Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 May 1990

Vol. 398 No. 8

Private Members' Business. - Criminal Justice Bill, 1990: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I wish to share my time with Deputy Kenny.

Let me take up the last point and say if there is some ingenuity on the Government's side that they can overrule a decision made a few days ago in the Seanad, Deputy Roche's arguments are blown sky high at this stage. There are plenty of brains on the Government side. They managed to do that in the Seanad——

Matters appertaining to the Seanad may not be discussed here.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Let me reply to the last two speakers here. Deputy Roche outlined all the difficulties about doing anything in relation to this problem. I had better say nothing about the last decision in case I say a bad word that I am not permitted to use here. What in the name of goodness is wrong with all our draftsmen and all our able Ministers if they cannot deal with these problems?

The Deputy said some of these provisions were not suitable for amendment. I do not know what cannot be suitable for amendment in any Bill if something is wrong. He said this is not a perfectly drafted Bill. Since I came into this House I have discovered that nothing is right unless it comes from the Government side. All the legal experts we have for drafting legislation are perfect, then we have court cases which reveal something is unconstitutional. It has been drafted very carefully by the experts, and still it was wrong. We must overcome the idea that anything drafted by a Member of the Opposition cannot be right. It can. We should stop fooling ourselves about the so-called experts who are always advising the Government and who very often get it wrong.

We got a treatise on English law. I have brought the Bill into the Chamber to see if I was in on the wrong Bill. The main provision in this Bill is that if it appears to the Director of Public Prosecutions that the sentencing of a person in a proceeding in the court has been unduly lenient or that the presiding judge erred in law as to his powers of sentencing, he may, with the leave of the Appeal Court, refer the case for it to review the sentencing of that person, and on such a reference the Appeal Court may quash the sentence, and so on. All this Bill is concerned with is the fact that sometimes sentences appear to be extremely lenient. We are not discussing whether English law is perfect; we have motes in our own eyes. Even on the last issue — whether it should be the Director of Public Prosecutions or anybody else — surely with a bit of discussion the Government can easily sort it out or bring in an amendment. If it does not suit the Director of Public Prosecutions, then surely the Attorney General or somebody else can be brought in. This can be amended. I am sure Saint Augustine would turn in his grave — he is supposed to have said, "Make me pure but not just yet". Everybody seemed to be in favour of this Bill, but somebody will soon have to go for purity and accept that talking piously and sanctimoniously about accepting this is not enough.

I thought Deputy Garland belonged to the Green Party, but I think he belongs to a Utopian party at the moment. Turning the other cheek is fine, but we were dealing with crimes that were sent to the Central Criminal Court, the Special Criminal Court and the Circuit Criminal Court. We were dealing with very serious crimes, not petty theft or some such thing. We are talking about criminals who inflict serious injury on their fellow Christians. While the Christian concept is the ideal, if one can follow it, there is a need for a deterrent. Only last night I heard a story of a young couple whose house was broken into and the raider stripped the husband and cut him with a knife as one would cut a sausage. We have reached the stage where we must decide that offenders should pay for their crimes or the country will close down. There are parts of this city that are getting quite rough.

There was mention of Mountjoy and other institutions and while I accept that prisoners should, metaphorically speaking, get a fair crack of the whip, ordinary citizens should be given some consideration. I have heard many views on some of the sentences handed down by our courts. We should be careful to state that not all sentences handed down are wrong, particularly if we base our judgment on a newspaper story or on a report on the radio or television that the sentence was wrong. In general our people accept the rulings of our courts but we will always come across cases where the sentences appear to be glaringly wrong.

I do not see anything wrong with having a system under which the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney General can be asked to review sentences. At estimates meetings of county councils we always express the hope that the fire brigade will not be called into service but we must provide money for that service, the brigade must be on stand-by in case there is a fire. The provisions in the Bill before us may not be used in one year, they may be used on five occasions in another year and not at all in the next three years. They will not interfere with the rights of people but should be available if there is a glaring injustice in a sentence.

