that section of the 1908 Act which I have quoted, because of the fact that he has over 10,000,000 votes out of the 11,000,000 votes that must be cast at the general meeting of the company, and if there is anything wrong—and I suggest that it is wrong for a firm that holds out a member of the Government as being one partner —the blame must rest on one person, and one person alone; the blame must rest on the Minister for Finance as the responsible member of the Government who has not taken the appropriate steps to ensure that abuse will not occur.
Irish Shipping will be holding another general meeting. The directors of Irish Shipping know that they are the creatures of the Minister—and I use that word in company parlance, not in any other way. They know they have to account to him, that he has the right to remove them at will. They know that he has the voting power to use at the general meeting of the company, and they know, or must know, that they could only go ahead with such course of action—which has shocked the business community living in Dublin—if and because he, as Minister for Finance, stands over it and approves it. It is clear, therefore, that the excuse given by the Taoiseach before Christmas will not wash.
The excuse made by the Taoiseach that the directors did this on their own, without reference to anyone, is not true, or if it is true, can be corrected at any minute by the Minister for Finance. It is well known to the Minister and he will, I am sure, have it confirmed, and I suppose from his own business knowledge equally he knows that it is not an uncommon thing for shareholders in special circumstances to reverse the decision of directors, if they feel their directors made a wrong one. It is therefore for the Minister and the Minister alone at this stage to deal with the matter and to assume and to act on the responsibility that is vested in him.
We are coming very near to the time at which there will be a Vote on Account and in the circumstances therefore a debate on the Office of the Minister for Finance at this time is perhaps not quite the same as it would be, say, if this had been taken up as originally planned in October. But we must, now that we are discussing this, advert to certain economic signs which we can see around us. It is only ten days or so since the first provisional trade figures for 1962 were announced, announced showing a deficit for the first time in history of £100,000,000 as a balance of trade deficit in an ordinary situation.
One would perhaps not mind a deficit of that size if one could point to a specific cause or reason for it during the course of the year, but perhaps the worst feature of that trade deficit was the fact that it was being accentuated so much in the last three months of the year, October, November and December. It was that trend that was then showing, of heavily increased import excess, that makes us wonder at the present time whether it is one that is likely to persist in 1963, and if so, to see exactly where it is likely to lead us.
We have not got the up-to-date figures of the breakdown of those trade figures for the latter months of the year and therefore we do not know how much of that increased import excess is due entirely to the import of capital goods or whether it is an excess that arises because consumption has outrun production. One of the difficulties with which we are faced here is that, with the best will in the world, the statistics we receive are to some extent pretty old by the time we get them. That is not in any way a criticism of individuals or the system that exists. It may be because Ministers for Finance in the past—and I accept responsibility with the present Minister, if that is the case—have not given them sufficient staff. It may be that traders do not get in the details of their invoices as quickly as they might, but the result is that the breakdown of the causes of our trade deficit is not known to us as quickly as we might wish.
Of course, there is one thing that is perfectly clear, that is, that the debt creation by the Government in the past nine and a half months has been running at a higher rate than ever before. Such a high rate of debt creation as there has been is bound to create some import excess. When it is of the rate at which it is now running, and when the import excess is of the rate which we have seen, there is a very special responsibility on everyone to ensure that the debt being created is being created for worthwhile productive projects.
In the period from 1st April, 1962, to 19th January, 1963, the above-the-line deficit this year is just £20 million —£19,889,000 to be exact. Last year, it was just over £13 million. The below-the-line issues this year, after deducting receipts, show a deficit of some £15 million or something over £1 million more than last year. When we add these two together, it is clear that the total net debt creation by the Government in the period from 1st April, 1962, to 19th January, 1963, this year, is £35 million and last year it was £27 million, an increase of some £8 million. In addition to that, there is some £3 million less in the Exchequer. We can therefore see clearly that in so far as the trade deficit is concerned, the Government have added fuel to the flames to the extent of £11 million this year.
Without a breakdown of how that has been expended in relation to productive enterprise and without, on the other hand, the breakdown of how the import excess has been created, by capital or consumer goods, it is not possible to pass judgment on whether the action taken was wise or not, but it is quite clear the action that has been taken certainly has had the result of pushing up the import trade excess. It is a peculiar thing that in the heightening trade excess in 1962, our net external currency reserves have, over the whole system, been increasing and it must therefore be a matter for some conjecture at least as to how two things that are in themselves diametrically opposed have been operating and running at the same time.
We have not yet received the January bulletin of the Central Bank, but by and large, taking it that the trend in our external reserves evidenced in the October issue will remain the same, we are bound to come to the conclusion that there is something here which needs very much explaining indeed. In the ordinary way, with a rise in the excess of the trade balance, one would expect a reduction on external account to pay for that excess. The reduction in external balance might perhaps be made on the Departmental side, on the Central Bank side or on the commercial banks side, but taking all three as one unit, an import trade excess rise such as has taken place would normally mean that there would be some reduction in our external assets. It might not be so if our invisible receipts were increasing, but so far as current invisible receipts during 1962 were concerned, I do not think anybody will maintain they were substantially higher than in the preceding year. Some people may maintain they were slightly more; most people, I think, will say that they ran about the same figure or perhaps even tourist trade last year might show some decrease in net return. But it is quite clear that it cannot be on the ordinary invisible current receipts that the explanation can arise in respect of this curious phenomenon of an increase in external assets at the same time, apparently, as we have to pay more for external trade imports.
