Tuesday, 19 April 2011
Dáil Éireann Debate
The motion before the House proposes that Ireland should exercise the option set out in Article 3 of Protocol 21 to the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union to participate in the adoption and application of an EU directive of the European Parliament and the Council on the use of certain air travel reservation data, namely, passenger name record data, PNR, in the fight against terrorism and serious crime. I am strongly of the view that Ireland should opt in to this proposal. Any measure which can give the Garda and its EU counterparts an advantage in the fight against terrorism and other serious criminal activities is to be welcomed and deserves our support. We must recognise that the ever-increasing openness of our borders cannot be allowed to work to the benefit of terrorists and criminal groups and must make use of the opportunities that information sharing presents for our police to maximise the security of EU citizens.
This measure is one of a number being taken at EU level arising from commitments set out in the Stockholm programme, agreed in 2009. The Government is determined that Ireland will have a full, active and constructive engagement in bringing forward the European justice agenda. This proposal replaces an earlier PNR proposal which was not finalised before the entry into force of the new Lisbon treaty arrangements. The current proposal is made under the new arrangements which involve the European Parliament as co-legislator. There is general support among the member states for this proposal and Ireland has indicated support in principle for the measure.
The directive proposes that passenger name record data concerning flights in and out of the European Union will be available to national authorities for combating terrorism and serious crime. PNR data are information relating to passengers’ reservations which is collected and held by air carriers. The directive will require the airlines to provide a portion of this information for the relevant member state’s authorities. PNR data are already provided by airlines on flights between the European Union and the United States, Canada and Australia, including flights from Ireland. It hardly seems credible that EU member states should provide this kind of information for third countries, yet neglect to avail of the advantages it will afford us in tackling terrorism and serious crime. The UK, Swedish and Spanish authorities have been routinely collecting PNR data for some years and they have proved to be a very valuable tool in a range of investigations targeting drug smugglers, human trafficking rings and terrorists.
The proposal includes a clear purpose limitation. Accordingly, the data collected and processed may only be used for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime. The offences involved are those already established in European and national law under the framework decisions on combating terrorism and under the European arrest warrant. To that extent it will complement these instruments. Under this proposal, airlines operating flights into and out of the European Union which depart from or arrive in Ireland will be required to send the specified PNR data from their reservations system to the Irish authority tasked with their analysis. Airlines operating international flights departing from or arriving in other EU member states will be obliged to transfer PNR data to the relevant authorities of those member states. The current draft proposal is limited to flights between the European Union and third countries. However, there is significant support to include flights between EU member states in the scope of the directive. This is a matter which will be considered as the discussions on the directive proceed.
I discussed the proposal with my EU colleagues last week at the Justice and Home Affairs Council in Luxembourg. I made clear Ireland’s general support for the measure as an important potential tool for countering the activities of organised criminals and terrorists and improving security in the European Union. I also indicated Ireland’s support for the inclusion of intra-EU flights in the scope of the measure, an approach supported by the majority of other member states around the table. The exact form in which internal EU flights may be included will have to be worked out in the course of the negotiations during the coming months. As I indicated, airlines will be obliged to transfer the specified PNR data held in their reservation systems to the authorities of the relevant EU member state. Under the current proposal there are 19 fields of information which may be transferred, including name, address and contact information of passengers, travel itineraries and payment methods. I stress that, for the most part, these data are already collected by the airlines and the proposal does not oblige them to collect any additional data. The extent of any costs falling to airlines in providing the data will vary depending on the size and scope of their operations. However, I believe these costs to be justified by the value to both national and European security which is to be achieved by participating in such a measure.
