Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 9 Jun 2016

Vol. 912 No. 2

Standing Orders: Motion

I move:

That the amendments and additions to the Standing Orders of Dáil Éireann relative to Public Business contained in the Report of the sub-Committee on Dáil Reform regarding changes to Standing Orders (which was laid before the Dáil on 8th June, 2016) be adopted, with effect from the dates outlined in the report.

I welcome the opportunity to support the motion before the House to amend Dáil Standing Orders on the basis of the final report of the Sub-committee on Dáil Reform that was established on the first sitting day of this Dáil. When this Dáil met on 10 March, an all-party motion establishing the committee, which was chaired by the Ceann Comhairle, was passed. The committee was established by consensus in this House and in the main for the last nine weeks it has worked by consensus. It was tasked with reviewing the way our Parliament works and identifying a set of reforms that could and will be introduced to strengthen it. In May the committee, after a number of detailed meetings, published a draft report, which was debated in this House.

The committee met again following debate in the House to finalise the report. The members of the committee, who came from across the House, were very conscious of the issues raised by Members in that debate when they decided on the final report. The motion before the House today is a result of the work of 19 committee members from across the parties and groups in the Dáil who, under the able and patient chairmanship of the Ceann Comhairle, worked over the last three months to review the way our Parliament works and to prepare a report which sets out, in detail, a package of reforms which I believe will radically change for the better the way the Oireachtas operates.

The motion before the House today seeks to build on the reforms introduced in the past and to work to create a parliament which is more effective and more efficient. The fact that the general election this year produced a Dáil where no one party has a majority and where this Fine Gael led partnership minority Government is committed to working in partnership with all Members of the Oireachtas means that we need a new way of doing business. As a group of 158 Deputies elected by the people, we have a duty to ensure that this Dáil works. The proposed changes will empower the Oireachtas like never before. The changes will give our Parliament a stronger voice and make Government more accountable to it.

The establishment of a Dáil business committee will give all Deputies a greater voice in the business of the Dáil and allow a fairer distribution of Dáil time between the Opposition and the sitting Government. The Dáil will establish stronger committees which will work in a better way with the Chamber. Oireachtas committee meetings and the Dáil plenary sessions will no longer clash. Oireachtas committees will now meet on Tuesday evenings and Wednesday and Thursday mornings with the Dáil sitting on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday afternoons and evenings. The new split will finally end the problem of Oireachtas committees clashing with important debates in the Dáil and Deputies being forced to choose between the two or to run up and down the corridors and stairs of the House to try and make it in time for votes.

The Dáil will enhance the legislative process in the Oireachtas. The Dáil will establish new structures for Leaders' Questions, Taoiseach's Questions, ministerial questions and Topical Issues. The Dáil will establish a fixed time each week for taking all divisions on Thursday afternoons and Members may formally abstain in a vote which will aid in achieving more family friendly hours and working conditions in the House. These reforms are a major step in the direction of creating an Oireachtas that is stronger and more representative of the people elected to it while allowing Government to carry on the work with which it is charged.

The culmination of 14 meetings of the Dáil reform committee has led to the proposal regarding Standing Orders that will effect the main changes agreed by the committee. It was a pleasure to serve on that committee with a very diverse group of Deputies from across the House with different political backgrounds and different views on issues but all were focused on bringing about much needed and long awaited reform. It shows how well the committee worked that only once was it actually divided by way of a vote. I am not completely happy with everything in it, if I am to be honest, but there are significant changes proposed: the establishment of the budget oversight committee, an independent budgetary office established on a statutory basis; the office of independent parliamentary legal advice, again established on a statutory basis; and by fixing of the mess of the committees of the last Dáil and Seanad by making the committees sectoral and aligned to Government Departments and restricted to membership of 11 - seven Deputies and four Senators - so the committees will not have membership of 29 and 30 people where members cannot contribute properly. It will afford a much better representation of how the public voted in the general election to ensure that legislation can be passed from the Government or the Opposition side and that Bills will now no longer be allowed to die on the vine after passing Second Stage. Bills will now have to get to the next Stage within ten weeks of that passing. It is also important that the allocation of speaking time, oral and priority questions and Private Members' business is done on a proportionate basis to reflect the vote of the people in the last general election.

