Criminal Justice Bill 2016: Report and Final Stages

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, line 13, to delete “ ‘intoxication’ ” and substitute “ ‘intoxicated’ ”.

This is a fairly straightforward technical amendment. It replaces the word "intoxication" with the word "intoxicated" in subsection (4) of the new section 4A of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act to be inserted by section 3 of this Bill. Intoxicated is the word used in the substantive amendment of the new section 4A and in the definition of the existing section 4 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 and is therefore the appropriate word to use here.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 5, to delete line 35.

This amendment removes paragraph (a)(i) of the new subsection (10) the Government wishes to insert into section 6 of the Act of 1997. If the paragraph remains in the Bill, it would introduce a new power of arrest without warrant by the Garda if a member was of the opinion that someone on bail was about to contravene any of his or her bail conditions and if the garda considers arrest necessary to prevent harm to, interference with, or intimidation of the alleged victim, witness or other such persons.

My concern is that effectively we are giving the Garda powers of arrest for a future crime - offences that have not been committed yet, crimes that might not be crimes at all but just a thought in a garda's head. The potential for abuse in those circumstances is considerable, should a garda choose to be of that mind. We did discuss this on Committee Stage. I do not see any merits as to how it would make the victim any safer. Having discussed it at committee, I have changed my amendment since then. I had opposed the whole subsection, but I have taken on board the points made by other Deputies, namely, the circumstances whereby for instance, if somebody accused of a sexual crime against a woman was approaching her in her front garden, it would be a help to the woman if the garda could arrest the accused to get him out of the way and protect her. I do not believe my amendment puts a stop to that or prevents the garda from doing that in any way. It is only about not extending new powers of arrest without warrant for breach of bail conditions, particularly in the absence of bail supports or services, which is an issue that the Irish Penal Reform Trust has raised, saying it is a short-term and simplistic solution to what is a complex problem. It is in that sense that I am moving it.

Amendment No. 2 deletes the power for the Garda to arrest without warrant a person on bail who is about to contravene any of the conditions of his or her recognisance. However, consider the circumstances where a victim is in fear of violence from an accused person and that person is prohibited from contacting the victim as a condition of his or her bail. If the accused person pulls up outside the victim's house or approaches the victim in any place, the victim should not have to wait for the accused person to make contact, which may be threatening or violent, before the Garda can intervene. The power of arrest provided in this provision has been carefully considered. It is very limited in nature. A person may only be arrested without warrant where a garda reasonably suspects that the person is about to breach a condition of his or her bail and the immediate arrest is necessary to prevent harm to or interference with the victim, another witness or a person that the court has specifically tried to protect.

I believe the provision is reasonable, and it is necessary to allow a member of the Garda to intervene in such circumstances and consequently, I am not accepting the amendment.

For the Minister's scenario to work, the garda would have to be present for starters, so we are talking about quite limited circumstances. My point is that it is far too vague. If a garda was present and thought that a person was in danger, he or she would have powers under existing legislation to make an arrest. For instance, were a garda to tell someone to run along and move it, that is, were the garda to give the person a reasonable instruction to leave under section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 and were that person not to comply, then the garda could arrest that person anyway under existing provisions. Similarly, if someone was threatening to cause bodily harm to a victim under the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, it would not be necessary for him or her to actually hit or stab someone for a garda to have a power of arrest in those circumstances. Therefore I do not believe that a victim's safety is being negatively impacted upon by my amendment. What I am trying to do is get a better balance in terms of human rights. It is very broad to state that a garda could think of a future in his or her head where the bail conditions were about to be breached. That is a significant power and is a lot woollier that it ought to be. The scenario the Deputies want to protect would be better served by removing that "about to" scenario. It lays an unfortunate precedent and it is on that basis that I move this amendment.

I will reiterate the kinds of circumstances about which we are talking. A condition of bail is imposed on the accused person. There are grounds to reasonably suspect that the person is about to breach that condition. Immediate arrest is necessary to prevent harm to, or interference with a victim or a witness. A condition is imposed in the first instance, there are grounds to suspect that the person is about to breach the condition and immediate arrest is necessary to prevent harm or interference with a victim or witness. If all these circumstances do not exist then there is no power of arrest.

I think an arrest without warrant in such circumstances, where it is necessary to prevent harm to someone, is absolutely reasonable and justified.

We obviously disagree on that. I stand by my earlier comment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 6, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:

“8. Section 6B of the Act is amended by the insertion of the following subsections after subsection (1):

“(1A) In imposing the conditions in subparagraphs (i) to (iii) of section 6B the Court shall have regard to the following:

(a) that the type and modalities of tagging are proportionate to the offences alleged in terms of duration and intrusiveness;

(b) the age, disability or other relevant personal circumstances of the person upon whom the conditions are imposed; and

(c) that the person upon whom the conditions are imposed shall not be confined solely to a place of residence for so long as those conditions are imposed.

(1B) All data gathered as result of the imposition of the conditions in subparagraphs (i) to (iii) of section 6B shall be gathered, stored and processed in compliance with the Data Protection Acts and shall not be used for any purpose other than the following:

(a) monitoring of compliance with conditions imposed under subparagraphs (i) and (iv) of section 6(1)(b) while those conditions are imposed; and

(b) implementing the relevant provisions of section 6C.”.”.

I take these amendments seriously. In some ways they might be seen as somewhat technical and heavy going but they are important and touch on a number of boxes. They deal with electronic monitoring, which is being put forward as an alternative to a person being incarcerated. While we welcome that, it is very important that there are guidelines on the use of electronic monitoring. That is not only my concern as the European courts and data protection issues require us to do that. I accept that electronic monitoring is a useful tool in the criminal justice system. In Demark, for example, 60% of custodial sentences under six months are converted to electronic monitoring and intense supervision. In Belgium, any prison sentence of less than three years is automatically commuted to electronic tagging. I see a role for it and do not suggest it should not be used but it needs to be controlled carefully. The purpose of my amendments is to beef up the safeguards.

