With regard to the question of the vesting certificate to be issued, my understanding is that the original application is lodged in the Land Registry——
Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) (Amendment) Bill, 1984: Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
I think your question relates to the definition of the Bill and not to this section.
I should like the Minister's guidance.
Perhaps on another section. It does not arise on this section.
I have a technical query. In the definition it says Act No. 2 of 1978. As I understand it, the Acts are usually referred to in the order in which they occur so that this would be Act No. 16, or something in that order, of 1978. I know it is introduced as an abbreviated version but perhaps the Minister would check that point because it might cause some confusion in future when solicitors or barristers look up records and find that it is not Act No. 2 but a subsequent number.
, Limerick East): A problem is emerging about vesting certificates. What will have to happen is that I will have to return to the House with a more substantial Bill to deal with the difficulties that appear to be arising now but which I am not in a position to do anything about. If the Bill is not passed this week the scheme will lapse because it ends at the end of July. For that reason there is an emergency about it. There are other outstanding items which could create difficulty and I will deal with them as soon as I get proposals.
I should like to tell Deputy Woods that "Act (No. 2) of 1978" is the draftsman's formula in this Bill for the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) (No. 2) Act, 1978. It does not cover the number of the Act and the year, No. 16 of 1978.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
(Limerick East): The effect of section 2 is to extend the operation of the special ground rents purchase scheme for a further period of three years, until 31 July 1987. Part 3 of the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) (No. 2) Act, 1978, under which the special ground rents purchase scheme for tenants of ordinary dwelling houses was to operate was for a period of five years under section 18. This period was extended to six years, until 31 July 1984 by section 1 of the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) (Amendment) Act, 1983, the Bill we passed last year. Section 2 of the Bill extends it for a further period up to nine years. Rather than saying we are extending it for a further three years we are saying that the duration of the 1978 purchase scheme will now go to nine years.
On Second Stage I welcomed the extension in this section and made the point that in June last we proposed that the figure should be ten years rather than six years as proposed by the Minister. At that time the Minister said in response to our proposal:
However, these arguments afford no support for an extension of the scheme for a further five years. If a further five year extension were to be regarded as acceptable there would be no evident ground for refusing an indefinite extension, that is for refusing to make the scheme permanent.
Will the Minister tell us what has led him to change his mind now because it seems that effectively he has brought it up to nine years? The argument still seems to be valid that the scheme should in some way be permanent if it is to have the effect he proposes it should have.
I regard the extension of the scheme as highly desirable. All Members should encourage people who have not done so to avail of the scheme because it will help wipe out something that is very much a running sore for many people. As the Minister said the cost of buying out the ground rents is reasonable and generous on the part of the State. If the scheme was to be extended indefinitely it would not have the desirable effect. The fact that it would be for a limited period has encouraged people to buy out their ground rent.
I should like to point out to the Minister that the solicitors in some building societies are anxious about vesting certificates. The Minister has said that an effort will be made to rectify the problems that have arisen. It may transpire that after a person who believes he or she has the fee simple interest in a property lodges the papers and documents it may be discovered that he or she is not the real beneficiary. The beneficiary may be a person of unsound mind, a person suffering from a disability or an under-age person. The certificates are then called into question. Solicitors for building societies are reluctant to advance loans on foot of such title. Is the Minister in a position to tell the House how long it will take to resolve that problem?
We welcome the extension for a further three years. Three years is about right to encourage people to purchase the ground rent. People are now aware that the scheme will not be open indefinitely. Last year I suggested that the extension should be three years and, naturally, we support the extension this year. With regard to the statement by Deputy De Rossa about the termination date I should like to point out to him that last year we put forward a proposal that the scheme be extended for a further three years and that the Minister consider introducing a termination date for local authority ground rents. We are following that up now by tabling an amendment on that. The Deputy should not doubt our seriousness and interest in getting finished with ground rents. We support the Minister's proposal.
