I move amendment No. 46:
In page 20, subsection (1) (a), line 18, after “he” to insert “or she”.
This is a technical amendment to put in "he or she" instead of "he".
SECTION 16.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 47, 49 and 53 are related and may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 20, subsection (1) (a), line 27, after “person in” to insert “or in relation to”.
These are technical amendments similar to amendments we have made in sections 2 and 13 to ensure that the situation covers not only where somebody could benefit where a Minister, a civil servant or a senior executive performs a function but also where they fail to perform a function; in other words, if they omit to put in a penalty or something. That is what the technical amendment covers. We have agreed it in sections 2 and 13 in regard to members and office holders.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 20, line 48, and in page 21, lines 1 and 2, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:
"(2) There shall be deemed to be included in the terms on which a person holds a designated directorship referred to in subsection (1) a term that the person shall comply with that subsection.".
This is a drafting amendment to clarify what we mean by the terms of office of a designated directorship. It now becomes the terms on which a person holds a designated directorship.
Does that refer to a designated directorship of a State or semi-State body?
Yes.
That has very serious consequences because section 16 states that any person holding a designated directorship will be required to make a confidential annual statement to the public body and to the commission of the person's interests and those of his or her spouse or child which would materially influence that director in the performance of the function of the directorship.
How am I to know that my son or daughter is involved in anything like that? Will Members of this House be accused because their child owned or was involved in a property on which that directorship could have made a decision? Members' sons and daughters might not inform them of their interests because the Member might consider the interest a bad risk and not approve of their being involved in it. Therefore, they would not disclose their interest. If it was disclosed that a Member's child — and it could be any of us — had an interest, nothing would clear that Member with the media and others.
What if my son owned a property in Dawson Street on which a designated order was put increasing the value of the property from £500,000 to £2 million and I did not know of his involvement in that property? It says later in the Bill that a commission will be set up to investigate that. However, my son would not have to appear before that body; I think that it would be unconstitutional to make him do so.
As the Minister is aware, I made a lengthy contribution on this point at an earlier stage and I have been consistent on this matter, irrespective of who is in Government. I do not want any Member to be castigated and blamed in that way. No matter what he or she says they will not be believed because the media will turn the heat on them.
The Deputy has made his point. We will not have a Second Stage speech on it now.
I am dealing solely with this section.
You have made the point very adequately.
This amendment is a technical one about the definition of the contract of a designated director. The points which Deputy Connolly made apply to the section as a whole. They do not particularly arise under this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 16, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
Could the Minister clarify what a designated directorship is under Part IV, which deals with the public service, and the purpose of the section in general?
The purpose of this section is to deal with people who are designated directors of designated State companies or bodies. The First Schedule gives a list of the kinds of bodies which can be designated by order of the Minister. Those orders must be laid before the House so nothing can be done behind closed doors. It refers to a director of a State company or, where the State has a minority shareholding in a State company, the Minister for Finance might designate his or her own directors for that company.
They are obliged to make a confidential declaration of their interests and those of their spouses and children of which they are aware — that covers the point which Deputy Connolly made — to the commission. This is to ensure that people who are about the State's business as directors of State companies do not have a conflict of interest. That can be checked out by knowing in which areas they might potentially have a conflict of interest.
These directors are obliged to make declarations only in respect of those interests which could have an effect on their work as directors. For example, a director of the National Stud might have to declare other interests in the horse business, a business which Deputy McCreevy knows well. A director of Bord na Móna might be required to declare an interest in garden centres dealing with peat moss. They are not required to declare their full range of business interests but only those which would impinge on the performance of their duties as a director of that particular State company
Are agencies, bodies or boards which Ministers set up, which are not of a commercial nature, covered in the First Schedule?
Yes.
Would the Combat Poverty Agency be covered?
Yes.
Therefore, appointments to all types of public bodies by Ministers——
There is a provision in the First Schedule that the Minister for Finance, who has overall control of the public service, can designate bodies. There is a list of the kinds of bodies which can be designated in the First Schedule, which includes semi-State companies. In cases where the State has a significant minority shareholding or is in partnership in a joint venture the Minister can designate the public directors. It can cover a situation where a Minister is appointing people to a particular body. For example, the members of a working group on mining might be required to lay their interests on the table. It allows Ministers to designate particular organisations, but it is not obligatory on the Minister for Finance to designate particular subsidiary bodies in cases where those bodies might have no commercial function and conflicts of interest would be unlikely to arise. It will be done on a case by case basis and in consultation with the senior Minister for Finance would consult with one in relation to bodies under one's aegis before deciding to designate them.