The wording of paragraph (a) is largely taken from the Council of Europe's 2014 recommendations on electronic monitoring. The Council of Europe advises that it is necessary that a decision to electronically tag somebody on bail takes into account the offence it is alleged that the person committed. While I have no doubt that judges would use their discretion and would apply sanctions fairly, at the same time we must tighten up provisions around duration because if we do not, delays could mean someone being tagged for a very long time that would be disproportionate to the crime. Let us face it, the people being tagged here are people who have not actually been convicted of any crime. The points being made about data protection are very important. My amendment proposes to cover a couple of things. First, I want to ensure that all of the data gathered as part of electronic monitoring is stored and processed in accordance with Data Protection Acts, and second, that the data are only used for specific purposes, namely, monitoring the compliance of the conditions imposed as part of the electronic monitoring.

Amendment No. 4 provides that the monitoring of people wearing tags will henceforth be done on a non-commercial, not-for-profit basis. That is to prevent private security firms getting in on the gig to try and make a killing out of it. I was surprised that there were no specific explicit safeguards on data protection either in this Bill or in the Bail Act 1997 in this day and age and in particular given the uses to which data gathered can be put in cases where tags are attached. It is particularly surprising we have not explicitly stated it when the Council of Europe recommendation on the implementation of electronic monitoring explicitly states the use of data collected through electronic monitoring should be regulated by law.

That is what I am seeking to do here. We live in a world where data are big business and people pay big money for them. A person's data, particularly in these private matters, should only be used for the purposes for which they have been gathered. If we do not do this and include these provisions, we are likely to run into problems with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which gives strong protections to the fundamental right to privacy. It says we need a sound framework of specific principles and standards protecting the rights of individuals. I had hoped the amendment would be accepted. I do not see it as being particularly controversial unless we are trying to leave the door open to private commercial operators to make big bucks from the data being collected. I do not really get it.

On Committee Stage, Deputies from Fine Gael said my attempt to put electronic monitoring on a not-for-profit basis was ideological. That is funny because it is exactly what the Council of Europe states the issue is. In its Standards and Ethics in Electronic Monitoring handbook, it says "Government decisions to use commercial organisations to deliver [electronic monitoring] are as likely to be taken on ideological grounds as on practical grounds." There have been some problems in other states where services were being provided privately but subsequently had to be brought in under the public domain. I am trying to ensure from the start that there would not be anybody profiting from this type of procedure.

I spoke on Committee Stage about the German model, which is based on de-escalation and in so far as possible, helping offenders not to breach bail conditions. That should be the direction in which we go. In that sense, the monitoring of tagging should be done by professional people such as social workers and people who can go in and intervene to de-escalate, not to catch people out and have them whipped off to prison. We are trying to achieve a position where that would not happen. There is a greater danger of that happening if it was a private for-profit operator. I see these amendments as quite important.

The purpose of electronic monitoring is to monitor compliance with bail conditions. Its intended effect is to encourage a person on bail to comply with the conditions the court has imposed. There are a range of safeguards to ensure it is used appropriately already in the Bail Act. The Act requires a person subject to electronic monitoring to consent to it and the provisions only apply to adults charged with serious offences. It is also not possible to restrict the movements of a person on bail to such an extent they must remain in any specific place or residence at all times. It is clear that most of the conditions this amendment seeks to impose are already provided for in the Bail Act. Imposing additional conditions on the use of electronic monitoring will simply make it more difficult to impose and will result in people being refused bail where they may otherwise be granted bail subject to electronic monitoring. That is the impact the Deputy's amendment will have.

With regard to data protection, the Deputy quoted the Council of Europe but the Data Protection Acts set out the law governing all data in any form that can be processed. All data gathered as a result of any provision of this Bill or the Bail Act are subject to the Data Protection Acts. It is already subject to the Data Protection Acts. One of the features of those Acts is that personal and sensitive data may only be processed in accordance with law. Therefore, where specific provision is made in this Bill or in the Bail Act for data to be gathered, processed and used for certain purposes and in a certain way, it is the specific provision in this Bill or the Bail Act that will apply. Gathering, storing and processing the relevant data under the provisions of the Bail Acts is of itself complying with the Data Protection Acts. The Deputy's concerns are ill-founded. The Data Protection Acts already do what the Deputy is trying to do by way of amendment. It is not necessary.

Amendment No. 4 proposes to amend section 6D of the 1997 Act and to restrict the provision of electronic monitoring services to non-commercial or not-for-profit providers. It would prevent current arrangements used for electronic monitoring by the Prison Service. It would restrict the possible options for providing electronic monitoring. I do not share the Deputy's concerns that a commercial operator cannot appropriately and effectively provide the electronic monitoring service. Such a provider would be bound to operate the service in accordance with the statutory provisions and contractual obligations imposed by the State. Limiting the provision to non-commercial operators would restrict the available operators and possibly lead to circumstances in which electronic monitoring services could not be implemented in some locations or perhaps not at all. It would also be likely to increase costs. I am not inclined to accept the amendment on that basis.

There are a couple of key arguments to respond to in what the Minister has said. The first is the conditions are too cumbersome and it will mean electronic monitoring will not be selected and therefore it defeats the purpose. I do not accept that. The Judiciary is more than capable of balancing the requirements and the conditions I have put forward. In many ways, it could be argued the Judiciary takes many of these measures into account anyway. That is probably an argument that could be made. I do not accept the idea its members would not be capable of taking on board the list of requirements in the legislation. They are more than qualified to take a balanced view. I do not see a problem in outlining in legislation factors they would be required to take into account which in many instances they already do. I see them as a safety precaution in instances where the odd member of the Judiciary might not do it.

I will address the Minister's point about the protection being there in terms of data in existing data protection legislation rather than criminal justice and bail legislation. If it is, there is no problem in reiterating it here. It is not causing any problems. It is a case of "to be sure, to be sure" and re-emphasising the situation. I do not see it as a particular problem. There are issues when we look at new forms of data, particularly areas like GPS trackers and so on. The old electronic monitoring systems operated on radio frequency monitoring whereas the new systems have been very much upgraded. There have been some court cases and legal action around some of these issues. As a protection of data, the amendments I have proposed to protect privacy are particularly important so we do not leave the door open for profiteering.