(Limerick East): Deputy De Rossa asked me why I was extending the period to three years now when previously I was only prepared to extend it for one year. I would like people to purchase their ground rent if they find it an aggravation. The original scheme was for five years and it seems to me, looking at the figures, that people need the stimulus of the scheme being about to terminate before they apply. Although the purchase scheme was available for five years initially, 45 per cent of the applications, 20,000, were made in the last six months of the scheme. We had 55 per cent of applications made in four and a half years and within the last six months of the scheme 45 per cent of the applications arrived. It seems that many people allow the bill to mount up and then deal with it every four or five years while others pay £15 or £20 every year. It appears that many people do not want to buy out their ground rent at all and are happy to pay £15 or £20 annually. However, other people are anxious to buy out their ground rent. I believe it is the idea that a scheme is about to terminate that is the stimulus.
I should like to tell the House that there is about two years' work on hand at present. A person applying now will not get a vesting certificate for about two years. By extending the scheme for three years we will have a period when there will be a stimulus for people to purchase. The three-year extension is reasonable. To have an indefinite scheme could bring about a situation where people would not apply or where there would be a trickle of applications. It is also important that the matter is brought to attention every so often. As a result of the debate held in the House last year there was a flood of applications because people's minds were directed towards the benefits of the scheme.
Deputy Enright raised an important point. The law society have drawn attention to certain difficulties that the operation of the scheme in its present form raises for purchasers and for conveyancers dealing with property. They have asked that the scheme should be extended for one year or, at most, two years and want a commitment to review the scheme further and an improved form introduced. We can commit ourselves to reviewing it further and at the same time extending it for three years. The difficulties outlined by the Deputy are real but they are not things that can be changed administratively. It will mean that I will have to come back with a separate Bill. The difficulties were brought to my attention quite recently and I hope to come back to the House some time next year to deal with them. It is difficult to give a date on something like this because, as the House will appreciate, conveyancing is a very tricky area of law.
The Minister said it would take about three years to clear up the number of applications at present and I should like to know how many staff are involved.
(Limerick East): I told the House it would take up to two years to clear the number. About 12 people are involved but, of course, all staff are subject to the embargo.
There could be a reduction in both staffs as a result of the embargo. You can only have one in three. What would be the cost of those staffs in general terms?
(Limerick East): £170,000 per annum overall.
The Minister is doing his sums wrongly. Multiply the field now by the applicants.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill".
(Limerick East): The effect of subsection (1) is to increase by approximately 75 per cent with effect from 1 August 1984 the fee set out in section 23(1) of the 1978 (No. 2) Act as amended by section 2 of the 1983 Act.
There is a need for an explanatory memorandum and I would like to know why such an explanatory memorandum was not circulated with this Bill. It would have been very helpful particularly in a case like this amendment to the existing Act. It says in section 3 that in section 23(2) of Act (No. 2) of 1978, the words "other than the fees mentioned in subsection (1)", and in section 23(3) the words "With the exception of these fixed in respect of the cases mentioned in subsection (1)" shall cease to have effect. Let us be very careful now to determine exactly what that means in practice. The Minister has spelt out quite clearly that the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Lands, may by order fix the fees to be taken in the Land Registry for the purpose of this part and may revoke or amend any such order.
The effect of this will be to leave it open to the Minister to fix any fees and that is something that should be pointed out very clearly in an explanatory memorandum. It is a point that could easily be missed in relation to the other changes taking place. The other changes may be minor while this is a substantial change. It changes the whole character of the setting of the fees. The Minister for Justice is entitled by order to set the charges in future. Fees are set today by some process of calculation such as the £23 and £26, plus £63, which is £89 in the case of arbitration. We could have in any period of two weeks to six months or one year a doubling of that fee because we are told the overheads of one sort or another would be added on. From that point of view it is important that an explanatory memorandum should accompany even a small Bill like this. It seems a very simple one until one looks into it in depth and finds the effects are not quite so simple as they appear to be at first sight. Section 3 is an example of that.
The Minister may say it is a very simple Bill and therefore an explanatory memorandum is not necessary but I have seen many very simple Bills being introduced with an explanatory memorandum so that all those concerned were able to see exactly what changes were being proposed. Such a memorandum obviates the necessity of pouring over the Bill in an effort to work out what exactly is happening. I would ask the Minister to provide in future an explanatory memorandum even with apparently very simple Bills. We are opposed to the increase in fees and giving the Minister the power to determine the fees on a day-to-day basis.
