Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are being taken together.
Criminal Law (Incest Proceedings) (No.2) Bill, 1995 [Seanad]: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1.
In page 5, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:
"6.—The Act of 1908 is hereby amended by the substitution of the following section for section 3:
`3.—In this Act—
(a) the expressions "brother" and "sister", respectively, include half-brother and half-sister, and
(b) the expressions "father", "mother", "daughter" and "son", respectively, include step-father, step-monther, step-daughter and step-son.'.".
—(Deputy O'Donnell.)
The issue of protection of children from sexual abuse particularly in their own homes is one about which I, as Minister with special responsibility for child care am very much concerned. Accordingly, when these amendments were put forward on Committee Stage I brought them to the attention of the Minister who agreed to re-examine them on the basis that if what was suggested was the best way forward in terms of child protection then the amendments should as far as possible be accepted. However, on reexamination, the Minister is satisfied that she cannot accept the amendments.
The purpose of the amendments is very laudable seeking adequate protection for young persons under 15 or 17 years who may be pressurised or forced into sexual activity with persons in parental positions including persons who are adoptive or step parents.
I agree with the result the Deputy wishes to achieve, but not with the proposed means of achieving it. The Minister said, however, on a number of occasions in this House that she accepted there were broader issues than the issues this Bill specifically seeks to address and that she intended to address them in a discussion paper to be published within weeks of the enactment of this Bill. How best the sexual abuse of children by persons in authority should be dealt with is a question which the Minister strongly believes should be dealt with in the context of a comprehensive examination rather than by way of the well intentioned but inappropriate, piecemeal approach these amendments would achieve.
The extent of the problem of sexual abuse of children by persons in authority goes beyond the categories of persons the amendments seek to cover. Positions of authority can equally be abused by for example persons in loco parentis, or by a trusted relative of the family who may not come within the ambit of the Punishment of Incest Act, 1908. An example would be an uncle, who may or may not live in the family home but who would obviously be trusted by parents and children alike. There are many categories of persons who may be in such positions of trust and unfortunately there are people who abuse their positions. If we wish to ensure a wide-ranging protection for children from such abuse, we must take a comprehensive approach.
I would ask Deputies to accept that we cannot do this in a short Bill, which must be quickly enacted to meet an urgent need. That is generally accepted in the House. A much more comprehensive approach is required. Such an approach was taken by the Law Reform Commission in its report on child sexual abuse.
In that report the commission examined the issue of sexual abuse of young people under 15 and 17 years. The focus was on sexual abuse of young people by persons in authority. The Law Reform Commission's suggested definition of "a person in authority" is
A parent, step-parent, grand-parent, uncle or aunt, any guardian or person in loco parentis or any person responsible, even temporarily, for the education, supervision or welfare of a person below the age of 17 years.
The Law Reform Commission's approach is very interesting and must be considered carefully in the context of its overall recommendations in respect of sexual offences with the young. The Minister believes, as I do that this approach can be useful in helping to find a way to deal effectively with that most repulsive abuse of children by persons entrusted with their care. The Minister considers this too serious an issue for a less than considerate response and, therefore, wishes to consult as widely as possible on a matter which is of great consequence for this and future generations. She is particularly anxious to hear the informed views of social workers and other interested parties concerned with the protection of children. She proposes to include this issue in her consultation paper and to publish it within weeks of the enactment of this Bill. She has also indicated that she is determined to introduce legislation to provide for whatever measures may be identified as necessary to ensure that children are adequately protected by the law against sexual exploitation by adults.
The Minister is satisfied that her approach is the correct one and that this small Bill is not the right way to deal with what is a major issue. Therefore, I cannot accept these amendments.
I am disappointed the Government has decided to procrastinate on yet another issue. Deputy O'Donoghue and I have had cause to criticise the Minister for her tendency to procrastinate, to long-finger, to request consultation documents and to set up special committees to examine matters in need of immediate reform. The suggestion by the Law Reform Commission of the need for a comprehensive review of the area of child sexual abuse is all very fine, but there always will be a specific need to view with disapproval and to criminalise any sexual relations between natural or adoptive fathers and their children.
