Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 16 Dec 1980

Vol. 325 No. 7

Supplementary Estimates, 1980. - Electoral Amendment (No. 2) Bill, 1980: Committee and Final Stages.

SECTION 1.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I move amendment No. 1:

In page 2, line 13, to delete "new".

The Committee Stage of this Bill was arranged for Thursday of this week but apparently the Government attached considerable urgency to having the Bill enacted and they made a special request that the Bill be brought forward to today and indeed indicated that if this were not done by agreement they would introduce a motion in the House to discharge the order for taking the Bill on Thursday next and use their majority to ensure that the Committee Stage would be taken today. I am only referring to this because it indicates to me that the Government have some plans for using this Bill as part of the election machine in the not-too-distant future. Apparently they want to ensure that the Bill is passed into law before the Dáil dissolves. Let me ask the Minister, as a matter of something more than curiosity, if this might indicate that this Dáil will not again reassemble after the Christmas Recess.

An Ceann Comhairle

Perhaps the Deputy will now get to the amendment, please.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am working up to it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Work up to it a little more rapidly, please.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Perhaps the Minister would tell us whether there is anything sinister in the urgency with which this Bill is being pushed through the Dáil.

The effect of section 1 is to enact that the outgoing Ceann Comhairle shall in certain circumstances be automatically re-elected to a certain constituency without the necessity of going through the electoral machine. It is provided in section 1 (a) that a new paragraph (b) shall be inserted in section 14 of the Electoral Act, 1963. The new paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 14 of the 1963 Act will read:

(b) if a revision of constituencies takes effect on the dissolution—

(i) in case on such revision there is a new constituency which either consists of or includes the constituency referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection, that new constituency.

In effect it is provided that, if there is a division of a constituency and the constituency which the Ceann Comhairle represents is not interfered with but emerges again as a constituency or if the constituency which the Ceann Comhairle represents forms part of a larger constituency, the Ceann Comhairle will automatically be re-elected. He may represent a three-seat constituency which is merged, for example, in a five-seat constituency. I am objecting to sub-paragraph (i) paragraph (b), which states:

In case on such revision there is a new constituency which either consists of or includes the constituency referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection, that new constituency ...

My interpretation of that is that, if there is a constituency which consists of a former constituency, then it is not a new constituency; it is identical with a former constituency. I suppose it could be said to be a new constituency in the sense that the former Act will be repealed and all the constituencies will be new constituencies when the new Act comes into force. To say the least of it, that is extremely confusing. Such a constituency is not a new constituency and the position would be clarified if the word "new" before "constituency" were deleted. This would make more sense and I should like to hear the Minister's view.

Mr. Tully

I am not quite at one with Deputy Fitzpatrick on this matter. While he has a point, the most serious thing is what is omitted rather than what is inserted. On the last occasion we spoke about a Ceann Comhairle who could stand in either the constituency he represented or portion of the constituency.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I think that is covered by the next amendment.

Mr. Tully

The important thing is that the constituency, whether new or old, is the one the Ceann Comhairle will represent. We should remove any objection to having this Bill passed as quickly as possible to enable the Taoiseach, if he so desires, to commit hara-kiri. It was decided on the previous occasion that this debate would be resumed on Thursday and the Ceann Comhairle insisted that we should set a date. This is not Thursday, but I am not objecting to the change because it clears the air as we would all wish.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. R. Burke)

There are suspicious minds at work on the other side of the House. This is merely a tidying operation on legislation introduced at the beginning of the session and there is nothing more devious in it than that.

In the paragraph to which Deputy Fitzpatrick refers we are referring to two different categories of constituency. In the first place we are referring to Dáil constituencies actually in force and, secondly, to the constituencies which have been defined in a constituency revision Bill but which will not come into effect until the next dissolution of the Dáil. The word "new" is included here to make for greater clarity and to assist in understanding the provision. Omission of the word would not seem to make any change in the meaning of the paragraph but would tend to make its meaning more obscure. The parliamentary draftsmen gave considerable thought to the wording of the paragraph and were of the opinion that some qualification was necessary in order to distinguish between the two categories of constituency. Various expressions such as "revised constituency" or "constituency prescribed in the relevant Act" were considered and the draftsmen concluded that the expression "new constituency" conveyed the necessary meaning clearly and without undue verbiage. It is a matter on which the House would be well advised to accept this professional advice.

