Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Dec 1990

Vol. 127 No. 2

Order of Business.

The Order of Business for today is Items Nos. 3 and 4.

I would like to plead with the Leader of the House to reconsider the derisory time being allocated to this most important legislation, the Companies Bill. It is not unlikely that august bodies such as the CII, the CIS or the CCAB might come down on all our heads in this House, and in the other House, to bring to our attention and to underline their enormous concern with what we are about in the Houses of Parliament. That is exactly what is happening now. The first five Parts of this Bill, Parts I to V, are being given three hours now; 180 minutes to consider 121 sections and 147 amendments. It makes absolutely no sense. Quite frankly, the Government are treating the Seanad with utter disdain and disregard. On reflection — and maybe a bit of mature reflection — and looking back over the months and years, we should not be so surprised that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, a Progressive Democrats Minister would treat the Seanad like this. After all, it is part to the Progressive Democrats programme to abolish the Seanad, but all of us on this side of the House will not put up with it. I urge the very reasonable Leader of the House to reconsider the appalling treatment of this vital legislation.

I am beginning to wonder about the parties over there. The larger party seems to be perpetually dictated to by the smaller party. They sacked the Tánaiste and now they are ramming through legislation.

That does not form part of the Order of Business.

I thought we were talking about the time allocated to the Companies Bill which is going to be dealt with in this House by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

There are other matters that I am satisfied do not have any role here this morning.

If you are satisfied that they do not have any role here, Sir, I suppose I am obliged to accept your interpretation. May I take a different tack on this one then, which perhaps will illustrate what I am talking about? The Government tell us consistently that they want serious legislation taken in this House. When this Bill came through this House those of us here on the Independent benches spent at least a year, if not 18 months, on a weekly basis, asking when or if Government amendments for the Committee Stage of the Bill would come before us. We waited with increasing impatience for those amendments. When they came, they were detailed and comprehensive. We had a long and very important and, because of the nature of the Business, totally unreported Committee Stage on the Companies Bill. Before we get any sidelines on this, the argument here is not about publicity or anything like that. It is about the fact that this House has an important constitutional role in considering legislation which many of us, including the Members over there when they are on this side — which should be more often and more frequently — take quite seriously.

We are permanently here.

That is the trouble. I am not sure of your permanence any more. A lot of things have changed in this country recently, amongst them the certainties of Fianna Fáil. When a Bill like this comes back from the other House, I appreciate that Standing Orders, as they deal with amendments from one House to another, make the procedures a little bit difficult, but the fact that they make the procedures a little bit difficult is no justification for a derisory decision. Why does he not say "Pass it by 12 noon"? He might as well. It makes absolutely no difference. I am going to propose an amendment to the Order of Business to suggest that the business for the week concludes at 12 o'clock.

Hear, hear.

It is as meaningful to finish at 12 o'clock as it is to go through this farce. I, therefore, formally propose that the Companies Bill be concluded by 12 o'clock today.

May I begin by proposing that the Bill be recommitted? That would allow a full debate to take place on the Bill. What is happening is effectively a rubber-stamping job of a fairly low quality. Senator Ryan is right in treating it with the contempt that it deserves. It is basically being treated as a rather long joke in the sense that it is going to go on for 12 hours. That is 12 hours of doing nothing effectively, being either for or against it. Most of us could make up our minds about that in rather a short space of time. There is not much purpose in going on and on about something which effectively is going to boil down to a "yes" or "no" position. What is happening is being primarily dictated by the need of some elements of the Government to come up with some degree of substantial legislation and to have that produced before Christmas so that it will appear in the reviews of what has been going on in the Oireachtas and what has been achieved in this session, which basically would come to very little if something substantial such as the Companies Bill had not been put on the Statute Book.

The trouble with all this is that it has been treated in a totally unacceptable manner, in a manner which treats this House with contempt and which ultimately treats the public, and those people who have to have their lives regulated and protected by the Companies Bill, with contempt. These people are also ultimately treated by contempt by the Government by the manner in which they are allowing this debate to take place.

The approach to this Bill is reasonable. This Bill was introduced three and a half years ago and has 270 amendments. How can Senator Ryan and others be serious in requesting more business for the Seanad when there is blatant obstruction here to a Bill that has been here for those years? This Bill was in the Seanad for two years and has been discussed in detail. Yet, we are now told it is being "rammed through" and "rubber stamped". That is not a serious comment on a Bill which is claimed to be so important. This Bill has been dealt with. It is right and proper——

Obstruction, all right.