I feel more strenuously about amendment No. 4 because I do not see any basis for a for-profit operator to exist in this area. It should have no part in such an important public service that could be abused. We should take a holistic approach and de-escalate situations. I will definitely be pressing amendment No. 4.

It is already the case that electronic monitoring will only be imposed for serious offences to monitor a condition of bail which must itself be proportionate and necessary where the prosecution applies for it. That is in circumstances where the Garda believes it would be effective in preventing breaches of bail conditions. It has to be with the consent of the person being monitored and it only applies to adults. There are already sufficient safeguards in place to ensure electronic monitoring will only be used where it is essential and appropriate having regard to the individual offences and to the particular circumstances of the case. I do not agree the additional conditions contained in the amendment are necessary or helpful.

On a technical note, amendment No. 3 refers to section 6B of the Act. It should refer to section 6B of the 1997 Act. As such, it is not inserted into the Bail Act 1997 and could not be implemented in its current form. That is just a technical point.

The Minister made clear that this will be applied for only serious offences involving adults. While I agree with some of the sentiments expressed by Deputy Clare Daly regarding not-for-profit organisations, I do not know if such organisations would be up to the task.

As a Deputy representing a rural constituency, I believe electronic tagging must be used because, as gardaí have informed me, we do not have sufficient resources to physically monitor people. In a recent reply to a parliamentary question the Minister informed me that electronic tagging had been in place since the Bail Act was introduced seven years ago and the prosecution in cases involving bail applications had never applied to have the system used. I ask her to clarify this statement because I understood electronic tagging had been applied for in the past. Bail is not granted lightly and, as the Minister stated, if electronic tagging is not permitted, bail applications will be refused and we will clog up prison spaces with people who are under suspicion and have not been convicted.

I recently visited Roscrea and other places in Tipperary where obnoxious crimes had been committed involving people travelling long distances to invade homes and attack people before wandering off into the dead of night. A 90 year old was left traumatised having been beaten over the head with a walking stick. There must be some way of tracing individuals who visit this kind of carnage on elderly and defenceless people. While I understand Deputy Clare Daly's point about involving social workers to de-escalate matters, de-escalation does not apply to some people, especially those who have a large number of convictions for the same kinds of crimes. Some semblance of sense must prevail.

I have seen electronic tagging used in other jurisdictions and it saves significant police resources as it allows persons wearing the tags to be monitored from a monitoring station. Gardaí would not have to travel by squad car to visit a person for five or ten minutes in his or her home. The person could be anywhere for the next 24 hours. The system is outdated. I respect human rights and I do not like big brother watching people but we have to deal with circumstances in which people are frightened for their lives in their homes. This is making them sick and feeble and causing strokes in some cases. People end up in hospitals and nursing homes when they should be allowed to live in dignity in their homes. They deserve respect having worked all their lives and should be allowed to live in their homes without being terrorised by marauding gangs of thugs. We must strengthen legislation and support the Garda Síochána's efforts to deal with these people and get them off the streets. They do not need compassion and social workers because many of them abuse the system.

Amendment No. 4 provides that "all contracts for the performance of monitoring duties entered into with private providers by the Government after the commencement date of this Act shall stipulate that such activities shall be performed on a non-commercial, not-for-profit basis." This is not an outrageous proposal. The United States is probably the best example of practice in other jurisdictions. It is also a wonderful example of why elements of policing, security monitoring and so forth should not be allowed to become commercial because the industry has mushroomed out of control and become self-perpetuating. The American approach makes it attractive to do as one sees fit to create the highest profit, rather than doing what should be done by right.

The amendment does not preclude the State from hiring private contractors but provides that it should be able to monitor and control private contractors and pay them for their work without being able to make extra profit by doing A, B or C. The prison system in the United States has spiralled out of control because it was privatised. Companies that have invested in American prisons have come almost to rival arms manufacturers when it comes to lobbying. They are keen for changes in legislation that will result in more prisons being built and more people being sent to prison. More than 2.5 million people are locked up in the United States. This is an incredible figure even in the context of the country's population. I support the amendment.

I agree with one aspect of Deputy Wallace's contribution. The last thing I want is the Irish Prison Service or aspects of our criminal justice system to be privatised. The Deputy is correct in referring to the position in the United States where it has become profitable for large companies to ensure the prison population is increased and certain preventative measures are introduced in the penal system. However, amendment No. 4 would require that any contracts for the performance of monitoring duties entered into by the Government with private providers "shall stipulate that such activities shall be performed on a non-commercial, not-for-profit basis." No private provider would enter into a contract on the basis that it is not for profit. The effect of this would be that the State would have to provide the monitoring service and we would have to ensure the State would be responsible for such a service. I do not know if the State has the capacity to do that at present, although maybe it should seek to get involved in this area in due course. However, if we want to allow and encourage monitoring, which would benefit the applicant who is seeking bail because the alternative is that he or she will not be granted bail, this amendment would prevent it from happening. I oppose the amendment for this reason.

I remind Deputy Mattie McGrath that the people we are discussing are on bail and have not been convicted of an offence, which is the reason they are on bail. The Deputy has them convicted and hanged. I also remind him that the cost of incarceration is a considerable burden on taxpayers. If we can get this system working and keep people out of prison, we will all be better off, even financially.

I warn Deputies that Ireland will find itself swimming against the tide in Europe if the amendment is not accepted. I base my view on the Council of Europe's handbook, Standards and Ethics in Electronic Monitoring, which examines different systems. It refers, for example, to the system in place in the Netherlands, which is delivered by the public sector and run by a private organisation. It discusses countries that are considering electronic monitoring, such as Estonia, Latvia and Croatia, none of which has a problem with public not-for-profit delivery of electronic monitoring. The report states that the Scandinavian-Dutch-Belgian public sector model of electronic monitoring service delivery has largely prevailed in the longer term over the Anglo-Welsh preference for a privatised model. Put another way, if we do not accept the amendment, we will be out of step with the majority of countries in Europe.