Each member state will be obliged to establish a national passenger information unit, PIU, to receive and process the data provided by airlines. The European Commission has indicated that EU funding is to be made available for some of the set-up costs for member states. Once it is established, member states will have the right to request the PNR data and, if necessary, the results of the processing of such data, from other member states — an obvious aspect of the form of EU co-operation between member states. Sharing of findings is essential to ensure that EU boundaries are not a barrier to effective action against terrorists or criminal groups. Such requests and sharing of information will however, be subject to strict data protection measures which, as the House will be aware, is always a matter requiring particular attention with regard to information-sharing measures such as this.
I reiterate this measure is an important tool in the fight against terrorism and serious crime. However, I am also conscious that we must always be careful to ensure the rights of citizens are not subjected to unnecessary or disproportionate intrusion. It is important, therefore, to strike the appropriate balance, especially with regard to the protection of personal data.
The PNR data will be used in a number of ways to enhance security and prevent or detect crime. They may be used reactively following the commission of a crime to assist with investigations. However, it may also be used proactively for the purposes of trend analysis and creating assessment criteria to identify potential threats. The data may also be analysed in real time to prevent the commission of terrorist or criminal offences. Accordingly, the period for which the data can be retained under the directive is strictly circumscribed. In contrast to the previous 2007 proposal in this area this proposal sets out much shorter data retention periods. The directive provides that data will be stored for an initial 30 day active period. Thereafter, they will be anonymised and retained in an inactive database for a further five year period during which the data will be accessible only to a limited number of personnel in the national unit and only for a specific purpose.
Under Article 3 of Protocol 21 to the TFEU, Ireland has three months from the date a proposal is presented to the Council to decide whether to opt in to the adoption and application the proposal. The prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas under Article 29.4.7° of the Constitution is required to enable the Government to exercise that option. The deadline for the opt-in is 10 May 2011. Given the potential value to law enforcement services of PNR data, particularly with regard to investigations into drug smuggling, human trafficking or international terrorism, the important sensitive issues of the protection of personal data and the implications the proposal will have for the aviation industry, it is essential that Ireland should opt in to the negotiations in order to participate fully in them and be in a position to seek to influence the outcome. I have no doubt the majority of Deputies will share this view. I commend the motion to the House.
Deputy Dara Calleary: My party will support the Minister on the introduction of this measure. The basic purpose of the passenger name record system is to collect flight passenger data and the intention of this proposal is that such data be held for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorism, human trafficking — one of the bigger challenges facing this country — and other serious crimes.
As part of its wider agenda to better protect us against security threats the European Union has proposed this directive in order to establish this system on an EU-wide basis. As well as ensuring close co-operation between law enforcement authorities within the European Union the new PNR will harmonise existing national systems. Were all 27 member states to prepare individual PNR legislation, the result would be uneven levels of protection and personal data across the Union, security gaps, increased costs, legal uncertainty and a greater certainty of a potential major terrorist event. The proposal makes sense and that is why we support having a coherent EU-wide approach.
Under the directive as proposed, all airlines flying to or from participating member states must provide the PNR data for their law enforcement authorities. As the Minister noted, in following the American model the EU PNR will cover 19 types of data concerning flights into and out of the European Union which will allow police to carry out a risk assessment of passengers and share alerts with law enforcements agents in other member states and in the world at large.
I understand the first debate on this issue took place last week at the Justice and Home Affairs Council and that the Minister is one of those who argue the directive does not go far enough in its scope and that the PNR system should be extended to all intra-European flights. We on this side of the House support this approach and will support the Minister in his work in this respect.
In the light of the increased operational added value there is a strong case to be gained from this approach. An extension of the system to cover all flights within the European Union is essential in order to assure the overall effectiveness. PNR data are already used on a daily basis by airlines and stored in the reservation systems of airline carriers for commercial reasons. It makes no sense, therefore, that such data thus stored should not be used to provide greater protection for citizens of Europe. PNR data, manually obtained, have been used for almost 60 years by customs and law enforcement authorities throughout the world. The United States, Canada and Australia oblige EU aircraft carriers to make PNR data available for all who fly in or out of those countries and we have been used to providing such information for many years. PNR data are collected in some member states already. Spain substituted a system of collecting such data following the Madrid bombing and Britain introduced a PNR system some time ago. For its part, Britain has argued that PNR data ensured the arrest of a suspect in the Mumbai attacks in 2008 after the person was tracked by British authorities while travelling on a flight from Germany to Britain.
