Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill 2006 [Seanad]: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 10:
In page 6, line 21, to delete "one or more" and substitute "all".
—(Deputy Morgan).

In preparing and debating amendments, there is a general expectation that if the amendment improves the legislation, it will be accepted. In my time in the House, fewer than half a dozen Opposition amendments have been accepted, demonstrating how the Government ignores the opportunity to improve legislation.

In this legislation, the Government is running roughshod not just over Opposition Deputies or local authorities but communities. This legislation is a retrograde step. Even simple amendments that would include ecological considerations have been brushed aside as the Government tries to rush through a Bill that will result in a development free for all that will take years to address. It is an outrage that the Government is getting away with this on the last few days of a Dáil session instead of giving us the proper opportunity to discuss this legislation in detail and highlight all of its faults.

There are many amendments and I would like to give other Deputies a chance to speak on them but I am disgusted with this legislation.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 6, to delete lines 27 and 28 and substitute the following:

"(b) the development would contribute substantially to the fulfilment of any of”.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 14 to 17, inclusive, not moved.

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 6, to delete lines 34 to 36.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 19 to 28, inclusive, not moved.

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 7, line 3, after "application" to insert the following:

"and public notice must be given of any meeting regarding such advice and that members of the public can attend".

Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 44; Níl, 75.

  • Breen, James.
  • Breen, Pat.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Crowe, Seán.
  • Deasy, John.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Enright, Olwyn.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Gogarty, Paul.
  • Gormley, John.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Higgins, Joe.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McCormack, Padraic.
  • McEntee, Shane.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • McHugh, Paddy.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Morgan, Arthur.
  • Murphy, Catherine.
  • Murphy, Gerard.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • O’Dowd, Fergus.
  • O’Keeffe, Jim.
  • O’Shea, Brian.
  • O’Sullivan, Jan.
  • Pattison, Seamus.
  • Penrose, Willie.
  • Perry, John.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Timmins, Billy.
  • Twomey, Liam.
  • Upton, Mary.

Níl

  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, Barry.
  • Ardagh, Seán.
  • Brady, Johnny.
  • Brady, Martin.
  • Brennan, Seamus.
  • Browne, John.
  • Callanan, Joe.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Carey, Pat.
  • Carty, John.
  • Cassidy, Donie.
  • Collins, Michael.
  • Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cregan, John.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Curran, John.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Tony.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • Devins, Jimmy.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Finneran, Michael.
  • Fleming, Seán.
  • Fox, Mildred.
  • Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
  • Glennon, Jim.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Hoctor, Máire.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Keaveney, Cecilia.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kelly, Peter.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Seamus.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lenihan, Conor.
  • McDowell, Michael.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • Moloney, John.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Mulcahy, Michael.
  • Nolan, M. J.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • O’Connor, Charlie.
  • O’Dea, Willie.
  • O’Donnell, Liz.
  • O’Donoghue, John.
  • O’Donovan, Denis.
  • O’Flynn, Noel.
  • O’Keeffe, Batt.
  • O’Malley, Fiona.
  • O’Malley, Tim.
  • Parlon, Tom.
  • Power, Peter.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Sexton, Mae.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wright, G.V.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kehoe and Crowe; Níl, Deputies Kitt and Kelleher.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 32 to 36, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Amendment No. 32 not moved.

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 7, line 39, after "authority" to insert the following:

", and in the case of paragraph (c) of section 37A(2), on all planning authorities the areas of which would be significantly affected by the proposed development”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 7, to delete line 40 and substitute the following:

"(7) No application for permission in respect of a development referred to in subsection (1) shall be made to a planning authority unless or until a notice is served under subsection (4)(b) in relation to the development.

(8) In this section ‘appropriate planning auth-".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 35 not moved.

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 7, line 45, to delete "that subsection" and substitute "subsection (1)".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 37, 48 and 76 are related and amendment No. 77 is an alternative to amendment No. 76 and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 37:

In page 7, between lines 45 and 46, to insert the following:

"(5) Applicants shall, following receipt of a notice under section 37(B)(1)(a), erect this notice on red paper, alongside the planning application site notice, in accordance with the relevant provisions of Planning and Development Regulations, as amended by section of the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006.”.