The Minister says the fee is a very reasonable one and no one should quibble about it. It is a question of doing away with a system in regard to which all those involved declared themselves to be in favour of abolishing and changing the 1978 Act and subsequent Acts in line with that. The nominal nature of these fees should be maintained. The Minister may say £26 is very small, but where you have a large group of residents the figure could be very high. Surely there could not be all that enormous difficulty once you have established the position for one and cross checked with the others involved. The corporation have the duty to clear ownership and it should be a very simple matter to cope with the 30, 50, 300 or 600 or whatever the number may be. When one multiplies the £26 by all those involved the sum is quite substantial.
We have argued about this with solicitors in the past where a large number were involved in one area and each person was charged a similar fee. The work involved would be very simple and solicitors in cases like that have often come up with a package deal. There is no package deal proposed here. The Minister mentioned that over this period of two years some 16,968 cases were awaiting. There is a staff of 12 and this staff of course is subject to the embargo. The Minister also gave us the cost of this staff as £117,000 per annum. If we take the two amounts given so far, we have the 3,885 arbitration cases and we have the 16,968 total number of cases awaiting which leaves one with 13,113 at the £26. Take the 13,000 at £26 and the other 3,885 at the £89 and you get a figure of £345,000 and £341,000 which comes to £686,000. I do not know where the rest of the money goes but in relation to a staff of 170 and the fact that it takes two years one is talking about £340,000 for staff presumably. But the Minister would appear to have doubled the amount here and it certainly looks somewhat doubtful from the point of view of the actual cost. The State is also involved.
The increase is moving too far away from nominal sums and on that basis we are opposed to the section. We want to maintain the nominal sums. We are also opposed to giving the Minister the power to increase these fees continually. It is not that we do not trust the Minister, but he is subject to the authority of the Minister for Finance and the Department of Finance. When Estimates are being drawn up there will be demands on him to provide for increases.
It is important that the backlog of work should be cleared as soon as possible. The Minister should attempt to get an exemption from the embargo in this case. The fee is being charged to cover costs in any event. Many people have already applied and if three or four people working in that section decided to leave and work elsewhere the job would not be done. A special effort should be made to clear up the matter. We are opposed to the general principle of moving away from a nominal charge.
I am opposed to section 3 which provides for an increase in fees. I am also opposed to the Minister seeking power to increase fees by order. He made great play of the fact that we are dealing with people who own their own houses. The vast majority of people are paying mortgages and many thousands of them are put to the pin of the collar to meet their repayments. Many of them are unemployed and have had to make arrangements with the building societies to defer payments. Certain people have mortgages due to arrangements made some years ago where they were pushed into that situation, although they would normally have qualified for local authority housing. They are now in a position where they are simply unable to meet their mortgage repayments. It is the building societies who own most of the houses in this country, not the people who live in them.
The Minister spoke about the value of these houses being not less than £30,000. My information is that there are very few three-bedroomed, semi-detached houses in the Dublin area fetching anything like that price at present. It may have been the case two years ago but that kind of money is not now available.
The Minister also said that the abolition of ground rents would involve compensation of between £40 million and £70 million. A "guesstimate" of the number of people involved is 250,000. Many ground rents range between £3 and £7 per annum and some of the later ones are about £20, but the average is about £15 per annum. Even if the compensation were to be the full amount provided under the 1967 Act which is related to the return on the latest Government stocks, my calculation is that the total compensation involved would be in the region of £10 million. Even if we were to double that figure to allow for errors on the basis that we are dealing with estimated figures we are still a long way from the frightening figure the Minister mentions. He is ignoring the fact that if these cases were to go to arbitration it would be the landlords who would be liable for the compensation, not the tenants.
The increase in charges is a breach of faith with the Association of Combined Residents' Associations who were clearly given to understand in 1978 when the scheme was introduced that the fees would be maintained at a nominal level and that there would be no question of the fees being raised to cover costs. While ACRA had their reservations about the scheme they accepted it on that basis.