Under the EU proposals, PNR data will be kept for 30 days in a dedicated unit following a flight. Then the passenger’s name must be deleted and the anonymous data stored for up to five years. Those with civil liberty issues may take reassurance from such a short period of maintaining personal information while ensuring the general information will be available. Information is power and information on security issues and data exchange should ensure not only that citizens are protected but that the protection is such that personal information is not leaked and is protected in such a way that disks cannot be stolen, databases cannot be hacked or such that it does not interfere with the rights of citizens.
Under the directive, the authorities can only use PNR data to fight terrorism, crime and human trafficking. I encourage the Minister to be vigilant in talks at the Justice and Home Affairs Council, to ensure the protection of this data is given the highest priority and that given the different legal systems in countries, there will be a basic high standard of protection, especially when it comes to sharing this information with other countries. If there is any breach of this protection then the basis on which this PNR system is formed and on which we support it would be eroded immediately and the protections it seeks to provide would, therefore, be damaged.
We all remember the events on 11 September 2001, the reaction to the Madrid bombs and many other terrorist attacks. Airlines and aeroplanes are now a weapon of choice for terrorism organisations, which do not care about the damage they may cause or about people who would be killed as a result of their activity. We must ensure we provide the greatest protection for people by ensuring the data they willingly provide is made available to fight terrorism.
It is important this is dealt with quickly. The Minister has a tight timeframe, the reason we are here this evening. We should provide extra support and protection, based on this data, to the Garda and anti-terrorism agencies, including whatever training they may need. I call on the Minister to comment on this when he closes. Is there an additional training requirement for the Garda or Department of Justice and Equality officials? The Minister referred to the establishment of a PNR centre in Ireland. Is this planned under the programme for Government or can it be established relatively quickly within the provisions of the Croke Park agreement? Will it involve recruiting new staff who would be specialised and trained in this area? We support this proposal and look forward to working through the detail and co-operating with the Minister to ensure Ireland is involved in this as soon as possible.
Deputy Jonathan O’Brien: During the past decade the EU and countries elsewhere have noted a marked increase in the level of organised and serious crime, including the trafficking of people and drugs. As a response to this threat and the to abolition of internal border controls the European Union has adopted measures for collection and exchange of personal data between law enforcement and other authorities. The Schengen information system, SIS, and the second-generation Schengen information system, SIS II, the visa information system and the entry-exit system are examples of such measures. The latest tool the European Union wishes to use in response to this increased threat will result from this latest directive, the passenger name record data proposal.
Sinn Féin believes this proposal marks the commencement of a broader scheme of PNR data collection, retention and assessment by regulating it at EU level. Member states which do not systematically collect and analyse PNR data would be obliged to do so. The result of this directive would mean passengers would be subjected to extensive tracking, tracing and screening procedures. Proponents of the proposal argue the “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” principle but this is a simplified outlook which should not be used as a reason to force through measures that are unnecessarily intrusive into the data and privacy rights of citizens.
In 2007 the scope of the original proposal, which, incidentally, failed to be adopted, was extended to include serious offences which may have attracted custodial sentences of three years. The nature of this proposal, including the systematic collection, storage and assessment of personal information, interferes with the right of citizens to privacy. The proposal also interferes with the protection of personal data guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, ECHR, as well as Articles 7, 8, and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
For state interference with these rights to have any justification a certain level of procedure must be shown to be proportionate and necessary. This proposal does not demonstrate these requirements. The Commission has made no attempt to demonstrate that the proposed measures are necessary other than stating that most organised crime involves international travel. There are also difficulties regarding the Commission’s interchangeable use of “terrorist offences”, “serious crime” and “serious transnational crime.” On the one hand, the Commission attempts to justify the use of PNR data by discussing terrorism and crime involving an element of travel in general and broad terms. On the other, it has failed to present any concrete evidence to demonstrate the usefulness of the collection of PNR data in the prevention of organised or serious crime.