I would claim that it is right and proper that this House disposes of the Bill as expeditiously as possible.

(Interruptions.)

If it has been justified to spend three and a half years on a Bill, how can one say now it is being rubber stamped and rammed through? I hope we can get a little more sincerity.

Speak to your Minister——

Have you a question for the Leader, Senator McGowan?

I would claim that the most sincere part of the contribution has come from the Opposition is to pass the Bill at 12 o'clock today. It is only a formality. They know that right well.

Just in case there is any doubt in the mind of the Leader of the House or in the minds of any other Members present, it is in our interest to ensure that there is a Companies Act put on the Statute Book. I want to make it clear that we want to see an upgrading of company law. We have recognised the problems that have existed, that there has been fraudulent, dishonest and reckless trading. All that needs to be dealt with. We recognise the Phoenix syndrome in business. We are anxious to assist in ensuring that whatever measures are necessary to take care of these situations are put into effect.

In relation to Senator McGowan's observations, like myself he received copies of 297 amendments at noon yesterday. I received the Bill as passed by the Dáil early yesterday afternoon. Nobody can seriously suggest that any of us here could in that time have examined a Bill of over 200 pages containing over 300 amendments. That is impossible. We are objecting on two counts to what is being done. First, we are being given inadequate time to deal with a measure that may very well form the basis of company law over the next number of decades. Secondly, and more importantly, the Seanad in Senator McGowan's words, is being asked to rubber stamp legislation which we do not have the time to examine and with which we are not satisfied. We do have a duty as Members of the Seanad. We are expected by the public, and especially by the industrial and commercial sector in this particular instance, to be responsible in our attitude to this legislation. We stand condemned if we simply rubber stamp a document of this importance without having——

I try to be fair to everybody and allow a reasonable discussion on the matter. Unless you have something specific to put to the Leader of the House I think you are really making a speech. Much of what you are saying has been said already by your colleague.

I have something specific to put to the Leader of the House. I want to say, as confirmation of our interest in ensuring that there is good company law in this country which can deal with the problems I have referred to that we are prepared if given time, to sit all night, if necessary or to come back early in the New Year and to devote as many days as are necessary then to give a thorough examination to this Bill in order to satisfy ourselves that what we are doing is the right and proper thing, whether it is a matter of sitting all night, whether it is in the new year, or whenever it is, I am saying to the Leader that he has a duty, with the rest of us, to ensure that the integrity of this House is respected in relation to such important legislation.

Give us time to examine this Bill adequately. Give us time to come back and debate it, bearing in mind that it took the Special Committee of the Dáil 21 days to go through this. We are expected to go through it in 12 hours. That is my request and I am putting it to the Leader of the House. Put this measure back. We will come back in the new year. We will sit for as long as is necessary — through the night if required.

I have to say that this is a very comprehensive guillotine motion. It is squalid, and only very slightly constitutional. The Constitution requires the Seanad to operate as a refining Chamber. It is simply not possible for us to act as we are directed by the Constitution because of the unacceptable behaviour of the Government. I do not blame the Leader of the House, because I am quite convinced he is operating under orders. I think they are dangerous orders, orders that are damaging to the reputation of the Seanad and subversive of the Constitution. I wonder how succeeding generations will feel when they read in the Official Report of the House that distinguished Members such as Senator Doyle and Senator Howard received over 200 amendments at 12 o'clock. We simply are being prevented from doing the duty with which we are charged. The amendments run to 74 pages. I am in contact with a number of professional bodies because I take my responsibilities as a Senator seriously. One of them, The Parliamentary and Law Committee of the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies in Ireland has provided me with a briefing document that runs to nearly 30 pages. To put all that together, there are over 100 pages of undiluted text and commentary without any gloss placed on it by any of us in the Seanad. In other words, it is plainly technically impossible for us to treat this Bill with respect. The Government are treating it and us with gross contempt.

