An Bille um an gCúigiú Leasú is Fiche ar an mBunreacht (Beatha Dhaonna le linn Toirchis a Chosaint), 2001: Ordú do Chéim an Choiste. Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy) Bill, 2001: Order for Committee Stage.

I move:

"That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders:

(1) the Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy) Bill, 2001, be referred to the Select Committee on Health and Children, in accordance with Standing Order 112(1) and paragraph 1(a)(i) of the Orders of Reference of that Committee and that it be an instruction to the Select Committee that it shall–

(a) consider the provisions contained in the Second Schedule to the Bill section by section, the question on each such section being ‘That the section (or the section, as amended) stand part of the Schedule'; and

(b) thereafter consider the title of the provisions contained in the Schedule, the question on the title being ‘That the title of the provisions stand part of the Schedule'.

(2) the proceedings in the Select Committee shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 6 p.m. on Thursday, 29 November, 2001, by one question, which shall be put from the Chair, and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Health and Children, or a Minister of State, nominated as substitute on his behalf; whereupon the Select Committee shall, in accordance with Standing Order 79B, send a message to the Dáil in relation to the completion of its consideration of the Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy) Bill, 2001, and Standing Order 79A(2) shall apply accordingly."

Is the motion agreed?

We oppose the motion. We got a commitment from the Taoiseach that all Stages of the Bill would be taken in plenary session. We know also that the precedent for discussing Bills which involve amendments to the Constitution is that they are taken in plenary session in the House. We also object to the fact that we did not have full information today when the Order of Business was announced by the Taoiseach. A Supplementary Order Paper was subsequently circulated and the information on it was an expansion of the information available when the Taoiseach announced the Order of Business.

We are concerned about the provisions for debate in committee. We not only object to this Bill being referred to the committee but also to the provisions in committee. The Dáil is being asked to agree that Committee Stage will begin on Thursday of this week and that it must conclude at 6 p.m. on Thursday week, 29 November. Late last week on the Order of Business the Taoiseach told me the principal reason he wanted this Bill taken in committee rather than in plenary session in the House was that it might take up to eight days of continual committee work. Deputies' diaries are already full, yet a committee of this House is being asked to confine its debate of this issue to seven calendar days.

I understand the proposal from the Minister for Health and Children is that the committee will meet on Thursday and Friday of this week and then conclude the following Thursday. The Taoiseach said earlier today on the Order of Business that there is nothing to preclude the committee from meeting for the full seven days until midnight any night. With respect to the House and to the Taoiseach, that is an unreal proposition. The Taoiseach knows the Houses cannot be accessed on Saturday and Sunday, which are two days of the seven days. People, including those serving on this committee, have other arrangements made. The Taoiseach should also be aware that many Members of this House want to exercise the right to attend and speak at the committee, although they are not members of it. They also have arrangements made for Thursday and Friday.

This is a deliberate proposal by the Minister for Health and Children and the Government to obviate the democratic process in the House to carry out one of its principal functions, to put forward a proposal to amend the Constitution. Any amendment to the Constitution is serious. An amendment to the Constitution on this issue is particularly serious because it is an amendment to Article 40 of the Constitution which is one of the principal Articles that deals with personal rights under the Constitution, particularly the right to life. We often get involved in hyperbole and say that certain issues are a matter of life and death. However, the blunt fact of this proposal is that it is a matter of life and death.

It is an attempt to re-balance the right to life of a mother and child. That is the nub of this proposal. It is a re-balancing of those rights. We are actually talking about matters of life and death and yet the Taoiseach, once more, breaks a solemn commitment to the House by not taking this Bill in plenary session. It is being put into a committee where Members will be prevented from debating it properly, where only members of the select committee may vote on it and not all groups are represented on the select committee. Contrary to precedent when a constitutional matter was being debated when every effort was made to involve everybody in the House and ensure that the elected representatives of the people had the full right to openly debate an amendment before it was put to the people, on this occasion precedent is being broken once more. This is a disgraceful proposition. We have had guillotine motions before but I have never seen anything like this.