There are a certain number of reasons which might account for the phenomenon and I invite the Minister for Finance either to affirm that the reasons I give are correct or to demolish them, if he disagrees with them, and provide himself instead the reasons which he thinks account for this quite extraordinary situation.
One explanation would be that a large sum of money had come into the country for the purchase of land by foreigners. The Government say they are aware of the amount that has been so introduced into the banking system and that they are therefore aware of the amount that would be available under that heading. A second source of this additional supply of external assets would be the underwriting and financing of hire-purchase concerns in Ireland in so far as that would be done by external companies. I think it is undoubtedly evident from the Central Bank reports that there has been some substantial inflow in that respect but nothing like enough to explain the increase on its own.
There would be, in addition, the money that might have come in from the industry started here by foreigners, industry that has started here because of the drive for foreign industrial participation initiated in 1956 and carried on since then. Again, in that respect, while the amount would be noticeable, it would be nothing like the amount required to explain the discrepancy. Also, perhaps, there would be some possibility of a sale abroad of the external assets held by private citizens. Private citizens who hold sterling assets in the shape, shall we say, of British industrials or other industrial shares in the sterling area can dispose of those without specific permission. In the dollar area, of course, that permission is required from the Minister's Department, either direct or delegated through the banks. Therefore, for sales in the dollar area, there would be no difficulty in knowing the exact details. Even in relation to sales of sterling securities held privately abroad, I imagine it would be possible for the banks to give the Minister information that they saw evidence— not individual cases, as they would not be allowed under any circumstances to divulge these—of a trend that would suggest there had been some inflow of external reserves in that way.
Again, I ask the Minister does he feel that there has been any such inflow? If I might digress completely for a moment to return to the Income Tax Commission report in one aspect, may I say that although we are all agreed that income tax evasion may be stopped, we want to be quite sure that in stopping it, in relation to the section which deals with disclosure of bank deposits, we do not merely drive deposits out of the country to another country where individuals can place money on deposit without disclosure. The remedy in that case would be far worse than the disease and, personally, I would take issue with the Commission's report on that subject because we would undoubtedly get the worst of both worlds if that recommendation about bank disclosures in that case was adopted.
If all the reasons I have given do not appear to the Minister as adequate reasons or if the Minister feels that, even added together, they are not enough, there remains one other possibility. Personally, I have not, and nobody has except the Minister himself, access to the confidential information upon which is is possible to form a final judgment but it seems quite clear that the combination of all those headings is not enough to account for the increase in reserves at the same time as there has been this heavy increase in our import trading excess.
I believe that there is a fifth cause and that the fifth cause is hot money. There has been, I believe, during the past year a substantial inflow of hot money. External subscriptions last year and this year to the national loans are, perhaps, some evidence of the existence of that hot money and of its being brought here. If that explanation exists, if there is that inflow of hot money to any substantial degree, we must face the fact that what we have been doing in the past year is existing for current consumption needs on capital moneys placed here fortuitously and which might go at any time. If that is so, those moneys might move out at any time without notice and, let me add, without justification. Then we would be building an import trade excess of the size which we built in 1960 on a foundation of sand that would one day vanish completely and we would find ourselves in a far worse position than we had ever been in before.
It is the Minister alone, with the confidential information available to him, who must be in the position of being able to make the final judgment in that respect. But those who are endeavouring to assess the evaluation of these two opposites—the rise in trade excess and the rise in trade reserves—want to hear from the Minister some authoritative explanation of what has occurred, so that they may know exactly where we stand and may be assured that the trend is not one that could vanish overnight and that could mean that we would find we had been living on capital without appearing to, for the purpose merely of ordinary consumer needs.
I should like to mention a matter I have referred to previously. It states here that the Taoiseach's salary is £3,000 and that his secretary's salary is £3,011. We have that type of contrast right down along the line. The Minister for Finance has £2,000 but his secretary has £3,668. I cannot understand how a secretary can get nearly double that of the man himself. I suppose I would be justified also in making some reference to the salaries of Deputies. Looking around the House, one sees a handful of people. The main reason for that is that the average TD knows his salary is equal to £9 a week.
I am afraid the salaries of TDs do not arise on this.
I understand this Vote covers TDs' salaries. If I am to vote to pay TDs, I can question the matter.
With respect, Sir, it was agreed that Vote 6 would cover the range of discussion on any Vote for which the Minister for Finance is responsible. The Minister is responsible for the Oireachtas Vote, upon which Deputy Sherwin is now raising this matter. It was made an order of the House, but it was made before Christmas and nobody could expect you to remember it.
Very good.