With regard to the question if there is no alteration in a constituency from one Bill to another, does it mean there is no new constituency, is something one could argue and make a reasonable case as Deputy Fitzpatrick has done. However each constituency is defined anew in revision Bills and is not defined by reference to any existing constituency. In this sense, each constituency is new, whether or not there has been a change in the area.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I cannot see how putting in the word “new” takes away any confusion and makes the position clearer. The part “if a revision of constituencies takes effect on the dissolution —...” is the part we are going to deal with at that stage. If the revision of constituencies takes effect on a dissolution, the previous Act will have been repealed because the Bill contains a repealing provision which repeals the previous revision Act as on the dissolution. The old Act will be gone and the old constituencies will be gone. Then we will say, in case of such revision, the revision only takes effect as from the dissolution. In case, on such revision, there is a constituency the only constituency could be then the constituency contained in the Act which is in force. The only Act which will be in force is the last revision Act because it contains provisions repealing — as far as I know — the previous set of constituencies. They will be gone. It would make more sense, with all due respect to the draftsman, if it reads “if a revision of the constituencies takes effect on the dissolution — (i) in case on such revision there is a constituency which either consists of or includes the constituency referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection, that new constituency,...”

I know the Minister is in a difficult position because he has got certain technical advice on a technical matter. It is difficult for him to brush that advice aside but I have put forward a reasoned argument showing that the only constituencies that will be in operation on the relevant date, the relevant date being the date when the Dáil is dissolved and people are thinking about nominations, will be the new constituencies, if they are new constituencies. A constituency which is on all fours and consists of a previous constituency, would not be recognised by anybody as a new constituency. It would be recognised as a constituency that was not in the field, just as the constituency of Cavan-Monaghan was a three-seater constituency for the 1973 election and a five-seater for the 1977 election. Deputy Tully mentioned it as being one which had not been interfered with by the commission.

Mr. Tully

It was interfered with slightly.

Mr. R. Burke

We will repeal that in the next amendment.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Apparently the draftsman thought a lot about this. He was thinking of doing what I suggested he should do but decided against it. With all due respect to him, if he had done what I suggest, he would have produced a neater and a clearer section.

Mr. R. Burke

On the contrary, he was not thinking of doing what the Deputy suggests. He was considering using a longer system, for example, the phrases "revised constituency" or "constituency prescribed in the relevant Act", because the Ceann Comhairle will make his choice before the dissolution and, normally, at the time of a revision. The repeal of the old Act will take effect only from the dissolution.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): No. In ordinary circumstances he would not be making a decision before the dissolution.

Mr. Tully

He would.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): No, unless he announced that he was not going to stand and if there was a constituency identical with the one he had stood for before he was elected for——

Mr. Tully

There is no such constituency.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): There could be. This is going to be for all time, this is not going to be a once only job. If there was a constituency exactly similar to the constituency which the Ceann Comhairle represented previously, all that would be necessary for him to do to be elected to that constituency would be not to indicate that he was not standing.

Mr. R. Burke

We could argue about it. The Deputy, with his legal training, has made very good points. However, the parliamentary draftsman gave careful consideration to this and I ask the Deputy to agree to his suggestions.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I beg to differ from the parliamentary draftsman. I do not think that it will make a lot of difference, because at the appropriate time, there will be only one constituency anyway. It will probably be identifiable. It is baffling when one reads this section for the first time. How could a constituency, which is identical with the previous constituency, be termed a new constituency? New constituencies, in ordinary language, are only those which differ in some way from the previous constituencies. That is why I object to this being described as a new constituency when, in fact, it is an old constituency re-enacted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I move amendment No. 2.

In page 2, line 35, after "includes" to insert "a substantial".