I will make one final point on procedure. When the Taoiseach was challenged on the Order of Business today, he quoted the precedents of the Finance Bill and the Social Welfare Bill. I have carried the Finance Bill on Committee Stage in Opposition for several years with the Taoiseach involved with Ray MacSharry and Deputy Albert Reynolds. I would challenge anybody in this House who sat on that committee to say that it is satisfactory. What happens always is that there is a time motion for the debate on Committee Stage of the Finance Bill and votes are rolled up at the end of every section and the bulk of amendments tabled by Opposition Deputies are not debated at all and if they are debated they are certainly not voted on separately.

There is always a vote at the end and it is governed by the procedures where the chairman reads out a motion stating that only amendments in the name of the Minister may be put and it will be decided at the end of the section, when the time motion clicks in, by one vote. That is not a precedent which is relevant to an amendment to the Constitution. That is a precedent which is done under time constraints with the very tight calendar of a Finance Bill. In circumstances where the House in one place or other, and the public in one way or other, have been speaking about this issue for the past four and a half years, what is the dirty hurry that involves Committee Stage being drummed through by next Thursday evening? What is this about?

I ask the Taoiseach, in the interests of democracy, because he has always been open to the argument of Opposition when it comes to debate and procedure in the House and has always been generous in the procedures he has put before the House when rational arguments are made to him, to accept the proposal by Deputy Quinn today. Let us come back here in early January. It will not affect procedures or the process of other legislation. Let us come back on 10 January and let us debate this issue for two weeks in plenary session and give an opportunity to everybody. Let us not divide the House unnecessarily on this motion by driving this Bill into a committee where justice will not be done to this amendment and certainly justice will not be done to democracy in this House or outside.

On behalf of the Labour Party I ask the Taoiseach to state now that he will ensure that Committee Stage of the Bill will be heard in this Chamber where all Members can participate and have their voices heard. Too many voices have been muffled, unheard and silenced. On the issue of abortion we cannot have the same muzzling of views occurring in the approach being adopted by the Government. I ask the Taoiseach to restore the honour of the Government and ensure the honour of the House by living up to a promise made by the Government that the Committee Stage debate would be held in this Chamber so that all Members could participate. The only way he can restore the honour of the Government, having betrayed the trust of Members and broken a promise to Members, is to ensure that Committee Stage is taken in the Chamber with all Members given the right to participate in our national Parliament.

What concerns us greatly is that when the Bill was published setting out the proposal for a referendum the Taoiseach said he wanted to find a consensus. Yet when it is clear the Government is running scared, far from finding a consensus it has to confront genuine criticisms and genuine concerns from different quarters all of whom I respect. He is in a position where he is leading a Government that is running scared. That is why there is a guillotine this evening on Second Stage. That is why the Bill is being fast-tracked and coming to Committee Stage this Thursday. The attempt is being made by the Taoiseach to have it put through Committee Stage, against a promise made by the Minister for Health and Children, and completed by the following Thursday. He is trying to bury it in the bowels of this building and trying to ensure the debate is minimised rather than maximised.

The Second Supplementary Order Paper clearly indicated the Government was trying to ensure Opposition amendments could not be put on Committee Stage. The Taoiseach has back-tracked on that at least.

How can one do that?

I have the floor. I will not be silenced by anybody on this issue. I am expressing views on what is being put forward by the Government and I accept the protection you provide so that I can finish my statement. The Labour Party wants to ensure full debate. This is all we are seeking. We recognise this is a constitutional referendum. This is not a small matter of a small Bill that can be processed without any great problem through the House. We would have no difficulty with that. We are not doing this for some obscure reason, we are doing it for the universal reason that the Constitution belongs to everybody. When there is a proposal to change the Constitution, the least we can do is ensure a full debate and ensure the different views on this referendum proposal are recorded so that when the citizens of the State come to make their decision they can see clearly what the views were and that they were recorded in a way that they can have. It may be, given the delays in this House in terms of committees, that we may not have the record of the committee proceedings in time for a referendum. What kind of information is that providing?

I remind the Taoiseach when it came to the Nice Treaty the overriding reason people either did not vote—

Will the Deputy please confine herself to the central motion before the House?

I will. The debate we are seeking to have in this Chamber as opposed to a committee made up of a small number of representatives of this House is about life and death. It is not a small matter. It is a matter of life and death that affects young women. There are few women in this Chamber. We are a handful here. We should not be a handful because we make up more than half the population but that is the way things are. I have a bounden duty to ensure the voice of women can be heard and listened to when it comes to a debate of this importance.