The purpose of these amendments is to ensure where a project is fast tracked through this rather rapid process that the public know what is going on. I am concerned that these hugely important projects which will have the possibility of massively changing the face of a neighbourhood will not be known to the general public and to those who adjoin the development. While I appreciate that regulations may follow that provide for detailed site notices and newspaper notices we have no guarantee that will happen or that the Minister will bring these regulations before the House prior to their implementation. It is a lacuna in the parliamentary process and it is incumbent on those of us in Opposition to put forward formal proposals for a methodology by which the public will be consulted on these proposals. I propose, therefore, that a new site notice, coloured red, is erected for these strategic infrastructural projects to ensure there is more public consultation than might be the case.

I support the amendment. A yellow notice for projects that have to be re-advertised is already a comparable case. I find that people do not read newspaper notices. In the area where the development is to take place it makes sense to differentiate the notices. This would be a wise move.

During the course of the long debate on Committee Stage and elsewhere we had constructive discussions on this issue. Deputy Murphy, I am sure inadvertently, has touched on the core of the issue. The matter of the colour of notices was previously dealt with in regulation. I suggest there will be colour differentiation but as in the case of the yellow notice, which the Deputy said is helpful, it was made by regulation. It would not be wise to move in the direction suggested by Deputy Cuffe in amendments Nos. 37 and 48.

Deputy Cuffe tabled a related amendment No. 76. The major change would be to introduce a restriction on the board's flexibility by requiring all further information to be made available within a specified period, whereas it would be helpful for the board to have some time to distinguish and determine that some additional information be made available. Deputy Morgan's associated amendment No. 77 would have the impact of reducing the flexibility of the board on the issue of requesting further information. I refer the Deputies' attention to section 37F(2) which sets out extensive public notice requirements for further information and it is mandatory where a new EIS or other information with substantial new information is submitted. In other cases it is appropriate that the board should decide on whether the views of the public need to be sought in a particular case. It would be a mistake to reduce the flexibility of the board in these matters. As I have said during the course of the debate and in response to Deputy Murphy's specific observation, regulation is the appropriate way to decide the colour coding on notices from time to time. That is what I intend to continue to do.

The problem with section 37F(2) is that we do not have a clear idea as to what the Minister is proposing as paragraph (a) contains the phrase “as appropriate”. We have no idea, nor has the public, what the Minister means by “as appropriate”. I ask that the Minister give a firm commitment at this Stage to clarify exactly what will be legally required because he may decide in his wisdom that he does not want to see site notices. He should give some commitment to the House this evening that he will require site notices and newspaper notices and that they will go at least as far as the existing legislation if not much further. In fact the Minister should advise any property owner or inhabitant who lives beside the development on what is going on as is the case under Scottish law. Given that the Minister has massively shortened the possibilities for public input into the process, he should give some indication that the public will be consulted before these schemes are rushed through.

I am grateful to Deputy Cuffe for giving me the opportunity to repeat the point I made several times on Committee Stage that I intend that regulations will cover. That is exactly the arrangement that exists at present. I am pleased to make that point clear. In reference to the point made by Deputy Murphy the best way to do that is by different colours being required by regulation. I am surprised at Deputy Cuffe mentioning Scottish law in this area because he knows that Scottish law would not necessarily be a good planning precedent for this country. It would mean reducing the extensive third-party rights of objection that exist here.

It was not that aspect of the legislation to which I was drawing attention, as the Minister knows.

Whatever about Scottish legislation, the legislation before us does not set a good precedent. The Minister should reflect seriously on this, as it will be too late to reflect on it in the coming days or after 9.30 p.m.