Section 1(b) of the Bill proposes to insert a new subsection in section 14 of the Electoral Act, 1963. The purpose of the amendment is to deal with situations such as have arisen here. Where the Ceann Comhairle ceases to hold office subsequent to a revision, either due to resignation or death. It provides machinery by which a new Ceann Comhairle can make a declaration which, in effect, specifies the constituency for which he will be automatically re-elected. If the constituency for which the Ceann Comhairle has been elected forms a new constituency, or in its entirety forms part of a new constituency, then he is obliged to opt for that constituency and he is automatically elected unless he does not stand. If the constituency for which the Ceann Comhairle was elected was carved up into several pieces and if this section goes through as it is, the Ceann Comhairle may make a declaration identifying any constituency as his which contains any part of his previous constituency no matter how small that part is.

As the Ceann Comhairle knows, not so long ago the constituency of Louth, for which he was elected, contained a very small part of County Monaghan, which is now part of the constituency of Cavan-Monaghan ——

Mr. R. Burke

Now we are getting to the point.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): It happens that that is the example which proves the necessity for this amendment. If this section were to go through, in theory the Ceann Comhairle could stand for the constituency of Cavan-Monaghan and be automatically elected. That would not make sense because there is only a tiny bit of County Monaghan — around Inniskeen, containing a few hundred votes and certainly not more than a thousand — which, under the Bill as it stands, would entitle the Ceann Comhairle to opt for Cavan-Monaghan. You could extend that argument all over the country. The same set of circumstances could arise if we had a different Ceann Comhairle who found himself in a similar position after a revision.

The situation I have done my best to describe arises because new paragraph (b) in the new subsection reads as follows:

A constituency specified in a declaration made under this section shall be a constituency specified in the Act providing for the revision which includes part of the constituency for which the person making the declaration is a member of the Dáil at the time when the declaration is made.

As far as I know, the Ceann Comhairle was elected for the constituency of Louth which at that time consisted of a small part of Monaghan. It is unreasonable that a person should be entitled to opt for an entirely new constituency merely because it contains a few townlands of the constituency for which he was elected. It would be unthinkable if the constituencies could be revised by a Minister, because he might be entitled to take this provision into account when revising the constituencies. As far as I know there is no statutory provision which says constituties shall be revised by an independent commission. It is likely that in the foresable future that will be done, but it is not part of our statute law nor is it laid down in the Constitution.

My amendment proposes to insert in the new paragraph (b) after "includes" the words "a substantial part". The Ceann Comhairle would be entitled to be elected, without election, for any constituency which consisted of his own constituency, or which included his own constituency, or which included a substantial part of his own constituency. That is reasonable, is common sense and would get over the situation I have been spelling out.

Mr. Tully

I am a bit disappointed because I was so sure the Minister would put down an amendment similar to Deputy Fitzpatrick's that I did not put down an amendment myself. This seems a very reasonable way of dealing with this problem. When this provision is not included there is always a suspicion that the section is worded in this way for an ulterior motive. The present Ceann Comhairle, decent man that he is, might be persuaded to stand for Cavan-Monaghan because the area around Inniskeen, which has a very small number of votes, is in Cavan-Monaghan and was formerly in Louth. If that happened it would throw the cat among the pigeons because there is war between the rival Fianna Fáil people in Louth and if they had ten seats they could have ten candidates. It might ease the situation if instead of the Ceann Comhairle taking an automatic seat there, he went into a neighbouring area. This might make it embarrassing for Fine Gael and some of their own people, but that might not worry them a lot.

There is no reason why this amendment should not be accepted unless there is an ulterior motive. It does not make sense that a Ceann Comhairle should be entitled to stand for portion of his former constituency which might contain only a few dozen votes but that could happen.