It is fundamental that any encroachment on privacy rights through the increase of surveillance measures on people who have done nothing but book a flight is shown to be proportionate and necessary. Under current Irish law we do not permit our law enforcement agencies to carry out routine systematic searches. However, the current EU proposal requests that we accept the systematic and routine collection, retention and assessment of data in regard to individual citizens as well as a requirement to share this information with other law enforcement agencies. There is something fundamentally wrong with this. The proposal fails to demonstrate exactly how the processing and scrutiny of PNR data will contribute to the overall aim of the directive to guarantee proportionality.
Through this directive, the European Union is trying to legitimise member state policing and scrutiny of citizens through the facade of democratic and harmonised EU action while failing to demonstrate any necessity or proportionality with regard to such intrusion. We all agree that good intelligence is essential for effective policing. However, police intelligence gathering methods, like all other aspects of policing, must be human rights compliant and be governed by the standards in the European Convention on Human Rights.
Sinn Féin is in favour of participating in EU-level and international co-operation in criminal justice matters where it clearly serves the public interest. However, we do not agree with any measures which will cede our national sovereignty, as this proposal will, or the democratic rights of Irish citizens. In particular, we resist any moves towards establishing exclusive EU competence over any area of the Judiciary.
It is our belief that the directive and proposal should be withdrawn. I remind the Government that it has the responsibility, morally and legally, to ensure all EU and international co-operation in criminal justice matters complies fully with human rights standards and that any co-operation or harmonisation works to enhance human rights not trample on them.
There is no doubt this proposal has far-reaching consequences for citizens. However, the Government is attempting to push the proposal through with limited debate. This is an important and serious proposal and the very nature of it warrants further discussion. Since the proposal has far reaching implications not only for data retention, but for the data protection of every citizen who books a flight it will be of considerable concern to a large section of society. An attempt to rush through this motion in the absence of full scrutiny and debate is not how a Government elected to represent the best interests of the people should behave. The allocation of a mere 45 minutes to discuss the proposal is regrettable. I ask the Government to consider allocating more time tomorrow or on Thursday to discuss the proposal further.
Every time a regressive, rights-infringing measure was proposed by the Council of Ministers, the previous Government rushed it through the House. This Government stated a desire to change the old ways of governance but by pressing ahead with this motion today, it is merely picking up where Fianna Fáil left off. This approach is in stark contrast to international measures that are progressive in nature and would add to the rights enjoyed by Irish citizens, such as the anti-discrimination optional protocol or the UN Convention on Trafficking. In both cases, previous Governments were happy to sit back and “analyse the implications” for years to avoid action.
This Parliament must not treated by the Government and the EU as a pre-approving rubber stamp. The Government must not create legal vacuums by giving ever greater powers to unaccountable intelligence agencies without introducing adequate legal safeguards to protect against any unnecessary invasions of privacy. Has the Government stopped to ask if the fundamentally rights-infringing PNR agreement currently in operation has actually contributed to a reduction in organised and serious crime? Has the Government requested evidence to show whether the current arrangement has been effective? If not, why not?
This is the least the Government should be doing before proposing a further agreement and seeking the approval of the House for it. EU member states should not allow themselves to be bullied into applying any agreement which fails to guarantee the data protection rights of its citizens, and neither should this House.
Deputy Clare Daly: As the Minister said, there are passenger name records in airlines. They are a necessary tool so airlines and airport handling companies can do their jobs. That is not at issue. What is at issue is the information being used for other purposes and being handed over to security forces for reasons other than those intended by the person handing over his or her data.