Amendment No. 77 tries to strengthen the need for the board to seek further information. This is in keeping with the amendment which has just been defeated which proposed to provide for public notice in this regard. It tried to involve the public to ensure the broadest group possible would be able to make submissions and inform the board of their opinions but that opportunity has been squeezed out, as have the powers of local authorities. The legislation is extremely retrograde. Its entire motivation is to completely stamp out the objections of communities such as Rossport, Carranstown, Ringaskiddy and Poolbeg. While communities do not appreciate the import or consequences of this legislation, I have no doubt they will be provided with detailed notice of it in the next ten months. I hope these same communities will consider the position in terms of the parties which brought the legislation forward and that they will avail of the opportunity to put in place a Government which will, I hope, be in a position to reverse this one-sided legislation.

One of the problems we face is that as time is short, we will not reach some important amendments. Therefore, we must debate the ones we can reach. I would like to have reached amendment No. 45 which deals with the economic and social issue. It is very important when examining these issues that the economic and social impact, as well as the environmental impact, is assessed.

The public notice should be colour coded to indicate the exact issues involved to the public. In meeting the criteria to get in the door or gain access to the debate on critical infrastructure, we should demand that when the public recites its objections, colour-coded notices having been issued, it also be allowed to debate further germane and important issues. I would appreciate a reply from the Minister in this regard.

The Minister has already given his reply.

I compliment Deputy O'Dowd on making creative use of his time.

I am trying to work out whether that was a slur or a compliment. I will take it as a compliment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 38 to 40, inclusive, and amendment No. 84 are related and will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 7, to delete lines 46 to 52 and in page 8, to delete lines 1 to 16 and substitute the following:

"(6) The Board shall prepare a report and keep it on public record, of its considerations and deliberations that determined the outcome of its decision under section 37(A).".

This is an important amendment. Many who have gone through the long and protracted process involving An Bord Pleanála are often astounded when they find that, although the inspector has ruled in their favour, the board has ruled against the views voiced by the group involved. This happened recently in the case of the incinerator in Ringaskiddy in Cork and more recently in the case of the Monkstown ring road in Dún Laoghaire. There is often an enormous disconnection between the considered views of the An Bord Pleanála inspector and the final decision of the board. I read through the inspector's views on the Monkstown ring road which ran to 135 pages and he came out strongly against proceeding with the project. However, the board's decision seemed to come from another planet and there seemed to be no connection between the two reports.

It is crucial that people are given some information on how the board comes to a view that may well be different from that of its inspector. We do not just need the final decision of the board, but the reasons for its decision. Just as we can get a copy of the report on a High Court or Supreme Court judgment in which we see the views of the judges represented and details of the various bodies of law examined, we should be able to get a copy of a report detailing how the board comes to its opinion on a particular application. It may, for example, look at national policy on sustainable development or the views of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. Many and various influences come to bear on the board which should be recorded. We need clarity as to the reasons it makes its decision, not just a record of the decision, particularly in cases where there is a significant divergence from the views of its inspector. We need to know how this happens. It is a requirement of European law that the reasons for decisions be made visible and I am mystified as to why the Minister has not seen fit to proceed with this. It is time we included this provision in Irish law.

I strongly support the amendment. It is a core and fundamental democratic principle that decisions of the board should be reported and placed on the public record for inspection. Far too often we have had this carry on, where well qualified inspectors make lengthy and detailed reports, but the board seems to overturn them on a whim. Of course, it must operate to the dictates of Government policy and, therefore, its hands are tied. However, it should record the reason for its decision and make it public, which is the essence of the amendment. The Minister is indicating that the board does this, but it does not. It does not make its reasons public.

Similarly, the two most fundamental issues concerning any development, people's health and the environment, are not allowed to form part of the consideration. This is Government policy. The Minister will smile at the amendment and dismiss it with the same level of charity he showed to previous amendments. We will deal with this issue in the coming months.