From time to time Ministers set up working groups and do not necessarily need legislation. It is intended that they would be covered but after consultation with the Minister for Finance and the Minister concerned. For example, when I was Minister for Tourism and Trade I set up the Product Development Board, which will assess grant applications for European Regional Development Fund funding, among others, which did not require legislation. It was mentioned in the operational programme but it is not a semi-State company as such. Would those bodies be covered? The people on the boards are not directors; they are just appointed to the board. They are not technically members of semi-State boards. Are they covered here?
There is power to include them. There is power to designate those bodies by the Minister for Finance in conjunction with the sponsoring Minister. While technically not directors in the ordinary sense of the word, our definition of director is sufficiently broad to catch people who would be board members as such and could be designated under the Bill. The intention would be that where a potential conflict of interest would arise for people who would have a responsibility for public money, they would be required to make a declaration of their own interests to ensure that conflicts of interest would not arise in practice.
If this legislation is passed all Ministers will have to trawl through their Departments to find out how many bodies or quasi-boards have been set up, consult with the Minister for Finance and a designated list will be drawn up. Every time a Minister sets up a working group, for example, it will have to be approved by the Minister for Finance. Is that the intention?
It is the intention that on a case by case basis each Minister would decide about bodies under their auspices, be it a semi-State company, a working group or a grant giving screening agency, which might be in a commercially sensitive area. We think it sensible they make such a declaration. There are guidelines covering members of State companies and there was an agreement in the previous Government's programme to put those guidelines on a statutory footing. This section sets out to do that.
Can we take it that from now on all appointees to semi-State companies, such as the ESB or Bord na Móna, and to boards and commissions set up by Ministers or which act on an ad hoc basis, will be covered by the legislation? If this is so, it is well that it be known. Every Minister, TD or Senator is lobbied to get appointments to boards or agencies by people who will give up their free time. It might colour people’s views regarding appointments if they know they will have to make declarations.
One of the dangers of this Bill, as people who appointed the State boards will realise, is that many people will not be anxious to serve on State boards. As the Minister knows, it is difficult to get good people to serve on State boards. Of late there has been intense media attention directed at politicians and their friends — anyone appointed to a state board is assumed to be a friend of the politician or the party. I did not know the politics of some of the people I appointed and I deliberately appointed others in the certain knowledge they had no politics or were members of a party other than my own. Many good people do not want to be involved because of the intense media attention; they make a decent living in their own business.
The application of this section will affect even people who are prepared to take the glare of publicity. I foresee trouble in years to come in getting anyone to serve. If one tells a business person who one might appoint to a State board which might take up a lot of their time and pay only £4,000 or £5,000 a year——
They would not get that; they they might get £1,000.
——they will have to register all their interests and companies and that the interests of their spouse and children will also have to be registered, they will respond by asking if one thinks they are mad.
The Deputy should use the term "if known".
They will not want the appointment. The principle of the Bill is good, but I advise the Minister to reconsider the application of sections such as this. We agree with such sections being applied to office holders and politicians. However, to extend the principle to designated directors and extend it further than was envisaged by the Fianna Fáil and Labour Party programme, on an ad hoc arrangement, and to put it into legislation will make it more difficult to get people to serve on State boards or agencies. I advise the Minister to reconsider this as it applies to such people. Surely it can be done as we had agreed rather than putting down legislation. It will defeat the purpose of having good people serve on many State agencies and boards by so doing.
I will not let everybody continue with Second Stage speeches. I would like to have questions and have the Minister answer them. I have a long list of members wishing to speak. I will not stop anyone from expressing their views once on section 16, but I would like members to confine their observations to questions or clarifications and to speak once. There is no point in everybody making long speeches and the Minister repeating replies. Perhaps we could take questions from Members who have offered and then I will not stop anyone speaking on the section.
I have no objection to the principle of what the Minister is doing. However, we have got caught up in the public perception of ethics in public office which runs through this Bill. There are many loopholes in it, and we are told that regulations will be made and there will be flexibility. It will be difficult to implement this.
