Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 27 Mar 1990

Vol. 397 No. 5

Defence (Amendment) Bill, 1990: Committee Stage.

Mr. McCartan

In advance of taking the first amendment I wish to raise a matter under Standing Order 92 of Standing Orders. I have already given notice to the office of the Ceann Comhairle that I propose to move at this stage the proposition that the House postpone consideration of amendments in relation to sections 1 to 6 and that we would take first the amendments in regard to section 7, that is amendments Nos. 32, 33 and 34, because they relate to the central and most important issue with regard to this enabling legislation. Standing Order states:

In Committee, a Bill must be considered section by section. It shall be in order, however, before consideration of a section or sections is entered upon, to move the postponement of the section or sections until another section, other sections or schedules have been disposed of. Any section of a Bill may be amended in Committee, and new sections may be inserted.

I consider the regulations, their status and how they will be dealt with by this House subsequent to the Bill being passed into law the central and most important issue to be considered by the House. The Workers' Party sought to insert an amendment of a new section after section 1. The Ceann Comhairle ruled — and I am bound by that ruling — that we must put our amendments with regard to the regulations on section 7 because that is the structure of the Bill. However, I was advised by the Ceann Comhairle's office and I am now seeking to move, in accordance with Standing Order 96, that we take that section first and deal with it.

The importance of doing this is that it would throw a greater light on the whole debate and deliberation on this Bill. We would be to some degree, for the purposes of debate, putting the cart before the horse if we were to leave to the end of this legislation the issue of the regulations and how they are to be dealt with. There is also the risk, in a debate that is proposed to be guillotined tomorrow evening, that we might not reach discussion on the regulations. Therefore I ask that the House agree to the proposition that we debate the regulations first. We would then know in what context we are debating the provisions of this Bill.

The central issue here is whether or not the regulations, once agreed in discussion with the bodies, as have been referred to by the Minister in winding up Second Stage, will come back to this House and whether there will be a positive resolution in the House before they are passed into law. In other words, the issue is whether this House will have the opportunity to debate in fuller detail the importance of these regulations and what they represent. I hope the Minister will agree that we take the regulations first.

Mr. Ryan

I support Deputy McCartan on this matter. It is important at this stage to continue with the very conciliatory approach taken by the Minister on Second Stage. In order to do so it is necessary to deal with the most relevant section first, section 7, which deals with the regulations. The amendments put down by the Opposition refer to the core of the Bill. It is important that we get support for the Bill from the members of the Defence Forces so that we can all move together to resolve the other aspects of the Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy McCartan referred earlier to the time factor. The eye message I get from the Minister for Defence is that he does not seem to have any strenuous objections to what was proposed by Deputy McCartan. Perhaps we could save time by inviting the Minister to comment on it, and if he agrees, we could then proceed to do what is proposed in Deputy McCartan's motion.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Lenihan)

I have no objection to taking amendments Nos. 32, 33 and 34 together. We can do so now and debate the matter immediately.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We start with section 7. Amendment No. 32 is in the name of Deputy Nealon; Amendment No. 33 is in the name of Deputy McCartan and amendment No. 34 is in the name of Deputy Ryan. Amendment No. 33 is similar to amendment No. 32, and amendment No. 34 is an alternative. It is proposed therefore, for discussion purposes to take the three amendments together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Nealon

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 3, before section 7, to insert the following new section:

"7.—Every regulation proposed to be made under this Act shall be laid, in draft, before each House of the Oireachtas and shall not be made until it has been approved by each such House.".

Section 7 is very much a negative version as far as the presentation of regulations to the Dáil is concerned. Contrary to my wishes — and that may be the way it will work out if the Minister does not agree to some of the positive amendments I have tabled — most of the new structures for the establishment of associations will be governed by regulations as distinct from legislation passed by the Dáil. Therefore the regulations section will turn out to be extremely important. As envisaged in section 7 of the present Bill, we will not have the opportunity to discuss or to debate the regulations in this House and, of course, we will have no opportunity to all to amend them. My amendment reads:

Every regulation proposed to be made under this Act shall be laid, in draft, before each House of the Oireachtas and shall not be made until it has been approved by each such House.

In other words, this is a positive amendment which would enable debate to take place and will enable all the regulations to be teased out in the House, as they should be, before they come into operation. It is by no means satisfactory and it is not what I would like to see because, as I have indicated in my earlier amendments, many of the more important provisions should be incorporated in the legislation. I hope the Minister, in his new found sense of conciliation, will be able to accept some of these amendments which embody the main provisions of the legislation and that the regulations, while still very important, will become less important than they are at this stage.

If the Minister does not accept the amendments, then virtually everything will be covered by regulations, but I would like whatever remains to be covered by regulations to have to come before this House, and subsequently before the Seanad, so that they will be fully debated and discussed. I know it will not be possible to table amendments but at least the Minister would be accountable to the House if the regulations came before us. That would be much more satisfactory and would result in a much better association and a greater feeling of confidence that the appropriate association would be set up.

As the Chief of Staff said, this is an historic progression as far as the Defence Forces are concerned. I think the Minister should be willing to accept my amendments or the amendments in the names of Deputies McCartan and Ryan, which are similar, but the detail is spelled out more elaborately in Deputy Ryan's amendment. One way or another, it is imperative that the regulations should come before this House and that they should not automatically become reality before being discussed by the most important House in the land. The Minister has introduced these regulations in such a way as to by-pass this House.

Mr. McCartan

I speak on behalf of The Workers' Party in support of amendment No. 33, which is similar in all respects to the amendment tabled by Deputy Nealon on behalf of the Fine Gael Party. The purpose of the amendments clearly is to ensure that, once consultation has taken place and the officials in the drafting section have laid down the regulations, this House and the Seanad will have the opportunity to debate, discuss and give their support for whatever will ultimately be put in place.

With regard to the Labour Party amendment in the name of Deputy Ryan, I have no difficulty with it either. I recognise that undertakings were written into the record of the House at the conclusion of the Second Stage debate that the representative groups will be consulted and that agreement will be reached with them on the eventual structures and regulations once we have passed this legislation. To borrow the Minister's words on the earlier stage, "....the Oireachtas must be supreme and that the Legislature must stand first and foremost on the issue". I could not agree more with him in laying the legislation before the House and ensuring that the legislation ultimately will be in all respects acceptable.