I support the amendments. Tonight legislation is being enacted that signals the beginning of the end for An Bord Pleanála. The board, as we know it, has been in place for 30 years since the mid-1970s when it was established as the Planning Appeals Board. It won and established for itself a reputation and credibility among the public. People may not always have liked its decisions, but it had credibility and was considered to be the court of appeal when it came to planning issues. In recent years, there have been changes in the role of An Bord Pleanála. The additional functions given to the board in the 2000 Planning Act added the roads function which previously had been the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. That changed An Bord Pleanála and so will this Bill. The board will no longer be a court of planning appeal and it will now be part of the development arm of Government. It will be the State agency that from the planning point of view will facilitate developments the Government wants to see go ahead.

I have the height of regard for the integrity and independence of the members and staff of An Bord Pleanála but we have seen this conflict developing in recent years where professional planners engaged by An Bord Pleanála conduct public inquiries or oral hearings. They make a recommendation that is then overturned by the members of An Bord Pleanála, who do not appear to follow the same planning logic that was the basis for the recommendation made by the planner. They seem to follow an expectation that Government policy will be followed.

However vague that may have been up to now, it is becoming explicit in this Bill. There is no ambiguity about what is expected of An Bord Pleanála under this legislation, which is that it will give the green light to the strategic infrastructure projects listed in Schedule Seven. This will undermine public confidence and public acceptance of An Bord Pleanála. In the years ahead the board will be seen not as the fair-minded place where one brings a planning appeal but rather as the body that facilitates development with which local communities may have difficulties.

It is a great pity we are only now dealing with amendment No. 38 out of more than 200 amendments. There is no need for the Government to have insisted on a truncated debate on this Bill. In response to a question I asked on Committee Stage, the Minister acknowledged that this legislation will not be commenced until November. There is no imperative in concluding All Stages of the Bill tonight. The only reason for a guillotine in 15 minutes' time is for the political convenience of the Government. It is a controversial Bill the Government wants out of the way and buried under all the legislation that has been guillotined this week, rather than giving it the time for the scrutiny it deserves and for the consideration of the amendments tabled, most of which will not now be reached.

Deputy Cuffe and other speakers referred to the important issue of how An Bord Pleanála is seen to perform its duties. It is acceptable for the board to agree with an inspector's report and this is a transparent and open procedure. However in the case where the board disagrees with the inspector, my amendment and that of Deputy Cuffe require the board to recite the reasons for its disagreement with the inspector. In the interests of transparency, the board should refute each of the arguments favoured by the inspector if it disagrees with them. The board should outline the arguments. A counter argument to that proposal is that this might lead to judicial review of the decisions being made.

It is important to have transparency and openness in the planning system. Notices are published in the newspapers and there is local access to the information. The view of the local authority is expressed through a report from the county manager and the views of the elected members and the inspector. This amendment is an attempt to make the decision more transparent.

The strategic infrastructure board is required to meet and may decide to go to the full board before a decision is made. If the strategic infrastructure board is of the same view with regard to section 37(A) and grants an application, the chairman may use his power to call a meeting of the full board. It is then not known what has occurred at the meeting of the strategic infrastructure board. In the interests of transparency, the debate and the issues raised at the meeting should be recorded and this is proposed in my amendment No. 40.

I have been informed that currently the full board publishes its decisions but not the minutes of the meeting which are available under the freedom of information legislation. In the interests of transparency, all the information the board uses to come to a decision, including the minutes of the meeting, should be published. An Bord Pleanála had a number of meetings on the issue of the proposed incinerator on the borders of counties Louth and Meath, but we do not have access to the arguments put forward at those meetings. These amendments will make the decision-making process more transparent. I await the Minister's comments on the amendments.

One area of policy the public has a right to be concerned about is the area of planning. One need only look to Dublin Castle and the tribunals for the reason. Any punishment for wrongdoing in the past has fallen on the public. I refer to the €20 charge and the time limit restrictions for making objections. I agree with the point made by other speakers that this is the beginning of the end of An Bord Pleanála. The board is being directed to make a decision by virtue of the fact that it is Government policy and this negates the reason for the board's existence.

