Tuesday, 21 June 2011
Dáil Éireann Debate
The resolution before the Dáil seeks approval for the continuance in operation of those sections of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 which would otherwise cease to be in operation after 30 June. Deputies will be aware that this legislation was enacted in the aftermath of the Omagh bombing in August 1998, a dreadful atrocity which claimed 29 innocent lives and injured more than 200 people. The attack at Omagh was a callous act of mass murder aimed at undermining the then developing peace process. If anything, its brutality galvanised the already strong desire of both communities on this island for a shared future based on peace and democracy. It is a testament to the resolve of those parties who supported the peace process that not only did it survive this attack, it flourished and great advances have been made in normalising politics in Northern Ireland. We must never forget, however, the suffering of so many people who were bereaved by the mindless criminality of the very few.
Recognising the exceptional nature of the measures contained in the 1998 Act, it was decided that certain sections of the Act should be revisited annually by the Oireachtas. The purpose is to allow the Oireachtas to decide whether the current circumstances justify the continued operation of these sections. I have no doubt that their continued operation is justified and will outline my reasons to the House presently.
To support consideration of the need for the renewal of these sections of the Act, I am required to lay a report on their operation before both Houses prior to the resolutions being moved. The report, which I laid before the House on 13 June 2011, covers the period since the last such report was prepared in June 2010 to 31 May 2011. The clear message from the report is that the relevant sections of the Act continue to be of significant value to the Garda in tackling the threat from terrorism. Taking into account the provisions of the Act, the numbers of occasions on which certain provisions have been used and the current security environment, the Garda authorities consider that the Act continues to be one of the most important tools available to them in the ongoing fight against terrorism. The inevitable conclusion must be that the provisions are necessary to counter the threat from terrorism and their continued availability to An Garda Síochána is warranted.
The sad fact is that there is an ongoing threat, both in this jurisdiction and in Northern Ireland, from a variety of subversive paramilitary groups. The Real IRA, the Continuity IRA and other groups remain resolutely committed to violence in pursuit of their aims. They continue to seek to acquire and manufacture weapons and to plant explosive devices without any concern for life or limb. In particular, they have targeted members of the security forces in Northern Ireland. The recent tragic murder of PSNI Constable Ronan Kerr is a stark demonstration of their ongoing murderous intent. Put plainly, these are gangs of criminal terrorists. I use the word “criminal” because these groups are involved in a wide range of organised criminal activities and I believe that, in many cases, their continued commitment to the so-called cause is centred more on preserving their personal positions. These groups represent nothing but their own warped views of the world. Their actions display nothing but contempt for the peace-loving majority on this island.
The 1998 Act was brought in following the Omagh bombing and was mainly targeted at domestic terrorist groups. However, we cannot ignore the threat from international terrorism and should not imagine that Ireland is completely immune from it. We certainly must not be complacent in responding to it. The Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005 enables the application against international terrorist groups and individuals of the Offences against the State Acts, including the provisions under consideration today.
I return to the provisions which are the subject of the resolution. The report I laid before the House is based on data received from the Garda authorities and shows the following information. Section 2 was used on 48 occasions. Section 2 provides that where, in any proceedings for membership of an unlawful organisation, an accused fails to answer or gives false or misleading answers to any question, the court may draw such inferences as appear proper. However, a person cannot be convicted of the offence solely on an inference drawn from such a failure. Section 3 was used on 12 occasions. This section provides that, in proceedings for membership of an unlawful organisation, an accused must give notification of an intention to call a person to give evidence on his behalf, unless the court permits otherwise. Section 7 was used on 24 occasions. This section makes it an offence to possess articles in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that the article is in possession for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of specified firearms or explosives offences. Section 8 was used once. This section makes it an offence to collect, record or possess information which is likely to be useful to members of an unlawful organisation in the commission of serious offences. Section 9 was used on 63 occasions. This section makes it an offence to withhold information which a person believes might be of material assistance in preventing the commission of a serious offence or securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of another person for such an offence.
Section 10 was used on 12 occasions. This section extends the maximum period of detention permitted under section 30 of the Offences against the State Act from 48 hours to 72 hours, but only on the authorisation of a judge of the District Court. The judge must be satisfied, on the application of a garda not below the rank of superintendent, that further detention is necessary for the proper investigation of the offence concerned and that the investigation is being conducted diligently and expeditiously. The person being detained is entitled to be present in court during the application and to make submissions or have them made on his behalf. In the reporting period in question, an extension under section 10 was applied for and granted in 12 cases and charges resulted in six of those cases.