This started after 11 September 2001, with the US authorities requiring airlines to have this information on flights to and from the USA. We are told the Department of Homeland Security filters sensitive information and does not deal with people’s ethnic or religious backgrounds. We do not know that, however, and have no way to guarantee it. The fact the Minister mentioned 19 fields of information shows the range of data being exchanged.
There are fundamental issues at stake. The proposal is being pushed as a measure to tackle the serious issues of terrorism, drug smuggling and human trafficking. These regulations and procedures have been in place in the United States for some time and there is no evidence they have done anything to reduce any of these blights on society. Obviously they have not had that effect, because they do not address the root causes of terrorism, human trafficking and drugs, which are poverty, injustice and inequality. Rather than dealing with those issues, we have instead a knee-jerk reaction that has massive implications for the civil liberties of ordinary EU citizens. By bringing this measure in for all EU flights, we are seeing an invasion of privacy that is akin to surveillance, where information on people is maintained beyond the 30 day period for up to five years, although access to the information would be restricted beyond the 30 days. We do not know, however, to whom the information will be available or to what purpose. The Minister has not addressed any of these questions.
The implications for airlines must be examined. The Minister stated a national passenger information unit will be established, which sounds akin to Big Brother, where people are monitored and their travel movements recorded for five years. That is sinister. Where do the airlines fit in and what is the compensation for them? Airlines are mostly private companies and many of the reservation and handling functions are outsourced as a result of liberalisation in the industry. How will the information be protected given that reality?
This is premature and there is no need for us to do this. It is an opt-in and we should not be opting in because there is no evidence to suggest this will bring any benefit to people anywhere. It will, however, lead to the further erosion of the privacy rights and civil liberties of all citizens. This is a massively retrograde step and we will not support it.
Deputy Mick Wallace: The major concern is the protection of citizens’ rights and this appears to be heavy handed. The fact that the European Parliament has questioned the need for passenger name record data is interesting. There was obviously pressure from the United States to change that position and the European Parliament obviously has caved in. Statewatch, the European monitoring group, has observed that the European Commission has so far failed to produce any concrete evidence to demonstrate the usefulness of the collection of PNR data for the prevention of serious crime or terrorist offences. Likewise, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights has stated it is essential to demonstrate effectively that the collection and use of PNR data is necessary beyond any doubt. Right now, it is hard to believe it could be argued this is absolutely necessary. Too often, the rights of ordinary people are being impinged on in the name of fighting terrorism. This looks like another case of that.
The European Data Protection Supervisor has stated the list of data that can be included remains too extensive and should be further reduced. These people know what they are talking about. One of the core principles of the European Union is that citizens should have freedom of movement. There is no doubt that this will restrict that right.
Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: I will not be supporting the motion. As others have said, this is Big Brother-like in how it intrudes upon the private information of our citizens and citizens across Europe. It is completely unjustified and unacceptable and it is not just me or those who have spoken tonight who have said that; the European Parliament has expressed deep concern about it, saying the proposal lacked legal certainty on its compatibility with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and that there was a failure to adequately demonstrate the use of PNR data for the purpose of law enforcement was necessary and proportionate.
Many other bodies such as the Data Protection Commissioner, the European Data Protection Supervisor and the Oireachtas Joint Committee on EU Scrutiny have expressed concerns about the justification and proportionality of this measure in terms of the objectives it sets. I do not see this as justified but the key is that it is being pushed for by the United States as part of the so-called war on terrorism. That is the real agenda. If the Minister and Government wish to address the serious problem of terrorism in the world, instead of introducing Big Brother legislation that will pry into the movements of citizens and give the information to God knows who in the United States or other jurisdictions, they would be better dealing with the root causes that have driven people to misguided terrorist actions.
