Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 22 May 1975

Vol. 281 No. 3

Social Welfare (Pay-Related Benefit) Bill, 1975: - Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 2:

To add to the section a new subsection as follows:

"(3) Where incapacity for work or unemployment is continuous a person shall be retrospectively entitled to pay-related benefit from the end of the 159 days up to the commencement of this Act".

—(Deputy Andrews.)

Mr. Andrews

During the course of my short contribution last Wednesday evening I asked was there a respective element in the section and the Parliamentary Secretary said, I am glad to say, that the effects of the delay in the passage of this Bill have been minimised to a very great extent by this provision. But if there is to be a continued attempt to delay the passage of the Bill some people will undoubtedly be affected.

We put down this amendment, which we consider to be a reasonable amendment, arising out of allegations which the Parliamentary Secretary made on a previous occasion. He said that quite a large number of people would be affected by the alleged delay on the part of the Opposition. Now we discover that the so-called delay will have a minimal effect. Our amendment will do away with all the effects of the so-called delay.

No one will be affected by a continuing debate on this Bill if the Parliamentary Secretary accepts the amendment and nobody will be excluded from the provisions of section 4. Our amendment would take effect during the period between the ending of the 159 days and the beginning of the operation of this Bill when it is enacted. This side of the House would be willing to allow the Bill to go through the House straight away if the Parliamentary Secretary would undertake to introduce an amendment in the Seanad which would have the same effect as this amendment.

If he feels that in some way the amendment is legislatively impure there is no reason why he with the full backing of the civil service and all the various draftsmen at his disposal should not make it legislatively pure. I drafted the amendment myself. I did not pretend to have the knowledge of a draftsman. I said that with all the humility a politican can have at his disposal. Whether or not humility in a politican is a good thing is a matter for another day's debate.

I would appreciate it if the Parliamentary Secretary would state how many people would suffer hardship if he continues to allege that the Opposition have delayed the Bill in any way. The Parliamentary Secretary must concede that the purpose of my amendment is to deal with the allegation of delay and to bring the Bill into the area of retrospection. This is a reasonable request. The Parliamentary Secretary being, no doubt, a reasonable man 99 per cent of the time will, I am sure, accede to this request.

Mr. Moore

I support Deputy Andrews' amendment. It was tabled due to a sense of justice. A person affected by the Bill has enough problems without having to worry about whether he is qualified. Deputy Andrews' straightforward amendment would remove some of those worries. It is the desire of the Parliamentary Secretary to remove any doubts or complications or difficulties from legislation. In a small pamphlet he issued on the pay-related scheme he said social insurance legislation runs to hundreds of pages, most of it is complicated and naturally written in legal language. This difficulty is recognised by the Parliamentary Secretary and by the Department.

Deputy Andrews' amendment is so straightforward and so justified that the Parliamentary Secretary might well accept it. It would improve the Bill. It would remove doubts, worries and anxieties. It would prevent an injustice being done to a person who qualifies. A person will know that even though there may be certain delays the payment will be retrospective. This is the case in any national wage agreement. There is always this factor of retrospection but otherwise the agreement would not be accepted.

People who have lost their employment should not be penalised. We should be able to say to them that we are treating them as we treat everybody who draws social welfare payments. If Deputy Andrews' amendment is not legally pure the Parliamentary Secretary can amend it. This would augur well for future debates on social welfare. If the amendment is not accepted it will lead to extended debates. That is the smallest point we should think of. The important thing is that an injustice might be done to some person if the amendment is not accepted. We have given a great deal of thought to the Bill and I do not think we should hesitate to give it a little further thought in the hope of improving it and preventing any injustice being inflicted on any person affected by the Bill.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Cluskey)

Anybody who reads this Bill will see that the transitional period allows any person who is still eligible and drawing a flat rate benefit to qualify for the improved conditions and improved payments provided in this Bill. There is a regard for people who are still unemployed, still sick, and still within the general provision of the basic Act that you can only be eligible for benefit payment, the flat rate, for a period not exceeding 12 months. The quicker this Bill is passed —and it has to go when it is finished in this House to the Upper House and start off from scratch there—the quicker the improved terms and payments will be made available to recipients.