I do not accept the Minister's argument that the fee must be related to the value of the house. It must be related to the ground rent being demanded. The scheme for purchasing is in effect a device to give the landlord a capital sum which, if invested in Government stock, would give him a return equal to the ground rent which he is losing. It is a scheme to give him a capital sum which will pay him the ground rent in perpetuity. That is the basis on which we should approach this matter, not the value of the house.
It is interesting to note that, even as the law stands, a landlord is entitled when a lease expires to retrieve not only the land but the house and everything else standing on the land, despite the fact that he does not own the house and that the person living in it has paid for it. That is the kind of principle which people oppose. They are not concerned about the payment of £10 or £15 per year; they are concerned about the principle that the landlord has superior powers. We are not talking about elderly widows collecting ground rents. We are talking about very big land owners who are collecting millions every year in ground rent. There is a very substantial lobby opposed to the abolition of ground rents. That is why we get these types of Bills here endeavouring to deal with the edges of the problem instead of homing in and getting rid of ground rents altogether.
(Limerick East): I have dealt with the points raised.
I did work it out at 395,000. That is the figure we talked about, if one takes the current ones that are in. Therefore I think the Minister is still ahead.
(Limerick East): The Deputy is taking the current applications and applying the new fees. The current applications are in at the old fees.
No, on the old fees it is 394,000 and, on the new fees it would be 686,000.
(Limerick East): Part of the backlog arises from the fees we agreed last year. Part of the backlog is applicable to the fees that have obtained since 1978. I would not interfere with the Deputy's pleasure in making calculations but he has not got all the input information.
The Minister is well covered.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 65; Níl, 60.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Birmingham, George Martin.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Carey, Donal.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McLoughlin, Frank.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Molony, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East)
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Martin Austin.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dowling, Dick.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, Willie.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Prendergast, Frank.
- Ryan, John.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, Niall.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Fahey, Francis.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzsimons, Jim.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gregory-Independent, Tony.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Lemass, Eileen.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West)
- O'Keeffe, Edmond.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett(Dún Laoghaire) and McLoughlin; Níl, Deputies B. Ahern and Briscoe.
Question declared carried.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 2, before section 4, to insert a new section as follows:—
"4.— The Minister for the Environment may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, by order fix a termination for ground rents on dwelling houses, where these come under his control or under the control of the local authorities (Housing Authorities)".
We are proposing that the Minister raises the question that there are constitutional difficulties in abolishing the remaining ground rents. We accept that there are constitutional difficulties and that these will not be met in any global Bill to deal with the remaining ground rents. However, we contend that these ground rents are under the control of the Minister in so far as the Minister for the Environment is responsible for them and in so far as the Government and the State are directly responsible for them. We believe that here the State should give a lead and set a termination date for ground rents in these cases. Consequently, we call on the Members of the House to support this amendment. We ask the Labour Party in particular to support it since they themselves are so committed to the abolition of ground rents and have stated so repeatedly, as has been said here in the House. We feel that this is a fairly small step for the Labour Party to take if they are to encourage their Coalition partners to do something even as small as this which would affect those houses the grounds rents of which are held by the local authorities or housing authorities. That is the case in regard to a private house built on local authority ground and a house which was originally a rental house and has been purchased by the individual under the transfer order. It is time to bring these ground rents to an end and we would like to see the Minister for the Environment being enabled to do this, and that is the purpose of the amendment which we are proposing.
(Limerick East): Can we take the section as well as the amendment by agreement?
Is that agreed?
We are discussing the section with the amendment. I would like to point out that the Minister is getting bad habits arising from the Criminal Justice Bill but on this occasion we agree.
The section deals with the question of giving power to the Minister himself and to the Minister for the Environment to set fees where the ground rents refer to local authority dwellings or dwellings which come under the control of the local authority or have been under the control of the local authority. We oppose this section on the grounds that, as I said earlier in relation to the increase in the fees, the clear intention of the original Bill was to have nominal fees set and there was never any indication in the original Bill that it was intended to increase the fees. Here we have assessed the situation where the Minister has in two years in a row increased the fees. He has extended the operation of the scheme for a further three years and is looking for the power to increase the fees by order. There is nothing to stop the Minister from increasing the fees every month for the next three years or every six months for the next three years. Clearly, pressure will be on the Minister, particularly from the Minister for Finance, to raise what money he can through this scheme. For that reason I oppose it.