I thought the Bill which went through this House last July was stupid. I could not understand the reason for it. This is equally foolish. I am quite sure it was not the parliamentary draftsman who suggested it, that it is a ministerial decision and, if it is, I would ask the present Minister, who inherited the Bill, to have a look at it even at this eleventh hour. Unless the Minister accepts it there is not any point in arguing over it because it will be carried if we put it to a vote. It looks so foolish that a Ceann Comhairle should be entitled to stand for an area, even if there are only one or two votes in it. Even if it were down to that he would be so entitled under the section as it stands. The only way to avoid it is to say a substantial portion, more than half; I left the wording of it to the Minister, so sure was I that a Ministerial amendment would be introduced for the purpose of regulating this and preventing a second rather foolish decision being taken. If the Minister has something I have missed, I should like to hear it. Otherwise I would ask him to accept the Fine Gael amendment of this section.

Mr. R. Burke

The effect of the amendment would be to appear to narrow down the choice of constituency for which a Ceann Comhairle could opt. However the problem with a suggested change in the choice of words is that the word "substantial" is not defined and could mean different things to different people. While the intention of the Deputy may well be to prevent him opting for a constituency which might include, say, only one townland or district electoral division from his present constituency, it is doubtful if it would do so in law. The word "substantial" is a very subjective one. What may be substantial to one person may well be trivial to another and vice versa. Thus to an outsider one small village or polling district may not represent something substantial but a Deputy who can rely on the vast majority of votes from the area may regard it as substantial indeed. Even if the words were capable of precise definition or if we could find a similar word with a precise legal meaning, we cannot at this time claim to foresee all the circumstances that may arise in the future.

If we accepted an amendment on these lines we could well be tying the hands of a future Ceann Comhairle in an unreasonable way. Unintentionally we could be putting him into a box which we would not dream of doing could we foresee the full circumstances. Therefore I suggest that we adhere to the wording of the section and allow a Ceann Comhairle to have the already limited choice the Bill proposes.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Like Deputy Tully, I was rather surprised to find that no ministerial amendment had been introduced today to meet this very reasonable request. I was equally surprised to learn that apparently the Government party were going to use their brawn to put the Bill through the House. Therefore, within five minutes, I introduced this amendment. If this amendment were accepted and any Ceann Comhairle acted in a reasonable way, and did not avail of a freak situation such as I have been describing, a court would hold that he borrowed a substantial part of his constituency. Assuming that there is any substance in the argument put forward by the Minister—that he is not satisfied that “substantial” is the right word, that it might be difficult to interpret and that it might embarrass a Ceann Comhairle—there are several ways at the disposal of his parliamentary draftsmen, about whom he has been speaking, to bring in an amendment that will meet both his and our genuine fears. This is not merely a mickey mouse amendment; it is not introduced merely for the sake of putting forward an amendment. Neither is it an amendment put forward for the sake of poking fun at the Bill or for having a bit of crack. It is an amendment which meets a real situation that could be exploited for political purposes in a constituency that perhaps was never drawn up for that purpose. For example, human nature being what it is, nobody knows who the Ceann Comhairle will be from week to week and it follows therefore that nobody will know what constituency he will be representing when this new section comes into force. And if he finds himself in a position to exploit a situation like that for party purposes he would be less than human if he did not avail of it.

When this Bill was before the House on the last occasion — and I want to get down to brass tacks now — we told the Minister that he should have a more comprehensive section dealing with this specific difficulty, dealing with the very situation that had arisen by the lamented death of the former Ceann Comhairle, Deputy Brennan. We asked what would happen if a Ceann Comhairle were to resign, when the Minister's predecessor said that a new, small section would be necessary. They did not heed us then. They were too lazy to go and think about it and introduce a section such as they are now doing. We are telling them now that the section, as drafted, can lead to trouble, to absurdities, to an abuse of the favourable circumstances conferred on the Ceann Comhairle by the Bill. It is customary to say that present company or present occupants are excluded. I do with all sincerity exclude the present occupant from any remarks I make. But this Bill is not being passed for the purpose of this present set of circumstances. It is an amendment of the Elecoral Bill of 1963. It proposes to set up machinery which will last for all time, and for several revisions, in the years to come. The Electoral Act of 1963 replaced the Electoral Act of 1923, 40 years later. Indeed, if the Minister brought in an amendment here tomorrow, we would facilitate him. He might get the parliamentary draftsman to work overtime. If he brought in a suitable amendment here on, say, Thursday, we would facilitate him.