For that reason, I have great — I almost said great pleasure, but it does not give me pleasure — conviction in formally seconding Senator Brendan Ryan's motion which returns the contempt to the place it originated — and that is the Government benches. I hope Senator Ryan will call a vote. I hope that this side of the House will be properly obstructive because it is our responsibility now to be as obstructive as we possibly can in order to turn the searchlight of public interest on the way in which this Companies Bill is being treated. I have no doubt whatever that the public will note the discrepancy between the way in which we were suddenly all galloped back in the middle of the summer to rescue one of the Government's friends——

I want to point out to you that you are very far removed from the Order of Business at this point. I again suggest to you respectfully that you should stick to the Order of Business. If you have questions to put to the Leader, then put them. You are not going to get any more time than your colleagues got, but I am being pretty lenient.

I accept that. I will now finish that point. I would like to end with a further point about another item on the Order Paper. I wish to ask the Leader if he would consider giving time to take item No. 11, which is the Irish Nationality and Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 1989. As the Leader knows, I have spoken to him about this on a number of occasions. It arose initially because of a plea made to me about a constituent who was experiencing awkwardness about the adoption of a foreign child. That was just one instance. Now it is very clear that this matter will have to be addressed. It has become much more urgent due to the situation of Irish families wishing to adopt Romanian babies. I know that the Leader is a generous and compassionate man. I would ask him if he would consider this item. It need not be introduced under my name. If the Government wish to take over the Bill which we have prepared and introduce it themselves, I would be very happy to present them with all the briefing documents.

On the Order of Business, on the Companies Bill, I would like to point out that this Bill has been around for a long number of years. A false impression is being given here this morning. During a very long Committee Stage, all parties in this House have had a very substantial input into this Bill. Many of the amendments made have been from all sides of the House. There is an impression being given here this morning that suddenly this has just appeared on the scene. That is not quite true.

I would like to refer to something that was said earlier in regard to this party. It is the stated position of this party — and we have stated it over a long number of years — that there is no need for two Chambers in this country. That remains our position. Could I state that as long as the Seanad exists, this party, from our Leader down, will have nothing but the utmost respect for this Chamber? Frankly, I am sick and tired listening every day to the Independent group, in particular, who in my opinion are the group above all who bring this Chamber into disrepute by their daily photo opportunity to lecture us in this House. To me, this is not what the Seanad is about. They more than anybody else show a lack of respect in this House.

I am elected to the Seanad.

I want to point out to you, as I have done with your colleagues, that we are removing ourselves from the business we should be about.

On the Order of Business, could I finally say that great credit is due to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who, on taking office took this Bill enthusiastically after it was around for a long number of years and put tireless energy and effort into getting it to the stage that we have it at here today? All Members in this House know that there is a very urgent need for this Bill to be passed into legislation as soon as possible. I hope that all Senators will forget about playing games with the Opposition and get on with the real business. That is what we are supposed to be here for.

I should point out a few things to Senator Cullen. There are 300 amendments coming before this House for the first time, which the Senator simply did not seem to notice. That is what the fuss is about today. It is not about all the amendments that went through before. Senator Cullen was not in this House when the Bill came to this House originally. When it came to this House originally in 1987, it was given very serious consideration. Despite what Senator Cullen and his party think of this House, over 100 amendments were made here when it was introduced, and the law of the land was changed. That is a contribution which the Progressive Democrats have singularly failed to acknowledge. Were this House given an opportunity today to propose similar amendments, or to take or discuss seriously similar amendments, no doubt they would again be considered seriously. The fact is that the Minister, or the Government, or the Progressive Democrats have decided that this measure is to be treated in this farcical way. This is consistent with Senator Cullen's attitude to the Seanad which is that it should be abolished. I admire the Senator for it. I do not think he should be giving it two days. I think he should be accepting Senator Ryan's amendment. He could have run it through in an hour today.

I think you should try to confine yourself to the Order of Business rather than lecture.

I did not mean to do that. I was simply responding to what Senator Cullen said, and possibly getting carried away a little.

His university background comes out.

I should point out on the Order of Business — and I would ask the Leader of the House for his comment on this — that those who say the Independents are here for a photo opportunity on the Order of Business are right. They are right. We are here for a photo opportunity on every Bill and on every motion all the time. The contribution of the Independents to this House on the Order of Business is not coincidental. It is because they are here and contributing on nearly every Bill that comes before the House. While you are all there on the Order of Business, I do not see the Progressive Democrats here day in and day out either. It is nice to see you all there together.

(Interruptions.)

You are being carried away again.