Deputies make £1,000 a year and the income tax people have agreed that the first £520 should not be taken into account in assessing income tax and that a TD needed £450 to keep himself and his family; in other words, £9 a week. It is as well that the public should know of this. Fortunately, 99 per cent. of Deputies have other means. That is the reason there is such a poor attendance here. The average TD puts his own business first and the business of the State second, whereas it should be the other way around. It is as well for everyone to know why they will not attend. It is because they cannot subsist on £9 a week.
It must be remembered that when a TD gets his £20, he has to pay a lot out of it. He has to pay phone bills. He may be knocked up a hundred times a week, but he cannot ask the person for 3d. for the phone bill. If he did, he would not get a vote. He also has to travel around a good deal. He has to attend functions and give subscriptions. He is bawled at everywhere he goes. He is obliged to pay for entertainments. It is not a question of his desiring them; he is obliged to pay for a certain amount of entertainment.
I want to bring it home to the Minister that, unless Deputies had other means, they could not carry on. If the Minister wants to have a decent attendance, he will have to try to interest people to come along and devote their time to the business here. A suggestion has been made that the quorum be reduced in order to save appearances. All last year we had bells ringing because there was no quorum. If the Minister considers the payment of people who have not a business or additional income but who want to devote their time to the work here, then he may get a respectable number to attend; but so long as he takes the view that a smaller quorum is the answer, the numbers present will become fewer.
If the Minister wants these people to come in, he should not expect them to live on £9 a week. The average labourer has that and the average tradesman can make up to £20 a week. The great difference between a TD and the average citizen is this: What the TD gets is not his own, while the other citizen can pocket his money and does not have to give a smoke to anyone. There is a cowardly approach to this matter. The public are ignorant of the facts. I think the attitude of the Minister and of some of the leaders of the Opposition is: "We are all right. We will not create any awkward points. Let the small fellows fry." I am not suggesting that the House should be all professional; but it should be half and half. I do not want about a dozen professionals and 120 business people, who only show up when there is a division and they are tipped off to be here.
I know I can be misrepresented. Even though it is difficult for me to do so, I am making this case on behalf of those who may yet be TDs. I want to see poor people coming in here and giving their time without doing what Murphy had to do: pack it in and go back on the dole, where at least he knew the little he got would be his own. I made this protest before and I now make it again.
I wish to move that Vote No. 18 be referred back.
It is not necessary to do so at this stage.
Just in case. I understand a separate decision will be allowed on No. 18.
That is correct.
I should like to point out that No. 18 relates to law charges, and law charges cover the salary of the Attorney-General from his part-time work on behalf of the State. This is not the first time I have made reference here to the work of, and the terms of appointment of, the Attorney-General. I dislike very much doing so. It is not a pleasant matter at any time to have to criticise the activities of any individual who is not in this House.
However, back in 1957, when the former Taoiseach, who is now President, took over the office of Taoiseach and when the Cabinet was being formed, he nominated and had appointed by this House an Attorney General in a part-time capacity at £3,000 a year. I raised the question of the part-time appointment with the then Taoiseach and suggested that a high and responsible office like that of Attorney General should not be on a part-time basis. I said I had no doubts whatsoever about the integrity, ability and character of the individual he had appointed but that I felt, in principle, it was wrong that such an important office should be part-time.
The then Taoiseach agreed with me that it would be highly desirable to have the occupant of that important post on a full-time basis. He agreed also with me that he had an arrangement with previous Attorneys General that they would not do private part-time practice while occupying that post. In 1957, the person who was appointed had already, on a previous occasion, held the office of Attorney General and on that occasion the Taoiseach admitted in the House that he had carried out his appointment and the functions appertaining to it on a full-time basis, that he did not engage in private practice during that former period of office. But when he was reappointed in 1957, the Taoiseach informed me in the House that the Attorney General was no longer prepared to act on a full-time basis and that in those circumstances the Taoiseach decided the office would carry an emolument of £3,000 and the work would be part-time.
It was agreed it was not a desirable situation that a man who was to act on behalf of the public, as a public watchdog, who would, in the public mind, be there to protect their rights and interests, should spend part of his time in an official capacity and part of it in private practice. The position is that when members of the Government are appointed, if they happen in their private capacities to be members of the legal profession or to hold any sort of big appointment, they must sever their connections with whatever offices they had prior to becoming Ministers, the reason being to avoid even the suspicion or the danger that Ministers could be pressurised into taking steps or engaging in activities which might be considered incompatible with high offices of State.
If it is considered undesirable, or illegal, I might say, for a Minister to take part in private practice outside the House while he is a Minister, I cannot understand why the same conditions should not apply to the Attorney General who has an equally responsible job and who is appointed on equally high terms by the Taoiseach.
One of the reasons given by the then Taoiseach to me as to why he did not appoint the holder of that office on a full-time basis was that he could not get anybody to take the job at the salary offered on a full-time basis; in other words, that there was no man of standing in the profession in the country who was prepared to accept it at a salary of £3,000 a year. If that were true, this House would be only too anxious to facilitate the Taoiseach and give the increased salary the applicant demanded and considered right for him to get in his office as Attorney General on a full-time basis. I do not think this House would raise any difficulties at all, in view of the importance attached to that high office.