In the main I would support all the changes to Standing Orders that are proposed on behalf of Fianna Fáil. I will wait to see how one or two items actually work in practice. The Ceann Comhairle has said, as have many others at the reform committee meetings, that this is not the end of Dáil reform. The reform committee will meet next week and again at the end of this Dáil session before the summer recess. The committee will remain in place to ensure the reforms being brought forward are working and where they are not working that they will be changed. It is open to the committee, at a future stage, to propose further amendments to Standing Orders should that be desirable or required at the time. I am extremely pleased with most of the proposed changes that have been brought forward. It is now the job of Members to work within this new reality. The rules are now changed to allow us to do so and the mindset of all Members needs to change also in how we operate within this Dáil.

The Seanad met yesterday for the first day. It is important, and I have said this to the Ceann Comhairle, that Seanad reform is also required. The Oireachtas is not just the Dáil, it is the Dáil, Seanad and Uachtarán na hÉireann. The Seanad needs to be reformed and made further relevant. Fianna Fáil will support each of the Standing Orders as set out by the committee. I commend in particular the Ceann Comhairle on the efficient and inclusive manner in which he has chaired these meetings. I commend all of those who served on the committee. I found it to be a most interesting and, in the main, enjoyable experience. All of us know that the public want us to change the way we do business in the House and this report on Dáil reform and the changes being brought forward will bring us a step closer to that. However, we need to continue to ensure that we are committed to reform and to look at how the rules are working and where they are not working in order to change it. It is vitally important that the parliamentary legal advice office is staffed to its requirement as soon as possible to allow opposition Bills have the same weight as Government Bills and to be written and drafted to the same quality. Opposition Bills will pass through this Dáil and we have to ensure they stack up. That is a priority. The independent budgetary office is also a priority in order to change the way that our budget is formed and framed so it is not just one big hit in October and that the budget is more inclusive of all political views in the House.

I thank Deputy O'Brien who was dead on time.

Cosúil leis na Teachtaí eile, ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis an gCeann Comhairle as an obair a rinne sé muid a tharraingt le chéile chun déileáil le ceist atá teibí do chuid mhór daoine. Uaireanta ní thuigeann siad go díreach cad atá ar bun againn san áit seo. Déileáil an coiste go maith leis an gceist agus d'éirigh linn teacht ar shraith rialacha nua a chuideoidh linn an gnó atá le déanamh againn san áit seo a dhéanamh amach anseo. I hope that I contributed positively in my work with the committee on Dáil reform. I undertook the work diligently, put forward my own proposals and I listened to the proposals of others. The benefit of the committee was that people brought their practical experience of the House and those who were new to the House brought ideas. Some of us were able to tease the ideas out and show if they could work or not. Any change to the rules in this institution has consequences that are often unforeseen. The committee has managed to put together the first raft, hopefully, of changes which will benefit not only Members but also the public who will receive a more effective and efficient Dáil. Ba mhaith liom déileáil leis an gceist maidir leis an Ghaeilge sa Dáil amach anseo. Tá súil agam go gcomhlíonfar na moltaí atá déanta againn agus go bhfeicfimid níos mó reachtaíochta agus meamraim míniúcháin as Gaeilge ag teacht os ár gcomhair. Tá moladh déanta againn freisin go mbeidh coiste ann le déileáil leis an Ghaeilge agus is céim mhór chun tosaigh í sin. There are many issues that remain to be addressed and the commitment by the Ceann Comhairle that this is not the end of Dáil reform will hopefully be lived up to.

I have been here long enough to hear of previous commitments, but I believe an Ceann Comhairle when he says that we will come back to some of the issues, because they are consequential on some of the changes. We are all eager to ensure what we have changed will work.

I believe that in some instances there will be practical problems. For instance, the proposal for promised legislation allows for 15 minutes' discussion. If we take it that the Minister and a leader between them have two minutes and there are now eight groups, 16 minutes are already gone, meaning other Deputies will not get to speak on promised legislation on Wednesdays or Thursdays were all the leaders to take their slots. That is a practical problem but there are solutions and we will examine the issue again. Other practical problems have also emerged.