The Bill is described as enabling legislation and I understand that is meant that the regulations will put the flesh on the organisations to be established. Borrowing from the Minister's first proposition that the Oireachtas and the Legislature must be supreme in this development, we say that we should have the opportunity to debate and discuss them in this House.

I propose to deal with what I anticipate will be the two points that, from my gleaning of the Second Stage debate, will be advanced by the Minister — if there has not been some eye contact that we are in agreement at this stage. I assume by your silence, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that you have not received optical or telegraphic communications. I regret to say that that bodes poorly for our debate.

This is the kernel issue and I thank the Minister for agreeing to debate it first. If the Minister is not agreeing to accepting the unanimous request of the Opposition, I anticipate that the first argument he will put forward is that he is legislating for the Defence Forces in exactly the same way as was done for the Garda Síochána in the 1977 Act. That is the first myth I wish to address in advancing the reasons that things should be different for the Defence Forces. I accept that the Garda Síochána Act, 1977, provided for the negative form of resolution. Section 2 of that Act says that the regulations will come before the House and that it will be a matter for a motion to annul the order within 21 days. That Act was amended with a new subsection (4) being inserted in section 2.

However the circumstances which prevailed in 1977 with regard to the Garda Síochána and which exist today in 1990 with regard to the Defence Forces are vastly different. In introducing the 1977 Act Deputy Collins, who was then Minister for Justice and is now Minister for Foreign Affairs, had this to say and I quote from column 1109, volume 300 of the Official Report of 25 October 1977:

This is in essence an agreed measure in that it proposes to implement policy decisions taken by the previous Government to which I and my colleagues in the present Government fully subscribe.

Let me point out that it was the Coalition Government who passed out of Government in 1977 that drafted and advanced this Bill. As we know, there was a general election in that year and Deputy Collins when appointed Minister for Justice on the coming into office of the new Government brought before the House legislation originally agreed on and cobbled together by the Coalition Government. He presented that legislation on the basis that there was all-party agreement for it. He acknowledged that there was no opposition to it or reservations being expressed by the Opposition who happened to be the instigators of that legislation. In relation to a second element of the agreement which existed at that time he had this to say:

It is an agreed measure also in the sense that it reflects an agreement reached earlier this year with two of the Garda representative bodies following negotiations between the Department of Justice and the bodies initiated by my predecessor.

Since 1924 there have been representative associations within the Garda Síochána; there are no such associations within the Defence Forces. Therefore there are bodies available with whom the Minister can consult and negotiate. The involvement of Deputies Kitt and Hillery was required in this matter on behalf of the Minister because there had been no negotiations, consultation or agreement up to the eleventh hour. The matters which had to be considered with regard to the 1977 legislation are vastly different from those which have to be considered with regard to this Bill. Let me quote Deputy Collins once more:

As will be fairly clear to Deputies, the main purpose of the Bill is to make certain amendments in the existing law governing the establishment and functioning of the Garda Representative Bodies. The amendments proposed are those which are necessary to enable effect to be given to an agreement with the Representative Body for Inspectors, Station Sergeants and Sergeants and the Representative Body for Guards. That agreement, as I have said, was concluded during my predecessor's term of office, and I would like to pay tribute to the role which he played in bringing about the agreement.

The Minister for Defence had no such accolades for the Opposition spokespersons on this occasion and this illustrates yet again the vastly different conditions prevailing then as against now.

The next point of difference is encapsulated in that paragraph. The 1977 Act merely amends, in a small though significant way, section 13 of the 1924 Garda Síochána Act, subsection (1) of which reads as follows:

For the purpose of enabling the members of the Garda Síochána to consider and bring to the notice of the Commissioner and of the Minister matters affecting their welfare and efficiency other than questions of discipline and promotion affecting individuals, there shall be established, in accordance with regulations to be made under this Act, a representative body or bodies for all or any one or more of the ranks of the Garda Síochána below the rank of surgeon, consisting of representatives elected by the members of the ranks or rank represented from amongst their number in manner to be prescribed by the regulations aforesaid.

One of the points missed and rarely mentioned in this debate is that since 1924 the members of the Garda Síochána have had the right to establish representative associations the importance of which within the Garda Síochána is very well illustrated in Conor Brady's book entitled Guardians of the Peace. In the epilogue to that volume he outlines the role played by the representative associations and the degree to which they have been able to raise issues on behalf of their members. As Mr. Brady illustrates, following the debacle of the Macushla Ballroom in the mid-sixties they were brought very much to the forefront. Under the stewardship of the General Secretary, Mr. Jack Marrinan, they were able to bring the Government often unwillingly to the negotiating table using go-slow tactics or the tactic of a dispute which no member of the Defence Forces could ever dream of.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy, but it seems to me that he is making a rather wide-ranging speech far more appropriate to a Second Stage reading than to Committee Stage. I would much prefer if the Deputy applied his mind to the section before us and the amendments thereto, amendments Nos. 32, 33 and 34. The Deputy is deviating and going into the Garda Síochána measures and all these things which seem to be quite inappropriate at this time.

Mr. McCartan

I take your point entirely. I do not wish to labour on this but my remarks arise from something the Minister said on Second Stage which I anticipated would be made.

An Ceann Comhairle

I would like the Deputy to come to the section and the amendments thereto, amendments Nos. 32, 33 and 34.

Mr. McCartan

The Minister made the point on Second Stage that he was introducing legislation in relation to the Defence Forces similar to that introduced in relation to the Garda Síochána in 1977. I was merely trying to illustrate why I believe it is inappropriate to use that legislation as a precedent. What I am saying in short is that the matters which had to be considered in 1977 when the Government decided to amend the regulations with regard to the Garda Síochána, in a small although significant way, are vastly different from those which have to be considered now. It is correct to say that the regulations brought in were negative in the context of the form the Minister has proposed in this Bill but this is an argument which has no regard for the debate which took place or the conditions prevailing at that time. In short, in 1977 there was agreement both inside and outside the House——

An Ceann Comhairle

I should like the Deputy to come to the Bill, the section and amendments we are dealing with today. The Deputy has made his point adequately and eloquently in respect of previous enactments.