The object of this House in demanding that Ministers sever their connections with private practice is that they will be kept out of temptation through not engaging in lucrative private practice, if they are in the law, but unfortunately, so far as this House is concerned, rightly or wrongly, we have the position that a man who occupies the part-time post of Attorney General can engage in private practice, can spend perhaps the greater part of his time in private practice and can, in the eyes of the public, appear to spend most of his time in private practice, with consequent deterioration of affairs over which he is alleged to have control as Attorney General.
There would appear to be evidence sufficient to justify my criticism when we see the number of occasions when the State have failed in efforts to prosecute people in the courts, prosecutions that were brought through the Taoiseach's nominee, the Attorney General, and it has been stated publicly, and has not been denied, that the cases concerned were badly presented, badly prepared. If those cases were badly presented and badly prepared, where does the blame lie?
There is only one person responsible for the initiation of the prosecution to which I wish, above all, to refer—the Singer case—and the cost of that to the country was fantastic. We all know that the individual concerned is sunning himself in far distant places while an unfortunate who was drawn into his web was sent to jail. It is openly stated that that case was badly presented. I put it to the House, and I want an answer, that one of the reasons for that state of affairs was that the man who should have presented that case and prepared it carefully, the Attorney General, was too busy in his private lucrative practice to do his job as Attorney General.
I do not want to refer in any detail to matters that have come to our notice through the courts, but I mention the Singer case in passing and shall leave it at that. There is another case which, in my opinion, is of far greater importance, one which I already raised here on a number of occasions during the past 12 months. I refer now to the case of an insurance company which deals in the selling of industrial policies; in other words, what are known down the country among the rural population as burial policies, where the son or daughter in a house takes out a policy on a father or mother in order to cover the funeral expenses when he or she dies.
There are hundreds of thousands of such policies in existence all over Ireland and last year an individual down in County Galway had a number of such industrial policies with a certain company. He found that after paying in approximately £1,200, all he could get out when the policies were paid was £600 in settlement. He felt there was something unjust in the insurance business, that there appeared to be what to him was a case of a company taking money under false pretences and that man went to court. The case went to the High Court and the President of the High Court found that the insurance company in question was guilty of illegal practices.
The House may ask what this has to do with the Attorney General. This is the point: one of the senior counsel defending that insurance company was the Attorney General in his private capacity. Here we had the case about which I expressed fear in 1957, the danger that the Attorney General, being part-time in such a high office, might bring that high office into discredit if he engaged in private practice.
In this House, a question was asked of the Minister for Industry and Commerce about this particular company which had been found guilty in the High Court of illegal gambling practices. On 24th May, 1961, Deputy Dr. Browne and I asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce:
Whether he is aware that a great number of people, particularly amongst the poorer sections of the community, are victims of exploitation in the assessing of payments from industrial assurance policies and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action to stop this most reprehensible practice on the part of the insurance companies so engaged.
The Minister for Education, Dr. Hillery, replied:
I do not know what practice the Deputies have in mind. If they will furnish me with particulars, I will have the matter examined.
I do not want to quote or detain the House. The Minister went on to say after cross-examination and pressure by Deputy Dr. Browne and myself that he had information about a certain case and that he was pursuing inquiries. He could not give any further information on 24th May. To remind him, he was further questioned on 30th May, 1961. I quote from column 1022, Volume 189. He was asked if he had
completed his consideration of the individual case of industrial assurance referred to by him on 24th May, 1961, and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter.
He replied:
I have not yet completed my consideration of this matter.
He went on to say it was the only case of its kind. The Minister was further questioned on 7th June and on this occasion the Minister for Transport and Power replied. The question of 7th June is as follows:
Dr. Browne and Mr. McQuillan asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he has completed his consideration of the individual case of industrial assurance referred to by him on 24th May, 1961, and again on 30th May, 1961, in which the President of the High Court, on Monday, 15th May, 1961, held that a number of industrial policies issued by the New Ireland Assurance Company, Limited, were illegal and in a reserved judgment directed the repayment of the premiums paid on eight of the policies; and, if so, what action he proposed to take in the matter.
Mr. Childers replied:
I have completed my consideration of the matter. The Insurance Acts provide that an Assurance Company which contravenes or fails to comply with any of the provisions of the Acts shall be guilty of an offence.
Then he went on to say the significant thing:
There is, however, a time limit for the prosecution of offences. Proceedings for an offence may not be commenced more than six years after its commission. It would appear from the particulars reported in the case referred to by the Deputies that the policies in respect of which the High Court made a declaration rendering them null and void were effected outside the time limit.
There is no statement there that the policies were not illegal. The Minister accepted that the company acted wrongly, but added that "the time limit was such that we are barred in law from taking action." He went on to say:
I am taking steps to secure that the seriousness of effecting policies which do not comply with the provisions of the Insurance Acts will be brought to the notice of the insurers.