Deputies:

Hear, hear.

I would draw the Taoiseach's attention to the point made by Deputy Howlin that there are minorities in this Chamber who will not have their views heard if a decision is made to hive the Bill off to a committee. There are Independent Deputies here and small parties. They have articulated the view many times that they do not get a fair share. They will not get any share at all in respect of the debate on Committee Stage if the Government persists on the route of trying to bury discussion and debate on this important matter.

When the Minister for Health and Children was asked a few minutes ago the reason he was breaking his word and not living up to his promise to ensure the debate would be held in the Chamber I suspect he had forgotten he made that promise. I also suspect he had forgotten the Attorney General's written statement that this was what was envisaged. It is important we remind him those were the words of the Attorney General. It was envisaged that Committee Stage would be held in the Chamber and that all Members would be entitled to be involved in that debate, but we are not getting that.

One of my privileges is that I am a member of the all-party committee on the Constitution. I am not a lawyer. Before I was elected to the House I did not know anything about the law or the Constitution, apart from a superficial knowledge as an outsider to the procedures of the House on which we are commenting. I have, however, learned a great deal about the importance of not unduly interfering with the Constitution and damaging it. Strong legal and constitutional arguments need to be made about what the Government is proposing, quite apart from the rights and wrongs in relation to women. The rights and wrongs in relation to the Constitution must be the subject of Committee Stage, which must be taken in the Chamber to ensure we do no harm, not only to women, but the Constitution.

I am fearful that when it comes to the end of this process we will not have restored the honour of the House because the Taoiseach, in particular, is not willing to maintain the honour of his Government, live up to his promise and commitment and can be seen only as a leader of a Government which is running scared. What else are we to think? A promise was made to us, as parliamentary representatives—

The Deputy is being repetitive, which is not in order.

I want to make one or two further comments. I am sorry for being repetitive and appreciate that is a fair criticism, but I feel very strongly about this issue. For those of us fortunate enough to have gone through pregnancy without facing the terrible dilemma many young women face today, I am sure the Ceann Comhairle can understand that it makes one feel passionate when it comes to what is being attempted now, the type of bullying and domineering by the Taoiseach in relation to this important issue.

He did not want it.

On a point of order—

When it comes to making sure there is a proper committee procedure there is no precedent for what is being done today. We are talking about a referendum that is to be put to the people.

On a point of order—

Let us ensure—

What is Deputy Roche's point of order?

On the issue of precedent, is it not true that the divorce referendum—

That is not a point of order.

Is it not true that there is a precedent?

The Chair does not rule on matters to be decided by the House.

There is a precedent. Deputies continue to allege—

I ask Deputy McManus to conclude.

I was appalled to hear Deputy Roche's concerted attack on women inside and outside the House—

The Deputy should get her facts rights.

—and his aggression and views that were totally in conflict with that of the Taoiseach that we should have consensus and debate that does not move into the realm of simple abuse.

The Deputy should tell the truth.

The Deputy did not listen to the Taoiseach. I look forward to listening to the Taoiseach and his taking the view that the honour of the House depends on the Government standing by the commitment it made on the basis of which we all worked. That was our understanding when we started out on a difficult debate and all of us, bar one—

Shame on the Deputy.

—tried to have a debate that was fair, rational and not over the top. We did so on the understanding that Committee Stage would be taken in the House and that we would all have a chance to contribute. Let us hear what the Taoiseach has to say about keeping his word.

I will be brief. The Green Party will oppose this motion. I am a member of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children. When I put the question, "where would Committee Stage be taken?" to the chairman of that committee, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, he told me clearly that it would be taken on the floor of the House because it was a constitutional amendment. Those were his words which echo those of the Attorney General and the Minister. It is unprecedented that a constitutional amendment would not be debated in the House. I have only been a Member for four and a half years, but those who have been Members longer can tell me this is the case. What we heard this afternoon was typical obfuscation by the Taoiseach who went around the houses. I remember the famous words put to another Deputy in the House about being a waffler, but the real waffler this afternoon was the Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach is trying to stifle debate and undermine democracy. He is trying to facilitate the Progressive Democrats who are trying to hide on this issue. How can the Tánaiste agree to this undemocratic measure? How can she, as a democrat, a Progressive Democrat, agree to it? Tánaiste, you said—

The Deputy should address his remarks through the Chair.