I support Deputy Woods' amendment which is seeking to introduce the termination date on ground rents of houses under the control of the Minister for the Environment. The only quibble I have with it is that it does not go far enough and that by far the greatest number of dwellings are held under lease from private landlords and not from local authorities. The ground rents collected by local authorities are very nominal and are not a big problem. Generally people have not the same opposition in principle to ground rents held by local authorities because they see them as being held by the state rather than by private landlords who are making money from them for their own private gain. I support the amendment introduced by Deputy Woods and I oppose section 4 in general.
Since we are taking section 4, we also oppose section 4 in that it does much the same as section 3 does but for a different category.
(Limerick East): Section 4 replaces section 26(8) of the 1978 (No. 2) Act which concerns purchases by ground rent tenants of housing authorities and provides for an increase to £20 from £5 in the fee to be taken by a housing authority. Section 4(2) enables any further changes in the fee payable by a purchaser from a housing authority to be effected by way of fees order to be made by the Minister for the Environment rather than the Minister for Justice with the consent of the Minister for Finance. Therefore, section 4(2) is giving the power to the Minister for the Environment to arrange the fees rather than the Minister for Justice. Of course, section 4(2) allows the Minister for the Environment to vary the fee up or down as he sees fit. It does not tie him to increasing the fee; he can also reduce the fee if circumstances change and he thinks it is the appropriate thing to do.
The point here is the same as previously. When tenants of local authority housing authorities are involved here there is an administrative cost and if the administrative cost is not paid by the person who is benefiting it is going to be paid by the taxpayer. It is very easy to propose schemes with no fees or nominal fees, but the bottom line in no fees and nominal fees is that somebody takes up the burden, and it is the taxpayer who takes up the burden. I am one of the Deputies in this House who believes that the taxpayer is overtaxed already and that there is not room for extra taxation. An increase here to £20 is not a very major increase in actual terms even though it is a big increase in percentage terms.
Deputy De Rossa has made the point on a number of occasions that we are departing from the spirit of the 1978 Act. Of course we are departing from the spirit of the 1978 Act because the 1978 Act would have terminated last year if we had not brought in a new Bill. The idea of a nominal fee was tied into the idea of a restricted five-year period and if a person did not avail of the nominal fee during that five-year period all brakes were off and the person would have to go to a solicitor. Instead of that we are still providing the facility of the scheme now for another three years except that the administrative cost will have to be borne by the applicant.
The final point made by the Minister raises the whole question of the acceptability of assurances given by Ministers in relation to legislation brought into this House. A clear commitment was given to the Association of Combined Residents Associations, ACRA, that there would be a nominal fee and that the legislation would exist for five years and would be extended therefrom if a need was seen to extend it. It was clear from the number of people who did not avail of the procedures laid down under the Act until the very last minute — indeed, more than a quarter of a million householders still have not availed of the provisions of the Act — that the Bill did not have the desired effect and that there was a need to extend it on those grounds. Either commitments given by Ministers in relation to what they propose to do with legislation are to be stood over and accepted or we simply ignore commitments made by various Ministers at various times. That is what it boils down to.
(Limerick East): No Government or Government Minister in any administration gave a commitment to extend. I think it was Deputy G. Collins who introduced the Bill and I am informed that he did not give the commitment to extend which Deputy De Rossa said he did.
I was not in the House at that time so I cannot vouch for whether the Minister gave the commitment in this House, but he gave that commitment to ACRA at the time. That I can remember.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 67.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, Niall.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Francis.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzsimons, Jim.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Lemass, Eileen.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West)
- O'Keeffe, Edmond.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Birmingham, George Martin.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Carey, Donal.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Martin Austin.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dowling, Dick.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McLoughlin, Frank.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Molony, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East)
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, Willie.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Prendergast, Frank.
- Ryan, John.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies B. Ahern and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies Barrett(Dún Laoghaire) and Taylor.
Amendment declared lost.
In accordance with the order made by the House this morning, I must put the following Question: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Justice are hereby made to the Bill, the Bill, as amended, is hereby agreed to and, as amended, is reported to the House, Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."
Question put and declared carried.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.