I cannot understand why the Government will not accept the Bill. I do not intend to give details of cases where people were sentenced, or not sentenced, for specific crimes. I could give two extreme examples from my county, one involving the death of a person and the other relating to a small theft. The sentences handed down did not relate to the crimes. There should have been provision to review those sentences. We are dealing with serious crimes of violence and we should not allow the impression to go abroad that offenders will not be punished or will get a suspended sentence. We cannot close our eyes to the crime of rape and there must be a definite deterrent. It appears to me that once more the Government are passing the buck. The House is being given an opportunity to be relevant but it appears that we will be asked to await the report of the Law Reform Commission on this issue. The recommendation from that body will take as long as the reform on local government and when it arrives there will be obstacles put in its way.

Mention has been made of the difficulty of getting free legal aid. That is not something that will cause any upset to the Bill. I accept that many problems have arisen in regard to free legal aid but they will have to be tackled on their own. Many of the arguments put forward against the Bill could be advanced in any debate on the importance of free legal aid or how we should adopt a Christian attitude to criminals. Those arguments mean very little if we do not give power to those who are asked to deal with crime. The Minister should accept the principle of the Bill, amend it if necessary, and ensure that those who have been treated leniently by the courts for serious offences are dealt with by another court.

I should like to commend Deputy O'Keeffe on the effort he has put into preparing the Bill which calls into question the sense of fair play and justice that people have when they read about and are involved in cases like those referred to in the debate in the last two weeks. The Bill calls into question the ability and motivation of the Department, and the Minister, to effect laws that are just, and seen to be so, and allow for the continued independence of our courts. Members have referred to serious cases that gave rise to public disquiet and, obviously, they came to light at irregular intervals in recent years. However, it is fair to say that the public comment on many of those cases gave rise to a sense of fear in the parts of the country where the incidents occurred and criticism of the political system and the courts followed.

I agree with Deputy O'Keeffe, and the Minister, that the independence of our courts is fundamental to our system of justice if it is to be seen to operate fairly. While we have often criticised the British system of justice at least they have an appeals system, as we learned in the case of the Guildford Four. Such an appeal system is not available here.

In the course of his speech the Minister accepted that there is a problem. I am not sure that the justice we are seeking, and the improvement in the courts and the judicial system we want will be best served by hiving off this problem to the Law Reform Commission who have more than enough on their plate. It has been said that they will give this issue a measure of priority but I view such a move as putting the matter on the long finger. If cases arise in the future they will cast reflections on our judicial system and the efficiency of the legislative process.

The cause of justice would be better served if we had a system under which an appeal could be made by the Director of Public Prosecutions to a higher court. It should by the duty of such a court to determine the adequacy or otherwise of the sentences imposed. It should be the duty of the judges of that court to protect their independence and not permit an infringement upon their independence by Members of the Oireachtas.

In the course of his contribution on 8 May the Minister told us that there was no similar statutory provision here for discussion of disparities in sentences among High Court judges but there is nothing to prevent them having regular meetings about the matter. The Minister is giving them the option of having occasional meetings and it is possible that they do hold them. It might be better, from a legislative point of view, if that facility were available and that a system of reasonably regular meetings took place between the judges of that court so that disparities in sentencing could be brought to light, discussed and determined to ensure an equality of justice by each individual judge, depending, of course, on the circumstances laid before him.

As many speakers on all sides of the House said, some of these outrageous cases which have caused fear among the public and excited a great deal of comment should be addressed. If the Minister recognises that there is a problem then obviously it should be dealt with. Deputy O'Keeffe does not pretend to understand all the complexities and difficulties involved in this area. Although he is familiar with the legal world, he is broadminded enough to have stated publicly that he is more than willing to allow amendments on Committee Stage to be tabled by the Government and the Minister which would deal with any problems. Without consulting the Law Reform Commission I am sure there is a sufficient range of experience, knowledge of the law and its complexities within the Department of Justice and their contacts to enable amendments to be drafted to the Bill which would allow for a system of appeal to be determined by the Director of Public Prosecutions and enshrined in law by the Houses of the Oireachtas.