The Tánaiste said to the House that she was seeking consensus. Where is that consensus? If there is no consensus, how can she go ahead with this measure? I ask her to join us in the lobbies because this measure is quite disgraceful. I ask her not to stifle debate on the issue.

By a remarkable coincidence, tomorrow at 1 p.m. the all-party committee on the Constitution will launch a report. That report will be on the referendum, the issue under discussion. It is agreed by all parties in the House and was prepared under the excellent chairmanship of Deputy Lenihan. That agreed report includes the following four sentences:

The process is important in the case of the Bill to amend the Constitution, the fundamental law of the State. Consequently, measures should be taken to ensure that a Bill to amend the Constitution is fully debated by the Dáil. Given the importance of a constitutional amendment, every Deputy and every Senator should have the opportunity to express his or her views. The Bill, therefore, should be debated in principle and in detail by each House.

That is the view of the all-party committee, representing all Members of the House. I ask the Taoiseach the reason is he now rejecting this approach.

Deputy Noonan has made the case on this matter and I want to make a few more points. The Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy) Bill, 2001 is the title given to the Bill, but as the explanatory memorandum states, if passed by the people, it will come back to the House as the Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy) Bill, 2002. In other words, it is not intended that this Bill be dealt with until next year. That is a very relevant point.

The earliest that a constitutional amendment referendum can be held is the spring of next year – I understand the Taoiseach had pencilled in February or March for that referendum. I do not understand why this matter is being rushed. I said on Second Stage – I hope my comments will be seen as measured, reasonable, fair and balanced – that I did not understand why a press conference was hurriedly called and why the Bill was announced with such speed. I do not understand why it is being rushed through this House. I do not understand in particular why we are not taking Committee Stage on the floor of this House. I gave an understanding to all my Fine Gael colleagues that that would be the case.

I want to make one other practical point. I am trying to draft amendments between the votes in this House and the public engagement I have in another county later this evening so they will be ready before 11 o'clock in the morning.

It is disgraceful.

Neither the Fine Gael Front Bench nor my parliamentary party colleagues have seen them. That means that I will have to draft amendments, some of which I might not agree with in total, to take account of the views expressed to me. This is not creating consensus across the floor of the House on some of the contents of the Bill, nor is it giving to Deputies on this side, who have been sympathetic to a reasoned debate, the opportunity to participate in that reasoned debate.

I forecast that this is the start of the defeat of this Bill when it goes to the people. The people will see this as a sleight of hand. The whole procedure being used here is wrong. It is not right to take the Bill off the floor of the House in this way when an undertaking has been given. It is not right that the Fine Gael Front Bench, the major Opposition party, and the parliamentary party have not seen the amendments to this constitutional Bill, which I am supposed to put down by 11 o'clock tomorrow morning.

I have to ask two questions. Is the Taoiseach fearful that the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, and others will not go up to the lobbies and vote if the Bill is on the floor of the House? Is that the reason for this? There are no Progressive Democrats Deputies in the select committee to which the Bill is being referred? I can only presume it is some reason of that kind. Is there some date in early December by which the Bill has to be passed so that some other body outside this House can pronounce on it once it has passed through the Oireachtas? Why is the Bill being rushed through the House?

Some hidden agenda.

This is an important matter. I said during Second Stage that we would give this Bill consideration and quiet disquisition. I challenge anybody in this House to say that anything I said on this issue in any debate inside or outside this House was not reasoned and fair, but how can we continue to treat this as reasonable and fair if it is being drummed through the House in this way. This is an unwise day's work.

I want to make a few brief points. The proposal before the House now is not merely a subversion of democracy but is undermining the solemn constitutional role of this Dáil in considering in detail specific proposals to amend the Constitution.

I have been a Member of this House since 1981. I was here for the debates on the 1983 referendum and the debates on the 1992 referendum, and I recall participating in the Committee Stage debates on all the proposals related to this issue. It is the first occasion when a debate on this issue, in the context of a proposal for a constitutional amendment, is sought to be confined by Government to members of a select committee. It is the first time on this issue that has happened.