Mr. McCartan

It is incredible that somebody who was not here to listen to my contribution should intervene in that way.

Mr. Ryan

Amendment No. 34, tabled by me, on behalf of the Labour Party reads:

In page 3, before section 7, to insert the following new section:

"7. —(1) Where the Minister proposes to make regulations under this Act subsection (2) shall apply.

(2) (a) The Minister shall consult—

(i) any existing association (or, if no association has been established under this Act, any other body established for the purpose of representing members of the Defence Forces which was in existence on the date of the passing of this Act), and

(ii) such other persons as he considers appropriate,

concerning the matters which are the subject of the proposed regulations.

(b) A draft of the proposed regulations, together with a report by the Minister on any consultations held under paragraph (a), shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.

(c) The regulations shall not be made until a resolution approving the draft has been passed by each House of the Oireachtas.".

I should like to deal with the merits or demerits of section 7. This is the kernel of the issue. I am happy that we had a coming together of the Minister and the members of the Defence Forces who joined PDFORRA and that following that meeting their position was recognised. I am pleased that we have had an agreement following a meeting between the representatives of PDFORRA and two Deputies on behalf of the Minister. It is worth reading into the record the statement which was issued after that meeting. It was as follows:

After an 11-hour meeting in Dublin with Government Deputies Hillery and Kitt the association agreed to suspend their forthcoming elections in order to facilitate discussions with Mr. Sexton to work out an agreed electoral procedure for their members. Talks will include the structures under which members will be elected and the means whereby open and honest consultations can take place with all interested parties. The association reserves the right at any time to proceed with their own elections should an accepted solution not be found in consultation with Mr. Sexton. For the purpose of consultation the association will continue to operate as PDFORRA.

I accept that great progress has been made since Deputy Lenihan was appointed Minister for Defence but notwithstanding that 8,000 members of the Defence Forces want a say in the preparation of the regulations. I agree with Deputy McCartan that before the Macushla affair there was an established organisation who had an input into the preparation of regulations. Members of the Defence Forces are asking why they should join an organisation if they do not have an input into the regulations that will govern it.

On Second Stage the Minister gave a commitment to facilitate the views of the members of the Defence Forces. He adopted a conciliatory approach. The concerns that many people have can be solved by the Minister adopting our amendment to section 7. Section 7 states:

Every regulation made under this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the regulation is passed by either such House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the regulation is laid before it, the regulation shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.

The Minister should have accepted the views expressed during the Second Stage debate and amended that section accordingly. He told us he would deal on Committee Stage with the problems that were highlighted during that debate.

Mr. Lenihan

Not that section; the one before it.

Mr. Ryan

Following that commitment by the Minister I expected him to introduce amendments to sections 7 and 8. There is no doubt that the members of PDFORRA were given an understanding in regard to section 8.

Mr. Lenihan

That stands. I will deal with that issue when we are debating section 8.

An Ceann Comhairle

We should deal with section 7 when we come to it. At the moment we are debating a number of amendments and the Deputy should speak to his amendment, No. 34.

Mr. Ryan

I was anxious to highlight the fears of members of the Defence Forces and the failure of the Minister to introduce the amendments he promised. The Minister may say that there will be consultations and that members of the Defence Forces will be involved but it is important that that is written into the Bill. I support the Fine Gael and The Workers' Party amendments, it is important to take them on board. We have gone a little further in our amendment and there is no reason the Minister should not accept it.

In our amendment we are suggesting that the Minister shall consult any existing association, or, if no association has been established, any other body established for the purpose or representing members of the Defence Forces which was in existence on the date of the passing of the Bill. The Minister has made a commitment that following the holding of elections he will engage in consultations and for that reason I do not know why he has any difficulty in accepting that part of our amendment. We also suggest that the Minister shall consult such other persons as he considers appropriate. There is nothing controversial in that. We also suggest that a draft of the proposed regulations, together with a report by the Minister on any consultations, shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. That is similar to a provision in the original section. We also suggest that the regulations shall not be made until a resolution approving the draft has been passed by each House of the Oireachtas.

There is a need to develop on the progress that has been made so far. We must give members of the Defence Forces an opportunity to comment on the proposals contained in any documents that are published. I cannot think of any reason for not having that. Furthermore, it should be incorporated into the Bill. The Bill would then be much stronger and would meet the various needs and aspirations of the personnel of the Defence Forces. I hope the Minister will take cognisance of what we are saying here. If we can overcome this aspect and have the consultation provision written into the Bill, I have no doubt that the remaining provisions of the Bill could be passed very quickly and that, consequently, there would be great rejoicing in the Defence Forces. I hope the Minister will look favourably on these amendments.

Mr. Lenihan

My concern here is to ensure that we have real and meaningful discussions and consultations with the members of the Defence Forces who will have been duly elected by their fellow members in a representative capacity to act on their behalf and to incorporate into regulations the proposals agreed with them as to their future structures and the purposes of their association or associations. Those regulations can then be placed before each House of the Oireachtas in accordance with section 7 of the Bill. That is very clear and straightforward and it meets the wishes of the members of the Defence Forces for whom Deputies in this House purport to speak. I want to emphasise that. I am acting in the interests of PDFORRA or of any group within the Defence Forces or outside the Defence Forces who have a real interest in setting up appropriate structures, after an agreed form of election, that can be incorporated in the regulations. That is what I am doing. It defies my comprehension as to how and why members of The Workers' Party, the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party should adopt an attitude here which, in fact, amounts to an impediment in the way of——

Mr. Ryan

How?

Mr. Lenihan

——such consultation procedures. It displays a lack of confidence in the capacity of the representatives of the Defence Forces working out agreement with the Army authorities, the Department of Defence and the Minister for Defence on the appropriate structures that can be incorporated in regulations. I want to emphasise that fact. What is going to be placed before——

Mr. Ryan

But they have——

Mr. Lenihan

I have listened carefully to the Deputy so perhaps he would listen now to me. What will be placed before each House of the Oireachtas in the way of regulations is what the elected representatives of the Defence Forces will have agreed on and are recommending and suggesting. At this stage the Deputy is pre-empting their decision. The essence of what is proposed in the three amendments is a rejection of the idea of consultation with these representatives. I propose to have the fullest possible consultation and discussions with them and then to lay the agreed recommendations by way of regulations before each House of the Oireachtas as provided for in section 7. That is the position which exists in regard to the equivalent section under the Garda Síochána legislation governing regulations.