My amendment takes account of the fact that some contracts for electronic monitoring may be in place with private, for-profit providers. Some of the provisions would not kick in until these contracts are renewed and the amendment would not, as Deputy O'Callaghan stated, prevent a private company from getting involved in electronic tagging. The State could fix a price to have a private company provide a service. The point of the amendment is to exclude the incentive of profit being linked to the scheme. A private company could be employed as an outsourced provider. This is an important amendment which I intend to press.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 6, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:

“8. The Act of 1997 is amended in section 6D by the insertion of “subject to the condition that all contracts for the performance of monitoring duties entered into with private providers by the Government after the commencement date of this Act shall stipulate that such activities shall be performed on a non-commercial, not-for-profit basis.” after “mentioned in subparagraph (i) or (iv) of section 6(1)(b) or in section 6B(1)(ii)”.”.

Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 29; Níl, 74; Staon, 0.

  • Boyd Barrett, Richard.
  • Brady, John.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Collins, Joan.
  • Connolly, Catherine.
  • Cullinane, David.
  • Daly, Clare.
  • Doherty, Pearse.
  • Ellis, Dessie.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Fitzmaurice, Michael.
  • Funchion, Kathleen.
  • Healy, Seamus.
  • Kenny, Martin.
  • Martin, Catherine.
  • Mitchell, Denise.
  • Munster, Imelda.
  • Nolan, Carol.
  • Ó Broin, Eoin.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Laoghaire, Donnchadh.
  • O'Brien, Jonathan.
  • O'Sullivan, Jan.
  • O'Sullivan, Maureen.
  • Pringle, Thomas.
  • Quinlivan, Maurice.
  • Ryan, Eamon.
  • Tóibín, Peadar.
  • Wallace, Mick.

Níl

  • Aylward, Bobby.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Brassil, John.
  • Breathnach, Declan.
  • Breen, Pat.
  • Brophy, Colm.
  • Browne, James.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Peter.
  • Butler, Mary.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Byrne, Thomas.
  • Cahill, Jackie.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Canney, Seán.
  • Cannon, Ciarán.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Casey, Pat.
  • Cassells, Shane.
  • Chambers, Lisa.
  • Collins, Michael.
  • Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
  • Curran, John.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Daly, Jim.
  • Deering, Pat.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Farrell, Alan.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Fitzpatrick, Peter.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Healy-Rae, Danny.
  • Healy-Rae, Michael.
  • Humphreys, Heather.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kyne, Seán.
  • Lahart, John.
  • Lawless, James.
  • McConalogue, Charlie.
  • McEntee, Helen.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • McLoughlin, Tony.
  • Madigan, Josepha.
  • Moynihan, Aindrias.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Murphy O'Mahony, Margaret.
  • Murphy, Dara.
  • Murphy, Eoghan.
  • Murphy, Eugene.
  • Naughton, Hildegarde.
  • Neville, Tom.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • O'Callaghan, Jim.
  • O'Donovan, Patrick.
  • O'Dowd, Fergus.
  • O'Keeffe, Kevin.
  • O'Loughlin, Fiona.
  • O'Rourke, Frank.
  • Phelan, John Paul.
  • Rabbitte, Anne.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Smyth, Niamh.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Troy, Robert.

Staon

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Clare Daly and Mick Wallace; Níl, Deputies Tony McLoughlin and Joe Carey.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 8, to delete lines 3 to 7 and substitute the following:

“9B. (a) Where an application for bail is made or renewed by a person charged with an offence, a court shall give reasons for its decision to grant or refuse the application including reasons for a decision to impose or vary any conditions to be contained in the recognisance to be entered into by the person.

(b) Upon request, the court shall give reasons in writing for its decision to grant or refuse the application including reasons for a decision to impose or vary any conditions to be contained in the recognisance to be entered into by the person.”.

This amendment is similar to Deputy Jonathan O'Brien's amendment No. 7. It deals with decisions around bail being set out in writing. This is a matter which we discussed in committee and there are a number of very important reasons that this would be done. First, there is the whole issue of transparency and promoting public confidence in the system. At present it is sometimes difficult for the public, and even for victims in many instances, to understand why bail decisions are being taken. Therefore, having those decisions available in writing would help the public to understand, as well as making the courts less opaque.

Obliging judges to give their reasons in writing, if requested, will also, we hope, help to promote consistency in decisions around the granting or refusal of bail, or indeed around the imposition of various conditions in that regard. If we want to understand the current use of bail and to begin to research compliance with conditions, the likelihood of breaches and so on, having the information provided in writing by the court is very important. Similarly, if we want to encourage a more select use of remand in place of bail, it is essential that information on the reasons for bail decisions should be publicly available.

My preference was, as indicated in Deputy Jonathan O'Brien's amendment, to require and oblige judges to give their reasons in writing in all instances. However, I was conscious of the points made by the Minister and Deputy O'Callaghan on Committee Stage that, given the number of bail applications, if we were to do that, the judge would not be able to do anything else other than write out the reports around these decisions, which could be used to delay the system.

Therefore, as a compromise I proposed this amendment where a judge, if asked, must give the reasons in writing. It would improve the system. Obviously, if we do not require it in all instances we may lose a potential nugget of information that we would get if we had them in all cases. I accept at the moment it is probably not practicable to have it in all instances.

Deputy Clare Daly outlined the position very well. My preference would have been for the decision to have been put into writing in all cases. I recognise that there are a number of bail applications every day and to have it in every single case, while it would be valuable in collating data, might be too much in terms of the expectations on a judge to do it in every case. Deputy Daly's amendment captures it in supplying it when requested. We will support that and I will not be moving my amendment. I urge the Government to accept Deputy Daly's amendment. A request for it to be put in writing should be facilitated.

Deputy Clare Daly is correct in saying that the process should be transparent. It is transparent, however. When somebody makes an application for bail, it is done in an open court where the public can hear it. The judge makes a decision at the end of it and that decision is generally given on an ex tempore basis - the judge just speaks out the judgment.