There are Members of this House who wish to exercise their constitutional obligations to participate in this debate. There are Members of this House who regard it as their public duty to tease out in detailed form the specific implications of the proposal the Government has brought before the House. Those who will vote outside this House on this proposal, should a referendum take place, are entitled to know of the detail of the debates that take place. Each Deputy in this House is entitled to participate if they wish to do so.

The room in which the Select Committee on Health and Children will operate will not remotely have the capacity to accommodate the Members of this House from the major parties, the smaller parties and Independents who may wish to participate. I also believe there are Members on the Government side, who are not Ministers or members of the health and children committee, who may wish to participate in that debate and who will have something to offer, in the public interest, in their participation in the debate. In practical terms, this proposal is closing the door on that possibility. The very physical design of the committee rooms will exclude the possibility of any substantial number of Members of this House, who are not members of the health and children committee, participating in the debate should they wish to do so. More importantly, they are excluded from voting on Committee Stage on the basis of what is proposed.

I will conclude by making two points. First, I listened with interest to the various interviews and read the various articles written by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government about the importance of Members of this House acting as legislators and fulfilling their duties as legislators.

That was an article.

The Minister has sought to make his political reputation on having some commitment to the reform of the workings of this House and to allowing Deputies, as legislators, to play a meaningful role. Did the Minister for the Environment and Local Government go along with this proposal? Is this an example of how the Government believes we should reform the workings of this House to allow its Members on all sides participate as legislators? I do not believe the Government will have credibility in the future when it talks about Dáil reform and the needs in that area.

Second, if the Progressive Democrats, as a party, was on this side of the House and this proposal came from the Government, the level of moral indignation we would all be subjected to would be so thunderous that it would leave those in the Chamber with serious headaches from which they would have to try to recover. The Progressive Democrats has turned the name of its party on its head, to the regressive democrats. This is a regressive proposal in addressing a serious constitutional issue in respect of which the Progressive Democrats has done a substantial U-turn.

I agree with my colleague, Deputy Mitchell, this is not about ensuring proper debate on the issue. This proposal procedurally is to provide the Progressive Democrats with a hideaway to avoid the embarrassment of confronting amendments that may be proposed to this legislation which would make it very clear that it is now adopting an approach which is the exact opposite to the approach adopted by it in this House in 1992.

If the Government has the courage of its convictions that this proposal is all it says it is, it should debate it in the full Chamber of this House, in the glare of publicity, and allow the debate to take place that should take place in a parliamentary democracy with a written Constitution in circumstances where it is proposed to make a fundamental amendment not only to that Constitution but to the manner in which this Parliament does its business.

I say to the Taoiseach and the Minister for Health and Children that the intensity and the quality of the contributions made in all sincerity by this side of the House should not be discounted. Deputy McManus spoke very eloquently on behalf of my party, but everybody else who has spoken on this side of the House was equally eloquent. The Taoiseach cannot see the expressions on the faces of his backbenchers, but I assure him they agree with the sentiments being expressed.

I want to formally put a proposal to the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste as I believe this is a partnership Government. Earlier today I suggested that the Dáil should resume on 10 January. That happens to be a Thursday, which means we could come back on 8 January, or on a date to be agreed by the Whips. The Taoiseach's legislative programme will not be put at risk. We have the time in January to do the things that must be done, listening to what has been said. As Deputy O'Keeffe said, the All-party Committee on the Constitution, the basic document of this Republic, states clearly how we should make changes to this legislation and that it should be done here.

I realise there are legislative commitments and priorities between now and Christmas that make the idea of having the Bill on the floor of this House for seven or eight days a proposition that would disrupt other issues, but a commitment was given by the Minister for Health and Children in the document he circulated and by Deputy Batt O'Keeffe that the debate would be held here. If it cannot be held before Christmas, we will have time after Christmas without disrupting the Government's legislative programme. Will the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach indicate whether they are prepared, at this late stage, to accept this proposal which, I believe, has the support of this side of the House.

As I stated at the outset of the debate, I accept the sincerity of the contributors. However, certain speakers have been guilty of gross hyperbole in the contrast they have drawn between holding the Committee Stage debate in another location and holding it in this House. The nub of the question boils down to one issue, namely, location.

Participation.

The Minister sounds like an estate agent.

(Interruptions.)