Deputy McCartan may say that the situation in 1977 was different from that of 1990. What was different was the constructive attitude adopted in this House and where there was agreement on this measure which had been worked out between the Minister for Justice and the representatives of the Garda Síochána.

Mr. Ryan

We looked for it.

Mr. Lenihan

At this stage I suggest we should not trivialise this matter.

Mr. McCartan

Is the Minister saying we have not been constructive?

Mr. Lenihan

I appreciate the co-operation of all Members of the House in this matter. We have reached a situation where a measure of agreement has been reached, where representatives of PDFORRA, other Army personnel representatives and so on now accept that a process of consultation is under way; it has already started. In regard to the holding of elections very constructive progress has been made. In accordance with my promise of last week, discussions with Mr. Tim Sexton, the principal officer in charge of the election procedures, have commenced in regard to the election, structures and matters relating to the election. We have now embarked on a process of consultation. Let us leave aside whatever disagreements we may have had until now. The fact is that consultations are now on stream. This House should be very careful in its whole approach to a matter that is now, thankfully, moving reasonably well. I want to thank everybody in this House in that respect. I thank the spokesmen on behalf of the three parties with whom I have had discussions, apart from the debates in the House, for adopting a constructive approach. In this respect I pay tribute to Deputies Nealon, McCartan and Ryan and in particular to my two colleagues, Deputies Hillery and Tom Kitt. As a result of their efforts and suggestions we now have a situation where the representatives of PDFORRA and other interested parties are now adopting a very constructive attitude towards this subject. Talks have commenced with the principal officer in the Department of the Environment in connection with the election procedures. The amendments proposed would frustrate the progression of the constructive discussion I envisage. What is being proposed is not sought by the representatives of PDFORRA or anybody——

Mr. McCartan

It is.

Mr. Lenihan

What the Deputy is talking about is not sought by them as long as they are involved in the consultations.

Mr. McCartan

Not so.

Mr. Lenihan

I am asking Deputy McCartan not to do any damage. I want to pay tribute to him for the constructive work he has done but let us not spoil it. It is a bonus to all of us in the Dáil that this matter is now proceeding step by step. Let us acknowledge that. This Dáil has a very real purpose in bringing in enabling legislation of this kind, that is where the primacy of the Dáil resides. Once the framework has been brought in, surely it is the wish of all of us that the detailed consultations, discussions and negotiations that will take place, and which will eventually be encompassed by regulations, should take place after the elections, which will be very soon. It is the input on the part of the elected representatives of the Defence Forces personnel that will be the all important aspect of the regulations. Why should we try to impose any solution on the Defence Forces personnel in regard to the representative structures? That is for them to establish. I am suggesting that this House can establish its primacy by bringing in the enabling legislation, by establishing the enabling legislation but also by making provision that the precise structures to be established under this legislation are such as will be reached in agreement with the personnel for the Defence Forces duly elected. That is what I want to achieve. Any attempt, such as envisaged in these three amendments, would frustrate that purpose. It immediately casts doubt on the regulations that will have been agreed upon by consultation with the Defence Forces representatives.

Mr. Ryan

If it is agreed there is no problem.

Mr. Lenihan

That is exactly my point. Then why does the Deputy need to have a debate here to interfere with the regulations? Is not the purpose of these amendments to have the draft regulations brought in here for full discussion and to be amended by us whereas what I want to achieve is that once the form of the regulations has been agreed on with the Defence Forces representatives, they then become the regulations? Of course, they can be annulled under section 7 leaving the ultimate power with the Oireachtas. Each of the three amendments suggests, that proposed regulations would be debated here in the House, regulations that would have been agreed upon with the representatives of the Defence Forces.

Mr. Ryan

There would be no discussions if everyone was happy.

Mr. Lenihan

Why put down these three amendments — I am trying to get this through to peoples' brains — when what is at issue are regulations which will have already been agreed to with the representatives of the Defences Forces?

Mr. McCartan

If we are allowed, we will answer the Minister.

Mr. Lenihan

We are talking about agreed regulations. What is the point in putting down these three amendments when they amount, in effect, to casting doubt, reflecting upon, wishing to have a debate upon, change, amend or reject regulations which have been agreed upon by the elected representatives of the Defence Forces? This is the context in which we are talking. I should like Deputy McCartan in particular who has an appreciation of what is in the Bill——

Mr. Ryan

I hope the Minister is not saying I do not have an appreciation of what is in the Bill.

Mr. Lenihan

Deputy McCartan has an appreciation of what is in the Bill — sometimes I am at a loss to understand why people cannot argue this point home — when he says that every matter of this kind should be looked at in the context of the particular time. I am not talking about a situation where there is conflict. That was last week's, or last month's business.

I am talking now in the context of where daily talks are taking place between the representatives of PDFORRA and Mr. Sexton on the arrangement of the election; we are reaching agreement in that area, there is absolute understanding. The mistrust which was there and which was played upon by some members of the Opposition parties has been removed to a large extent — I want to thank Deputy Hillery and Deputy Kitt in this respect — and the representatives of PDFORRA are in consultation and regular touch with us already. I am thankful to them for their trust in us and I am very grateful to them for the attitude they are adopting. I want to pay tribute in this House and in public to the people who are acting as spokesmen for the military personnel at present. They are making the arrangement for the elections in a most constructive manner and they understand and appreciate exactly what I am saying.

Let us adjust our minds not to what happened last week or a month ago but to the present reality which I hope will develop constructively during the weeks ahead. The regulations I will be laying before each House of the Oireachtas under section 7, amendments to which we are discussing at present, will be the regulations agreed upon by the representatives of the military personnel. It is their regulations I will be laying before each House of the Oireachtas. Each House of the Oireachtas will have the right under section 7, which is on all fours with a similar section in the Garda Síochána legislation, to annul such regulations and such an annulling resolution must be passed within 21 days. This wording in section 7, is almost the same as the wording used in the section in the Garda Síochána legislation. This type of wording is used in most forms of legislation and there is plenty of precedent for it in legislation down through the years.