As there is a digital audio recording in every court, it is possible to get a record of what was said by a judge at the time. My only concern about the amendment is that it would mean that if I make a bail application to a judge for someone, the Garda will presumably oppose it, and then I have to say to the judge: "By the way, before you make a decision, I want you to know that that decision has to be in writing." That will happen, meaning that the application will have to be adjourned and the applicant will continue to be remanded in custody until there is a decision. It will take time for that decision to be put down in writing.

I understand the objective of Deputies Jonathan O'Brien and Clare Daly is to build up a body of case law so that people can look to see if judges are consistent in how they apply this. I believe that can be achieved, perhaps by the Department of Justice and Equality working on having automatic transcription of the digital audio recording so that decisions can be provided. If we apply the process in the amendment where an applicant applies for it to be in writing, the applicant will suffer and will have to wait for another two weeks for the judge to come up with the written decision.

As the Deputies have outlined, the purpose of amendments Nos. 6 and 7 is to require that the reasons given by a court for granting or refusing bail and for imposing any bail conditions under section 6 be in writing. I can understand the Deputies' reasons for wanting to include such a requirement. The purpose of section 6 of the Bill is to improve the information provided by the court in bail hearings. However, the effect of amendment No. 7 would have been to require that a written decision be given in respect of all bail hearings and I heard what Deputy Jonathan O'Brien had to say about that. Amendment No. 6 is more limited in scope as it would only require the decision to be given in writing, on request.

However, even with the more limited amendment, there are practical implications as Deputy O'Callaghan has outlined. The fact remains that written decisions are not the norm in the District Court and the volume of work involved in implementing the Deputy's proposal could be considerable. It would have cost implications and would inevitably entail delays in the processing of cases before the court. That is an issue at present and this would make it even more likely.

As has already been mentioned, all District Court proceedings are recorded on the digital audio recording system so in circumstances where clarification of the reasons given is required, or is in dispute, the record of proceedings will be there. For these reasons, I cannot accept the amendment.

There are contradictions in what both the Tánaiste and Deputy O'Callaghan have said. On the one hand they are making the argument that this will be an enormous burden of work for our hard-pressed District Court judges who are flat-out already; I accept that they are. However, on the other hand, they then say that the information is there anyway and people can get it. If it is there anyway, what is the problem?

Deputy O'Callaghan made the point that a judge in making his or her decision is likely to have expressed those reasons verbally in court. In that case the evidence is on a digital recording system and all the judge has to do if the person requests it in writing is to go and get an extract of that printed out and make sure they have it. In my personal experience on behalf of citizens, I have found that to get a digital audio recording record from our courts is nigh on impossible in many instances. I think people will not get that information in that circumstance. If it is there as the Deputy and the Tánaiste say it is, what is the problem? Let the judge access it because, God knows, every time I have tried to get it for people I have not been able to do it and I know many others have not either.

Nothing in my amendment states that the decision is delayed by the request in writing. The judge is being required to explain the decision in writing, which implicitly means the decision has been made and would be implemented. It does not alter the decision being implemented. The bail applicant is not being held in limbo with nowhere to go. After the decision is made, they have access to it in writing if they or their legal representatives want to challenge it or whatever. Those issues do not apply either. I do not accept the reservations outlined by the Deputy and the Tánaiste, and I will be pressing the amendment.

Deputy Clare Daly just made the point I was going to make. This would not delay decisions being made because a decision would have to be made before somebody could request the outcome of that decision.

I also do not agree that this would be an enormous cost because if it were an enormous cost to the Exchequer, believe me, this amendment would have been ruled out of order like many other amendments that could result in a cost on the Exchequer. I certainly do not accept that.

It is a very reasonable request. I would have been in favour of having it in all cases. Deputy Daly has limited it to where somebody has made a request. If this place has taught us anything, the "blacks" are online the following day. It could very easily be a case of somebody going to the transcript, copying and pasting what was said and then giving it to the individual. I do not think it is an enormous ask. It is a very reasonable amendment and the Tánaiste should accept it.

On Deputy O'Callaghan's point I had two particular experiences with the digital audio recording. In one case I could not get it and in the other one it was too costly.

I do not have much more to say. The key point here is the delay which would result from issuing decisions in writing where that is not the norm in the District Court. The volume of bail cases before the courts is very substantial and to divert resources to providing a written decision in every case would create further delays in the process. Even a written decision provided only on request has the potential to create delays and it is impossible to gauge the level of requests there would be.

But it is the court's decision.

It is a fairly practical response to it. I think there are fairly large resource and delay issues involved in this. I can see what people are saying, but given the reality of the number of cases before the courts, trying to do this really will divert resources and delay decisions.

One point strikes me. The person who is applying for bail could come back within a week or a month, but it could be six months, a year, two years or more. The amendment does not stipulate any restriction on that person looking for that information. If three years later people decided they wanted to know why the judge did not give them bail, they could go and ask and this amendment would mean they should get it, which would be totally impracticable. There is an in-built technical flaw in these two amendments.

I think we are grasping at straws to suggest that somebody might come back three years later looking for reasons.

It is a possibility, but a very remote possibility.

I also think the Minister is either not reading the amendment correctly or just grasping at straws again as it will not delay decisions, as a decision must be made before a request can be submitted on the outcome of the decision. It is clear that one can only make a request upon a decision having been made, so I do not accept the Minister's point.

That point has been adequately addressed. There is no delay involved whatsoever. The issue is black and white. In terms of the Minister's point about issues arising years later and that one could never get the information, the information is supposed to be kept so there should not be any difficulty in accessing it. If it is digitally recorded in particular then it will be accessible. It is not just the applicant for bail who is concerned; in some instances people have really struggled to find out why decisions were made. It could also be the victim who might want to know in order to understand why the decision was made and to help the process. That is entirely appropriate.