I am concerned with the inclusion of children in the section. Deputy McCreevy and Deputy Connolly have outlined clearly the section's implications. The Minister has not thought out this section and it should be looked at again. I am concerned that the child is brought into every aspect of the Bill. My son is an insurance broker and I do not know whom he deals with, who his clients are or what organisations he is involved with, because I do not discuss his business with him. There are implications in this section for me and other Members which are unacceptable and unwise. We are responding to events in which we were caught up over a number of years. We are trying to do good now in relation to this Bill. I believe we are going down the wrong road and that this section has wider implications which have not been thought out. I urge the Minister to look again at this section.
I strongly object to this and other sections of the Bill. Surely the Minister would accept that this section will say to experts in the marketplace — an area where there is a font of knowledge — and those in the private sector that we do not want them, that the State does not require them and that we are not going to encourage them to become involved in the apparatus of the State? Effectively, that flies in the face of all that has happened in the past few years, where both the public and private sectors have become involved in a range of areas to the benefit of the country. It has shown that the involvement of both sides leads in many cases to success.
I assure the Minister that few people will want to become involved in the State or semi-State sector, in ad hoccommittees or expert committees, simply because they will not want to be exposed to the level of scrutiny proposed by the Minister when being sought to assist the State and to give their time basically for nothing. These people do not need the paltry few pence which might be given to them to serve on some of these committees. It is an extraordinary decision which runs contrary to much of what the State has being trying to do in recent years.
We will get third or fourth division players who have nothing to lose by becoming involved. The premier league players will not become involved in the State because they will not expose themselves to the type of scrutiny envisaged in the Bill. The language used by the Minister was interesting, particularly when she said "This is designed to catch them all". It is as if there is a determination on the part of the State to further investigate and lay bare some supposed underhandedness which the Minister suggests by her approach to this Bill. I totally reject that approach because the majority of those who work for the State on semi-State or on expert committees give their time and expertise freely.
Given the way this legislation is designed, only academics who are theorists will become involved in running, operating and advising semi-State companies and Government Departments. The Minister is saying to those at the coalface, who knows what is going on in business, that if they want to become involved, then we will expose all the areas of business in which they and their families are directly involved, thereby negating the thrust of what we should be doing at State level.
Not only do I object to this section, but I have grave reservations about this Bill pandering to a certain audience or market. There is a need for an Ethics in Public Office Bill because politicians and those directly involved should have a code of practice. However, this attempt by the Minister goes way beyond that. It is a sorry day for the State because it is a step backwards. The Minister, Government Departments and semi-State companies will rue the day this legislation is brought in because it will substantially weaken their ability to avail of the best expertise at the coal-face of industry.
I warn Deputies that I will not allow Second Stage speeches on second or third contributions.
Nobody will go on a semi-State or State boards because of this legislation. It is bad enough to include a spouse, but if children are included nothing will clear the individual concerned. People will say that he knew about it all the time. As Deputy D. Wallace said, he knows the line of business which his son is in, but not his clientele. It states that an annual statement must be made to a public body and the commission. How confidential will that be? I do not doubt the integrity of either. However, we have seen matters which were supposed to be confidential but which were not kept confidential. Will people who go on a semi-State board or whatever disclose all their personal interests if that can be used to exploit their interests?
The Minister gave the National Stud and Bord na Móna as examples. She said that if one was a director of Bord na Móna, one would need to register one's interest in a garden centre. Would that be enough? Such interests would probably already be known and would have been the reason they were appointed in the first instance and would be on their curriculum vitae. If one was a director of Aer Lingus or CIE, one would have to say one owned a taxi, one’s brother had a truck or one owned a private bus, which would be irrelevant. In the case of CIE, for example, relevant information would be that one has an interest in a fuel company or that one’s son is involved in a tyre company; or, in the case of Aer Lingus, that one is involved in a catering company. It would be irrelevant in the case of Bord na Móna to declare one’s interest in a garden centre. What would be relevant would be other aspects in which that company is involved. Is this worth the trouble? if we are to do this, one must get at hidden interests. As Deputy Cullen said, people will not go to this trouble for £5,000 per year, they will back off and business people will not go on these boards.