The regulations under section 7 will not be my regulations; they will be the regulations of the Defence Forces representatives who will have agreed to them with me. As a final saver, the House can annul the regulations within 21 days if there is something really objectionable in them. That is the procedure which will be followed and I cannot see any logic in the objections to proceeding along those lines. For that reason, I must oppose the three amendments and ask the House to agree the section as it stands.

Mr. Nealon

I have made my arguments in favour of my amendment, as have Deputy McCartan and Deputy Ryan, and absolutely nothing the Minister for Defence has said changes my attitude in the slightest. As legislators we demand the right, which we should have, to debate these regulations because they are an integral part of what we are doing here.

I want to say in passing that I resent and was very surprised at the heckling manner of the Minister in warning the spokesperson for the Opposition to be careful. I would be amazed at the Minister taking this attitude during any stage of the debate but specially starting out——

Mr. Lenihan

I paid every tribute to the Deputy for his help. I could not have been any nicer.

Mr. Nealon

The Minister warned us in an intimidatory fashion. This is not a kindergarten school——

Mr. Lenihan

I was not being intimidatory. The Deputy is getting very thin skinned.

Mr. Nealon

I am simply reflecting my attitude to what the Minister said, which I think is the attitude of my colleagues as well.

Mr. Lenihan

I was not intimidating the Deputies.

Mr. Nealon

There is no use in trying to talk it down.

Mr. Lenihan

Do not be silly.

Mr. Nealon

The reason I got on my feet——

Mr. Lenihan

If the Deputy cannot stand the heat he should get out of the kitchen.

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us hear the Deputy in possession without interruption.

Mr. Nealon

——was to say that I agree entirely with Deputy Ryan. During the course of the Second Stage debate the Minister agreed with me that there would be no difficulty on the positive element instead of the negative element in section 7. That was repeated by three or four speakers from my party without the slightest contradiction by the Minister or the person representing him. Therefore, the Minister began this debate by reneging on a major promise made during the course of the Second Stage debate.

Mr. Lenihan

That is a lie.

Mr. Nealon

I was quite surprised that the Minister had not put down the appropriate amendment in this respect.

Mr. Lenihan

That is a lie.

Mr. Nealon

That is the situation as I know it and I am sure Deputy Ryan, Deputy McCartan and many of my colleagues heard it.

Mr. Lenihan

I am sure the Deputy does not like telling lies.

An Ceann Comhairle

The words "lie" or "lies" should not be used.

Mr. Lenihan

I said I am sure the Deputy does not like telling them.

An Ceann Comhairle

No Member of this House should attribute to another that he deliberately told a lie. I am sure the Minister would not wish to do that.

Mr. Lenihan

Of course.

Dr. Hillery

During the course of my Second Stage speech I appealed, not in any threatening way, for restraint in discussing this legislation because of the sensitivities involved and the obvious desire to encourage PDFORRA to come into the official machinery. As the Minister has pointed out, the context has changed for the better during the past week or so, consultations are under way in the official direction, goodwill is clearly growing, and we should facilitate progress in that direction on the basis of accord.

I want to echo what the Minister has said. The very essence of this Bill in practice will be consultation, consensus and agreement. The Minister is leading in his consensus approach and he is making every possible effort to show his goodwill. I can confirm that people genuinely believe he wants this legislation to work. The very essence of the Bill is that what is agreed will form the basis for progress. Therefore, the Army personnel must agree to what is proposed and have ownership of it. This must take place long before the regulations are put before the House. The best possible chance of the regulations working is to have the most detailed and honest discussions between the two sides and then agree the regulations. Then and only then will they appear before us as draft regulations.

In relation to the draft regulations — and the Garda machinery is relevant in this regard — what is proposed here is identical to section 13 of the Garda Síochána Act, 1937. Whatever about associations existing before that, as they did in the twenties, the reality is that the regulations as formulated under the Garda legislation would be identical to what is formulated here and they have stood the test of time. They have proved entirely satisfactory to the Garda. They have not, to my knowledge, sought change in the form of the regulations before the House. That arises precisely because the most exhaustive discussion takes place before the draft regulations are actually put together. The Minister has said again and again that every possible facility will be given by the Army personnel, the Minister and the official side to work out regulations which will actually work. In concluding on Second Stage he said that he does not intend to activate the Act, as it then will be, until such exhaustive discussion and agreement has actually been achieved. Frankly, I fail to see the grounds for concern on the part of Opposition speakers about this, given the practice in the case of the Garda, given the goodwill that is now growing and given the essence of consultation and agreement that will in any case precede the laying of the draft regulations before the House.

Mr. McCartan

I am glad to have the opportunity to answer some of the questions the Minister's contribution has raised. This whole process leads, for the first time, to the establishment of a representative association within the Defence Forces. It is not simply amending the terms of reference as was done in 1977 — I will come back to that in a moment for the benefit of Deputy Hillery — it is laying the ground for the establishment of representative associations within the Defence Forces. What this House is asking for is no more than what the Minister himself suggested should be done. Setting out the relevant article of the Constitution and referring to Aughey v Ireland and the views of the High Court the Minister said:

The need to regulate the right——

that is, the right to form associations

applies, I suggest, a fortiori in the case of the armed forces of the country and there can be no question of allowing unregulated development. This House has a particular responsibility in that connection since under the Constitution — Article 15.6.1 — the right to raise and maintain military or armed forces is vested exclusively in the Oireachtas.

Those words underline the importance of the unique role in regard to the institutions of the State that the Oireachtas plays with regard to the Defence Forces. The Minister went on to talk about control and regulation:

This controlled and regulated system of the exercise of command and authority is fundamental to the raising and maintenance of a defence force in a democratic State. We live in a Parliamentary democracy which implies that the armed forces are subject to civil control.

I cannot put it any better than that. We are talking about the establishment of institutions within the Defence Forces which will impact in some way upon the regulation and control of those forces for the future, and we are doing it for the first time. We are breaking new ground entirely. How then can there not be a role for this Parliament to play? The purpose of our amendments is to ensure that once the negotiations and discussions have taken place the important role of the Oireachtas in that whole process will be taken into account and we will have the right to impose our seal of approval on the regulations once they are finalised. That is the Minister's own argument and we borrow it here in our defence of these amendments.