As the Minister knows but will probably not acknowledge, in so far as a terrorist problem has developed, much of it has to do with the foreign policy of the United States and the other major Western powers in respect of regions such as the Middle East. Essentially, the powers to which I refer have set out to secure their interests at the expense of people within the Middle East. This has fuelled bitterness and anger and people have misguidedly engaged in terrorist actions as a result. We have no compunction in condemning such actions, the root cause of which is US and Western foreign policy in the Middle East.
Would it not be better for the Government to begin to condemn, for example, the continued support on the part of the United States and certain European countries for brutal dictatorships such as the regime in Saudi Arabia which deny any rights, civil liberties or freedoms to their citizens? The Saudi regime is engaged in supporting the Government of Bahrain’s attempts to suppress a pro-democracy movement. In the past, the regime to which I refer has armed, financed and done business with dictators such as Muammar Gadaffi. If we are serious about removing the root causes of terrorism, would we not be far better devoting our energy to breaking links with these dictatorial regimes? Would it not be better if we were to cease doing business with and arming and financing them? Would we not do more to undermine terrorism by allowing justice and real democracy to prevail in these regions rather than approving the Big Brother legislation that is the subject of the motion?
Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I thank the Deputies who contributed to the debate. I particularly thank Deputy Dara Calleary who has taken a balanced and considered approach to the motion and who has indicated his support for it. The subject of the motion is a proposal to facilitate us in opting into discussions in Europe in respect of an important measure. The discussion in respect of this measure will not only occur at Council of Ministers level, it will also take place in the European Parliament.
I was taken by the extent to which the Deputies who disagree with this proposal seem to believe the information to which it relates is of no particular relevance. I will provide two examples of circumstances in which PNR data have been usefully employed. They were used recently in the case of Mr. David Headley, the terrorist facilitator convicted of involvement in the Mumbai attacks. By using details of the suspect’s first name, a partial travel itinerary and details of a vague travel window and entering this intelligence into the PNR database, the suspect’s full name, address and passport number were obtained. As a result, Headley was arrested and pleaded guilty to terrorism-related charges in the context of the atrocities that took place in Mumbai. Without access to this information, he would not have been brought to justice.
PNR data have also been used in a number of significant transnational organised crime cases, including operations targeting a network involved in trafficking illegal Chinese immigrants to the United Kingdom and Ireland through other EU states. Without the use of this data, the investigation would have taken substantially longer to identify the passengers and link them to the facilitators. PNR data are a crucial and useful weapon in dealing with human trafficking. I suspect that all of the Deputies who oppose this provision would join me in opposing human trafficking and the exploitation that goes with it.
There is no point in opposing things if one does not want to take any measures to counteract them. PNR data are very effective in this context. As stated, such data are being used in countries such as the United Kingdom and Spain, not to the detriment of those who reside in these countries but rather in seeking to provide protection for citizens. The citizens of this State are entitled to the same protection from those who wish to engage in terrorist activities.
I will refrain from responding in respect of the make-believe world which Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett inhabits. The Deputy appears to believe terrorism — regardless of its objectives or origins or the identity of the group such as al-Qaeda engaged in it — is caused by the Western world, particularly the United States for which he has an obsessive hatred. A more balanced approach on issues such as this would give more credibility to critiques that are voiced in respect of measures proposed.
As stated, this is one of a number of measures being taken at EU level to support police and judicial co-operation among member states in the context of combating crime. These mechanisms to facilitate co-operation among law enforcement services are an essential means of obtaining the most added value from existing sources of information, not just in the context of pursuing prosecutions against criminals but in respect of the ability to prevent crimes being committed in the first instance.
Under the terms of the proposal before the House, the Garda and customs authorities will have access to the details of passengers on flights entering Ireland from outside the European Union and, ultimately,those relating to passengers on internal EU flights. Information will be shared. The information to which I refer will be vital in tackling crime, serious crime and terrorism and in providing protections in respect of the latter. In respect of the implementation of the proposal, arrangements will have to be made for a unit to be created in the State in order to ensure the information is properly processed and stored and that the exchange of information can occur. The most careful arrangements will be put in place to ensure data protection.