The Minister is being disingenuous in stating that this small Bill is not the appropriate place to do this. I highlighted this matter on Committee Stage and the Department has had several days during which it could have drafted an appropriate amendment if it was felt the wording of my amendment was deficient. The loophole I outlined was recognised by Members from all parties, including Government backbenchers, on Committee Stage. Once again the Minister is procrastinating in the same way as on our bail laws, measures to tackle the drugs crisis and promises to provide prison places. I am not willing to accept another indication that the Minister will put this matter on the long finger. I do not trust her to deal with it. Now that the Oireachtas has been made aware of it, it must be dealt with immediately.
We must protect children from violations of trusting parental relationships, the crime of incest which involves the abuse of love between family members, particularly between fathers and children. It is not good enough for the Minister to say mañana, as is her tendency in respect of other matters. She could be called the Minister for mañana.
This amendment has received cross-party support. The officials in the Department of Justice have had adequate notice of the need to draft an amendment to close this loophole. The Bill was well amended in the Seanad and in this House but it is regrettable that this important loophole is being ignored by the Minister. When loopholes in legislation are highlighted, the legislation should be amended. The Minister has failed in her responsibility to draft an amendment that would cover sexual relations between an adoptive father and a child. The Status of Children Act, 1987 is far reaching and important legislation which I am seeking to apply to the Punishment of Incest Act, 1908. The obvious intention was that the Oireachtas would make, for all intents and purposes, the rights of adopted children similar to those of natural children. The Government is being grossly irresponsible in refusing to allow the Oireachtas to apply the provisions of the 1987 Act to the Punishment of Incest Act.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 45; Níl, 64.
Tá
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Foley, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDowell, Michael.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallance, Mary.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Bree, Declan.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Liam.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Upton, Pat.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies O'Donnell and D. Ahern; Níl, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Amendment No. 3 is in the name of Deputy O'Donnell.
On a point of order, is amendment No. 4 related?
Not to my knowledge, Deputy. They are being taken separately.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 5, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:
"6.— The provision of sections 2, 3 and 4 of this Act shall apply to any criminal proceedings for an offence under section 1 or 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1935.".
The purpose of this amendment is to highlight an omission in the Bill. We are seeking to apply the new provisions in relation to lifting the restrictions on the reporting of incest trials to circumstances relevant to a prosecution under the legislation covering the defilement of young girls. This matter has been debated in great detail here and in the Seanad and the Minister has indicated at all times that she does not see the relevance of this amendment. We tried to ensure that lifting restrictions on reporting incest cases would apply to cases involving the legislation under which the man at the centre of the X case was tried. In that case it appeared that the restrictions which have come to light in relation to incest similarly applied and there was a need to deal with that omission in the law surrounding the reporting of such trials. Deputy O'Donoghue and I have made strenuous efforts to get the Minister to change her mind on this and that is the purpose of the amendment. I do not intend to go into the detail of the inequities in the system. There is a need for change but the Minister is refusing to turn on this point, as on many others. I will not, therefore, press the amendment but I will listen to the debate on the next amendment tabled by Deputy O'Donoghue which addresses the same flaw in the legislation. I am withdrawing my amendment because it has been pressed by my party in the Seanad and by me earlier on Committee Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 4;
In page 5, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
"7.—Section 1 (1) of the Criminial Law (Rape) Act, 1981 as inserted by section 12 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act, 1990 is hereby amended by the addition of the offences of unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of 15 years contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1935, the offence of unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl over the age of 15 years and under the age of 17 years countrary to section 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1935, and an attempt to commit either offence to the list of `rape offences' set out in that section.".
The present position in relation to restrictions on reporting is that while certain cases may not be reported in that the names and addresses of victims may not be given, that does not apply to cases of unlawful carnal knowledge. In incest and rape cases, the name of the victim may not be publised but in cases involving girls under the age of 15, unlawful carnal knowledge is regarded as statutory rape, even if the girl consents to sexual intercourse. It is an extraordinary feature of our criminal law that the name and address of the victim may be published. There has been an honourable tradition among journalists in this country whereby they never publish the name and address of victims of the crime of unlawful carnal knowledge, and that is to their credit. In future, however, some lurid publication could decide to print the name and address of a victim of this crime which is unacceptable. This amendment would apply the same rules in relation to reporting these cases as those applying in cases of rape and would, to all intents and purposes, put the crime of unlawful carnal knowledge in the same category as the crime of rape.