Section 11 was used on five occasions. This section allows a judge of the District Court to permit the re-arrest and detention of a person in respect of an offence for which he was previously detained under section 30 of the Offences against the State Act but released without charge. This further period must not exceed 24 hours and can only be authorised in circumstances where the judge is satisfied on information supplied on oath by a member of the Garda Síochána that further information has come to the knowledge of the Garda about that person’s suspected participation in the offence. Section 14 is a procedural section which makes the offences created under sections 6 to 9, inclusive, and 12 of the 1998 Act scheduled offences for the purposes of Part V of the 1939 Act. The sum total of the uses of sections 6 to 9, inclusive, and 12 was 88.
I now turn to those sections of the 1998 Act that were not used in the period under report, namely, sections 4, 6, 12 and 17. Section 4 amends section 3 of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1972 to expand the definition of “conduct” that can be considered as evidence of membership of an unlawful organisation. Specifically, conduct can include matters such as “movements, actions, activities, or associations on the part of the accused”. This change simply aligns the definition of conduct in the 1972 Act with the reference to movements, actions, activities or associations used in section 2 of the 1998 Act.
Section 6 creates the offence of directing the activities of an organisation in respect of which a suppression order has been made under the Offences against the State Act 1939. Section 12 makes it an offence for a person to instruct or train another person in the making or use of firearms or explosives or to receive such training without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.
Section 17 builds on a provision in the Criminal Justice Act 1994 which empowers a court, in its discretion, to order the forfeiture of any property in the possession of a convicted person which was used, or intended to be used, to facilitate the commission of an offence under that Act. The effect of section 17 is, in the case of a person convicted of specified offences relating to the possession of firearms or explosives, and where there is property liable to forfeiture under the 1994 Act, to require the court to order the forfeiture of such property unless it is satisfied that there would be a serious risk of injustice if it made such an order. Although these sections were not used in the period under report, I am sure Deputies will agree that their continued availability is essential to an effective response to the threat from terrorist groups.
I would be delighted to be able to inform Members that these provisions are no longer considered necessary. However, that would necessitate a very significant change of attitude on the part of these criminal terrorist groups. In the absence of such a change I could not, as Minister for Justice and Equality, recommend to the Dáil that valuable legislative provisions be allowed to lapse. I consider that the relevant provisions of the 1998 Act should remain in operation for a further 12 months and I commend this resolution to the House.
Deputy Dara Calleary: My party will support the Government on this occasion. Regrettably, certain events during the past 12 months have highlighted the need for us to renew this legislation. As the Minister has said, it was introduced in the aftermath of the horror of the Omagh bomb. With the passage of time, the difficulty was that many people did not recognise or remember that horror. If they needed to be reminded, the death of Constable Ronan Kerr will have served as a reminder. The response of our democratic institutions to the Omagh tragedy was robust. We are required to continue that response this evening, in light of the death of Constable Kerr and the subsequent threat to the lives of Catholic members of the PSNI. Such people have fulfilled the vision of the Good Friday Agreement by getting involved in the police force. The agreement was endorsed by the community, by most organisations in this House and by many people on this island. For some bizarre reason, certain people are continuing to threaten the lives of Catholics who want to be part of the PSNI. For that reason alone, this House should unite in renewing the provisions of the 1998 legislation.
In October 2010, the authorities in Britain increased the threat level associated with Irish-related terrorism to “substantial”. This shows that the threat of dissident republicans, who are affected by this legislation, continues to be as real and active as the threat of international terrorism. I compliment the Garda and the Army on the manner in which they have dealt with this threat, particularly before and during the visits of Queen Elizabeth and President Obama. In light of all the activities, including arrests, that were reported around that time, it is strange that section 12 of the 1998 Act was not used. Media reports give one the impression that these organisations, particularly dissident so-called republican organisations, are on the verge of increasing their capacity to use arms, firearms and explosives. Perhaps there are charges in the pipeline under section 12. I hope that provision is used to prevent — God forbid — another Omagh from happening.
We need to examine the composition of dissident organisations. By continuing to abuse the term “Óglaigh na hÉireann”, they are showing complete contempt for the democratic institutions of this State and the fine men and women who serve in our Defence Forces. This is another reason for the House to unite in support of this proposal. There is only one group that can call itself Óglaigh na hÉireann. I refer to the men and women of the Defence Forces who put their lives on the line to serve this country abroad. They are heading to Lebanon once again. They have a fine track record of representing Ireland across the world. They are the Óglaigh na hÉireann to whom this House and this country owe allegiance. We will show that allegiance by passing this legislation.