I express my support for the amendment but if we accept Deputy Daly's amendment, other consequential changes need to be made. These changes relate to how political parties are registered, how a leader's allowance travels, whether he or she is in a political party and leaves or he or she joins a political party, the allocation of secretarial assistants and the allocation of committee chairs. If we accept this change, and I hope we accept it, these are all consequential steps to be taken to put in place a more robust recognition process which deals with political parties and the questions I raised. Further, we cannot have a situation where people are jumping in and out of parties. There needs to be a cooling down period. We need to get to grips with this quickly, because the public have told us who are in, if one wants, established political parties that there needs to be a change. They voted for small parties, big parties and also quite a number of Independents. Some of those Independents over time will join other parties or will stay independent. However, there are consequences and we should not put in place rules that restrict them or discriminate against them.

Gabhaim mo bhuíochas arís leo siúd a d'oibrigh liom ar an gcoiste, ach go háirithe an Ceann Comhairle as an obair a rinne sé. Tá súil agam go mbeidh tairbhe le baint againn as amach anseo.

Buíochas, Deputy Ó Snodaigh. Is Deputy Jan O'Sullivan taking Deputy Howlin's slot?

I am representing Deputy Brendan Howlin who was a member of the committee. I think I am the first person to speak who was not a member. Therefore, on behalf of all Members, I thank those who served on the committee as well as the Ceann Comhairle for the work they did. I include in that regard my colleague and party leader, Deputy Brendan Howlin, who unfortunately cannot contribute at the moment.

This is very much an agreed package and we in the Labour Party will co-operate with it. That the business committee will be operating by consensus is important and will work to ensure we have a smooth running of business in this Chamber which works in the interests, above all, of the people we represent. It will in some ways take time to find its feet and we need to ensure we all co-operate from all sides to ensure it operates smoothly. As previous speakers stated, we want to ensure this is a working Dáil that does the business on behalf of the people. There has sometimes been some scepticism from the public around what goes on in here. I sincerely hope these changes will help to ensure it works well.

The Chief Whip referred to the family-friendly aspect in her introductory contribution. This is important but, inevitably, there will have to be compromise. What is family-friendly to someone living in Dublin is not necessarily family-friendly to someone living in Kerry, Donegal or west Mayo. We have to find a compromise for people who live where I live, for example. We would probably like to start early in the morning on Wednesdays and Thursdays and finish late in the evening on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and get back to our constituencies as early as possible. For people living in Dublin, family-friendly is something different. Inevitably, therefore, compromise will be required. It is a national assembly so we have to find that balance and, overall, the committee has achieved it.

There are other elements of the reform package, for example, the revamped legal services. These were also referred to by a previous speaker. These services are very important, particularly because we will now have Bills from the Opposition which will be able to travel more easily in the current configuration of the Dáil. It will be important that Members who are bringing Bills forward who are not members of Government and therefore do not have the legal advice of the Attorney General and legal sections of Departments have independent legal advice. This section is, therefore, very important, as are the budgetary office proposals. I understand, however, that they are the responsibility of the Oireachtas Commission rather than something for the Standing Orders. It will, therefore, be important that the Oireachtas Commission gets up and running. I do not know if the Chief Whip will be able to respond but there was a suggestion it might not meet until September. Will she provide clarity on the matter and confirm that it will meet as soon as possible in order that we can get these reforms up and running? I also support what Deputy O'Brien said about the committees and ensuring they are effective and work properly in relation to the various Departments and Ministers engaging with them on business and legislation.

Certain powers are available to the Chair under these revised Standing Orders only when the Ceann Comhairle or the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is in the Chair. Deputy Eugene Murphy is acting as Chairman now, but some of the powers cannot be exercised except by the Ceann Comhairle and Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I, therefore, want to make the point again that we need to remedy the deficiency with regard to the election of a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Four Members were proposed last week but none of them succeeded in getting a majority in this House. We need to address that area.

Overall, on behalf of the Labour Party and my party leader, Deputy Brendan Howlin, I welcome the Standing Orders before us today and indicate that we will be fully supportive.

I thank Deputy O'Sullivan for her contribution and call an Teachta Pól Ó Murchú on behalf of AAA-PBP. He has five minutes.