We have seen decisions in very horrific cases in some instances where a person was granted bail and went on to commit a crime afterwards, one that has stayed with family members and with which they grappled for the rest of their lives. Such a person might like to find out the reasons a judge made such a decision to let a person out when the person subsequently went on to commit a crime. Those decisions should be available in writing as they would act as a safeguard. There is no basis for saying the provision would be cumbersome. The request would come after the decision and nobody's rights are impaired. If the information is there it should be available at the touch of a button for it to be added to a report. It would not involve a huge amount of work. As Deputy O'Brien so admirably put it, if there was a cost to the Exchequer we would have heard about it before now.

Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 30; Níl, 71; Staon, 0.

  • Boyd Barrett, Richard.
  • Brady, John.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Collins, Joan.
  • Connolly, Catherine.
  • Cullinane, David.
  • Daly, Clare.
  • Doherty, Pearse.
  • Ellis, Dessie.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Fitzmaurice, Michael.
  • Funchion, Kathleen.
  • Healy, Seamus.
  • Kenny, Martin.
  • Martin, Catherine.
  • Mitchell, Denise.
  • Munster, Imelda.
  • Nolan, Carol.
  • Ó Broin, Eoin.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Laoghaire, Donnchadh.
  • O'Brien, Jonathan.
  • O'Reilly, Louise.
  • O'Sullivan, Jan.
  • O'Sullivan, Maureen.
  • Pringle, Thomas.
  • Quinlivan, Maurice.
  • Ryan, Eamon.
  • Tóibín, Peadar.
  • Wallace, Mick.

Níl

  • Aylward, Bobby.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Brassil, John.
  • Breathnach, Declan.
  • Breen, Pat.
  • Browne, James.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Peter.
  • Butler, Mary.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Byrne, Thomas.
  • Cahill, Jackie.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Canney, Seán.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Casey, Pat.
  • Cassells, Shane.
  • Chambers, Lisa.
  • Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
  • Cowen, Barry.
  • Curran, John.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Daly, Jim.
  • Deering, Pat.
  • Doherty, Regina.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Farrell, Alan.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Fitzpatrick, Peter.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Harris, Simon.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Healy-Rae, Danny.
  • Healy-Rae, Michael.
  • Humphreys, Heather.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kyne, Seán.
  • Lahart, John.
  • Lawless, James.
  • McConalogue, Charlie.
  • McEntee, Helen.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • McLoughlin, Tony.
  • Madigan, Josepha.
  • Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
  • Moynihan, Aindrias.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Murphy O'Mahony, Margaret.
  • Murphy, Dara.
  • Murphy, Eugene.
  • Naughton, Hildegarde.
  • Neville, Tom.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • O'Callaghan, Jim.
  • O'Donovan, Patrick.
  • O'Dowd, Fergus.
  • O'Keeffe, Kevin.
  • O'Loughlin, Fiona.
  • O'Rourke, Frank.
  • Phelan, John Paul.
  • Rabbitte, Anne.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Smyth, Niamh.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Troy, Robert.

Staon

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Clare Daly and Jonathan O'Brien; Níl, Deputies Regina Doherty and Tony McLoughlin.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 8, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

“10. The Act of 1997 is amended by the insertion of the following after section 9B:

“9C. Where a court is hearing evidence from a complainant under section 8, the complainant shall have a right to be accompanied by a person of their choosing, including a support worker.”.

I believe the Minister for Justice and Equality intends to address this in separate legislation. I spoke to the Minister just before I got to my feet and I will not be pressing for a vote. I would, however, like to hear what the Minister of State has to say on it and if he will confirm the Minister's intention in this regard.

Amendment No. 8 provides the right for a victim to be accompanied in court by a support worker. I support the Deputy's aim in proposing this amendment. A general provision, however, is not required in bail hearings as criminal proceedings are held in public. As such, the victim has an existing right to be accompanied by any person or persons he or she wishes during the court proceedings.

Section 4(2) of the Bail Act 1997 makes provision for the court to exclude the public from a bail hearing in certain circumstances while persons directly concerned with the proceedings and such other persons as the court may permit are entitled to remain. I will examine the provision to see if it needs to be strengthened to ensure that a support worker will always be entitled to remain. The Deputy raised a similar issue in the context of the Victims Rights Bill and I agree that it is an important protection for victims. I know the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality is already examining what may be required to ensure that the victim of an offence has the right to be accompanied in court by a support worker during any criminal proceedings.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 8, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

10. The Act of 1997 is amended by the insertion of the following after section 11:

11A. The Minister shall, within 12 months of the enactment of this Bill, make costed recommendations to Government in regard to providing bail supports in the State, to include but not limited to bail information schemes, bail support/supervision schemes, remand fostering, and bail hostels, with a view to reducing both custodial remand orders and breaches of bail conditions.”.”.

This amendment is identical to Deputy Jonathan O'Brien's amendment No. 10 and I believe it is key to the whole Bill. It is supposed to be an overhaul of our bail system, but the prospect of doing that without making provision for bail supports would be absolutely ludicrous. It has been highlighted repeatedly by the Irish Penal Reform Trust that this area needs urgent attention. Obviously, as Opposition Deputies we cannot put this directly into the Bill ourselves, and we have been stopped from doing so. The amendment is trying to put the onus on the Minister to make costed recommendations to Government with regard to providing bail supports including, but not limited to, a bail information scheme, bail support and supervision schemes, remand fostering, bail hostels and so on. This is so we can reduce remand orders and breaches of bail conditions.

I would have liked to amend this Bill to factor in all of these measures, which I believe are urgently needed, but I cannot do that. This is my best attempt to do that. I do so from the point of view that the most effective way of improving compliance with bail conditions, particularly in the case of a person who has a chaotic life, is to put in the supports. In deference to the hour, I will not repeat the points made on Committee Stage but there are many examples in other jurisdictions of where re-offending has been cut across, where people have turned up to court in particular in relation to female offenders. It should be remembered that the rate at which women are remanded to custody is much higher than in the case of men and there is a huge cost to society in that regard in terms of the disruption to the family and so on. Putting in place a system of altering bail without the supports to help comply with those conditions will not help that situation. As I said, I will not give the examples of other jurisdictions but they have been key.