I would like to say a word about the Order of Business. We are obviously now going through the normal seasonal farce that this House goes through at Christmas, at Easter and in the summer. Legislation of an important nature gets rammed through. What is happening here is that we are getting a very important Bill rammed through because the Christmas recess is coming up. It is very simple. That is what happens. The business of this House for years has been chaotically organised. It is still chaotically organised. Senator Doyle quite rightly asked yesterday, "Who is organising it?". Is it the Leader of this House or is it coming from somebody else in another House? It is about time that the Leader went back to whoever is pulling the strings and said, "We in this House are going to give legislation serious consideration and we are going to give it as long as it takes and we are not going to take orders from anybody else".

I would like to voice my objections to the new Senator who had no input one way or another to the Companies Bill either as it went through the Dáil or when it was here in the Seanad initially. What I am most dissatisfied with is the answer yesterday to my question to the Leader of the House regarding a debate on education. My understanding — when I raised that question before — in relation to having Private Members' business debated was that we were to have a full debate in the House. The inconsistency of the Government in this regard is interesting. The Minister, Deputy O'Rourke, offered her services for each session of the Seanad and asked that there would be a debate on education in the light of the recommendations from the primary review body, in the light of the "soon to be published" Green Paper and White Paper, and in the light of the Education Bill which could take years to come through.

It is essential that the Leader of the House should state today that we will have a debate on education. In over one year, we have had two debates on education which were Private Members' business. I was told last week, in relation to a promise from Fianna Fáil, that we would have a debate, that Fianna Fáil always honour their promises. I am a bit naive to believe that Fianna Fáil always honour their promises. Obviously I would need to be a bit naive to believe that, particularly in the light of Senator Fallon's comments to me yesterday that he had no plans to introduce a debate on education.

You have made your point, Senator.

I made it three times already and I am not satisfied with the answer I got. I am asking today for a specific date for a debate on education. There were six speakers, at least, who did not get in to speak in Private Members' time. If we are realistic we will realise that education is going to be an important topic this coming year in the light of reports and the forthcoming Green and White Papers.

In regard to Senator Norris's contribution, you cannot, on the one hand, make an accusation that something is being rammed through and then stand up and say: "Let us ram it through more quickly". I am a little bit surprised by that, I thought he should have gone down some other road. It is not good practice either to say who was here, when and where. It is not a very good practice and experience will show that. The other point I would like to make is on the Bill. It is a double-edged argument. If you are looking at it from the Irish Congress of Trade Union's point of view, they have been agitating for the introduction of company law over a very long period and they understand the full complexities of it. There is an anxiety to see the legislation coming through. On the other hand, the question of how it will be amended in the Dáil gives rise to some concern and obviously needs a lot of debate. You have to come down on the side of one or the other. I believe there is a middle way and that middle way would be if we did not press for one or two other things and could concentrate on the Companies Bill and not say 12 hours but say before Christmas because we are sitting again tomorrow and we are sitting next Wednesday. If there is nothing tremendously urgent then we can give that extra time to it. I ask the Leader to consider that.

It is a very complex Bill. This is probably the first Bill since the foundation of the State that dealt with all the complexities of company law. It would be a dreadful pity if, because of haggling among ourselves, we did not get it through before Christmas. I agree that 12 hours is a little short but if you are going to have it recommitted you are talking about going back to the Dáil and that will be into next year. It could then be lying in the Dáil for a long period. There is a problem there.

The 12 hours seems, on the surface, in a procedural way, to be right but because of the anxiety on the part of all Senators perhaps it would be better to say that we will finish it before Christmas and have a look at it again tomorrow and give some more time to it next Wednesday.

Senator Jackman must be attending too many Christmas parties because, as I understand it, there was absolutely no decision on the part of the Leader of the House not to have a debate on education. It is important to point out, for the record, that arrangements were made for a full day's debate and their Private Members' motion came in on education.

It would be important that the function of the Leader of the House be left to him.

I just want to give my understanding of it, a Chathaoirligh. It is important because of the snide remarks about Fianna Fáil not living up to their promises and so on. What Senator Jackman said is not true.

The Leader of the House will reply to Senator Jackman.

My remarks are very much along the lines of those of Senator Harte. I appreciate that Senator Ryan has moved an amendment that the debate should finish today at 12 o'clock to highlight the point that has been made by so many people. I personally would not feel I could support it for the reasons outlined by Senator Harte but I am sure the Leader of the House will realise that a very cogent case has been made by many speakers for an extended time. He is, as everybody says, very reasonable and accommodating and I hope he will see his way to give reasonable time even if it means that we have to sit tonight and tomorrow night and so on.