This is the third time I have spoken on this matter in this House. I participated in all the meetings of the committee on Dáil reform, so I do not have a whole lot to add at this stage. However, I add my voice to the thanks to the Ceann Comhairle and all the staff involved who did a huge amount of work in terms of turning around papers, proposals and draft Standing Orders at very short notice and translating difficult discussions into concrete proposals in black and white on which we could then decide. It was excellent work on their part. We are nearly finished the process of Dáil reform in terms of this particular set of packages. I agree that it has to continue but even within this package there are other bits and pieces to come in terms of the written explanation of votes and so on being added to Standing Orders.

The Dáil reform committee was extremely limited by the basis on which it was set up. It was set up to examine Dáil reform, but we need something much more substantial. We need a radical change in terms of how our democracy works, with a real transfer of power to people. For example, such change could include an ability to initiate a referendum if a certain number of people sign a document or an ability for people to recall Deputies who break their electoral mandates and so on.

What was attempted in the Dáil reform process? There was a pressure on all the parties, in particular the establishment parties, to reflect the reality of the election, the fact the two and a half party system we had in this country is gone and finished, that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael combined have less than 50% of the vote and the fact a number of small parties and Independents were elected. There was pressure on those people to have their voices heard in the Dáil. This effort was an attempt in that regard and it goes some way towards it, but we will need to review it.

I would like to highlight some of the changes that I believe are important. The change to Leaders' Questions to allow for four questions per day is an important, progressive reform. It means all groups will be able to speak on a rotational basis. While it is not strictly relevant to Standing Orders I believe a time limit should be imposed in respect of Leaders' Questions such that the first couple of questions do not take up an enormous amount of time and thereby result in the third or fourth question not being taken.

The ability to abstain is in a sense a small thing but it allows people to express themselves politically in a way that often cannot be done by a binary "Yes-No" system. People may feel the need to abstain and explain their reason for so doing.

The business committee is important. Given the manner in which it is being set up in the Standing Orders, it is essential that the Government Chief Whip listens to what is being said by others at the business committee and takes it on board. Under Standing Orders as currently drafted, the business committee is required to get consensus on a Government proposal, or not, with dissent on the Government proposal going to the floor of the Dáil. While obviously under the current Dáil such a proposal could be defeated that might not necessarily be the case in future Dáil arrangements.

My next point relates to the business committee. Private Members' motions previously taken every second Friday will now be taken every Thursday, with motions for discussion to be chosen by the business committee. We should strongly encourage the committee to use the lottery system used previously as it is the fairest way of operating. I would like finally to comment on some of the points of controversy that arose at the end of the process. One of the questions that arose was whether it is correct that political parties take precedence in order of speaking to groupings that are not political parties. I maintain that it is correct. I believe that people stand on a political mandate. As a member of a party they stand on a national mandate. As they receive votes from all over the country their mandate is a national one. I do not believe they should get additional time or rights but I do believe they should take precedence over technical groupings of Independents. Linked to that is the question of whether that precedence can be trumped by people moving between groups or from a non-group to a political grouping following an election. I think it is correct for us to place a premium on the expression of the will of the people, be that through a general election or a by-election, and to say that this determines the order of speaking rights. I believe that is appropriate and that it gives due weight to the role of the electorate in choosing on the basis of the mandate that people seek and the programmes on which people stand to order parties in a particular way.

The next speaker is Deputy Daly, who I understand will be moving an amendment to the motion.

I move amendment No. 1:

In the proposed substitution of Standing Order 143D(2), to delete:

"Provided further that the addition of a member or members to a party otherwise than at a bye-election or a general election shall be disregarded when determining the precedence of a party."

I do not propose to repeat the points made previously in this Chamber. The general principles in the reform document have been broadly discussed here and broadly welcomed. The initiative of the grouping was positive. On the last occasion this issue was before the House, the point was made that in some ways the reforms go a good bit of the way towards reflecting the new political reality in that they transfer power from the Government to the Oireachtas, which is welcome. Interestingly, during the last debate in the House on this issue a large number of Deputies made the point that they only go a bit of the way because the current system still serves to guard and protect the privilege of parties, which to me is inherently undemocratic. It is inherently archaic and is hankering after an old system that is unravelling not only in Ireland but across Europe.