I remind Deputies who are more concerned about budgets than the social cost that the financial cost of not getting this right is immense because bail supports save money. On average, there are 520 remand prisoners in prison every day at a cost of approximately €200 per person, which equates to €100,000 per day to house remand prisoners. If we have people out on bail and in receipt of supports and, therefore, not breaking their bail conditions we are saving money and reducing the chance of re-offending. What is proposed in the amendment is the best way to do that. I encourage the Minister to take it on board.

I remind Members that amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are being discussed together.

I will not repeat what Deputy Clare Daly had to say. However, I would like to make the point that all legislation is subject to a statutory review after 12 months. I know the Minister has said that she will look at this issue in the context of that review but we cannot take the Minister at her word because she may not be Minister for Justice and Equality in 12 months time. She may not even be the Minister for Justice and Equality in a couple of weeks time. That is the reality.

We have spent a lot of time on this legislation. It is important that there is a review of bail supports in terms of what is in place, what is needed, how much they will cost and so on. The onus must be on the Minister of the day, as part of that statutory review, to produce costed proposals on bail supports. I acknowledge that there will be an automatic review but usually that type of review is around how well the legislation is or is not working. It will not look at additional areas, such as bail supports, hostels and information schemes, all of which are critical to the bail process. I ask the Minister of State to take on board these amendments. I do not believe what is proposed will involve a huge programme of work given there will already be some sort of review. This is critical. It goes to the very essence of this legislation, which is to overhaul our bail laws. It is not possible to do that without taking account of the current supports in place, the gaps in that regard and how the process can be improved.

As pointed out by Deputy Clare Daly, in the longer term the cost will be of benefit to the State. I hope that the Minister of State will take on board these proposals.

Amendment No. 10 seeks to oblige the Minister for Justice and Equality to undertake a review of bail supports available. Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 oblige the Minister to make costed recommendations to Government in relation to the improvement of the provision of such services. As the Deputies are aware, there are no specific bail support schemes for adults, such as those outlined in the amendments, currently operational in the State.

That is the point.

Bail support schemes are most commonly considered in relation to young offenders. In that regard, a bail supervision scheme for young offenders has been introduced and is being rolled out on a pilot basis in the Dublin area. This initiative operates under the aegis of my colleague, the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. That said, there are no bail support schemes for adults, such as those outlined, currently in place. The amendments attempt to prescribe the recommendations which the Minister must make to Government on this issue. It is not appropriate to determine that the recommendation should be made before the policy needs have been examined. We should look at the policy needs first. As suggested by the justice committee during its debate on the Bill the issue of bail supports may be more appropriately considered by the committee as part of its work on penal reform. I am willing to consider any recommendations which may arise from such consideration.

We should allow the justice committee to have a look at this issue in depth and to bring forward recommendations in that regard. Having previously been a member of that committee, I know that work will be extremely valuable. I cannot accept the Deputies' amendments. To do so now would be premature. I ask that the Deputies allow the committee to do its work and bring forward the recommendations and following deep study of it and the policy area we will see what we can do.

These supports are beyond overdue. It is precisely because we only have a pilot scheme in regard to youth services and nothing for adults that we need to fast-track these proposals or at least give this issue the priority it has not been given up to now. In putting what is proposed into the legislation we would be beefing up the onus on the Minister to look at this area, cost the supports and put this issue centre stage. If this is not put into this legislation there is no guarantee this will be done. This legislation is supposed to provide for an overhaul of our bail laws. If it does not address the supports issue, which it will not unless one of the amendments is adopted, we will be failing.

In 94% of the programmes conducted in England and Wales, young people attended all of their court hearings. In Victoria, Australia, a bail support programme reduced the amount of defendants being remanded. All of the interviewed magistrates said that without them they would have had to resort to remand sentence. In Glasgow, the women who availed of the service reduced their drug and alcohol use by 83% as a result of it. Their health and well-being improved and, more importantly, among the women who participated re-offending dropped by one third and crimes and dishonesty dropped by over 40%. There are tangible gains for victims in society, communities afflicted by crime and people who have led chaotic and damaged lives. We need to get to grips with this issue. We cannot continually long-finger it. I am constantly shocked by what constitutes "urgent" in this House versus the real world. To get legislation passed, unfortunately, takes forever. We have been dealing with a coroner's Bill for 17 years. Unfortunately, these issues cannot wait. This is our best bet to ensure that something is done or it is kept on track.

Having been a member of the justice committee the Minister of State will be aware of the volume of legislation with which it deals. He will also be aware of the volume of its work programme. As such, the possibility of this issue being examined by it in any detail in the short term is probably very limited. We need to put what is proposed into the legislation rather than put the onus on an Oireachtas committee to produce a report, which will then go to the Minister, following which he or she will decide to agree or disagree with the recommendations and bring forward a proposal. To do that is to long-finger the issue. I do not agree with that. As I said, this goes to the very heart of what we are trying to do in regard to our bail laws. A system of bail supports is necessary, as has been proven. All of the international research suggests that jurisdictions that have bail supports have a far better criminal justice system.

I am asking the Government for once to take responsibility for a job that can be done in a short timeframe and can be done as part of the statutory review in relation to this legislation. I ask the Minister of State to accept these amendments. I intend to push my amendment to a vote.

I understand the points the Deputies are making. I was a member of the justice committee for five years and I did a lot of work on penal reform. I understand that committee is currently looking at penal reform.

I would like the committee to consider this as part of that process because it is integral to it. I agree that the issue should be considered and the proposal is extremely valuable but this is not the way to do it. We will look at it and I will bring a message to the Tánaiste to that effect. I would like to see the committee's deliberations as its work is very valuable. I understand it is doing work in this area and it has stated that it is interested in looking at the area of bail supports. It is not appropriate to accept the amendment now but it is a very important issue which we should bring forward and examine as soon as possible. I am committed to looking at it but it does not need to be done by legislation.