I would like also to ask the Leader of the House a question I asked him on a couple of occasions. We know that the expert committee who are reporting to the Government on local government reform are due to give their report on Monday. A Fianna Fáil committee has reported already. Could the Leader find out two things. I presume the report of Mr. Tom Barrington will be made available to us and, secondly, can he now give us an indication of the time span in view of the commitment to hold the local elections in June of what is propsed and when that legislation will be before us?

I would like to ask the Leader of the House to again seriously consider recommitting some of these parts of the Bill to a full Committee Stage. It is absolutely unreasonable to expect a worthwhile contribution from the House on, shall we say, Parts VIII and IX. They are very important parts of the legislation. This Bill went through the House very slowly and painstakingly. There was a tremendous input. It has never been looked upon as being controversial. It is legislation that will affect practically everyone in the country one way or another. When the parent 1963 Bill went through this House it took almost a year and by virtue of the fact it is very specialist legislation it is incumbent on the Minister of the day to explain the nuances and exactly what he is trying to achieve here. The public are entitled to know, we are entitled to have it on the record. To suggest that a three hour debate with set speeches from 60 Senators and a Minister's reply to cover the very important Parts VIII and IX dealing with receivers and companies under court protection is sufficient is unrealistic and I sincerely ask the Leader of the House to recommit these sections to Committee Stage even if arrangements have been made for following Stages. The 12 hours does not give Members an opportunity of finding out the information they are entitled to have.

I suggest if we could conclude the Order of Business we could then deal with some of the matters you are raising here about recommittal.

I do not follow the Cathaoirleach.

We need to conclude the Order of Business.

Is the Chair suggesting that three hours is adequate——

I am not suggesting. All I am trying to do——

——for 60 Senators and a Minister to discuss very important legislation that took several months to go through?

The Order of Business does not provide for the content of the motion to be discussed.

I agree, Sir. I am only pointing out the inadeaquacy of what is provided. I do not mind if there is a time limitation on it. Perhaps the Leader of the House can be a little more forthcoming. We are down to a two or three minutes speech. If you divide the three hours by 60 and give the Minister a half hour to reply there is absolutely no input. Senator Ryan is almost right, much as I regret having to admit it. This is a nonsense. We are expected to have an input. We must have an opportunity of asking the Minister the reason for many of the amendments he tabled there. The other House had the opportunity of a special committee, which we did not have and the Bill has changed utterly since it has——

I must remind you——

I am not speaking on the legislation, I am speaking on the time allocation.

You have taken considerable opportunity and at this stage you must realise that and let us get on with the Order of Business and conclude it.

I would like to ask the Leader of the House would he consider recommitting the more important parts of this legislation to give the House an opportunity of understanding at least what is proposed at present.

By far the greatest number of speakers referred to the Companies Bill. Some suggested that we conclude at 12 noon. I think that, quite honestly, would not be the way forward. I certainly think that would be wrong and I have no intention of accepting that amendment. Many of the Senators talked about extra time or recommittal of the Companies Bill.

Senators Doyle, Ryan, Upton, McGowan, Howard, Norris, Cullen, Ross, Jackman, Harte and McDonald all referred to some aspect of the Companies Bill. As I informed the House last week, in the normal course a Seanad Bill, amended by the Dáil, is deemed to be a Dáil initiated Bill and on its receipt back from the Dáil the Bill is set down for Report Stage in the Seanad and the amendments made by the Dáil to the Bill are treated collectively in one debate.

This was the case in the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Bill which we had back with us yesterday on Report Stage. In this instance, however, there were 297 amendments made by the Dáil to the text of the Companies (No. 2) Bill, 1987, as passed by Seanad Éireann. In the circumstances, I propose to alter the normal practice and, with the agreement of the House, divide the Bill into four segments and to allow a Report Stage debate on the content of the amendments relative to each segment, subject to the appropriate time limit. The net effect of this is that it will allow Members to speak more than once on the Bill. Each Senator may speak four times, that is to each segment of the Bill as set out in Motion No. 3 on the Order Paper.