By coincidence, the RACO magazine, Signal, appeared on my desk today. It includes a good article by the security editor of the Irish Independent, Tom Brady, which should be read by anyone who doubts the reality of the situation we face. The article refers to the current situation with regard to dissident republicanism in Northern Ireland. Mr. Brady warns that vicious attacks like that which killed Ronan Kerr “could happen again” and argues that “existing deterrents should not be watered down”. This evening, we are renewing this procedure rather than watering it down. I agree with the Minister that it is regrettable that we have to do so. We owe it to the Garda, the Defence Forces and the people of this island to renew this measure as long as there is a threat to their safety and their ability to get on with their jobs and fulfil the dream of the Good Friday agreement. That is why we are supporting the Government.
Deputy Jonathan O’Brien: The Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 was introduced as a response to the tragic events in Omagh on 15 August 1998, when 28 people, including a young woman who was pregnant with twins, lost their lives. All these years later, many of the more than 220 people who were injured, some of them seriously, continue to bear the scars of that day. It was truly a horrendous day in the history of this island. The events of that day were a direct attack on the peace process and the Sinn Féin strategy. It is a testament to all those involved in the peace process at that time that it survived and has since flourished. While there is a long way to go before we, as republicans, realise our ultimate goal of a united Ireland, we must continue to defend the peace process. Although full responsibility for the events of 15 August 1998 lies with the Real IRA, subsequent details have shown that less than perfect policing procedures, analysis and communication of intelligence were employed.
Draconian legislation can never be a substitute for sound law and good and accountable policing. As Members in this Chamber know, Sinn Féin has consistently opposed the retention of this amendment. We have argued each year that it should be repealed in its entirety. At this time, there is neither a need for such legislation nor an argument in favour of it. The continuation of it will only serve to erode further the human rights ethos in which this State’s legislation should be grounded. If Deputies in this Chamber truly value the concepts of democracy and human rights, I implore them to vote accordingly and to reject the motion.
I recognise that a small group of people are still determined to derail the peace process. They do not have the capacity to do so. They do not warrant a strong argument for the retention of these measures. Sinn Féin has been in a minority in this House in recent years when it has rightly opposed the 1998 Act. The chances are that we will be in a minority again today. We are not in a minority internationally, however, as we analyse this measure. The UN Human Rights Committee shares our stance on it. As I pointed out in a previous debate, it has asked the State year after year to factor the Special Criminal Court out of our judicial system.
Our international commitments are not the only reason for us to oppose the motion. The Government has certain obligations under the Good Friday Agreement. The agreement places an onus on both Governments to work towards the normalisation of the security apparatus in the Twenty-six Counties and the Six Counties. As the Minister said, the agreement was endorsed overwhelmingly by the majority of people on this island. It needs to be protected and implemented in full. Therefore, the scrapping of the legislation before us for renewal is a pressing issue for all of us in this Chamber. In the past, many Deputies have argued in favour of the provisions of the Act because they have played a role. However, I do not think anyone can truthfully argue that these provisions have a place in the present or future of this State. Sinn Féin believes the legislation is counter-productive in the long run. In my opinion, the report supplied by the Department of Justice and Equality serves to reinforce this argument.
Little more than a decade has passed since the amendment was first enacted. Some sections of the Act, such as section 17, have never been used. Sections 4, 6, 12 and 17 have not been used in the last 12 months. Section 8 has only been used once in the past three years. Sections 4 and 12 have not been used for several years. The figures also show a huge discrepancy between the annual arrest and conviction rates. This strongly suggests that the provisions of this legislation are being used for purposes other than those for which they were originally designed. It is for this reason, and those I mentioned earlier, that we will not be supporting the motion. The context in which the Minister is seeking the renewal of this Act is clear from his opening statement. His reference to those groups that are still engaged in armed actions set the context for this debate. It is important that all parties in this House renew the call on those groups to cease their activities. We must do everything in our power to convince them that the path they are on is fruitless. That is not a moral argument surrounding the rights or wrongs of physical force republicanism, but rather on the futility of their actions to deliver on their goals in the current context.
We all must engage with these groups. We must make every attempt to move them away from violence and to get them to accept the will of the people as expressed in the Good Friday Agreement. We must also convince them of the opportunities that the Good Friday Agreement and the peace process give republicans to further the republican and all-Ireland agenda, and that is where our focus for the next 12 months should be. I ask Members to vote against this measure.
Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: Like Deputy O’Brien, I have no hesitation in renewing the call on those responsible for the atrocity at Omagh and many other actions since to desist and to embrace the peace process. I call on them to open their eyes to the considerable progress made on this island since the passage of the Good Friday Agreement. There is space for those with varying views to put forward those arguments and if they believe in the strength of their convictions, I ask that they debate them with the rest of society. The Good Friday Agreement was overwhelmingly and democratically endorsed by the vast majority of the Irish people. If they believe in democracy at all, which is questionable, I ask that they desist. Their actions are an affront to democracy, are besmirching the ideals of republicanism and are delaying the eventuality of a united Ireland.
The retention of these provisions is an admission of the failure of this and previous Governments. Similar to the earlier motion on the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009, these provisions turn the basis of the justice system on its head. The killing of Constable Ronan Kerr shows that these groups wish for an abnormal society. The challenge to us is to prove that we have a normal society and that normal policing will convict those who seek to undermine it.
There is no place in our society for the emergency legislation that was passed in 1998. We are a normal society and the existing laws are strong enough if properly resourced. An Garda Síochána and the courts can convict and can ensure that those who carry out atrocious acts in this day and age serve a proper sentence for those actions.
Thar ceann na Teachtaí a chur i gcoinne an rúin seo gach uile bliain ó thoghadh mé ar dtús i 2002, measaim go bhfuil sé thar am fáil réidh leis. Is oth liom a rá go bhfuil sé arís ós ár gcomhair agus tá mé chun chuir ina choinne. Fiú roimhe seo, chuir mise i gcoinne na Offences Against the State Act toisc, seachas dlíthe breise atá ag déanamh staid éigeandála sa tír seo, gur chóir go mbeadh breis áiseanna, trealaimh agus maoine curtha i dtreo An Garda Síochána agus na cúirteanna chun déanamh cinnte nach bhfuil gá le aon forálacha mar seo, má raibh gá riamh leo, agus gur chóir dúinn fáil réidh leis an mbunreachtaíocht.
An phríomh argóint ná nach bhfuil fiú na forálacha seo áúsáid agus nach raibh siad riamh chun a bheith úsáidte mar bhí siad go dona nuair a chuireadh le chéile iad sa chéad dul síos. Ba chóir dúinn casadh arís ar an ghnáth chóras justice insan tír agus ba chóir dúinn é sin a dhéanamh anois. Tá an deis againn, fiú anois, fáil réidh le na forálacha ó 1998.
The Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 was introduced after the Omagh bomb atrocity in the summer of 1998. At that time, we in the Socialist Party trenchantly opposed that atrocity, as we did all the atrocities that took place prior to it, and opposed paramilitarism on this island for decades in advance of that atrocity. However, we pointed out that when sectarians threatened civil war as a result of atrocities carried out in the 1970s and 1980s, it was not repressive legislation enacted by the State or Britain that defeated that drive towards civil conflict which would have been an absolute conflagration and an utter disaster for ordinary people in the North and on this island. It was the mobilisation on many occasions of ordinary working class people in Northern Ireland across the division that forced the paramilitaries and the sectarians back. The record will show that in the 1970s and 1980s in response to horrific atrocities carried out by groups on both sides, the activists in the trade union movement, for example, mobilised onto the streets and in their workplaces tens of thousands of workers in a clear message to the paramilitaries that they were not acting in the interests of the working class people of the communities of the majority. Similarly, what ended the paramilitary campaign was not repressive legislation in the State or the above state; it was the mood of opposition to war, war weariness etc., among ordinary working class people in the North and in this island.
On other related aspects of repressive legislation, the Offences Against the State Act 1939 is a wide-ranging and repressive statute. It is not simply paramilitary organisations that can be the target of that Act. That legislation is so wide-ranging, for example, that a group of citizens who held a protest and decided to withhold their road tax in opposition to a particular aspect of Government policy could be severely punished under it. Other mass protests of civil peaceful disobedience also come under such repressive legislation. My party is firmly opposed to that.
Those self-appointed minorities which are now tiny, the so-called republican dissidents, whose only policy — one could not call it a policy — is the reactionary aim of regressing society back to sectarian conflict, are not representative of anybody outside their tiny ranks, but to impose legislation on an entire people in their regard is in opposition to civil rights and a danger to civil and human rights.