I have said here before that this Bill has been unnecessarily, and indeed deliberately, delayed in its passage through this House. In fairness, I should say that I do not think that was altogether the wish or indeed the intention of Deputy Andrews who is the spokesman. My own honest assessment of it is that there were other Deputies—Deputy Colley and Deputy de Valera, for instance—who were waiting to get in on another Bill and when that Bill was not available to them, they engaged in what I would only describe as trick-acting during the passage of this Bill. It has been an extremely protracted passage up to now of a Bill that was a simple Bill, a Bill which in the view of any experienced parliamentarian to whom I have spoken would have taken possibly two or three hours to go through all its Stages. We were halfway through the Committee Stage before any amendments were submitted. I honestly think that this matter of retrospection now being discussed and the amendment before us, notwithstanding the fact that what the amendment purports to do is very largely catered for in the Bill, are designed to try to justify in the eyes of the public the unnecessary delay and obstruction of the passage of the Bill.

We are asked now how many people would be affected. It is true that I said here that because of the provision we made, people who were still unemployed or still suffering from prolonged illness and are eligible for pay-related payment which extends for a period of 12 months, if they have exhausted the present provision for pay-related benefit and are now back on flat rate benefit, can come back in under the enhanced payments provided for in this Bill. Some people will be affected and the longer the Bill is delayed, the more people will be affected. I cannot say how many. Some people—not a great number possibly —who could have qualified last week will not qualify this week because of this policy of obstructing the passage of the Bill. It has to go to the Seanad and has to meet the other constitutional requirements before coming into operation. There is no date of commencement in the Bill but it will come into operation through ministerial order, and it was clearly indicated that we were anxious to bring its provisions, which would play a very significant part in helping the man—and his wife and family—who was unfortunate enough to be either sick or unemployed for prolonged periods, into operation as soon as possible.

I could go on at great length about what I think has been the motivation behind some of the contributions from Deputies opposite. I do not intend to do that at this stage in the belief that it may not help the passage of the Bill. I am anxious that it would be finalised as quickly as possible for the reasons I have stated, but I honestly and sincerely believe that the only reason this amendment is before us is to try to justify in the eyes of the public the unnecessary obstruction of the passage of the Bill up to now. If Deputies read the provisions of the Bill and read the explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill, they will see that in it a very large degree of coverage is provided for people who are still eligible when this Bill becomes law and who are in receipt of flat rate benefit. They will be able to come back into pay-related benefit under these provisions and I ask Deputies to keep the fact in mind.

Mr. Faulkner

I want, first of all, to refute the charge that the Bill was deliberately delayed. The fact is that most of the discussion took place on the previous section related to the desire on the part of the Opposition to increase the 30 per cent to 40 per cent. We made the case, and I do not intend to go over it again, that the money was in the fund, that the people who would benefit were those who had contributed to this fund, that the money was their money and that therefore in present circumstances when prices are escalating——

Mr. Cluskey

Is this on section 3 or section 4 or amendment No. 1 or amendment No. 2?

Mr. Faulkner

I am simply explaining the reasons why the discussion on the Bill took such a long time.

Mr. Cluskey

All the Deputy's references so far have been directly to amendment No. 1 and section 3.

Mr. Faulkner

I am simply explaining why the discussion took such a long time and pointing out that the charge made by the Parliamentary Secretary that it was deliberately delayed by this party is contrary to the facts.

With regard to this section and the amendment we are now discussing, the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that he himself raised the hare. He did say earlier that unless this Bill was passed those in receipt of social welfare benefits who would be entitled to the extra pay-related benefit because of the extension in the Bill would lose out and it was because of that statement, which we felt at that time was in accordance with the facts that we put in this amendment, so that we could ensure that nobody would be detrimentally affected by the time it took to discuss this Bill. It was for this reason that Deputy Andrews put down his amendment.

What will be the position of a person who last week was at the end of his flat rate payment when the Bill is passed? Will he qualify for benefit? Even though there is no retrospection in the Bill will he benefit as if the Bill had been passed last week?

Mr. Cluskey

Flat rate benefit is only paid for 12 months and it cannot exceed that time. The pay-related benefit can only be paid when there is eligibility for flat rate benefit. There are two elements in the payment of unemployment benefit, the flat rate element and, if eligible, the pay-related benefit. If one has exhausted one's 12-month eligibility for the flat rate benefit one cannot be paid benefit, flat rate benefit or pay-related benefit.

Mr. Faulkner

I am concerned with the question of retrospection. If a person was eligible last week for flat rate benefit and is no longer eligible this week will he lose out by the fact that there is nothing in this Bill which would make the payment of the pay-related benefit retrospective?