There was a bit of a hubbub on that and in order to clarify the matter, the Taoiseach was asked whether he would do anything about it. The Taoiseach of course refused to accept the implication in the charges I made, that it was wrong for the Attorney General in his private capacity to defend a company where there was the slightest doubt about the company's integrity. He said there was no imputation on the company at all and that so far as the company was involved, it was the company's servants who were concerned and that the company itself, moryah, could do nothing about it. The judge pointed out that it was the responsibility of the company to know what its servants were doing. We know that no insurance agent carries insurance policies or conducts business unless the O.K. comes from the people who run the company. That is all I wish to say about the insurance company itself.
Here we had a case where the Minister agreed that if this time lag of six years were not there, that company was liable to prosecution for a breach of the law. I would like to ask the House who would initiate the prosecution. Is it not a fact that the Minister for Industry and Commerce would, through the Attorney General, take the necessary steps to prosecute this company for its illegal practices or for breaking the Insurance Companies Acts. Could anybody tell me then how the Attorney General could reconcile himself to the position that on the one hand, in his private capacity, he would be defending that company and in his public capacity, paid by the State, would be prosecuting that company?
Is that not a Jekyll and Hyde position for the unfortunate Attorney General to find himself in? I think it is unfair to the holder of that office to put him in that position. I am not making any charges whatever against the Attorney General and am not questioning probity or anything, but I think it is irregular to put the Attorney General in the position that he is defending in court a company, or a group of people, who are found to be guilty of breaking the law, when he should be the very man who, in the public interest, should be pursuing them and keeping an eye open to see that the rights of the people are protected.
Hundreds of thousands of people all over Ireland hold insurance policies. I have had thousands of letters from people who paid £40, £50 and £90 for these policies and got back £15, £20 and £25. These are not big business people but unfortunate people in rural areas who have nobody to protect their rights and who are depending on the Attorney General in his official capacity to stand up for them. They see him in his private capacity defending a company which was robbing them.
The Minister may tell me that the company in question appealed the decision of Mr. Justice Davitt in the High Court to the Supreme Court. I know the Minister's defence and he will say that the decision of the High Court was reversed. I want to make it clear that in the Supreme Court a number of decisions made in the High Court were reversed but not all of them. There were about eleven charges and on six or seven, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the High Court. That does not take away from the fact that on a number of policies the Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the High Court. In my opinion, even though they did not uphold it, there were strong doubts about the whole affair, especially when a High Court could find as it did, and there was a strong doubt everything was not in the public interest.
Surely the Attorney General should not find himself on the doubtful side when the public interest is at stake? I feel strongly, and a number of people in this House and outside it also feel strongly about it. They decided that the only way to deal with it was to put down a motion on the Order Paper calling on the Government to restrict the Attorney General from supporting this company in its appeal to the Supreme Court. That motion has been on the Order Paper since the time the first case went to the High Court. The motion was put on the Order Paper and in spite of that, the Attorney General, in his private capacity, went along and spoke for and defended this company again in its appeal to the Supreme Court. The only possible way to handle a case of that kind is for the Government to put the occupant of that post on a full-time basis and prevent any holder of the post from acting in a private capacity. I am not going to question or criticise the individual himself. I do criticise the Government who allowed that position to happen and allowed such an office of high trust to be left under a cloud of suspicion. We have, on the one hand, his lack of interest, his lack of determination, his lack of work in the pursuit of major cases in court on behalf of the State and on the other, his wonderful interest in his own private practice where he is able to help to make ends meet in a big way.
The reason the motion to refer back this Estimate was tabled was to give the House an opportunity of expressing its opinion on this issue: Is it right for the Attorney General, in his private capacity, to be allowed to appear in cases where it is quite clear that, in the public interest, he should not be seen except on the side of the State? I think that the only possible way we can help to prevent this arising where future appointments are made is to have an expression of opinion in this House disapproving of what has taken place. I propose, when this debate concludes, to put this matter before the House for consideration.
As well as the matters of detail raised by Deputy McQuillan here, this Estimate gives an opportunity to discuss some of the broader aspects of Government financial policy. I wish to do so very briefly. The first matter to which I wish to refer is the problem—and I believe it is a real problem—of the relationship between the Government and the commercial banks, in particular the power of the Government to influence the lending policy of the commercial banks. This is a matter which, of course, is discussed from time to time. Does the Minister not wish me to raise it?
We are not discussing Government policy.
I am discussing a matter of concern to the Minister's Department, namely, the financial policy of the Government—the Minister's Department.
The financial policy of the Government is a matter for the Government.
I am referring to the failure of the Minister to take steps in regard to a very important matter, namely, the administration in his Department of the financial aspect of the Government's affairs in relation to the Central Bank and to the commercial banks.
That would be major Government policy.
I understand that this matter has been discussed in previous years on this Estimate. It seemed to me an opportune time to discuss financial policy in regard to the Minister's particular responsibility and his responsibility to the Central Bank and the commercial banks.
Major financial policy has never been discussed on this Estimate. It is discussed when Government policy comes up for examination.
If you rule me out of order, I accept it. I propose to refer to the fact that it was necessary at the present stage for the Minister to induce his colleagues in the Government to take steps to ensure that there was much greater control over the credit policy of the commercial banks at present.
That could be applied to all Deputies——
I shall raise it at a later time. I wish merely to say a few words on the Arts Council which I understand we are discussing also.