We argue that the regulations should be brought before the House so that we can have the opportunity to debate them. The Minister's suggestion that any Member of the House can, within 21 days, have the opportunity to regulate something that is fundamentally wrong is irrelevant; there is no scope for Members to have any negative influence on the regulations because of the way in which Private Members' business is dealt with. On numerous occasions within the life of this Dáil, Deputies have asked the Government for time for such motions to be debated because Private Members' business could not be regulated to allow a group in. There just is not the scope for us to move in the way that the Minister would hope we could.

The point I made at length on Second Stage is that there is no trust on the part of the Defence Forces in what has been happening. In advancing these amendments I am unequivocally advancing the demands of all 8,000 members of PDFORRA, because I have had the opportunity to meet with them and discuss these matters at length. At our meeting in the Minister's office on 12 March last I put that proposition to the Minister as coming from them. I will say no more about it at the moment as I do not proposed to embarrass the Minister on the matter.

Mr. Lenihan

Do not embarrass yourself.

Mr. McCartan

I will go ahead if the Minister invites me.

Mr. Lenihan

The Deputy should be sensible.

Mr. McCartan

There is a principle here. The suggestion that we are not making the case of PDFORRA is not correct. The reason they have adopted the position they have is because there was no consultation or negotiation until the eleventh hour. As a Parliamentary legislator I would be derelict in my duties if I signed a blank cheque that enabled the Government to go away and later fill in the rest of that proposition. I insist upon the right to come back here after the Minister's job has been done to look at the end product and decide whether it meets the wishes of the soldiers and the responsibilities that we as legislators have vis-à-vis the armed forces. It is not, as the Minister has said, that we are showing a lack of confidence in the members of the Defence Forces. That is a ridiculous suggestion when the Defence Forces themselves are asking us to ensure that we have the right to come back and debate these regulations so that there is contol or at least a safeguard.

Mr. Lenihan

The Deputy is trying to stir it up.

Mr. McCartan

No, I am not. No one would be happier than I if this matter could go through without disagreement arising in this House or elsewhere as to the detail of the structures to be put in place. The reasons for the worry about the detail of the structures are contained in the document disseminated by the Chief of Staff entitled "Permanent Defence Forces Representative Groups". That was the clear thinking of the Government up to the past two weeks. It was circulated under the hand of the Chief of Staff but it was acknowledged by the Minister in his Second Stage speech and in the correspondence from his office as representing at that time the thinking of the Government for the purposes of discussion. This was as far as they had brought their ideas at that stage, without any consultation or discussion with the soldiers' representatives, even though since July 1989 they had written to the Minister on numerous occasions asking for his views and asking for a meeting. There is a certain element of uneasiness and uncertainty about where the negotiations will go from here. The Minister is a very adept man and a Government with all their resources is a powerful force to deal with.

On Second Stage, indications were given that the Minister was amenable to meeting us about the regulations. The record did not suggest that the Minister was absolutely with us but he told Deputy Nealon to put down an amendment and that he would have a look at it.

Mr. Lenihan

Thank you. That is honest.

Mr. McCartan

The record is there and I cannot make anything more of it than is stated in black and white. There was in that gesture an indication that the Minister would be receptive to amendments. That is why we rushed to put in our amendments. I made my first contribution in anticipation and I am very disappointed that we have not agreement on this vital element. I am glad that we took the issue as a first stage because it throws into relief the other debates we will have on this Bill. The Minister also suggested that in advancing this proposition we were pre-empting discussion and decision. There could not be anything further from the truth.

We would hope that this Bill would meet some of our desires and we wish the Minister well on his journey to meet representatives of the officers and other ranks. We would wish him to come back here with a package representing everything the soldiers want which the Minister can accommodate. Such a package would meet with the approval of this House and there would be no need for further debate. There should be no suggestion that reserving for ourselves at the end of the negotiating process an opportunity to review, comment on and amend if necessary the regulations means that we are being in any way pre-emptive or seeking to curtail the negotiating or decision-making process. That is not what we are about and I hope the Minister will not pursue that matter.

The Minister made the final point that this is similar to the Garda Síochána legislation as introduced. I have already dealt with this at length. There is no comparison between what was happening in 1977vis-à-vis the Garda Síochána and what is happening today. For Deputy Hillery's benefit, if not for the benefit of the Minister, the 1977 Bill was amending the basic conditions of the terms of reference and powers of the representative associations of the gardaí. It was doing by primary legislation what we are asking should be done for the Defence Forces at the end of the regulation stages. In 1977 the powers of the Garda representative associations were extended from the 1924 Act which dealt with simple matters affecting their welfare and efficiency. It was amended to provide in a wide ranging way for a different régime and new words were included. It dealt with the right of associations to have external contacts and involvement. It also dealth with ways in which the Minister would regulate. Under the 1924 Act the decision on associations and unions was the decision of the Minister finally, without appeal, but the 1977 Act provided that those decisions in the form of regulations would have to come before the House and would be subject to the negative annulment of the House before they could pass into law.

Dr. Hillery

My contribution referred only to the annulment by resolution. The Deputy is ascribing to me something I did not say.

Mr. McCartan

The 1977 Act went much further than the Deputy was leading this House to believe. A different matter was being debated in a different context. To draw a parallel is totally disingenous.

The contributions we are seeking to make are constructive, seeking to put right something which is considered not adequate and not in accord with the desires of those for whom we are seeking to legislate. I cut short my contribution on Second Stage because I believed Deputy Nealon had laid the ground for some constructive compromise. I hope the Minister, having listened in more detail, will agree to reflect on this matter and come back to us on Report Stage. We cannot go on endlessly about this matter in view of the time constraints. Having put it as fully as I can with the help of other Deputies, I would urge the Minister to reflect on this matter and not to precipitate a division at this stage. The Minister should undertake to do this before Report Stage on Thursday in the context of the historic steps being taken. He should allow this House the opportunity at the conclusion of the entire process to reflect on and to debate again what he proposes to put in place.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am calling Deputy Tom Kitt. I would remind the House that we are on Committee Stage. Deputy McCartan has said that we cannot go on endlessly, having regard to time constraints, but there would be other considerations. Standing Orders do not permit what might be regarded as an aborted Second Stage debate on Committee Stage. I would ask Deputies to confine themselves to section 7 and the proposed amendments. Let us have less repetition and less history.