Mr. Cluskey

If the Deputy is referring to last week literally it would not make any difference but there would be a week's difference at some stage. Under this Bill if a person was unemployed or sick for six months for 24½ weeks of that six months he would get, under the present system, 24½ weeks of pay-related benefit and then would be eligible for flat rate benefit for a further six months. If that person had received the 24½ weeks pay-related benefit and was at present receiving the other three months flat rate benefit on the passage of this Bill that person would be entitled at that point to go on to pay-related benefit until such time as his full rate eligibility for 12 months had expired or if he exhausted the three months extension under this Bill. Some people will be affected by the delay of the Bill.

Mr. Andrews

If that is the case the Parliamentary Secretary should accept my amendment. He has suggested that there was a deliberate and unnecessary obstruction of this Bill by the Opposition but on Thursday week last, in reply to a parliamentary question, the Parliamentary Secretary said it was his intention to extend the pay-related benefit scheme. I asked him when it was his intention to produce this Bill which was on the stocks at all times—I am not suggesting that the Bill is a result of my parliamentary question; quite the contrary. That question was asked on a Thursday and the Bill was taken out of stock the following day. If the Parliamentary Secretary was so concerned about this matter he could have taken the Bill off the stocks a long time before the question was asked.

The Parliamentary Secretary's suggestion of delay or obstruction and the allegations against Deputies Colley and de Valera are untrue and do not bear examination. Deputy Colley asked a number of questions arising out of his experience in this House and we all know of Deputy de Valera's experience in matters of this nature. In fact, it was Deputy Colley who was responsible for placing the Parliamentary Secretary in a difficult position when the Parliamentary Secretary was not able to give him the information he required. If the Parliamentary Secretary had accepted the original suggestion, that the amount of the pay-related benefit for the extended period of three months be increased by 25 per cent, there would be no difficulty at all but he did not do that.

Mr. Cluskey

The Deputy's amendment was not submitted until long after the 12-hour debate on the Bill.

Mr. Andrews

This amendment arose directly out of a misrepresentation by the Parliamentary Secretary. I should like to quote from column 2014 of the Official Report of 14th May, 1975:

Mr. Cluskey: . . . If they want to oppose the Bill, they should do so honourably and openly. There is no retrospection in this Bill.

Mr. Colley: Why? Why not put it in?

At all times we understood that there was an element of retrospection in the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary has called "transitional" the feature in the section under discussion. Under those circumstances, the Parliamentary Secretary stated there was no retrospection but surely it is not unreasonable for the Opposition to bring forward an amendment to give effect to the Parliamentary Secretary's implicit wish that there should be retrospection. Like us, the Parliamentary Secretary is anxious that nobody should be denied his entitlement because of the passage of this Bill. If people were to be denied their entitlement surely the Bill should have been brought before the House earlier. To suggest that the Opposition obstructed the Bill is untrue and at variance with the facts. I am doing the Parliamentary Secretary no favour nor does he want any favours from me. I shall allow this amendment go through very smoothly if the Parliamentary Secretary will even mention its existence which he has not done.

Mr. Cluskey

Mention what?

Mr. Andrews

Mention my amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary has not said what effect it would have. He has not said that if it was given effect by way of amendment in the Seanad it would deny anybody entitlement. We are just as concerned that everybody who is unemployed should not be denied entitlement and I think the Parliamentary Secretary will accept that the amendment was put down in that spirit. Now we discover that the Parliamentary Secretary states that the alleged delay on the part of the Opposition will have minimal effects. That means some people will be affected. We shall proceed on the premise that the Parliamentary Secretary will not accept the amendment, that he will not accept the principle of retrospection enshrined in our amendment. We will accept that. But can the Parliamentary Secretary say why he will not accept it if it gives effect to that with which the Parliamentary Secretary charges us, namely, the denial to some people of their entitlements because of the delay in the passage of the Bill? Surely my amendment would take care of that problem, satisfy the Parliamentary Secretary, a man concerned with matters of this nature and satisfy the Opposition who are concerned also that no hardship be brought about by a delay of this Bill.

I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to deal even in a short sentence with the effects of the amendment. I know the Parliamentary Secretary has to pad each side of any statement he makes. He has to protect his flanks in the past and future from the party political point of view. That is accepted but could we do away with the political nitty-gritty and get down to the effect of this amendment? For all I know, it could be a useless one but, if so, let the Parliamentary Secretary say so. I would appreciate recognition of the amendment and the reason for its non-acceptance, when I shall let this go through like a knife through butter.