That will be taken separately. I should like to deal, first of all, with the matter raised by Deputy McQuillan because he may go away before I am finished. I am sure Deputy McQuillan is aware—other Deputies may not be aware—that I was a director of the New Ireland Assurance Company until I became a Minister. That company was started after Easter Week, 1916, by six of us when we were prisoners. It has done a lot for the economy of this country. It was started in conditions that are repugnant to Deputy McQuillan and all belonging to him. He has attacked that company ever since he came into this House. He has never attacked an English company—why, I do not know. I do not know why he should be hostile to this company. Perhaps it is part of his make-up. Would you not think he should have the manliness to admit he was wrong when the findings of the High Court were rejected? He makes out that the Supreme Court only agreed in certain things. They agreed on all the major issues. There were minor issues, it is true, as the costs will prove.
As you will admit.
The costs were about 90 per cent. against the complainant which proved that the complainant had lost his case, at least to the extent of 90 per cent.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce was quite satisfied that this company had acted illegally.
He was quite satisfied when the High Court had given its verdict. When the Supreme Court rejected it, he would not be satisfied. If the Deputy comes in here to throw dirt around, which he is competent to do, especially against anything Irish, he should have the manliness to say: "I have made a mistake; the thing is all over and done with." Of course, he will not do that because he lives by throwing dirt. He says that people get £300 who paid in £600. I do not know whether that is true or not. He can make any assertions he likes because nobody is in a position to contradict him. I never interrupted the Deputy at all—I let him go on with his dirt-throwing and mud-slinging, his only interest in this, as far as I can see. There are many people who paid in £1 and got back £600. I do not know whether a company could do that sort of business unless some people paid more and some others less.
Is there not a limit?
Will the Minister be allowed to speak without interruption?
No, because the Deputy wants to indulge in mud-throwing.
You do not know what you are talking about.
I know what I am talking about. I built up that company and I am proud of it.
You founded it in jail, did you not, in spite of the British Janissaries we had here at the time?
You sold out on the Republic long ago and you are running into Europe.
There were no Janissaries anyway.
All you are worried about is the giving of pensions.
I had better go on to something more serious.
What about the position of the Attorney General? Will the Minister not answer that? Forget about your company.
I am coming back to the Attorney General but I am going to take the speeches as they were made. The Deputy has a habit of leaving the House when he has made his speech. If he remains, and does not interrupt me, I shall come back to it again.
I shall give the Minister every chance.
The Deputy will have to.
When speaking before Christmas, Deputy Sweetman asked about Ordnance Survey maps for sale to the ordinary individual. An enormous number of maps were produced by the Ordnance Survey and it would be absolutely impossible to keep a stock of all of them. They try to keep a stock of the maps which are usually asked for. They are fairly successful as far as it goes and if a person goes in and asks for a map which is not readily available, they order it and they will have it within a few days. I think that is all they could reasonably be asked to do.
Deputy Sweetman asked about the bound volumes of debates. I am afraid I have nothing to do with the bound volumes. Standing Order 79 lays down that the Ceann Comhairle is responsible for them. The only responsibility that could be put on me is in relation to the Stationery Office which arranges for publication. The preparation of the bound volumes is done by the Dáil Office and the indexing, I believe, is the chief difficulty. The indexing has become far more difficult over the last years because of the number of Parliamentary Questions. Every Question has an index number and refers back to other index numbers. This has made indexing very onerous. As well as that, the Editor of Debates was ill for a long time and the Assistant Editor, who is responsible for indexing the bound volumes, had to take his place. The bound volumes have been issued up to the end of March, 1962. We are only 12 months behind at the moment so we are not too bad in all the circumstances.
Perhaps I will have some other opportunity of moving to refer back the Ceann Comhairle's salary in order to get a further explanation.
The Deputy cannot blame the Ceann Comhairle.
The Minister blamed him himself. I did not.
I did not blame him. I said he was responsible. As to the publication of the register of electors, they were all brought out in time, on the 24th November, with the exception of three. Galway and Wexford were a bit late. Galway came out on 26th November and Wexford on 27th November. The one that was later still came out on 10th December. This was due to two causes, I believe. Of the two printers responsible, one printer came across a very unfortunate amount of sickness amongst his staff and the second had more than his share of Government printing of other kinds. They were late but they came out eventually and no great harm has been done. They were out in time.
Whilst I accept unreservedly that the Minister has been given that information, may I state categorically that the information given to him, to my personal knowledge, is untrue?
I would like to have that. The next point the Deputy spoke about is the progress in Ordnance Survey mapping and so on. There is a great deal of arrears of work in the mapping of the country. They are many years behind and it would be very much better if we could have a revision every 15 or 20 years. We have not anything like that, nor, with the present staff, could we achieve anything like that. It is a matter which must be considered. I do not think I need say anything more about it. It is going to be a big matter of organisation, of cost and of training of staff, if we are going to do very much better than we are doing at the present time but I think it will have to be done. If we had our revision done here at a reasonable interval of, say, 15 or 20 years, if we could do it during——
Would the Minister be able to say how often revision is done at the present time?