Mr. T. Kitt

I have detected a degree of consensus being reached here, which I welcome. It is important to repeat that Deputies opposite should absorb what the Minister has said, which is very significant. This is an enabling Bill and I do not want to see the matter complicated any further by suggestions that the regulations should come back to the House. Much activity is going on outside the House, initiated by the Minister. Careful consultation is taking place.

Deputy Ryan referred to Mr. Sexton and the discussions with Deputy Hillery and me. The whole process is an open door, step-by-step, consultative approach and the discussions are going on at present with Mr. Sexton to work out an agreed electoral procedure for their members, including structures under which the members will be elected. That is step one. The doors are open and they are being facilitated. People are talking. The atmosphere is changing.

Another step we are talking about in relation to this amendment is very much in line with the whole process of democratic consultation where the elected representatives of the Defence Forces will talk to the Minister and his officials. It is a separate issue but it is progressing towards what I envisage as very successful legislation. The Bill itself will not be put in place until there is agreement. I have been asked for a brief contribution. I ask the Deputies to get into their heads what the Minister is about.

Deputy McCartan pointed to the right in relation to the Defence Forces that is vested in this Oireachtas. He is correct, but surely the procedures that have been initiated by the Minister ensure full consultation on regulations. Let us get the best set of regulations in place, bring them back, as Deputy McCartan said, to the Dáil and then we can deal with them.

Deputy McCartan referred to new ground. He talked about a very historic stage in the history of the Defence Forces. He is right. It is new ground but so many positive things are happening that the whole atmosphere has changed. I, too, would like to pay tribute to the representatives of PDFORRA for the manner in which they have accepted the sense of co-operation. It is all about trust and the Minister has initiated this process of trust. I ask Deputies in the Opposition to fall in line — if I might use that analogy — with the spirit of trust that has been initiated by the Minister. We are about something very important. Nobody is being cautioned but let people understand what is being attempted. It is all about democratic consultation. Let us proceed on that basis.

Mr. Roche

Like any cute lawyer, Deputy McCartan with a weak case seems to conjure up difficulties and smokescreens. I listened very carefully to the language he used and at the outset he used very informative language. I wrote it down. He said: "What we are speaking about is our right to impose our views". There is no doubt that we are in discussion as to the constitutional role of the Houses of the Oireachtas but our right to impose our views lies very hard beside the whole concept of consultation, conciliation and bringing people round. We are not here about our right to ultimately impose our views. I think one or two of the Deputies here listening to Deputy McCartan were a little shaken by those words too.

I have often wondered throughout this debate whether obduracy, innocent failure to comprehend or a wish to do mischief lay at the bottom of some of the contributions. Let us have a look at precisely what the impact of the amendments would be. The precise impact and effect of the amendments would be to provide that regulations should not be made until after they are approved by the Houses of the Oireachtas. What is proposed here creates more inflexibility than any of the spokespersons here want to create. As Deputy McCartan characterises it, it would result in an imposition on the 8,000 members of the Defence Forces. That is precisely what we do not wish to do. We do not want to create more difficulties in reaching agreement on this matter. It is worth reflecting on yet again and repeating what we are about here. This is enabling legislation. It will ultimately lead to regulations, but those regulations will come here, as the Minister has said, after there has been agreement with a representative of the Army personnel.

We are discussing here a group of amendments that will impose flexibility on that system, that will put a continued doubt there. We have had smokescreens and doubts conjured up here, but the Minister has made it clear that the regulations will first be discussed with the elected representatives of the Army personnel. I cannot see Deputy Ryan or Deputy Nealon objecting to that. I wonder a little at the wording used by Deputy McCartan. Perhaps it was imprudent. Perhaps I am being unfair to him, but those were the first words of the sentence I picked up.

Common sense should surely prevail in this. The Oireachtas does not want to pre-empt the input the Defence Force personnel in the drafting of the legislation. Surely that is not our purpose. Surely that is not what Fine Gael, the Labour Party or any other party in this House want to do. The 8,000 people within the Defence Forces will elect their representatives. They will have a say in the regulations. When all are agreed the regulations will come before this House. That is the scenario the Minister is spelling out. Surely that is entirely reasonable. The Houses of the Oireachtas have, as the Houses of the Oireachtas must always have, a right at the end of the day to review those regulations if there is something in them which is untoward, and I do not reckon that any political spokesperson would say they are a spokesperson for the Army personnel. Members of all parties will then be able to reflect their political views on that. The appropriate people to represent the Army personnel's views in these matters are not politicians in this House. They are the elected representatives of the Army personnel.

It strikes me that the case the Minister has outlined is entirely reasonable, one that should commend itself to any reasonable person. I do not see the point of introducing inflexibility which would be the effect of these amendments. A great deal has been achieved. There are now the beginnings of goodwill and understanding. For goodness sake let us not throw up smokescreens which cloud that understanding and goodwill. I cannot believe for a second that the Labour Party wish to pre-empt the rights of the Army personnel's elected representatives to have an initial and major input into these regulations. They are the appropriate people to discuss these regulations, and that is the appropriate forum at which it should be discussed. It should not be politicised, as it will be if we go the route the amendments propose. I do not think the amendments have anything to commend them.

Mr. Ryan

I resent very much the fact that Deputy Roche seems to read into our amendment something that is not included in it. At all stages we are talking about consultation which we want to facilitate between the Army personnel, the Minister and senior officials in the Army. That is what we are seeking and have been seeking for the last four months. This afternoon Deputy Kitt comes along and says there is a changed environment. Of course there is and we are delighted that it is so, but we have been trying to move in this direction on this side of the House for the last three months and the Government have not listened to us. They come in at the eleventh hour and acknowledge that what we stated consistently is what is required, an acknowledgment that 8,000 people out there had joined an organisation and were seeking recognition and involvement. PDFORRA said very clearly that there should be consultations if they were not happy with the way things were going.

Mr. T. Kitt

We were all positive about that.

Mr. Ryan

We are all talking about agreements but what if there is not agreement? This is the first time there has been real involvement by personnel in discussions which will affect their livelihood. What if there is no agreement?

Mr. Lenihan

That is negative thinking.