It is important to pass this amendment. One is slow to give examples of why a publication would want to publish the name and address of a victim of the crime of unlawful carnal knowledge but, increasingly publications are coming on the market which might do that. In justice to young girls who find themselves in this situation through no fault of their own, the Government should accept this amendment which would prevent the publication of the names and addresses of victims of unlawful carnal knowledge, that is to say, victims of a felony in the case of girls under 15 years and victims of a midemeanour in the case of girls between the age of 15 and 17 years. I would like to hear the Minister's views prior to deciding whether to press the amendment.
I support Deputy O'Donoghue's amendment because it addresses concerns expressed on Committee Stage as to the application of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1981 to the offence of unlawful carnal knowledge which it is relevant for the Minister to address at this stage.
One aspect of it has not been mentioned by Deputy O'Donoghue. Under sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1981, counsel on behalf of the defence is prohibited from questioning the victim about her previous sexual experience. The Rape Crisis Centre, and others, have repeatedly pointed out that the questioning of victims of rape and other sexual assaults as to their sexual history is demeaning and painful for those victims and is usually utterly irrelevant to the issues before the court of trial. In effect, it generally puts the victim on trial. That is why reforms of the 1981 Act are so necessary.
The amendments before the House are designed to ensure that victims of incest are protected from intrusive and irrelevant questioning as well as reporting and at the trial are protected from intrusive and irrelevant questioning as to their previous sexual history. This was swept aside by the Minister in the Seanad on the grounds that in relation to incest consent is not at issue. The Minister's subsequent arguments do not stand up and I do not see the logic of them. The Minister correctly said that consent is no defence to a charge of incest, but the imposition of restrictions on the kind of questions that can be asked of incest victims would not affect that fact in the slightest.
The Minister appears to be saying that the only purpose of the restrictions imposed on questioning by the 1981 Act was to ensure that the accused could not construct an argument to the effect that the victim was a woman of easy virtue, that she had consented to intercourse with others and therefore, could be presumed to have consented to intercourse with the accused. The Minister was correct in stating that the introduction into evidence of a victim's past sexual history was often used to support the argument that the victim consented but she has failed to take into account that the introduction of such evidence was also frequently used in a general mud-slinging exercise against the witness who was the victim.
The jury could be convinced, for example, that because the victim of incest was sexually promiscuous or had had another sexual encounter, her evidence was worthless; in other words, it would undermine her credibility as a witness. We are not only concerned about the lifting of restrictions on reporting. If the Act were applied to incest cases, it would protect the victim from this sort of mud-slinging and cross-examinations by counsel for the defence. In incest cases there is no legal bar on counsel on behalf of the accused introducing evidence of the victim's past sexual history.
The Minister said she will put this to a general comprehensive reform of the whole area of child sexual abuse. I do not accept that, as I do not accept her reasoning for refusing to deal with the amendments on which we have just voted. When a Bill is before the House it is appropriate to deal with any loopholes or deficiencies if they are brought to the attention of the Minister. From that point of view I support Deputy O'Donoghue's amendment.
The Minister said in the Seanad that she was putting in place an immediate review of the whole area but she did not indicate any time scale for that review. The Minister's promises on all issues relating to reform of the criminal justice system, such as the provision of prison spaces et al, are not worth anything because she has not introduced legislation. This legislation was only brought forward because of an imperative which landed this at the doors of the Oireachtas and made clear in a legal judgment that the law needed to be changed.
This piecemeal knee-jerk reaction just to deal with one small specific aspect of the law is a waste of Oireachtas time when we could be closing two important loopholes in the law which have been drawn to the Minister's attention by Members. It indicates a lack of recognition of what this House is about. The Minister should be willing to accept amendments from the Opposition when they are tabled in good faith. There is no political meat in this for any political party. In debating legislation we try to make it as comprehensive and relevant as possible. Now is the time for the Minister to accept this amendment tabled by Deputy O'Donoghue.