The committee has finished its deliberations on penal reform and we have a packed agenda so there is no way we will be able to squeeze this in. We are putting the onus back on the Minister and we do not know who the Minister will be. I accept the bona fides of the current Minister but we need this to be in the lap of the Department of Justice and Equality from tonight, because it is long overdue.

Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 31; Níl, 70; Staon, 0.

  • Adams, Gerry.
  • Boyd Barrett, Richard.
  • Brady, John.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Collins, Joan.
  • Connolly, Catherine.
  • Cullinane, David.
  • Daly, Clare.
  • Doherty, Pearse.
  • Ellis, Dessie.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Funchion, Kathleen.
  • Healy, Seamus.
  • Kenny, Martin.
  • McDonald, Mary Lou.
  • Martin, Catherine.
  • Mitchell, Denise.
  • Munster, Imelda.
  • Nolan, Carol.
  • Ó Broin, Eoin.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Laoghaire, Donnchadh.
  • O'Brien, Jonathan.
  • O'Reilly, Louise.
  • O'Sullivan, Jan.
  • O'Sullivan, Maureen.
  • Pringle, Thomas.
  • Quinlivan, Maurice.
  • Ryan, Eamon.
  • Tóibín, Peadar.
  • Wallace, Mick.

Níl

  • Aylward, Bobby.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Brassil, John.
  • Breathnach, Declan.
  • Breen, Pat.
  • Browne, James.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Peter.
  • Butler, Mary.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Byrne, Thomas.
  • Cahill, Jackie.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Canney, Seán.
  • Cannon, Ciarán.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Casey, Pat.
  • Cassells, Shane.
  • Chambers, Lisa.
  • Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
  • Cowen, Barry.
  • Curran, John.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Daly, Jim.
  • Deering, Pat.
  • Doherty, Regina.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Fitzmaurice, Michael.
  • Fitzpatrick, Peter.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Harris, Simon.
  • Healy-Rae, Danny.
  • Healy-Rae, Michael.
  • Humphreys, Heather.
  • Kyne, Seán.
  • Lahart, John.
  • Lawless, James.
  • McConalogue, Charlie.
  • McEntee, Helen.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • McLoughlin, Tony.
  • Madigan, Josepha.
  • Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
  • Moynihan, Aindrias.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Murphy O'Mahony, Margaret.
  • Murphy, Dara.
  • Murphy, Eoghan.
  • Murphy, Eugene.
  • Naughton, Hildegarde.
  • Neville, Tom.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • O'Callaghan, Jim.
  • O'Donovan, Patrick.
  • O'Dowd, Fergus.
  • O'Keeffe, Kevin.
  • O'Loughlin, Fiona.
  • O'Rourke, Frank.
  • Phelan, John Paul.
  • Rabbitte, Anne.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Smyth, Niamh.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Troy, Robert.

Staon

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Clare Daly and Jonathan O'Brien; Níl, Deputies Regina Doherty and Tony McLoughlin.
Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 10 is in the name of Deputy Jonathan O'Brien. It has been discussed with amendment No. 9.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 8, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

10. The Act of 1997 is amended by the insertion of the following new section after section 11:

11A. The Minister shall, within 12 months of the enactment of this Act, lay before the Oireachtas a review of bail supports available in the State, to include but not limited to bail information schemes, bail support/supervision schemes, remand fostering, age appropriate bail supports and bail hostels, and the Minister shall make costed recommendations to Government regarding improvements in the provision of such supports in the State with a view to reducing both custodial remand orders and breaches of bail conditions.”.”.

Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 30; Níl, 67; Staon, 0.

  • Adams, Gerry.
  • Boyd Barrett, Richard.
  • Brady, John.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Connolly, Catherine.
  • Cullinane, David.
  • Daly, Clare.
  • Doherty, Pearse.
  • Ellis, Dessie.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Funchion, Kathleen.
  • Healy, Seamus.
  • Kenny, Martin.
  • McDonald, Mary Lou.
  • Martin, Catherine.
  • Mitchell, Denise.
  • Munster, Imelda.
  • Nolan, Carol.
  • Ó Broin, Eoin.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Laoghaire, Donnchadh.
  • O'Brien, Jonathan.
  • O'Reilly, Louise.
  • O'Sullivan, Jan.
  • O'Sullivan, Maureen.
  • Pringle, Thomas.
  • Quinlivan, Maurice.
  • Ryan, Eamon.
  • Tóibín, Peadar.
  • Wallace, Mick.

Níl

  • Aylward, Bobby.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Brassil, John.
  • Breathnach, Declan.
  • Breen, Pat.
  • Browne, James.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Peter.
  • Butler, Mary.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Byrne, Thomas.
  • Cahill, Jackie.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Canney, Seán.
  • Cannon, Ciarán.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Casey, Pat.
  • Cassells, Shane.
  • Chambers, Lisa.
  • Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
  • Cowen, Barry.
  • Curran, John.
  • Daly, Jim.
  • Deering, Pat.
  • Doherty, Regina.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Fitzmaurice, Michael.
  • Fitzpatrick, Peter.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Harris, Simon.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Healy-Rae, Danny.
  • Healy-Rae, Michael.
  • Humphreys, Heather.
  • Kyne, Seán.
  • Lahart, John.
  • Lawless, James.
  • McConalogue, Charlie.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • McLoughlin, Tony.
  • Madigan, Josepha.
  • Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
  • Moynihan, Aindrias.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Murphy O'Mahony, Margaret.
  • Murphy, Dara.
  • Murphy, Eugene.
  • Naughton, Hildegarde.
  • Neville, Tom.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • O'Callaghan, Jim.
  • O'Dowd, Fergus.
  • O'Keeffe, Kevin.
  • O'Loughlin, Fiona.
  • O'Rourke, Frank.
  • Phelan, John Paul.
  • Rabbitte, Anne.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Smyth, Niamh.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Troy, Robert.

Staon

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Jonathan O'Brien and Clare Daly; Níl, Deputies Regina Doherty and Tony McLoughlin.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 11 not moved.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration and passed.