Mr. Tully

If the Minister will promise to bring one in in the Seanad we will promise to facilitate him there.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): No, that would not work, because if he brought it in the Seanad he would have to bring it back to this House and there is some doubt as to whether this House might ever be here again. If he brought it into the Seanad——

Mr. Tully

He would have to come back to this House anyway.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): We warned the Minister when he was introducing the Bill that the section was faulty. He said that, if he had to, he would bring in an amending Bill. Now he has brought in an amending Bill which is equally faulty. That is not the way to do the nation's work. That is not the way to do the work of this House. That is not the way to provide for the election of successful Dála. The Minister has a new portfolio. I appeal to him for new thinking on this matter. He is a youngish man.

Mr. R. Burke

And getting older rapidly.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The term “youngish” is relative. By the time he clears up all the messes he has inherited he will have grey hair.

Mr. Tully

He will still be a young man.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I appeal to him to face up to this, to tackle it and to deal with it.

Mr. Boland

The Minister's softly-softly approach in his reply to Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment contrasts strangely with the guillotine motion on the Order Paper. We are confined to ten minutes——

Mr. Tully

There are two hours on top of that.

Mr. Boland

The Minister indicated that there is nothing wrong with Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment apart from the difficulty in defining the word "substantial". If that is so, in the normal way one would expect the Minister to say he accepted the principle behind the amendment and would introduce a suitable amendment on Report Stage. Possibly the Minister has been studying the operations of some of his colleagues and, most particularly, the approach adopted by the Minister for Justice. In a most polite and apologetic way he says "no" and makes people feel they are being given their Christmas presents all rolled into one.

I want to give notice to the Minister for the Environment that some of us know him too well for him to think that will work. It will not work. The Bill is to be guillotined through this House and, presumably, through the Seanad before the end of the week, to clear the decks for a general election which may be possible at any time from Christmas Eve onwards.

Last week the Minister of State agreed to take the Committee Stage of this Bill this coming Thursday. That was swept aside by frenzied activity on the part of the Government Whips. Since last week the Government Whips have been chasing themselves and the Opposition Whips around the House to change the order to have the Committee Stage of this Bill discussed on Thursday next. A special motion was put down on the Order Paper today to have Committee Stage taken today. If it does not go through the House by agreement today, it will be guillotined through the House at 7.10 p.m. so that it can be cleared through the Seanad and the decks prepared for a general election. It is well that Members of the House should realise that is the situation.

No serious consideration is being given to Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment. Even if the amendment were clear-cut and considered worth while by everybody, there is no way in which the Minister would accept it whether he was nasty or polite about it. When we discussed the purpose of this amendment last week I made the point that we could have a section suggesting that the Ceann Comhairle could nominate the part of his old constituency which was the largest of the parts into which it was being divided or, alternatively, in fairness to the Ceann Comhairle that he could nominate the area in which he was domiciled. It could happen that one-third of the Ceann Comhairle's constituency might be added into another constituency and that might be the part of the constituency in which he enjoyed most of his electoral support, and in which he lived. It would have been simple for the Government to put down an amendment giving effect to those suggestions.

Neither of those suggestions should be beyond the wit or the competence of the parliamentary draftsman, or the Minister, or even the Minister of State who listened to the arguments last week and appeared to regard them favourably. He appeared to see a lot of merit in them. He must have seen so much merit in them that he was not allowed to come in today to handle the Committee Stage. He was too generous and too reasonable.

Mr. Begley

He is writing Christmas cards.

Mr. Boland

He was prepared to listen to the arguments put forward by the Opposition and to give us sufficient time to put down amendments and have them discussed on Thursday next. The Government are now prepared to use the extraordinary and unusual power of the guillotine to push the Bill through the House, to stifle debate, to put off discussion and to prevent the Minister from giving consideration between now and Report Stage to the points made on Committee Stage today to ensure that the decks are cleared for a possible election crisis.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister has got a message.

Mr. R. Burke

It is personal.