Mr. Moore

It is somewhat unfair to suggest we are opposing this Bill for the sake of opposition. After all, if we did not criticise and examine each Bill before the House would we not be accused of not caring? We live in very critical times. Therefore, it is the duty of people on this side of the House to examine every line of every Bill because it must be remembered we may not have an opportunity of doing so again on a Bill of this nature. In future, there will be a ministerial order made for extension or even for curtailment. Even the date of implementation of the provisions of the Bill is a matter entirely for the Minister. Suppose the Government, for some reason, decided to postpone the enactment of this extension to any future date, it is the duty of the Opposition to ensure that people will not be adversely affected by such delay and that there will be retrospective payment forthcoming.

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary might explain to one of my dull wit how a person coming back into social insurance will be affected by the Bill. Will he or she be affected in any specific way, being different from a person who is insured continuously? I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary also if the Bill will mean any great difference in the payment of maternity benefit?

We must persuade the Parliamentary Secretary that Deputy Andrews' amendment has been put forward not for the sake of opposing the Bill, because one could do that in many ways, but because a genuine attempt is being made here to scrutinise the Bill and amend it so that it may be better legislation when enacted.

If the Parliamentary Secretary complains about the length of time a Bill takes in its passage through the House, he has a very simple remedy and, that is, he can accept the amendment. However, that is not the main reason. The main reason is to make this a better Bill and that is the spirit in which the amendment was brought forward. We assure the Parliamentary Secretary that that is all we are trying to achieve. Were he to approach it in that spirit, he might say: "Yes, I will accept your amendment" and we might then proceed very rapidly.

It is our duty to examine all legislation and we welcome changes in legislation when they are being made but we must reserve the right to examine every line of every Bill and make from our experience suggestions for its improvement.

Mr. Cluskey

Deputy Andrews has asked me to explain the effects of this amendment. We have done everything possible and, indeed, succeeded in the drafting of this Bill to ensure that anybody who is still unemployed, who is still out ill and who is still eligible for flat rate benefit will be eligible to receive the increased benefits under the Bill.

What Fianna Fáil are asking me to do is to give the increased benefits to people who have resumed work and may have done so some considerable time ago. It would not be a desirable development that people who were unfortunate enough to be unemployed either through unavailability of employment or illness but who had resumed work possibly some considerable able time ago—were this question of retrospection enshrined—would receive them. This Bill is designed to ensure that, as far as possible, people who are unemployed or ill and still eligible for the flat rate benefit will get some of the increased benefits under this Bill.

Mr. Andrews

That is a totally unrealistic answer to a very reasonable amendment. It does not answer the question at all. The amendment is geared to give retrospective benefit to ensure that those people who are unemployed do not fall foul of the provisions of this Bill which the Parliamentary Secretary has admitted will cause some hardship to a small number of persons. The Parliamentary Secretary has been honest enough to admit that he does not know the number of persons who will suffer as a result of the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Cluskey

It is not possible to know that.

Mr. Andrews

The Parliamentary Secretary would not be expected to know that. I was going to give him credit in that respect. As he says, it is not possible to know the answer to that question. If a small number of people may suffer—and I use the word "may" advisedly because the situation may be such that nobody will suffer—the Parliamentary Secretary may be inadvertently misleading the House. I do not aim to make that allegation but I suggest that his lack of knowledge of the reality of the position is the reason for his not knowing how many people will be involved. Our amendment would ensure that nobody would suffer. If the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us that the provisions of the Bill are such that nobody will suffer that is all right, but he cannot say that. In fact, he has been saying a small number will suffer.

Mr. Cluskey

The Deputy spoke about not being acquainted with the realities of the situation. I am a little surprised by the failure of the Deputy to grasp the realities of the situation. If I had been unemployed last week for 11 months and two weeks and if this Bill had become law last week, I would have got the increases provided for under this Bill for two weeks.

Mr. Andrews

The amendment will take care of that.

Mr. Cluskey

The only thing the amendment is designed to do is to give a smokescreen to Fianna Fáil for obstructing the passage of the Bill without any justification. That is the reality of the amendment and the people will know that. I accept there might be some justification for the amendment if the other provisions were not in the Bill. Surely there must be an obligation on Fianna Fáil spokesmen to read and understand Bills before they make their contributions in this House. I do not think that is too much to expect from them and it is the least the Irish people, and particularly Fianna Fáil supporters, might expect. They should know what a Bill intends to do and its effects on the people concerned. I accept that Bills are in fairly legalistic terms but in this case an explanatory memorandum was circulated. The Bill provides——

Mr. Andrews

The Parliamentary Secretary must not have read the explanatory memorandum because he said it had no retrospective effect.