Planning decisions made at local authority level are transparent in that the file can be examined. This can be of assistance to the public. They may not like a certain decision but they can at least study the rationale behind the decision. The absence of this facility will reduce rather than shore up public confidence. The first thing I look for when I see a decision that I cannot rationalise is the inspector's report. In most cases, there will be no relationship between the report and the decision taken. That has been mentioned before. I have seen it over and over again in Government policy, even with issues such as building heights or densities which would never be allowed in a development plan. Such heights or densities might be allowed, for example, because it is Government policy to increase density. The very least that can be afforded is some transparency in how decisions are arrived at.

It is a very interesting discussion. I draw the Deputies' attention to section 37C(3). That requires the board to keep a record in writing of any consultations under section 37D with regard to a proposed development, including the names of those who participated in the consultations; and that such a record should be placed and kept among the relevant documents. That is transparency in the sense that Deputies are concerned about.

More importantly, I wish to discuss a proposition which has arisen from the amendment. This is the proposition that the board must always abide by the decision of the inspector.

Nobody has said that.

Nobody proposed that.

I have listened with great patience and I would ask the Deputy to indulge me and let me develop my point. The Deputy can then respond.

We are sorry to try the Deputy's patience.

It is not a question of trying my patience, but of simple courtesy and good manners.

If the board differentiates from the decision of the inspector or rejects its decision, it should not be decried. The inverse is that the board must always accept the views of the inspector. I am not arguing that Deputies stated this. This would mean the board has no place at all, and it would not be required. If the board was simply to sign up for the inspector's views, there is no need to have it. Deputies should be careful in developing such an hypothesis.

A second point I would draw Members' attention to is section 34(10)(a) of the Planning and Development Act 2000. It clearly specifies that where the board makes a distinction and takes a different view from the inspector, recording is required as to the basis of the distinction. That is provided for in law as it stands.

That is only for an appeal.

That is the good practice established by the Act.

Will it apply to this?

It will. It will be cross-referenced to this by the board itself.

I will deal with specific references because I have strayed somewhat from them. The amendments would change the requirements on the question of what information is available to the public on both pre-planning applications and mediation meetings. It is important that minuted meetings be kept, and as I have mentioned, this is specifically required.

I am satisfied that the transparency flows from section 37C, which provides that all such meetings must be recorded in detail by the board, and that these records will be available on the planning files. These give greater transparency than one might find in many planning decisions from local authorities around the country. I am also happy that 37F(3) similarly requires the board to make a record of any mediation meetings. Both of the types of meeting Deputies are concerned about are dealt with.

Amendments Nos. 38, 40 and 84, which I cannot accept, would change what the board must keep on public files with regard to pre-application consultations. The current requirements in the Bill, that the board must keep a record of any consultations held, are broader than these amendments. I am sure it is not the intention of the people moving the amendments to limit the process. However, the current arrangements are broader than what the amendments would bring about. We had this discussion in the Seanad and on Committee Stage. I want the full record of consultations to be public, and that process is provided for in the Bill.

With regard to amendment No. 39 to section 37C, that would require information to be provided within certain timeframes in advance of pre-application discussion. It is vital that the board be given sufficient time to consider information. The unintentional effect is to put a straitjacket on the board with the issue of timeframes. As it currently stands, the board has the right to regulate itself and make good rules for its own operation. It is more prudent to leave it to the board to determine issues relating to timeframes.

The concerns expressed by Deputies, which are not unreasonable, are well addressed in sections 37C and 37F(3), and by reference to the good practice which has grown as a result of the 2000 Act. For those reasons I do not accept the amendments.

A door will be closed at the planning counter in a few minutes, but the flap of a tent will open elsewhere in a few days. The public's input into the planning process is about to be severely limited. The kind of fast-tracking of the amendments which we have tonight is symptomatic and similar to the kind of fast-tracking which will come about if this Bill is passed. We have not gone through a quarter of the amendments on Report Stage, and I suspect we will not get through the list of public concerns once the fast-tracking process is in place.