If we accept that there should be a system of appeal it is like saying that the Minister for Tourism would eventually allow charter flights to land at the various regional airports. The principle is acceptable; the question is the timing. It is necessary to have clarification as to whether the principle of a system of appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions to another court is acceptable to the Government and to the Minister. If it is, there is a method of dealing with it without referring it to the Law Reform Commission which, although they might give it priority, would still take considerable time to come up with a report and a series of recommendations.

If the Bill is faulty, Deputy O'Keeffe has already said that he is willing to accept amendments by the Government on Committee Stage which would enable the House to introduce legislation giving effect to the acceptance of the principle of the right of an applicant, through the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, to appeal a sentence. If the principle is acceptable there should be a right of appeal and the House, as an effective and efficient body, can deal with the problems that might arise instead of referring them to the Law Reform Commission. The Bill could be drafted and enshrined in law if there was co-operation on all sides of the House. I again commend Deputy O'Keffee for his work in relation to the Bill. I also wish to thank the Minister for his constructive speech. He knows that there are problems in this area and if there is an acceptance of the principles of the Bill any problem in regard to its drafting could be dealt with on Committee Stage.

I am glad to have been given the opportunity to say a few words on this Bill. I commend Deputy O'Keeffe for introducing it and I should also like to thank the Minister for explaining the complex position regarding this matter.

At times, over a long number of years, ordinary people have been confused by the leniency of some sentences, but there are many reasons behind decisions which are not apparent to the general public and sometimes, when they hear the details, they understand the reason for lenient or stringent sentences. No doubt at times judges make wrong decisions, which is understandable, as they are human. I wonder if it is right to make a general rule in regard to correcting mistakes because the end result might be much worse than the original position. Maybe the intention is good but we all know that the legal profession are adept at finding loopholes in the law. Therefore, if this Bill became law, lawyers would devote their time to finding loopholes in it, which was not envisaged by Deputy O'Keeffe.

As a layman in this field I am not an fait with the details of the legal system but I understand that it is a very complex area. It is important that issues like the constitutional standing of the Bill should be gone into in great detail. I understand that if the Bill is passed the Director of Public Prosecutions could be the judge in causa sua. Would this be constitutional? Certain cases of minor indictable offences are heard in the District Court and if, subsequently, the person appealed to the Circuit Court which either changed or upheld the decision of the District Court then the Director of Public Prosecutions could appeal. It would mean not just a case of double, but triple, jeopardy. These are areas which the legal profession will examine in great detail and they are matters which this Bill has not addressed. Before the Bill can be accepted these matters should be examined and the best body to do that, to make judgments and to give advice are the Law Reform Commission.

Another area in which the provisions of this Bill would cause difficulty would be that of free trial because, once there has been a trial, inevitably there will be the attendant publicity and, in the event of an appeal, additional publicity. Then there will be the Director of Public Prosecutions contending that there can be another appeal. One must pose the question: how could a defendant get a fair trial on a second or third occasion with all the intervening publicity in the media when people would have made up their minds whether he or she was guilty? Therefore, that does present a problem.

Since there are inconsistent, lenient sentences being meted out the Law Reform Commission should be requested to make a submission to the Government having examined all the complex issues raised not addressed by the provisions of this Bill.

I rise to support the Bill and compliment Deputy Jim O'Keeffe on its introduction. Its basic principle seeks to give the Director of Public Prosecutions power to refer certain cases to the Court of Criminal Appeal. All Members will be aware of the inconsistency in sentencing that has taken place in recent years in cases heard in their constituencies. The provisions of this Bill merely seek to allow another look at such cases in the event of people feeling they have been hard done by in regard to the leniency, harshness or otherwise of the sentence.