Deputies will recall that the question of extending the scope of sections 2, 3 and 4 of this Bill to cases of unlawful carnal knowledge was discussed in some depth at the Select Committee on Legislation and Security.
The protection of the identity and reputation of girls under 15 and 17 years who have been victims of unlawful carnal knowledge is, undoubtedly, a very important issue in the context of our legislation dealing with sexual offences. There is no disagreement between us on this point. Rather, what we are concerned with is the question of whether we should provide in this Bill for whatever further measures may be necessary to maintain or reinforce that protection.
In accordance with the commitment I gave on Committee Stage, this matter was brought to the Minister's attention and she confirmed her view that it was appropriate that this issue be left for consideration in the context of the discussion paper she will circulate as quickly as possible after the Bill is enacted. This is not a decision the Minister has taken lightly. The fact that the reporting arrangements being provided for in this Bill do not apply to the offences of unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl under 15 or 17 years indeed creates an issue to be addressed, and it is one the Minister is concerned about.
However, there are other offences where the same issue arises, in particular, the offences of sexual intercourse or buggery with a mentally impaired person, buggery of a person under 17 years and gross indecency with a male under 17 years. The Minister is anxious that any consideration of the reporting arrangements for sexual offences should be a comprehensive one which takes into account all the victims who need protection. It is clear from the offences I outlined that, apart from girls and young women, there are other very vulnerable groups, such as mentally impaired persons and young boys for whom the same issues arise.
In addition, it is important to make the point that the same very urgent considerations that operate in relation to the passage of this Bill, in so far as it applies to incest proceedings, do not apply in the case of the offences of unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl under 15 or 17 years or the other offences I mentioned. The provisions of section 23 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1951 allow the courts a general discretionary power in any criminal proceedings of an indecent or obscene nature to exclude all persons except officers of the court, bona fide representatives of the press and such other persons as the court may permit to remain. We are not talking about cases heard in camera, a problem which arises in incest cases. In circumstances where it is not an offence to publish the name of a person in respect of whom an unlawful carnal knowledge offence has been committed, it is the invariable and well-established practice not to do so. The Minister had discussions on that point with the national newspapers and has been assured that under no circumstances will they depart from their admirable policy of protecting the identity of under-age victims of sexual abuse.
When I say that for these reasons the Minister does not want to extend the reporting arrangements provided for in the Bill to cases of unlawful carnal knowledge, I hope the House appreciates that she wishes to have the broader issue of the reporting of sexual offences comprehensively examined in a way which the urgent nature of this Bill does not allow. Deputies will appreciate that there is a pressing need to enact the legislation at the earliest stage in light of the rulings of the Central Criminal Court which held that no details of an incest prosecution can be disclosed to any party. The Minister indicated she will publish a consultation paper very quickly after enactment of the Bill and has undertaken to bring forward with minimum delay such proposals for law reform as may be required in this area.
Deputy O'Donnell said she did not trust the Minister or her assurances and I regret the personal nature of some of her remarks. They were unnecessary. If she expects Deputies on this side of the House to accept what she says in good faith she should be prepared to reciprocate. On behalf of the Minister I give the strongest possible assurance to the House that the issues raised by the amendment will be dealt with as a priority. I hope Deputy O'Donoghue accepts that.
The effect of the amendment would go considerably beyond the reporting arrangements which should apply in the case of sexual offences. This is because certain specific consequences follow from the designation of an offence as a rape offence for the purposes of the rape Acts. Section 8(2) of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act, 1990 provides that the provisions governing the protection of identity of a person charged with a rape offence can be lifted if the person is convicted. This may well be the correct outcome in the case of an unlawful carnal knowledge offence but I am concerned that such a blanket mandatory provision may not be appropriate in all unlawful carnal knowledge cases and a more discretionary provision may be appropriate to ensure the identity of the victim is not revealed by identifying the offender. An example might be where the offender is a member of the family but where incest is not involved or where the offender is a next door neighbour as in the X case. These broader issues can best be addressed in the context of the consultation paper.