Most semi-State directors give good public service for a low remuneration and we want to keep that high quality of public service. I make no apologies for making provisions which protect the public interest when people are charged with the public's money in a semi-State company. These provisions put on a legislative basis what already applies under the guidelines for State companies which were issued in the wake of the Greencore and Telecom Éireann affairs. There has been no great problem of which I am aware in getting people to become members of State boards. They already have to make these confidential declarations on a non-statutory basis under those guidelines. We have a provision which works. There may be some misunderstanding.
I accept the point Deputy McCreevy made. It is important that private citizens who serve in this way should not be subjected to any public exposure. That is why we have made the provision that these declarations are confidential. The Bill provides that a breach of this confidentiality in the case of any investigation would be a criminal offence. We are providing good protection for the privacy of individuals concerned. We are concerned in this section to have a balance between, on the one hand, the legitimate need to protect the public interest, where there are huge amounts of State money at stake, and to ensure that we do not have any conflicts of interest involving members of State companies and, on the other hand, the need to respect legitimate privacy so that people can serve in a public capacity for a small remuneration in the knowledge that their interests will not be published in the papers.
I will allow any Deputy who wishes to ask a question or seek clarification to do so, but please do not embarrass me by making Second Stage type speeches or I will be embarrassed enough to interrupt you.
Until now directors of State companies and members of local authorities had to make declarations of interest. You, Acting Chairman, had to do so as a member of Galway County Council and I had to do so as a member of Offaly County Council. There is no problem with this, but this Bill goes much further by proposing that these declarations should be made statutory and that they should embrace spouses and children. This will make it difficult to get people of good calibre to serve in a public capacity.
Minister, could you clarify for the Deputy the statutory and confidential nature of the declaration because I think this is the point he is making?
First of all, there are existing guidelines which cover this ground and people appointed to semi-State bodies are appointed on this basis. We are putting these guidelines on a statutory footing to ensure they have full force and effect. I make no apology for guaranteeing that where public money is at stake, the public can be satisfied there is a system in place with a watchdog commission, which has statutory backing, to ensure we do not have conflicts of interest involving people charged, as directors of public companies, with minding the public interest. I am happy the Bill does this and that it is in line with what is already in place on a non-statutory basis.
In case I am taken out of context, I want to make it absolutely clear that those who have been appointed by all Governments to State and semi-State companies have served us exceptionally well. I am not making any reflection on them in any shape or form. However, this Bill goes too far. Somebody said that under this Bill the people we would attract to State bodies would be in the third division. I think they will be in the fifth division and that we will be looking for substitutes.
I can understand that a declaration has to be made to the commission but it also has to be made to the public body concerned. To whom in the public body is the declaration to be made? Is it to the secretary of the company or to other directors? Would directors of a semi-State company know the interests of other directors?
We are only talking about interests which are relevant to the companies concerned. People do not have to make a comprehensive list of everything they own. They are obliged under the section to list relevant interests to the other directors. This is normal practice at present. If something is discussed which is relevant to a person's interest, that person would withdraw from the discussion and leave the room.
If one is appointed to a public body such as a semi-State company, one makes a declaration of interest to the commission and to the public body. To whom in the public body does one make the declaration?
The annual declaration is made to such officers of the body as may be determined by the Minister, such as the company secretary or the secretary to the board. If something arises on an ad hoc basis, one informs one’s fellow directors if one has an interest in this and the normal practice is that one would withdraw from decision making in this matter.
This is ethical practice in most organisations. It has nothing to do with this Bill. What we are talking about under section 16 is different. We are not talking about the same thing at all. Let us suppose that a declaration is made to a company secretary. Under this section, if the person who has made the declaration or any people connected with him, as defined in the Bill, have any interests relating to any function to be performed by the board, it is that person's duty to inform the company of this. If he fails to do so, is it the duty of the person to whom the confidential statement is made to bring this to the board's attention at that stage?
Normally, if there is a conflict of interest, the person concerned would withdraw from the decision making. If such a person continued to act without giving a compelling reason for doing so, this would be a legitimate matter for concern. Presumably, the board's secretary would communicate this to the sponsoring Department and to the commission, which could investigate the matter if it felt this was warranted.
It would be the duty of the secretary of the company to bring this to the attention of the board. If the board said it did not mind the person acting in this capacity and did not think it to be of any relevance, would it be the duty of the secretary, who is usually a paid official, to complain to the commission?