Mr. Ryan

Is the Minister saying that conciliation and arbitration will be involved if there is not agreement? It is very easy to say that but the elected representatives will not have the same power as the establishment in that regard. What is wrong with accepting some of the amendments to the Bill?

I wish to refer to the regulations because they were the framework for discussion on Second Stage. The Minister had a conciliatory approach to the points made by all sides of the House. In his contribution on Second Stage Deputy McCartan said that the document and the covering letter from the Minister's office seemed to outline the Government's proposals for the establishment of a representative structure. He said that he was happy they were a basis for discussion once they had a clear understanding that they could come back to the House to debate the proposals after consultations with the representatives of the soldiers in due course. The Minister said that he would take that point on board.

Deputy Nealon and I also referred to this matter on Second Stage because we wanted to be able to put it before the House. Notwithstanding what the Minister said on 13 March, he is now saying that there is no necessity for these amendments. However, we feel we should be able to come back to the House and it is a safety valve which should be incorporated in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will reconsider some of these points with a view to implementing them on Report Stage.

Mr. McCartan

When I sat down I discovered the passage to which Deputy Ryan referred. When I made the point that we should have the right of consultation in the House the Minister is clearly on the record as saying that he took the point. The Minister and the Deputies behind him seem to be proceeding on the basis that there is general agreement between the Minister and the soldiers' representatives and that our job is done.

As I understand it, the conclusion of the meeting with Deputies Kitt and Hillery referred to by the Minister was exactly the same conclusion which had been arrived at two weeks earlier when I met PDFORRA and I conveyed those conclusions to the Minister on 12 March. There was agreement to negotiate, consult, discuss and arrive at a formula. That is all we have agreed to so far, we have not agreed on the structures themselves, how many representative bodies there will be, how they will be organised and funded, how they will exist vis-à-vis the chain of command and everything else that affects us. There is a huge amount of matter and detail to be decided upon and there is strong evidence to suggest that there are very wide differences between what the other ranks want——

Mr. Lenihan

This is why we are having this debate first, and I am sorry now that I agreed to it.

Mr. McCartan

I do not want to get into detailed debate but we must be clear that we have a long way to go before we can eventually arrive at agreement. For that reason this House must and should reserve to itself the right and opportunity to review what will be long and difficult negotiations. That must be said in case anyone might believe that the Minister will hand over for the asking to the soldiers and their representatives what they are looking for, which I do not believe is the case.

Mr. Lenihan

We are making a very constructive effort in this regard. I am delighted to report that over the last seven days there has been great appreciation of these efforts by members of the Defence Forces and, since the meeting between the two Deputies behind me with the representatives of the association one week ago, the atmosphere has improved dramatically.

They are now taking at face value all the matters to which I referred on Second Stage regarding the basis of the mandate and the objectives of the Defence Forces associations, including their own will as to how they should be structured and whether there should be one association for other ranks and NCOs and another for officers. Matters in regard to their financing, a mandate to talk to the media, the whole range of welfare services in which they are interested and the provision of conciliation and arbitration must be agreed on. These matters form the main part of a number of amendments which have been tabled and which should have been taken before these amendments. I agreed to take these amendments first in order to be constructive but now the Deputy is trying to put the House into reverse in this matter. Please — this is not intimidation — have respect for the members of the Defence Forces. They are now in a constructive mood and I know that. We and they are practically in 100 per cent agreement on what will be incorporated in the regulations, so please do not make mischief.

It is quite clear from what I have said in reply to and in introducing Second Stage that broadly speaking, I am going the whole way in regard to what they want but the detail has to be worked out with them and they must be seen to be the people who will decide the detail with us. We have given them a guarantee that they will be fully consulted in every area.

I am quite confident at this stage that agreement will be reached and that agreement on detail as well as on principle will be incorporated in the regulations. That is the way it will be and I will be here for the next two months to make sure of that. I am giving that assurance to the House. Let us not frustrate that legitimate constructive process.

Deputy Nealon in particular, and other Deputies seek to incorporate into a series of amendments precisely what will be in the regulations. My approach is that I will agree with the spirit of the amendments but they will be incorporated in regulations after discussions with the representatives of the Defence Forces. It would possibly be more logical to proceed in that way. We will then see the futility of having these amendments inserted in view of that approach.

I intend to say very little else in the debate because my position is clear. I must oppose these three amendments for the reason I have mentioned. As regards a number of the other amendments — we will go into detail on them later — I will be agreeing in principle with the spirit of them and they will be incorporated in the regulations after discussions with the representatives of the Defence Forces.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It seems that everything worth while has been said in respect of this matter. We should proceed with business.

Mr. Ryan

Everything that has been stated by the Minister — and I agree with everything he says — is incorporated in amendment No. 34 and I do not see why he cannot take it on board.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 65; Níl, 69.

Tá

• Ahearn, Therese.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Barry, Peter.
• Bell, Michael.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
• Currie, Austin.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Deasy, Austin.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Dukes, Alan.
• Durkan, Bernard.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Finucane, Michael.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Foxe, Tom.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• Lee, Pat.
• McCartan, Pat.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Carey, Donal.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
• Cotter, Bill.
• Creed, Michael.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Nealon, Ted.
• Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Owen, Nora.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Reynolds, Gerry.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Spring, Dick.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Yates, Ivan.

Níl

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Andrews, David.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Cullimore, Séamus.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Harney, Mary.
• Haughey, Charles J.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kelly, Laurence.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lyons, Denis.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McDaid, Jim.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Morley, P. J.
• Nolan, M. J.
• Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Toole, Martin Joe.
• Power, Seán.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Roche, Dick.
• Smith, Michael.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Wilson, John P.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and McCormack; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and P. Clohessy.

Amendment declared lost.

An Ceann Comhairle

As amendment No. 32 has been lost, amendment No. 33 automatically falls.

Mr. McCartan

Would I be entitled to withdraw amendment No. 33 for another day? The question has been put on amendment No. 32 and it is my proposal, if in order, to withdraw amendment No. 33.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is in order. If that is the Deputy's feeling, I shall act accordingly, but it does fall in any event.

Mr. McCartan

Rather than the Chair ruling that it falls, I seek to withdraw it at this stage.

Amendment No. 33 not moved.

Sitting suspended at 6.40 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.