Mr. Cluskey

I still say it has no retrospective effect. I do not know how the Deputy defines retrospection. Fianna Fáil say that a person who was unemployed last March but resumed work at the end of that month and who has since been working continuously is entitled retrospectively to benefit——

Mr. Moore

The Parliamentary Secretary is talking nonsense.

Mr. Andrews

That is not the case.

Mr. Cluskey

I did not submit the amendment. I am talking about the meaning of retrospection. We have provided that where a man is unemployed or is ill and is within the 12-month period in which when he can qualify for flat rate benefit, even though he has exhausted his six months pay-related benefits, under the new provisions of this Bill he can enjoy the increases. With regard to the numbers involved, it is not possible to give a figure because the numbers affected last week will not be the same this week or next week. I have no idea what number will eventually be affected because I do not know when this Bill will become law.

Mr. Andrews

Why not?

Mr. Cluskey

Because I must wait until Fianna Fáil allow it to pass through this House. Then I have to go to the Upper House and until this is done, as well as other constitutional requirements, it is not possible to make the Bill law.

Mr. Andrews

If the Bill was so urgent, why did the Parliamentary Secretary not bring it in earlier? Why was there not a commencement date?

Mr. Cluskey

It will be brought into operation by ministerial order.

Mr. Andrews

Why was it not brought in sooner if the Government were so concerned about it? They are being hypocritical.

Mr. Cluskey

We are concerned about the urgency. For the Deputy to talk about the stockpiling of Bills——

Mr. Andrews

I did not say that.

Mr. Cluskey

The Deputy said that after he asked a parliamentary question this was taken from the stockpile. I can understand the Deputy making that reference because Fianna Fáil prepared Bills for everything but very few were enacted.

Mr. Andrews

We will not talk about the article written by the secretary of the Dublin executive of Fine Gael criticising the Minister for Justice and his legislation.

Mr. Cluskey

Even the Bills that were stockpiled by Fianna Fáil were totally inadequate to meet the requirements. There was no stockpiling in this case. The Bill was drafted and circulated and we want to bring it into law as soon as possible. Even at this late stage we would ask for a more responsible approach by the Opposition.

Mr. Andrews

The Parliamentary Secretary is trying to put across that the Opposition are holding up the Bill but that is totally at variance with the facts. He has deliberately misrepresented the effect of my amendment. He is being deliberately devious and misleading in suggesting that the Opposition are holding up the Bill. If the Government were so concerned about the urgency of this Bill, they could have brought it in a week or a fortnight sooner. In common with other people, they realised the unemployment situation was getting worse and will get worse in the words of their own political leader. That is the reality of the position. As for the suggestion that I made a remark about the Government stockpiling Bills, I apologise to the House for that. I should have said the Parliamentary Secretary drew the Bill from some drawer in the Department of Social Welfare where it was already prepared. I do apologise for accusing the Government of stockpiling Bills because we all know the Government have anything but a stockpile of Bills. Their legislative performance has been the worst in the history of this State. Only yesterday we had the secretary of the Dublin executive of Fine Gael condemning the Minister for Justice and suggesting the Minister should resign because he had not discharged his promise to the country.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Carter)

I must ask the Deputy to keep to the amendment.

Mr. Andrews

The sick joke is becoming sicker. Using the words "legislative stockpile" was some form of aberration on my part. There is no point in going on with this because the Parliamentary Secretary is not prepared to concede the Opposition were responsible in proposing this amendment and is not prepared to recognise the spirit in which the amendment was tabled. He is not even prepared to deal with the possible effect of this amendment. As far as his definition of retrospection is concerned possibly some dictionary in the future may define it in that way, but I do not know of any dictionary at the moment that defines it in the way the Parliamentary Secretary did. It may be a socialist definition of retrospection.

Mr. Cluskey

God knows, the Deputy would not be acquainted with that.

Mr. Andrews

I certainly would not be acquainted with socialism.

Mr. Cluskey

Never fear, the Deputy would not.

Mr. Andrews

I certainly would not be acquainted with the Irish Labour Party's definition of socialism. Having joined the Fine Gael Party, they have become subsumed and are forgetting all about socialism. Power corrupts. I suggest the Acting Chairman put the amendment.

Mr. Moore

The Parliamentary Secretary suggested the amendment would have the effect of allowing a person to benefit while he was working.