Deputy Joe Higgins: The rioting, for example, in the Short Strand last night, shows the continuing dangers of sectarianism. Last night it was orchestrated by the UVF, most likely in response to an internal power struggle. Sectarianism continues under the surface, and not too far under it, to be a danger. The power-sharing Executive is implementing cuts, the Government in this State is pathetically unable to resolve our economic difficulties, and the establishment in the North and in Britain has no solution to the problems that are underlying these issues in Northern Ireland. Putting more oppressive legislation in the books is not a solution. Only a radical transformation of the economic base of society, a socialist policy approach and an alternative that can provide jobs, homes and a decent future for working class people and youth form the basis of a solution.
Deputy Thomas Pringle: There is no doubting the savagery and futility of the Omagh atrocity that led to the Offences Against the State Act 1998 being implemented. There is no doubting the total futility of the campaigns being waged by so-called dissident republicans in the State.
However, the operation of the Offences Against the State Act has had a severe and detrimental impact on the human rights of all Irish citizens. The State must ensure the functioning of law and order, of that there is no doubt. However, the State must protect the human rights of our citizens as well. The UNHCR, the Irish Penal Reform Trust and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties have all expressed concerns for the potential erosion of human rights and miscarriages of justice as a result of the continued operation of the Offences Against the State Act.
I intend to focus on the right of arrest under section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act and the period covered by the report laid before the House by the Minister. According to the report some 764 people have been arrested but only 38 convictions have taken place in the relevant period. This is an example of the potential for the abuse of the rights of citizens under the operation of the Act with the wide-ranging right of arrest for the Garda under section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act. There is no doubt many people have been arrested for offences and that the right of arrest under the Act has been used as a convenient method to arrest people for wide-ranging offences and potential offences not covered by the Act.
The continued operation of the Special Criminal Court has been widely condemned. Recent submissions to the United Nations report on the prevention of torture have called for the scrapping of the Special Criminal Court. The Special Criminal Court was set up for one reason: to guarantee convictions for the people who come before it. When one considers the history of the Special Criminal Court, the lack of people who have been acquitted from among those tried before the court is remarkable. This shows the sole reason for its establishment was to guarantee convictions.
I have no doubt the motion will be passed based on the vote on the previous motion. However, in the case of subsequent reports to come before the House related to the operation of the Act I call on the Minister to include the Irish Human Rights Commission and its reporting on the operation of the Act such that it can examine the matter in terms of the human rights abuses or potential human rights abuses that may take place under the operation of the Act should the Government decide to continue with the Act in future.
Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): Yet again I thank Deputy Calleary for his support on this important motion. He referred to democracy. There is a basic and simple principle: a democracy must protect itself against the tyranny of those intent on its subversion. We must consider the reality in dealing with this legislation and resolution. We must consider the reality of what is needed to deal with the threat which, unfortunately, remains from subversive organisations such as the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA. The sad reality is that they have not gone away, you know. They are still there. There is no ideological approach that provides the immediate means to ensure we can protect our communities and our democracy against those intent on subverting it not only in this State, but in Northern Ireland and to protect the peace process, the institutions that have been established and those committed to them.
I remember being in the House many years ago when we considered the position of policing in Northern Ireland, the reality that the RUC largely represented one section of the community of Northern Ireland and the difficulties this created for the minority community in Northern Ireland. The world has substantially moved on. We now have the Police Service of Northern Ireland, PSNI, of which 30% of the membership come from the minority community in Northern Ireland. There are subversive groups intent on trying to ensure we do not have a police force in Northern Ireland that is truly representative of the communities there and on targeting members of the Catholic community who have joined that force to provide a cross-community force. They do not hesitate to target and kill people as we saw with the case of Constable Ronan Kerr and as we saw with the horrendous event that took place on or about Easter at which there were hooded gentlemen standing in a cemetery threatening more murder and mayhem and supported, unfortunately, by too many people who stood in the cemetery with them. They may be a small minority but it only takes a small minority to create murder and mayhem. In the context of considering the reality of this issue the report tabled before the House and the information contained in the proposed resolution clearly detail the use that has been made of this legislation. Its use has been made for the protection of people on this island.
We celebrated the fact that the Queen visited here. That was another big step, an additional block laid on the foundations of the reconciliation that has occurred and the peace process. However, behind the scenes as Minister for Justice and Equality and as Minister for Defence I was absolutely aware in the lead-in to and during the course of the visit that there were subversive organisations intent not merely on disrupting that visit, but on causing death and mayhem if they could during the course of that visit. That is the reality. The Garda and the Defence Forces did an extraordinary job. To do that job they required the assistance of the legislation available to them and which we seek to extend by resolution before the House.