I cannot give any definite time. Some have not been done for 80 years; others have been done much more frequently. There is no such thing as a complete run over the whole country. It is only done haphazardly, as required.
I now come to Deputy Sweetman's speech today. First of all, I welcome his tribute to the Income Tax Commission. I know he has paid a tribute to them before and so have I. They did a wonderful job and they produced very useful reports, some of which I do not agree with, and perhaps some of which Deputy Sweetman does not agree with, either. They are very well done. One thing they have done is that they have produced their reports in such a way that any ordinary citizen can read them, and understand what is involved.
Hear, hear.
Now, I did promise to have a White Paper issued before the Budget of this year dealing with the remaining recommendations of this Commission. We had a White Paper issued last year dealing with a number of their recommendations we expect to finish. Now the Government will consider in time the issuing of a White Paper before the Budget. I will try to have it issued some time before then, as requested by Deputy Sweetman, if at all possible.
Deputy Sweetman went on to say in relation to the Valuation Office that their methods are not understood by the ordinary citizen. There again there are difficulties owing to the very long lapse of time since there was a real valuation just as there was no real survey. I am afraid that our valuation methods are going to be very involved until there is a complete revaluation of the whole country. I do not know how the Government are going to face that but I am afraid it will have to be faced before we can have an equitable and an intelligent valuation of property generally.
The principle laid down in the Valuation Acts generally was that the net letting value of the property should be the valuation. Land is out because land was valued over 110 years ago or so and not touched since. Even buildings have been revalued on their own since then, here and there but not everywhere. The fact that it is not done everywhere makes it impossible for the valuer to bring it up to the present value because it would be too much out of line and the formula to be followed is rather involved.
As far as the agricultural grant is concerned, I can assure the Deputy that we intend that that will continue and that the amount voted plus the amount already there will be the amount to be voted for the coming years also. I do not think any Government ,,will ever reduce the agricultural grant so I do not think there is any need for Deputies to worry on that point at all.
The next point we come to is in relation to the Attorney General. Deputy Sweetman has said that in the Shanahan case the criticism was that the courts were not given an opportunity of giving a complete and full verdict on the case. With regard to that and the criticism by Deputy McQuillan, I am not saying whether the Deputy is right or wrong in this case because I am not in a position to say so. It is easy to make an accusation of that kind but it is impossible for me to refuse it because I am not competent to deal with it. If I were competent, I suppose I would take a long time to study the whole thing in order to be able to say to the Deputy: "I think you are wrong." All I can ask the Dáil, therefore, is not to accept allegations of this kind unless we have an opportunity, as I say, of getting a competent person to deal with the whole matter, with ample time to carry out his investigation.
As far as Deputy McQuillan is concerned, I think the same argument applies to his remarks with regard to the Attorney General. The Attorney General may be accused of not giving sufficient time to the cases that come before him. He may be accused of not having prepared the Singer case properly. It is Deputy McQuillan's allegation that it was neither properly prepared nor presented. I do not know, but I certainly do not accept Deputy McQuillan's allegation. I should like to have the assurance of someone competent to talk on these matters that that allegation is largely true before I would be prepared to accept it. I do not accept it. I reject it in toto.
Neither do I believe that the Taoiseach used the words Deputy McQuillan alleged he used when he asked him about the appointment of the Attorney General back in 1957. I do not think it is true that the Taoiseach said then that he could not get a lawyer to accept the position on a full-time basis. I think what really happened was that there was a change in the practice when the Coalition Government took office. For many years, under Fianna Fáil Governments, Attorneys General did in fact accept that the position was full-time and did not seek to practise outside. Other Governments adopted a different practice and it was very difficult to expect Attorneys General under subsequent Fianna Fáil Governments to go back to the old practice. In fact, it would have been an admission that they were in some way inferior to the Attorneys General under other Governments. As far as I understand the position, the present Attorney General wanted to have the principle accepted that he was free to practise outside, but he has not in fact availed of that privilege in the past four or five years.
The next point raised by Deputy Sweetman was in relation to the auditor appointed to the Irish Shipping Company. Since I became Minister for Finance, I have been criticised for keeping the auditing of State companies under the control of the Comptroller and Auditor General. One Fine Gael speaker took this matter up every year for the past four or five years. I considered the matter. Last year, the Comptroller and Auditor General had so much work to do he had to employ outside firms to do the auditing for some of these State companies. Some of these State companies complained that the outside firms did the audit and the Comptroller and Auditor General signed the report, as well as the outside firm, and, from their point of view, it looked very bad; it looked as if they were under some sort of Government examination, and they objected to this method. The Comptroller and Auditor General could not help it; he had not enough staff. I decided eventually that it was better, perhaps, to agree that some of these companies should be released from the obligation to employ the Comptroller and Auditor General. A number of them were told they could appoint outside auditors, if they wished.