Deputy Michael Ahern made the point that judges are human and make mistakes. That being the case it renders the implementation of the provisions of this Bill even more important — in that we seek to have a Court of Criminal Appeal so that cases of a criminal nature can be re-examined there. Deputy Ahern referred to the fact that there are loopholes in legislation which solicitors and the legal profession seek to exploit. As legislators it is our job to ensure there are no loopholes in legislation and, where there may be any, to have them closed off.

What Deputy Jim O'Keeffe is seeking to do is eliminate inconsistencies and loopholes which have given rise to public outcry in recent years, particularly in regard to inconsistency of sentencing in some of our courts. In my area of Carlow/Kilkenny I am reminded of a Kilkenny soldier who was involved in the raping of a girl and who received a suspended sentence. There was a huge public outcry over the lenient way in which that appalling criminal case was treated. I have first-hand knowledge of cases in my area, as no doubt will all other Members of this House. The inconsistency of such sentencing is difficult for lay people to understand — such as how a certain offence may be treated more leniently than others. The House will be aware of the controversy surrounding the Fairview murder case. These are just examples of cases in which the Minister would be given an opportunity of taking a fresh look at the position obtaining in relation to criminal law. The provisions of this Bill afford an opportunity to an independent law officer of the State to refer a case to the Court of Criminal Appeal for re-examination.

If the Minister has any difficulty accepting the Bill in its entirety I might remind him that, on Committee Stage, he would be able to introduce amendments if such proved to be necessary when I know this side of the House would be more than happy to facilitate such amendments.

I should like to thank the many Deputies who contributed to this debate. It appears that all sides of the House agree that there is a problem and that something should be done to deal with it.

I very much appreciate the compliments from all sides of the House on the initiative I took in proposing this Bill on behalf of Fine Gael. While I very much appreciate those compliments I would be even more appreciative if there were now all-party agreement to the principle I propose. Very simply, what do I propose? I am saying that there is a compelling case for giving the State the power to seek a review of a sentence where it appears to the Director of Public Prosecutions that the sentence of a person in a proceeding in a criminal court has been unduly lenient. It is very clear that such a procedure is a feature of the criminal justice system in other countries. Of course, that is not to say we should automatically import it, but at least it is a precedent as to how the criminal justice system has been advanced and progressed in other countries. These are precedents we should not ignore.

I believe there is very strong public support for the Bill I propose. I had evidence of that in a survey conducted in the Clontarf (Dublin) Garda district area where this very question was put to the people involved in the survey, and the response was that 92 per cent of those surveyed were in favour of this change.

The principle of what I am proposing is quite simple and straightforward. Under this Bill I am proposing to give to the Director of Public Prosecutions — in any criminal case which has been dealt with by the higher courts — power to seek review of sentence. I emphasise that I am talking about the Circuit Criminal Court where the main indictable crimes are dealt with. I am talking about the Central Criminal Court where there are very few serious crimes reserved to be tried there, such as murder, treason, genocide and, of course, the Special Criminal Court. I am not talking about the District Court where crimes of summary jurisdiction are dealt with. Furthermore, I am not talking about giving the Director of Public Prosecutions power to decide on the sentence. I am merely suggesting that we empower the State law officer to bring the matter before the Court of Criminal Appeal. This would be a review court consisting of three judges drawn from the Supreme Court and High Court. It would be a matter for that court then to decide whether, in the circumstances, the sentence was proper, whether it should be quashed and replaced by a sentence more appropriate to the circumstances of the case.

I have included the necessary precautions by providing that no judge can sit in the Court of Criminal Appeal who had been involved in the earlier proceedings. I have also dealt with the powers of the Supreme Court from the point of view of dealing with any point of law of public importance.

What are the main objections that have been advanced to this Bill? One of the points raised by the Minister is that there was a similar procedure introduced in the United Kingdom in 1988 and that we should not automatically transplant any such procedure here. I accept that; of course we should not automatically transplant any such procedure introduced in the United Kingdom. But, at the same time, surely we have a precedent there which deserves to be examined? My understanding is that, since the introduction of that precedent in the United Kingdom, it has worked well. Furthermore, my understanding is that there have been quite a number of cases — obviously there is a much larger population there — which have been reviewed, in some cases in the United Kingdom and indeed in Northern Ireland, when sentences have been increased.