It is ironic that the people who made the point about an electoral mandate and a national mandate are members of the small groupings which comprise only a small number of Deputies. The larger parties did not tend to make that point because the national mandate was evident in the number of seats those parties got. In that sense, size does matter. In this matter, it is decisive. I am glad that this is being reflected in the concept of proportionality. It is accurate that this be done. What was being put forward by the groups was that in giving parties precedence it was not just parties that were being given precedence but parties with more than five members elected. For example, the Green Party could have a national vote in excess of that of the AAA-PBP but because it does not have as many Deputies it would not get party precedence, even though it could be argued that it has a greater national mandate. It is a nonsense.

The effect of these Standing Orders is to deal with an evolving situation and a new type of politics. I would like in that context to comment on the groupings. A mistake was made, in particular at the last meeting, to rush in changes to Standing Orders based on the arithmetic from this Dáil for narrow, petty, sectarian interests over the interests of what a Standing Order should be, which should be to deal with the business of the Dáil in a fair and transparent manner. I would like to thank the AAA-PBP, Fine Gael and the Labour Party for having such confidence in us that they are bothered to spend so much time trying to put us down the pecking order. We are flattered. I do not propose to focus on that issue now.

The scenario we are seeking to address by way of the amendment before us is the insertion of a particular section in the last minute of the last committee meeting. It is clear to me that this goes against the slant of Standing Orders, which is to facilitate the formation of groups. It is inherently undemocratic and negative in that it is being put forward to stymie people rather than do anything positive. In effect this means that if a party was to split and a large number of its members were to form a group which is larger than the party under the umbrella of which the original party was elected, then the latter group will rank lower and behind a Technical Group in the pecking order because it was not a party elected at the time of the election. Let us take the example of the Labour Party. Many people would argue that the Labour Party broke its national electoral mandate by going into Government on the last occasion. If a majority of Labour Party Deputies wanted to leave the Labour Party and form a larger group than the one they left, the latter group would be behind the original Labour Party which did not adhere to its electoral mandate.

Another unintended problem is the fact that if as Deputies are saying the addition of new members cannot alter precedence then the opposite also applies in that a party cannot lose precedence as a result of it. We could have a situation whereby if a party of 50 people splits and 45 of them go one direction and the remaining five stay with the original party, the latter group will be higher up in the pecking order, which is a nonsense. Let us call a spade a spade. We all know why this proposal was put forward. It is not a good way of doing business. It goes against the grain of the type of approach that was adopted quite successfully on a range of issues. It is petty and it has no place in any Parliament setting or under Standing Orders. It is in that regard the amendment is proposed.

There is an incremental approach to bringing forth Standing Orders as drafted. I, too, pay tribute to the people who make a complex issue appear easier to deal with than it is, in particular Noreen Banim who is one of the people who worked behind the scenes on the set of Standing Orders with which we are dealing today.

The business committee will be up and running fairly soon. I believe this committee will be pivotal in reflecting the change of power in terms of that power being shared among Parliament as opposed to residing with the Government, with the Opposition having only influence in particular matters. There is a big difference between influence and power. It is in this regard we will see reform manifest itself. To allow this to play out all of the committees will need to be up and running. There is a real problem in terms of the size of this Dáil, which is almost a converse of the previous Dáil which comprised a large Government and a small Opposition. The reverse is now the case. This means it will be difficult for the Government to fill all of the positions on committees. We may well end up with a situation whereby members of the Opposition who want to be members of particular committees will be unable to be so.

We have to find a way to reduce the amount of negative energy that might create.