Section 16 (b) (iii) states that "if he or she proposes to perform the function, prepare and furnish to the other directors of the body and to the Commission ...". Therefore, the commission will know.
Who will inform it?
There will be a legal requirement.
On whom?
It will be on directors to inform fellow directors and the commission in cases where they propose to perform a function rather than absent themselves from the room.
If a director does not feel it is his duty to inform the board of an interest or if he does inform the board and the other directors feel it is of no relevance and that he may participate in the decision making but the secretary feels it is of relevance, is it the secretary's duty to report this to the commission? If not, whose duty is it?
Under the Bill a board cannot take an internal decision that this would be okay. Under section 16 (b) (iii) if a doubt arises the commission must be informed. If the commission is not satisfied, it can organise an investigation or go through the parent Department if that Department is conducting an investigation.
Whose legal duty is it to report this to the commission?
It is the duty of the Director. It is one of the terms of conditions of accepting a directorship.
If the director and other directors feel it is not relevant to the decision-making, is it the duty of the company secretary to report it?
The Bill says it is the duty of the Director to report it to the commission. If the commission is satisfied that this is an irrelevance ...
In the example I am giving, the commission would never hear about it unless it is the duty of somebody to report it.
This lays down a standard of behaviour that we expect from directors of State companies. In a case which involves a conflict of interest or a potential conflict of interest, if an item comes up on an agenda where somebody has a business interest that is seen as being relevant——
But the question is who, Minister?
If there is any doubt, the commission are the people who will make the decision. They are statutorily independent.
Perhaps the educational system in Kildare and Meath where I went to school is not as good as in other parts of Ireland——
Well, in Offaly it is.
——but whose job is it to report to the commission? If the director and his fellow directors do not feel it is relevant, how is the commission going to find out? Perhaps I am not explaining myself too well, but who is to report it? There is no point in saying that it is voluntary. The ethics of any good business is that directors inform other people of the decision, not just directors of a company. In any organisation someone would say that they had an interest in that regard due to X, Y or Z; but this is a section of an Act passed by the Oireachtas, it is not a voluntary code of conduct or good practice. Even now I am not clear, and I do not think anybody else is either, as to who has the job of reporting it. Is it a legal requirement on the secretary of the company to report this if he or she feels that it should have been reported to the commission?
The way the Bill is written at the moment, the legal obligation is on the company directors themselves to report to the commission. On Report Stage. I can look again at the possibility of putting a legal onus on the secretary of the company or the designated person, if they are unhappy with it, to report it to the commission. There is a general responsibility on a company secretary to uphold the law, to uphold company law and to ensure that company directors are not in breach of the law. I would assume as a matter of practice — although we have not spelled it out in this Bill — that if a secretary of a company was unhappy with the activities of a board member, he or she would ask the commission to have a look at it. The commission will ultimately decide whether the person was in breach of the Act or not.
Questions or clarification only at this stage, because all Second Stage speeches are over.
How often would this commission sit, or is it something that can be called on at a moment's notice?
It is a standing commission.
So, if there is a problem it can be dealt with immediately?
Yes, absolutely, immediately. There is an overall onus on the sponsoring Department to keep a vigilant eye on the semi-State bodies under their care as well.
Would you not accept, Minister, that the answers you gave to my colleague, Deputy McCreevy, were even more unclear than what was laid out by you in the first instance when you spoke on the Bill some time ago and earlier today? Would you not accept that this is all good practice anyway and that we are already in a situation where much of this happens? You said that you make no apologies for protecting the public interest, but from whom are you protecting it? The implication is that there is a raft of wrongdoing somewhere.
Sorry, you have already made a long Second Stage speech.
I am talking on the section now, Chairman.
You will deal with it——
Sorry, Deputy Connolly, I am chairing the meeting. I will deal with Deputy Cullen first and then I will take your point of view on that. I will deal with questions and clarifications now. I do not mind how long we have to stay here.
Are you trying to curb the debate?
No, I am not. I made it clear to everybody that I would not interrupt their long speeches, and Deputy Cullen has already made a very long speech. I will deal with any question or point of clarification that Deputy Cullen or any other member of this Committee wants to put to the Minister, but I will not accept long speeches by everybody again, in all our interests.