Mr. Cluskey

That is what retrospection would mean. If one is entitled to something retrospectively, then one is entitled to it.

Mr. Moore

But only under the conditions laid down in the Bill. No one can have it both ways.

Mr. Cluskey

I know that but the party opposite are only finding it out now apparently. Fianna Fáil tried to have it both ways on the capital gains tax, on the wealth tax, on the pay-related benefits and on everything.

Mr. Moore

The Parliamentary Secretary may not malign Irish workers by suggesting they would draw benefit to which they are not entitled.

Mr. Cluskey

I never suggested that.

Mr. Moore

That is what the Parliamentary Secretary implied. He implied people would benefit while they were working and getting paid by an employer. I say that is not possible and I resent the slander on people. Where socialism is concerned it is a somewhat meaningless label nowadays because there are so many different forms of it —Russian socialism, Nazi socialism and all the rest of it. We do not want any of these. Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell me how a person could benefit under this Bill while he was still working?

Mr. Cluskey

He cannot benefit under this Bill.

Mr. Moore

But that is what the Parliamentary Secretary implied.

Mr. Cluskey

I did not.

Mr. Moore

Yes, he did.

Mr. Cluskey

For a Deputy who represents such a working-class constituency the Deputy amazes me because the last time social welfare was discussed here the Deputy made quite blatant charges against workers who were drawing social welfare.

Mr. Moore

I did no such thing.

Mr. Cluskey

Yes, he did.

Mr. Moore

Now the Parliamentary Secretary is trying to confuse the issue.

Acting Chairman

Will Deputies please keep to the amendment?

Mr. Moore

We are trying to help the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Cluskey

The Deputy said workers were getting benefits to which they were not entitled.

Mr. Moore

The Parliamentary Secretary said workers would try to deceive the State and get payments to which they were not entitled.

Mr. Cluskey

That is what the Deputy said. I said that if retrospection were to apply in the true sense of the word——

Deputies

Oh!

Mr. Cluskey

——they would be legally entitled but what the Deputy said was, and he said this on a previous occasion, too, in this House, that workers were abusing social welfare.

Mr. Moore

No.

Mr. Cluskey

That was a disgraceful statement by a Deputy representing a working-class constituency.

Mr. Moore

It was the Parliamentary Secretary who implied it, not I. It is on the record.

Mr. Cluskey

If the Deputy would like to debate socialism in all its forms I would be glad to oblige him at some future date.

Mr. Moore

It is on the record now and it cannot be altered and the Parliamentary Secretary's remarks will be received very badly. I am sorry the Parliamentary Secretary made the statement he did.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 42; Níl, 47.

Tá

• Allen, Lorcan.
• Andrews, David.
• Barrett, Sylvester.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Brosnan, Seán.
• Browne, Seán.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Callanan, John.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Carter, Frank.
• Colley, George.
• Crinion, Brendan.
• Crowley, Flor.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Farrell, Joseph.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
• Flanagan, Seán.
• French, Seán.
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Gibbons, Hugh.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Herbert, Michael.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Leonard, James.
• Loughnane, William.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Jack.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Moore, Seán.
• Murphy, Ciarán.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.

Níl

• Barry, Peter.
• Begley, Michael.
• Belton, Paddy.
• Burke, Dick.
• Burke, Joan T.
• Burke, Liam.
• Clinton, Mark A.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Conlan, John F.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Coughlan, Stephen.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Dockrell, Maurice.
• Donnellan, John.
• Dunne, Thomas.
• Enright, Thomas.
• Esmonde, John G.
• Finn, Martin.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Gilhawley, Eugene.
• Governey, Desmond.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Hegarty, Patrick.
• Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
• Jones, Denis F.
• L'Estrange, Gerald.
• McLaughlin, Joseph.
• McMahon, Larry.
• Malone, Patrick.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Donnell, Tom.
• O'Leary, Michael.
• O'Sullivan, John L.
• Reynolds, Patrick J.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Taylor, Frank.
• Thornley, David.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Toal, Brendan.
• Tully, James.
• White, James.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Lalor and Browne; Níl, Deputies Begley and B. Desmond.

Amendment declared lost.

Section agreed to.

Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.

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

Mr. Moore

Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us the approximate date on which the Bill will be implemented?

Mr. Cluskey

The Deputy will understand that the Bill must go through the Upper House.

Mr. Moore

An approximate date?

Mr. Cluskey

As early as possible.

Mr. Moore

That is very approximate.

Question put and agreed to.