I regret I cannot accept the amendment but I hope that on the basis of the firm and clear commitment I have given to the House the Deputy will not press the amendment.
My amendment is clear and simple. I want the provisions of the Act to apply in circumstances where a person is a victim in a case of unlawful carnal knowledge, the legislative loophole to be closed and the criminal law to provide that the name and address of a girl under the age of 15 or 17 years who is the victim in a case of unlawful carnal knowledge may not be published either in the electronic or print media.
I accept the good faith and word of the Irish newspapers but some lurid publication in the future could publish the name and address of a girl in those circumstances. For example, if someone was well known in society a lurid publication could publish the fact that the person had been a victim of sexual abuse. The Minister of State said the Minister would refer this to a commission. This is not the first commission the Minister for Justice has set up. At this stage, after seven months in office, there are more commissions and committees in the Department of Justice than there were for the last decade. Everything appears to be long-fingered and sent to a committee of one kind or another. Someone must shout "stop". If "rape" was construed as rape in the generally accepted meaning of the word I could appreciate where the Minister is coming from but a rape offence means any of the following: rape; attempted rape; burglary with intent to commit rape; aiding, abetting, counselling and procuring rape; incitement to rape; rape under section 4 of the 1990 Act; attempted rape under section 4; aiding, abetting, counselling and procuring rape under section 4 and incitement to rape under section 4.
I do not understand why the amendment cannot be accepted. I accept that the Minister wants to conduct a fundamental review but here is a positive proposal put forward in good faith to improve the criminal law and it is rejected on the basis that if the Minister cannot have the full loaf she will not eat any bread. That is not the correct way to proceed. It would be more desirable to accept the amendment than to reject it but the Minister has decided to include other offences and to oppose the amendment. There is no great logic in her position. The only conclusion I can reach is that the Minister for Justice has decided to bring forward at some unspecified date a package which will state when the names and addresses of victims may be reported. I would be failing in my duty if I accepted that.
The Minister accepted substantial amendments in the Seanad. For the most part they were taken from the Fianna Fáil Bill which I published. It is ironic that the Minister will not accept a serious but less substantive amendment in the Dáil. If the Bill had proceeded without the inclusion of the Fianna Fáil amendments in the Seanad it would not have been possible to publish details of evidence in an incest case. It is of tremendous importance in incest cases that the details of the evidence, as opposed to the name, address and identity of the victim, are published. It is of crucial importance to make the general public aware of the circumstances surrounding incest cases so that they are wary and alert of the possibility of such cases. It will also alert people who might be thinking of deviancy to the fact that the penalties are harsh and fit the crime.
I presume the Minister is not prepared to accept this amendment on carnal knowledge because it is in my name. However, that is a peripheral issue and I have no intention of being petty. Nevertheless, I am deeply concerned at the attitude of a Minister for Justice who will not accept positive measures put forward in the House and who does not put forward measures herself. This is no way to run the Department of Justice, which I am well aware has some of the best draftsmen. The time for procrastination and prevarication is over and I intend to put my amendment to a vote. In rejecting the amendment the Minister is merely extending the legal vacuum and loophole in criminal law in regard to the publication of the names and addresses of young girls under the ages of 15 and 17 who are victims of this kind of offence.
If the Bill did not deal with reporting restrictions and the Minister of State could give me the same excuse he gave Deputy O'Donnell for not accepting my amendment then I would have some small understanding of the Minister's motives. However, the truth is that the Minister is rejecting this amendment which deals specifically with what the Bill is all about, namely the restrictions on reporting and the terms on which reporting may take place, because it is in my name. The sad and extraordinary conclusion I have come to is that the Minister for Justice will not accept any amendment not in her name. This is incredible and laughable and makes a nonsense of the workings of the House.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 43; Níl, 68.
Tá
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Foley, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- McDowell, Michael.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Bree, Declan.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Liam.
- Burton, John.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Spring, Dick.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Upton, Pat.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely; Níl, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald.
Amendment declared lost.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.