The Minister will explain the purpose of the amendments made by the Dáil to each segment and this will be looked upon as the Report of the amendments to the Seanad by the Dáil. The only matter that may be discussed on each segment is the content of the amendments made by the Dáil relative to that particular segment and, for the assistance of Members, the Chair has circulated a list giving a breakdown of amendments made by the Dáil relevant to the segments of the Bill.

What we are doing here effectively is making a major compromise. The normal procedure, as we all know, is that there is one speaker on Report Stage. Here you have each Senator being given an opportunity on Report Stage to speak on four different occasions.

I do not have to refer to the fact that the world of business is looking for this Bill. It has been talked about for a long time. It is important that we get on with our business and have the Bill passed as quickly as possible. I suggest that two days are adequate and to suggest that we complete the Bill by 12 noon this morning is totally irresponsible. Other speakers referred to points that I would like to talk about. Senator Norris asked about item No. 11. I have no intention, certainly before Christmas, or even for a while afterwards, of considering this. Senator Norris has done nicely over the last few weeks. Senator Jackman referred to education and she suggested that we were not telling the truth. The fact is that on the day after Senator Jackman opened her debate on education on Private Members' business, which the Senator was entitled to have, we had agreed that the Minister would come into the House. You do not really expect the Minister to come into the House on a major debate on education on a Wednesday, on a Thursday and on the following Wednesday. We had it all set up with the Minister for a major debate. Senator Jackman must accept this. It is a fact that Minister O'Rourke agreed to come to this House on a particular day for a major debate, probably for three hours, on education. When the Senator came in with her Private Member's Bill, on which there was a fairly comprehensive debate, admittedly three hours, but the Senator was only going to get three hours anyway from the Minister, which is the normal time, there was very little point in having the Minister come in the following day as well. She accepted that it was not necessary, I accepted that it was not necessary, the House accepted it and the Senator herself probably accepted it. It is unreal to think that you would have Minister O'Rourke or any other Minister here on a debate on Wednesday evening, the following Thursday on the same subject in Government time and the following week again on Private Members' time. That to me is not reasonable.

Senator Harte took a reasonable approach to the idea of concluding at 12 noon. Many of us in this House could learn from Senator Harte's wisdom, his experience and his approach to matters generally in this House. Senator Hederman asked a question about local government reform. As the Senator rightly said, reports are still being made available. What has been suggested to me is that it is far too early to say exactly when legislation will be prepared. What I do know is that it will be prepared as quickly as possible.

Is the Order of Business agreed to?

I have an amendment down.

Your amendment was not seconded, Senator.

Senator Norris seconded my amendment.

I am telling you that the amendment was not seconded.

I am saying that Senator Norris seconded my amendment.

I seconded——

I am satisfied that it was not seconded.

I am satisfied that you are wrong.

I will not allow the Chair to be challenged. Resume your seat, please, Senator. Is the Order of Business agreed?

The record will show that it was seconded.

Question put: "That the Order of Business be Items Nos. 3 and 4."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 26; Níl, 20.

  • Bohan, Eddie.
  • Conroy, Richard.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Dardis, John.
  • Fallon, Sean.
  • Farrell, Willie.
  • Finneran, Michael.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Haughey, Seán F.
  • Honan, Tras.
  • Hussey, Thomas.
  • Keogh, Helen.
  • Kiely, Dan.
  • Kiely, Rory.
  • Lanigan, Michael.
  • Lydon, Don.
  • McCarthy, Seán.
  • McGowan, Paddy.
  • McKenna, Tony.
  • Mooney, Paschal.
  • Mullooly, Brian.
  • O'Brien, Francis.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • O'Keeffe, Batt.
  • Ryan, Eoin David.
  • Wright, G.V.

Níl

  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Doyle, Avril.
  • Harte, John.
  • Hederman, Carmencita.
  • Hourigan, Richard V.
  • Howard, Michael.
  • Jackman, Mary.
  • Kennedy, Patrick.
  • McDonald, Charlie.
  • McMahon, Larry.
  • Murphy, John A.
  • Naughten, Liam.
  • Neville, Daniel.
  • Norris, David.
  • Ó Foighil, Pól.
  • O'Reilly, Joe.
  • Ross, Shane P.N.
  • Ryan, Brendan.
  • Ryan, John.
  • Upton, Pat.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Wright and McKenna; Níl, Senators Howard and O'Reilly.
Question declared carried.
Order of Business agreed to.
Top
Share