The Minister, without interruption.

Standing Order 84 allows any Member of the House—

(Interruptions.)

Order, please allow the Minister to reply without interruption.

I did not interrupt Deputies Noonan or Shatter and would appreciate the opportunity to make a few points to the House. As I said, Standing Order 84 allows any Member of the House to attend a committee meeting and speak on an issue for as long as he or she wishes.

A Deputy:

Does it allow them to vote?

The voting arrangements on Committee Stage, as every Deputy will be aware, are proportionate to the representation in the House. The committee must also report back to the House.

So it is about more than location.

There must be a full Report Stage in the House, which means no political party can run away from the issues on any Stage because, ultimately, all issues must be dealt with a second time. We have had five days of debate amounting to 17 hours. Let us have a degree of honesty. The reality is that we struggled last Thursday to complete the debate.

A Deputy:

The Minister was struggling.

I have not been around the House as long as some people, but long enough to occasionally become sceptical about hysterical protestations concerning the lack of debate. People may make such comments, but on Thursday afternoons and Fridays the Whips are hard-pressed to fill the Chamber.

(Interruptions.)

The Minister, without interruption.

(Interruptions.)

So far, there have been 17 hours of debate on Second Stage. It is not fair to argue that this is an unrealistic period or that it constitutes a guillotine. The amount of time allocated to this issue is unprecedented even for referendum debates.

Why is the Minister breaking his word?

Given that every Member is allowed to attend Committee Stage, the only issue is whether we debate the matter in the committee rooms or in this Chamber.

The Minister knows there is a qualitative difference.

Is the Opposition realistically telling us that it will not be able to bring its full constitutional expertise to bear in the debate on Committee Stage? Is this because of the size of the House or its location?

Why did the Minister state that he would hold the debate here?

The parties collectively introduced a legislative committee system for this House. The proposals of the Opposition would fundamentally undermine the committee system in terms of the legislative process.

It was the Minister who said we could have the debate in this House.

(Interruptions.)

It is equally unfair to state that the debate is being rushed. It has been going on for a long time, for five years in the context of the current Legislature. We have had a Green Paper and an Oireachtas committee did much good work and heard a great deal of evidence, including 105,000 submissions from a variety of people, organisations and groups.

Why did the Minister promise to hold the debate here?

It is unacceptable to assert that the Government is somehow rushing this debate. I refer the Opposition parties to questions they tabled last year in which they asked the Taoiseach when the referendum would be held, why he was refusing to hold it and why the Government was dilly-dallying over the recommendations of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution? Last year we were berated by the Opposition for the length of time it was taking us to introduce this order to the House.

Why is the Minister breaking his word?

The Fine Gael Party put a proposition before us. Its agenda was to delay the matter for three months, which is fair enough. While it is entitled to have such an agenda, it was about putting this amendment right back, not just returning for a few days in January.

Will the Minister accept January?

I hope Deputies do not want to prolong the debate to the extent that we do not proceed with the amendment or get a chance to go to the people. The danger in the debate so far—

(Interruptions.)

A theme of the contributions is a belief that we should not go to the people on this issue. Some Deputies believe there should only be a legislative response. If the truth be known, the majority of Members want to go to the people. We are prepared to give considerable time to this on Committee Stage and every Member will be able to contribute. The Opposition knows that to be the case.

Why did the Minister break his word?

(Interruptions.)
Question put.

Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, David.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cowen, Brian.Cullen, Martin.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Fox, Mildred.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.

Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael P.Kitt, Tom.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Rourke, Mary.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Woods, Michael.Wright, G.V.

Níl

Allen, Bernard.Barnes, Monica.Belton, Louis J.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas P.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, Richard.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.

Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.De Rossa, Proinsias.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Enright, Thomas.Farrelly, John. Fitzgerald, Frances.

Níl–continued

Flanagan, Charles.Gilmore, Éamon.Gormley, John.Gregory, Tony.Hayes, Brian.Hayes, Tom.Healy, Seamus.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Michael.Hogan, Philip.Howlin, Brendan.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Jim.Mitchell, Olivia.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Naughten, Denis.

Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Owen, Nora.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Reynolds, Gerard.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Spring, Dick.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.Yates, Ivan.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies Bradford and Stagg.
Question declared carried.