This is a civil rights provision; it does not relate to imposing on the privacy of citizens in an unnecessary manner. The provision involves using basic information to provide citizens with the protection to which they are entitled against organised crime and terrorism in the State and across Europe.
|Barry, Tom.||Broughan, Thomas P.|
|Browne, John.||Burton, Joan.|
|Butler, Ray.||Buttimer, Jerry.|
|Byrne, Catherine.||Cannon, Ciarán.|
|Carey, Joe.||Coffey, Paudie.|
|Collins, Áine.||Collins, Niall.|
|Conaghan, Michael.||Conlan, Seán.|
|Connaughton, Paul J.||Conway, Ciara.|
|Coonan, Noel.||Costello, Joe.|
|Coveney, Simon.||Creed, Michael.|
|Daly, Jim.||Deasy, John.|
|Deenihan, Jimmy.||Deering, Pat.|
|Doherty, Regina.||Donohoe, Paschal.|
|Dowds, Robert.||Doyle, Andrew.|
|Durkan, Bernard J.||English, Damien.|
|Farrell, Alan.||Feighan, Frank.|
|Fitzgerald, Frances.||Fitzpatrick, Peter.|
|Flanagan, Terence.||Fleming, Sean.|
|Gilmore, Eamon.||Griffin, Brendan.|
|Hannigan, Dominic.||Harrington, Noel.|
|Harris, Simon.||Hayes, Brian.|
|Hayes, Tom.||Heydon, Martin.|
|Hogan, Phil.||Howlin, Brendan.|
|Humphreys, Heather.||Humphreys, Kevin.|
|Keating, Derek.||Kehoe, Paul.|
|Kitt, Michael P.||Kyne, Sean.|
|Lawlor, Anthony.||Lynch, Ciarán.|
|Lyons, John.||McCarthy, Michael.|
|McConalogue, Charlie.||McEntee, Shane.|
|McFadden, Nicky.||McGinley, Dinny.|
|McGrath, Michael.||McLoughlin, Tony.|
|McNamara, Michael.||Maloney, Eamonn.|
|Mathews, Peter.||Mitchell, Olivia.|
|Moynihan, Michael.||Mulherin, Michelle.|
|Murphy, Dara.||Murphy, Eoghan.|
|Neville, Dan.||Nolan, Derek.|
|Noonan, Michael.||Ó Cuív, Éamon.|
|Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.||Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.|
|O’Dea, Willie.||O’Donovan, Patrick.|
|O’Dowd, Fergus.||O’Reilly, Joe.|
|Penrose, Willie.||Phelan, Ann.|
|Phelan, John Paul.||Quinn, Ruairí.|
|Rabbitte, Pat.||Ring, Michael.|
|Ryan, Brendan.||Sherlock, Sean.|
|Shortall, Róisín.||Smith, Brendan.|
|Spring, Arthur.||Stagg, Emmet.|
|Stanton, David.||Timmins, Billy.|
|Tuffy, Joanna.||Twomey, Liam.|
|Varadkar, Leo.||Wall, Jack.|
|Walsh, Brian.||White, Alex.|
|Adams, Gerry.||Boyd Barrett, Richard.|
|Collins, Joan.||Colreavy, Michael.|
|Crowe, Seán.||Daly, Clare.|
|Doherty, Pearse.||Donnelly, Stephen.|
|Ellis, Dessie.||Ferris, Martin.|
|Healy, Seamus.||Higgins, Joe.|
|McDonald, Mary Lou.||McGrath, Mattie.|
|McLellan, Sandra.||Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.|
|Murphy, Catherine.||Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.|
|Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.||O’Brien, Jonathan.|
|Ross, Shane.||Stanley, Brian.|
|Last Updated: 08/03/2013 22:51:56||Page of 273|