Our common law system is similar to the one operated in the United Kingdom. What I am saying is that while we should not automatically transplant anything introduced in the United Kingdom into our system we can learn from their experience and should examine their precedents and the way the system operates there. I believe that their system operates well and we should not allow any feelings we may have about the British system of justice to stop us taking on board that system.

The second question the Minister raised by way of objection was that of double jeopardy. This is a phony argument. Again, I have to say that it does not cause any problem in the United Kingdom where there is a similar type of legal system. The principle of double jeopardy does not arise following the conviction of a criminal. I accept entirely that it is a basic principle of common law that someone who has been tried and acquitted of committing an offence cannot be charged again on the same count. It is a spurious argument to raise the question of double jeopardy given that we are talking here about people who have been convicted and sentences imposed. With respect to the Minister the question of double jeopardy is a red herring.

The Minister then went on to refer to the concept of double punishment. I am not talking about double punishment but rather about a single punishment that fits the crime, which may be greater than the original sentence imposed which may have been as my colleague, Deputy Hogan, stated a few moments ago a suspended sentence for the rape of an 11 year old child. I am talking about the imposition of a single sentence and not double punishment. Again, with respect to the Minister his argument is another spurious one.

The Minister also made reference to the independence of the Judiciary and said that the constitutional position could be called into question in some way. The position is that sentences are appealed by convicted criminals every day of the week without the independence of the Judiciary being called into question. Therefore, how could it be called into question if the Director of Public Prosecutions decides to seek a review in the Court of Criminal Appeal? Again, this is another spurious argument.

The Minister referred to the need for consistency and uniformity in sentencing. I agree with him. I want to see far more consistency and uniformity and I suggest that this Bill will be of help in achieving this. I also accept that on its own it will not as I am strongly of the view that regular conferences of the judges of the different courts should be held at which sentencing policy would be reviewed and sentencing guidelines laid down. In this way, aided by the appeal system I am proposing, we will achieve consistency and uniformity.

The ridiculous question of travelling expenses for judges arose. A High Court judge told me that this aspect is an obstacle and a bar to the holding of such conferences of judges. The Minister should remove this obstacle straightaway.

The Minister also referred to the question of public comment. Again, I suggest that this is not a real problem. It may be a problem if we are talking about a case going before a jury but surely we have enough confidence in our judges to accept that they are not going to be affected by media comment. We would not do justice to judges if we were to suggest otherwise.

The Minister then raised the question of whether the Director of Public Prosecutions should be involved in the matter of seeking reviews. This is a fair question. In the United Kingdom the Attorney General is involved in seeking a review. I am open to argument on this but I think the Attorney General should be involved in cases here. I took into account the fact that the Attorney General has a quasi-political role and that in the United Kingdom the Attorney General is a law officer to the parliament whereas in this country he is a law officer to the Government. If it is the view of this House that it should be the Attorney General and not the Director of Public Prosecutions who should be involved, fair enough, that is not an obstacle for me. Similarly, the point made by the Minister on the question of a time limit was a very good one. I accept entirely that there should be a time limit within which the law officer would have to make the decision as to whether he should seek a review. This matter can be covered under the rules of court or, if thought necessary by this House, by way of an amendment to the Bill. There would be no problem about doing this on Committee Stage. It is an excellent point but one that is very easily resolved.

The question of legal aid was also raised by the Minister but, again, this is capable of resolution and does not touch the central principle we are discussing. In relation to the question of a District Court appeal to the Circuit Court, I have made it quite clear that we are talking about serious crime. This point can be dealt with on Committee Stage and the Minister is well aware that it is not my view that we provide that such cases should be capable of review within the terms of this Bill.