When writing Standing Orders we have to ask ourselves where we get our authority from. We get it from the people and the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution do the words "political party" appear. I have spoken on numerous occasions over the past five years on this point. Despite now being in a party, I have not changed my view. The mandate is given to the individual who stands for election. Sometimes the person stands within a political party system, sometimes as an Independent. The people decide who should fill the seats in this Chamber. The Standing Orders as they are written favour the party as having a preferred mandate. That is wrong. It will add another layer, if not two, of co-ordination that will make it very difficult to run this House. Some of the offices of the House are finding that there is additional work they had not anticipated in the temporary mechanism for co-ordination. Co-ordination in the first instance will be within the groups. Then there will be co-ordination between the groups and between the groups and the Government. That will make running this House much more difficult. The way it has been designed, favouring the parties over big groups, means that, instead of big groups coming together and co-ordinating, there will be a more fragmented arrangement with many small groups, making that much more difficult. I had some experience of that having been the Whip for the Technical Group, which worked pretty well in the last Dáil. There were 17 or 18 Members in it and no one missed Private Member's business or Leaders' Questions while Priority Questions were routinely taken. Members also sat on committees. The way it is being done here creates unnecessary fragmentation.

I take Deputy Paul Murphy’s point about the reforms. They are reforms of the way we run this House but there are political reforms that need to be considered, for example, the Social Democrats put forward the idea of an anti-corruption agency, instead of having tribunals and commissions of investigation after the fact. There is a better way to do it and that is one of our suggestions. It is an example of what could be done if political reform was captured, as opposed to just Dáil reform, which is welcome but is only half way towards what is needed.

Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 31; Níl, 97.

  • Adams, Gerry.
  • Brady, John.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Buckley, Pat.
  • Collins, Joan.
  • Connolly, Catherine.
  • Crowe, Seán.
  • Cullinane, David.
  • Daly, Clare.
  • Doherty, Pearse.
  • Donnelly, Stephen S.
  • Ellis, Dessie.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Funchion, Kathleen.
  • Kenny, Martin.
  • McDonald, Mary Lou.
  • Martin, Catherine.
  • Mitchell, Denise.
  • Munster, Imelda.
  • Murphy, Catherine.
  • Nolan, Carol.
  • Ó Broin, Eoin.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Laoghaire, Donnchadh.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O'Brien, Jonathan.
  • O'Reilly, Louise.
  • Ryan, Eamon.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Tóibín, Peadar.
  • Wallace, Mick.

Níl

  • Aylward, Bobby.
  • Bailey, Maria.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Mick.
  • Brassil, John.
  • Brophy, Colm.
  • Browne, James.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Peter.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Butler, Mary.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Canney, Seán.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Casey, Pat.
  • Cassells, Shane.
  • Chambers, Jack.
  • Chambers, Lisa.
  • Collins, Michael.
  • Coppinger, Ruth.
  • Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
  • Coveney, Simon.
  • Cowen, Barry.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Curran, John.
  • Daly, Jim.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Deasy, John.
  • Deering, Pat.
  • Doherty, Regina.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • English, Damien.
  • Farrell, Alan.
  • Fitzpatrick, Peter.
  • Fleming, Sean.
  • Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Harris, Simon.
  • Harty, Michael.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Heydon, Martin.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Humphreys, Heather.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Kenny, Gino.
  • Kyne, Seán.
  • Lahart, John.
  • Lawless, James.
  • MacSharry, Marc.
  • McEntee, Helen.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • McLoughlin, Tony.
  • Madigan, Josepha.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • Moran, Kevin Boxer.
  • Moynihan, Aindrias.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Murphy O'Mahony, Margaret.
  • Murphy, Dara.
  • Murphy, Eoghan.
  • Murphy, Eugene.
  • Murphy, Paul.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Naughton, Hildegarde.
  • Neville, Tom.
  • O'Brien, Darragh.
  • O'Connell, Kate.
  • O'Donovan, Patrick.
  • O'Dowd, Fergus.
  • O'Keeffe, Kevin.
  • O'Loughlin, Fiona.
  • O'Rourke, Frank.
  • O'Sullivan, Jan.
  • Penrose, Willie.
  • Phelan, John Paul.
  • Rabbitte, Anne.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Rock, Noel.
  • Ross, Shane.
  • Ryan, Brendan.
  • Scanlon, Eamon.
  • Sherlock, Sean.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Smith, Bríd.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Troy, Robert.
  • Varadkar, Leo.
  • Zappone, Katherine.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Catherine Connolly and Clare Daly; Clare; Níl, Deputies Jim Daly and Regina Doherty.
Amendment declared lost.
Motion agreed to.
Barr
Roinn