I thought that I was quite specific I asked the Minister from whom she was protecting the public interest. To whom is she referring?
Correct. Do you want to allow the Minister to reply or. have you another question?
I have other questions, but you are breaking up my train of thought. If you would let me continue I could get the thing over with fairly quickly.
If you keep to questions I will not interrupt you.
I want to know the answer to that, because obviously it implies that the Minister believes that somewhere along the line for a long period of time there have been some serious wrongdoings. I would reject any suggestion that such is or has been the case. The Minister should be careful with her choice of language. The loss to this State of people like Dr. Smurfit, and the reverberations from that, are being compounded by the Minister's attitude. I would see that as a disastrous course of action. Nothing the Minister has said adds anything to the benefit or enhancement of the State sector.
I want to come back to a point raised by Deputy McCreevy concerning the setting up by Ministers of ad hoc committees or expert groups, as they are often called. What is the status of people who are and can be appointed to them? Will they also, as the Minister says, be caught in the net, exposed and subject to this section of the Bill? If they are, God knows the type of expertise we will get on these so-called groups.
I have dealt with those points already. Under the First Schedule of the Bill it will be open to the Minister for Finance, after consulting with the sponsoring Minister, to designate any particular body under that Minister's aegis for inclusion under the provisions. Any such regulations will have to be made before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The Houses will have an opportunity to annul them if they so desire before the regulations come into force. This is not something that is going to be done lightly. The parallel provisions were drawn up in the wake of extreme public disquiet about certain aspects of a couple of State companies. Following the Greencore and Telecom Affairs, the Department of Finance drew up guidelines in relation to State companies. There was a commitment by the previous Government, of which Deputy McCreevy's party was a member, that these guidelines would be put on a statutory footing in this Bill. In this regard, the Bill is exactly as it was agreed by the Government of which Deputy McCreevy was a member.
The Minister referred to Telecom. The board was vindicated with regard to that. I want to make that clear, because we do not want anybody with a cloud over them regarding what to do. Now we discover that any director of a subcommittee of a board will also come under this provision. On the four occasions in which I was in Government, I made several board appointments. All of them have performed excellently and we devoted a lot of their time to the work. This proposal goes over the top altogether, because when these regulations have statutory effect nobody will go on a board for £800.
That point has been made several times.
It is worth repeating.
It is worth repeating now, because this will be statutory, which means legal. If I am a board member I give a declaration in the same way as a member of a county council. The statutory declaration that county councillors make has clearly worked well, and everybody would agree with that.
I do not feel that my last question has been answered.
Put it again and we will see.
I am seeking clarification of what exactly the Minister means. She just used the wording again that you have to make a declaration relevant to the company's business. Your example was that if one was with Bord na Móna, one would have to declare their interest in a garden centre. However, that might not be the relevant interest. In the case of CIE it would not be a matter of whether I had a bus, truck or taxi but whether I had a fuel company or a catering company. What does "relevant to the company's business" mean?
Guidelines will be available from the commission to guide any designated director in deciding what is relevant.
Are there any further questions or clarifications?
Including the interests of the spouse or children of the designated director which might materially influence a decision is stretching it to a wide degree. It is confused enough already and, given the general principle that it is not possible to legislate for people to be good, the Minister should reconsider this. It caused some controversy before and I do not think that it will ever be possible to enact a section of any Act which would cover these areas.
With respect, this is narrower in the kind of declarations which it requires from office holders, because office holders' functions covers almost everything. We are confining the declarations to those which would be relevant to the kind of public business in which the person is engaged. With regard to Deputy Noel Ahern's point, the commission can offer guidance to anybody who is in any doubt as to whether particular interests are relevant in particular circumstances. We already have this kind of regime working in practice and there will not be any practical difficulty with it.
Question put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 8; Níl, 7.
|
Tá |
|
|
Boylan, Andrew. |
McDowell, Derek. |
|
Broughan, Tommy. |
McGinley, Denis. |
|
Fitzgerald, Eithne. |
Nealon, Ted. |
|
McCormack, Pádraic. |
Ryan, John. |
|
Níl |
|
|
Ahern, Michael. |
Cullen, Martin. |
|
Ahern, Noel. |
McCreevy, Charlie. |
|
Connelly, Ger. |
Power, Seán. |
|
Wallace, Dan. |
Question declared carried.