The Minister's main defence in not agreeing to give this Bill a Second Reading is that he wants to get the views of the Law Reform Commission. This question has been before the Law Reform Commission for four years who are an excellent body but who are inundated with work on both the criminal and civil side. They cannot cope with their work load and for this reason I have consistently proposed that a separate criminal law reform commission be established, as if we fail to do so we will never update or codify our law. It is not a defence to say that this matter should be dealt with by the Law Reform Commission as they have had this question before them for four years without touching it. It is also relevant to note that when the Law Reform Commission do produce a report in many instances it is left to gather dust and in others, as happened in the case of that notorious Larceny Bill, memories of which will stay with the Minister for some time——

It went through the Seanad without a vote. All the amendments were withdrawn.

I understand the Minister was successful in getting the Fianna Fáil Senators into the Seanad today. I often wonder how they spend so much time in trying to get elected but at least they turned up today and I congratulate the Minister for ensuring that they did.

Maybe we have enough to do to concentrate on our own House.

In relation to the Larceny Bill, let me say that the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission were largely ignored. Very simply the Bill provides for the review of sentences which are considered too lenient. I seek support from the House on the central principle. The review will be carried out by the Court of Criminal Appeal at the request of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney General, if the House so decides. The Minister for Justice, Deputy Burke, has accepted that occasionally mistakes are made and that sentences are imposed which do not fit the crime, yet he has indicated that he intends opposing the Bill on the basis that legislation should only follow a detailed and expert examination. He is either unaware or has chosen to ignore the fact that such a detailed and expert examination has been carried out. The Committee on Court Practice and Procedure is chaired by a Supreme Court judge, Niall McCarthy, and comprises of judges of the High Court, the President of the Circuit Court, the President of the District Court together with representatives of both branches of the legal profession and other experts. It is my information that this high powered committee recently completed an examination of this issue and that their recommendations fully support the central principle of the Bill that sentences should be capable of review.

Unless the Minister is committed to a do-nothing policy he should agree to give the Bill a Second Reading. If he does so I give a commitment to allow reasonable time for the tabling of Committee Stage amendments and, in addition, to give the fullest consideration to any such amendments. On the basis of the examination and report of the Committee on Court Practices and Procedures, the Minister's defence is exploded. There is no reason whatever that this Bill should not be passed on Second Stage and the various points which have been legitimately raised can be debated and decided upon on Committee Stage.

I note that a contribution was made by the spokesperson for the Progressive Democrats.

It is appallingly drafted. The Deputy knows that.

The spokesperson for the Progressive Democrats indicated that she was in favour of the principle — I am talking about a principle on Second Stage. I would have to say to the spokesperson for the Progressive Democrats who presented the argument very well, that in some ways that little party reminds me of St. Augustine who prayed that the Lord would make him virtuous, but not just yet. The chance for the Progressive Democrats is now. If they agree with the concept then they will support the Second Stage. If they do not support the Second Stage then they simply do not agree with the principle.

In conclusion I am asking all parties to support the principle of this Bill and we can then have a reasoned debate on Committee Stage.

Question put.
The Committee Divided: Tá, 50; Níl, 71.

  • Ahearn, Therese.
  • Belton, Louis J.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connor, John.
  • Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
  • Cotter, Bill.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Doyle, Joe.
  • Durkan, Bernard.
  • Farrelly, John V.
  • Fennell, Nuala.
  • Finucane, Michael.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Foxe, Tom.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Gregory, Tony.
  • Harte, Paddy.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • McCartan, Pat.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • Mac Giolla, Tomás.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • (Limerick East).
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reynolds, Gerry.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheehan, Patrick J.
  • Sherlock, Joe.
  • 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.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • 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, Frank.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
  • Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
  • Garland, Roger.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Hillery, Brian.
  • Hilliard, Colm.
  • Hyland, Liam.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kelly, Laurence.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lyons, Denis.
  • 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'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • O'Toole, Martin Joe.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Stafford, John.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and Boylan; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy.
Question declared lost.
Top
Share