I refer to what I said about the previous resolution. This is a human rights issue. It is about the fundamental human right of the vast majority on this island to go about their business without fear that a bomb might explode or that someone they know might be shot because a small group of individuals are not willing to accept the democratic verdict of the people throughout the island of Ireland. Such individuals reject the very peace process that the Deputies from Sinn Féin support in Northern Ireland, in this State and for which they advocate. One should not be blind to the reality that there is a small group of people intent on destroying that process. This resolution is about protecting that process, allowing it to continue to grow and allowing communities on both parts of this island to be safe from the type of subversive activity in which these groups engage. It is no more complicated than that.
As in the case of the previous motion, I wish it were different and that we did not need this resolution or these provisions. The sad reality is that we do need them and the facts and their use have confirmed that they are an important part of the armoury available to An Garda Síochána in protecting us all.
|Bannon, James.||Barry, Tom.|
|Breen, Pat.||Broughan, Thomas P.|
|Browne, John.||Bruton, Richard.|
|Burton, Joan.||Butler, Ray.|
|Buttimer, Jerry.||Byrne, Catherine.|
|Calleary, Dara.||Cannon, Ciarán.|
|Carey, Joe.||Coffey, Paudie.|
|Collins, Áine.||Collins, Niall.|
|Conaghan, Michael.||Conlan, Seán.|
|Connaughton, Paul J.||Conway, Ciara.|
|Coonan, Noel.||Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.|
|Costello, Joe.||Cowen, Barry.|
|Creed, Michael.||Daly, Jim.|
|Deering, Pat.||Doherty, Regina.|
|Donohoe, Paschal.||Dooley, Timmy.|
|Dowds, Robert.||Doyle, Andrew.|
|Durkan, Bernard J.||Farrell, Alan.|
|Feighan, Frank.||Ferris, Anne.|
|Fitzgerald, Frances.||Flanagan, Terence.|
|Fleming, Sean.||Griffin, Brendan.|
|Hannigan, Dominic.||Harrington, Noel.|
|Harris, Simon.||Hayes, Brian.|
|Hayes, Tom.||Healy-Rae, Michael.|
|Heydon, Martin.||Howlin, Brendan.|
|Humphreys, Heather.||Humphreys, Kevin.|
|Keating, Derek.||Keaveney, Colm.|
|Kehoe, Paul.||Kelleher, Billy.|
|Kelly, Alan.||Kirk, Seamus.|
|Kitt, Michael P.||Kyne, Seán.|
|Lawlor, Anthony.||Lynch, Ciarán.|
|Lynch, Kathleen.||Lyons, John.|
|McCarthy, Michael.||McConalogue, Charlie.|
|McEntee, Shane.||McFadden, Nicky.|
|McGinley, Dinny.||McGrath, Mattie.|
|McGrath, Michael.||McGuinness, John.|
|McHugh, Joe.||McLoughlin, Tony.|
|McNamara, Michael.||Maloney, Eamonn.|
|Martin, Micheál.||Mathews, Peter.|
|Mitchell, Olivia.||Mitchell O’Connor, Mary.|
|Mulherin, Michelle.||Murphy, Dara.|
|Murphy, Eoghan.||Nash, Gerald.|
|Naughten, Denis.||Neville, Dan.|
|Nolan, Derek.||Noonan, Michael.|
|Ó Cuív, Éamon.||Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.|
|Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.||O’Dea, Willie.|
|O’Donnell, Kieran.||O’Donovan, Patrick.|
|O’Dowd, Fergus.||O’Mahony, John.|
|O’Sullivan, Jan.||Penrose, Willie.|
|Phelan, John Paul.||Quinn, Ruairí.|
|Rabbitte, Pat.||Ring, Michael.|
|Ryan, Brendan.||Shatter, Alan.|
|Sherlock, Sean.||Shortall, Róisín.|
|Smith, Brendan.||Stanton, David.|
|Timmins, Billy.||Troy, Robert.|
|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.||Ellis, Dessie.|
|Ferris, Martin.||Flanagan, Luke ‘Ming’.|
|Halligan, John.||Healy, Seamus.|
|Higgins, Joe.||McDonald, Mary Lou.|
|McGrath, Finian.||McLellan, Sandra.|
|Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.||Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.|
|O’Brien, Jonathan.||Pringle, Thomas.|
|Ross, Shane.||Stanley, Brian.|
|Last Updated: 08/03/2013 20:49:18||Page of 335|