Mr. Boland

If one is to talk about a personal remark——

Mr. R. Burke

It is between Deputy Fitzpatrick and myself about something else.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are dealing with an amendment.

Mr. Boland

I want to deal with the example Deputy Fitzpatrick gave. He mentioned a hypothetical position in which a section of Louth might be added into the constituency of Cavan-Monaghan. The Minister interjected and said: "Now we are getting down to the basis of it". The example given by Deputy Fitzpatrick was merely a follow on to an example I gave in the House last week about the possibility of a section of Louth being added into the county of Meath. The Minister introduced a note of personal rancour by suggesting that Deputy Fitzpatrick wanted this Committee Stage debate because Cavan-Monaghan is beside the Ceann Comhairle's constituency.

Mr. R. Burke

The Deputy should not take himself so seriously.

Mr. Boland

Nobody made any remark about it at the time. If the Minister is to make further interjections now, it is as well that that should be written into the record. The Minister made that personal and nasty interjection. It was an unworthy interjection.

Mr. Begley

It was uncalled for. I support Deputy Fitzpatrick, Deputy Tully and Deputy Boland on this matter. The Minister should be big. The arguments put forward are reasoned and there is a lot of merit in them. The Minister should show his goodwill to the House in a positive way by accepting this amendment, or by saying he will introduce an amendment on Report Stage. We have certain misgivings, and what we are saying today could apply to the Fianna Fáil Party at a later stage.

When Deputy Fitzpatrick put down this amendment he was not thinking of his own back door. It could apply to Kerry and Cork. Part of south Kerry was with west-Cork for a considerable time. Part of west Limerick was with east Limerick. Part of Clare was with Galway. There are several multi-seat constituencies which are spread across county borders. Last week it appeared that the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, was amenable to the suggestion we were making. It is surprising that a guillotine motion has been tabled by the Government.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is now 7.10 p.m. and I must put the question.

Mr. Begley

I give way to the Minister.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. R. Burke)

The Deputies opposite are imputing to the Ceann Comhairle, and to future occupiers of that office, unworthy motives. The Ceann Comhairle is a respected figure in this House and it is reasonable to allow him a choice, limited as it is, as contained in this legislation.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): It is a classic example of an abuse of power, steamrolling a political Bill through the House by virtue of the Government's majority of 20.

Mr. Begley

It is disgraceful.

Mr. Boland

This is the Minister's first Bill and he has to guillotine it through the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

As it is 7.10 p.m. I must put the question.

Question put: "That the Bill is agreed to and reported to the House, Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed".

The Dáil divided: Tá, 61; Níl, 27.

Tá.

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Kit.
• Andrews, David.
• Andrews, Niall.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Sylvester.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, Seán.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Callanan, John.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Cogan, Barry.
• Colley, George.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Conaghan, Hugh.
• Connolly, Gerard.
• Coughlan, Clement.
• Cowen, Bernard.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Meaney, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Moore, Seán.
• Morley, P.J.
• Murphy, Ciarán P.
• Nolan, Tom.
• Noonan, Michael.
• O'Connor, Timothy C.
• O'Donoghue, Martin.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Fitzgerald, Gene.
• Fitzsimons, James N.
• Fox, Christopher J.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Haughey, Charles J.
• Herbert, Michael.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Kenneally, William.
• Killeen, Tim.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lemass, Eileen.
• Leonard, Tom.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lynch, Jack.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Smith, Michael.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael J.

Níl.

• Barry, Myra.
• Barry, Peter.
• Barry, Richard.
• Begley, Michael.
• Belton, Luke.
• Bermingham, Joseph.
• Boland, John.
• Bruton, John.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Cosgrave, Michael J.
• D'Arcy, Michael J.
• Deasy, Martin A.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Donnellan, John F.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan-Monaghan).
• Gilhawley, Eugene.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Keating, Michael.
• Kenny, Enda.
• L'Estrange, Gerry.
• McMahon, Larry.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Toole, Paddy.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Quinn, Ruairi.
• Taylor, Frank.
• Tully, James.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Moore and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies L'Estrange and B. Desmond.

Question declared carried.