In the Acts setting up these companies, it is laid down, in some cases, that the Comptroller and Auditor General is the auditor. That must continue until the Acts are changed. In other cases, it is laid down that they may appoint an auditor, with the sanction of the Minister for Industry and Commerce or the Minister for Finance, as the case may be. In this particular case, the clause in the particular Act provides that they may appoint an auditor with the sanction of the Minister for Finance. They appointed the firm of Haughey and Boland and I was asked for my sanction. Now I could only refuse if I thought that the firm was not a fit and proper firm to do this work. I did not feel I could say that and I, therefore, gave my sanction.
I did not know this proposal was coming before me. It is true, as Deputy Sweetman said, that an officer of my Department represents me at the annual meeting. That is certainly the practice. But that officer had no instruction from me about the appointment of an auditor and, if a particular auditor was proposed, I suppose he did not feel he had any obligation either to object or agree. At any rate, he did not report back to me that such and such an auditor had been appointed. A number of other companies which were given the same permission have also appointed outside auditors. They appear to have got away without any criticism.
With regard to the firm, when Deputy Haughey became Minister for Justice, he took leave of absence from the firm and he does not intend to return to it until his term as Minister expires. As far as I can see, he has nothing to do with the firm at the moment.
If that is the defence, he should have taken his name off the notepaper. He acted of his own volition in keeping it there. 0
Maybe he should.
And the Minister is standing over it.
Yes. I do not think anybody could expect me to say this is not a fit and proper firm to audit these accounts.
Any firm which holds itself out as having as one of its partners a Minister of State is not, without question, a fit and proper firm to do State business, and that does not reflect in any way on the competence——
I should like to examine the three years of Coalition Government to see if that rectitude obtained.
It did.
I am not sure it did.
I was offered some business and I refused it, and I made sure my firms refused it.
That mav be. The Deputy refused it. I wonder was it refused all round?
I can assure the Minister it was.
I was a director of the New Ireland Assurance Company. I left it when I became Minister. If there was any Government work to be done, I think it would be very unfair to say that it could not be done by that company because I had been a director of the company.
Anybody who remains a partner in a firm should refuse State business.
He is not a partner now.
He holds himself out as a partner on their new notepaper in their new office.
I see.
There is no doubt whatsoever about that.
He has severed his connection with them at the moment anyhow.
He has not.
The next point raised by Deputy Sweetman was the deficit in our balance of payments. It is a matter for close examination and for vigilance but there is, as was mentioned by Deputy Sweetman—he may not have mentioned it in this way— the fact that our external assets are remaining healthy and that is some consolation in itself. I am not in a position to explain the contradiction between these two facts, that the deficit in our balance of payments is increasing to a very substantial sum and, at the same time, our external assets are increasing. Deputy Sweetman offered some suggestions as to places where mistakes might be made in the figures. It is possible mistakes are made, of course——
Not mistakes, explanations. I did not suggest that any figures were wrong.
I mean mistakes in the sense that the full returns might not have been available.
I am not challenging the accuracy of any figures.
I know. The Central Statistics Office have information but we cannot, of course, guarantee that it is complete information. They have information on capital inflow through land purchase and the purchase of property here of various kinds, or even the purchase of part of businesses here, people coming in to start factories and so on, and that would include foreign industrialists. These figures are available but, as I say, we can never guarantee they are fully available but as far as they can be made out, they are available.
Now, I do not know about "hot money" but I am doubtful about that. I would like to think more about that, especially the mechanics of income for such money, but I do not think it is a big factor in this calculation. We may, of course, and probably will, have better figures available by the time we issue our Tables before the Budget because there will be a better opportunity of examining all these figures and trying to assess them as fully as possible and as correctly as possible.
Deputy Sherwin spoke about the position in regard to salaries and said that we had a cowardly approach, that we were afraid to vote ourselves adequate salaries, whether as Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries, or Deputies. He is probably right in that but I suppose it is the sort of cowardice that we are not likely to get over.
Would the Minister like to put any figure on the amount that he can trace of the capital movement in that discrepancy?
I would really have to look it up. There is a figure for it but I do not have it.
No figure has been published in that context yet this year.
No, perhaps not.
Question put: "That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."
The Committee divided: Tá, 46; Níl, 58.
Tá.
- Barry, Anthony.
- Barry, Richard.
- Browne, Michael.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Burke, James J.
- Byrne, Patrick.
- Casey, Seán.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Collins, Seán.
- Connor, Patrick.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan D.
- Costello, John A.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
- Farrelly, Denis.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Lynch, Thaddeus.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McQuillan, John.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Murphy, William.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Donnell, Thomas G.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. K.
- O'Keeffe, James.
- O'Sullivan, Denis J.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Treacy, Seán.
Níl.
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Cummins, Patrick J.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Mick.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dooley, Patrick.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Faulkner, Padraig.
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Gallagher, James.
- Galvin, John.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, James M.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Burke, Patrick J.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carter, Frank.
- Carty, Michael.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Colley, George.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lynch, Celia.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Meaney, Con.
- Medlar, Martin.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Moher, John W.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Malley, Donogh.
- Ormonde, John.
- Ryan, James.
- Sherwin, Frank.
- Timmons, Eugene.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies O'Sullivan and Crotty; Níl, Deputies J. Brennan and Geoghegan.
Question declared lost.
Vote put and agreed to.