We should be clear that we are centralising power. The Minister is centralising power. This is not the first time this has been done by a Fianna Fáil Government and it will not be the last time. We had the same issue with the strategic planning guidelines. The Minister will argue that planning authorities such as An Bord Pleanála must have regard for the views of the local authority and elected representatives. We had that with the strategic planning guidelines. However, they were ignored when it came to the development plans of Kildare and Meath. At the centre, An Bord Pleanála rode roughshod over the strategic planning guidelines in Meath and Kildare.

The "have regard" phrase was meaningless at the end of the day. We are getting rid of the right of appeal this evening. We are threatening the impartiality of An Bord Pleanála and very dangerously threatening the impartiality that has served the board well over its 30 years of existence, and particularly in recent years.

The Minister is closing it down.

It is an arrogant move, the same arrogance that led to the Minister setting up a heritage trust some days ago and ignoring the 50 years of experience that Ireland's national trust, An Taisce, has given to this land since Robert Lloyd Praeger initiated the organisation some 50 years ago. The Minister ignored those views and appointed people who have more to do with concrete than conservation.

In a few days in Galway, the flap of a tent will open. The people of Ringaskiddy will not be there. Nor will the people of Ringsend or Little Bray, but the Minister's pals will be. This evening sees a dangerous move as this Bill is made a reality. The Minister will cause enormous damage to the planning process and to An Bord Pleanála. The door is being closed to public participation in the planning process. The entire planning system will suffer from the changes being proposed today. I will press the amendment.

We are not saying that An Bord Pleanála cannot disagree with the inspector. We are arguing that the board should identify clearly the points of disagreement or how the case would be argued.

Taking for example the incinerator in Carranstown, there were approximately 20 professional people representing Indaver at the relevant oral hearing. A large number from the general public made their own cogent arguments against the incinerator. The inspector sat there for four or five days and then the board appointed an individual member to look at the inspector's report.

The problem is that the credibility of the institution suffers when we do not know exactly what the points of disagreement were and when the board states the reason for doing it is that it is Government policy. If that is the case, that is fine but they should also recite the other arguments so that we can know that they were listened to. It is not required that the individual who represents the board when it examines the situation should state everything that he or she has read.

As it is now 9.30 p.m., I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 100; Níl, 28.

  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, Barry.
  • Ardagh, Seán.
  • Brady, Johnny.
  • Brady, Martin.
  • Breen, James.
  • Breen, Pat.
  • Brennan, Seamus.
  • Browne, John.
  • Callanan, Joe.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Carey, Pat.
  • Carty, John.
  • Cassidy, Donie.
  • Collins, Michael.
  • Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Cregan, John.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Curran, John.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Deasy, John.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Tony.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • Devins, Jimmy.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Enright, Olwyn.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Finneran, Michael.
  • Fleming, Seán.
  • Fox, Mildred.
  • Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
  • Glennon, Jim.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Hoctor, Máire.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Keaveney, Cecilia.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kelly, Peter.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Seamus.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lenihan, Conor.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McDowell, Michael.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • Mitchell, Olivia.
  • Moloney, John.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Mulcahy, Michael.
  • Murphy, Gerard.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Nolan, M. J.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • O’Connor, Charlie.
  • O’Dea, Willie.
  • O’Donnell, Liz.
  • O’Donoghue, John.
  • O’Donovan, Denis.
  • O’Dowd, Fergus.
  • O’Flynn, Noel.
  • O’Keeffe, Batt.
  • O’Keeffe, Jim.
  • O’Keeffe, Ned.
  • O’Malley, Fiona.
  • O’Malley, Tim.
  • Parlon, Tom.
  • Perry, John.
  • Power, Peter.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Sexton, Mae.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Timmins, Billy.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Twomey, Liam.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wright, G. V.

Níl

  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Crowe, Seán.
  • Cuffe, Ciarán.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Gogarty, Paul.
  • Gormley, John.
  • Gregory, Tony.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McHugh, Paddy.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Morgan, Arthur.
  • Murphy, Catherine.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • O’Shea, Brian.
  • O’Sullivan, Jan.
  • Pattison, Seamus.
  • Penrose, Willie.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Sherlock, Joe.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Upton, Mary.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kitt and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Stagg and Cuffe.
Question declared carried.