I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:
“(3) No grant under this section will be made for consultancy services which relate to military or defence activities.”.
Industrial Development (Amendment) and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill 2026: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 6, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:
“(c) not make loans to, invest monies in and sell, transfer, lease or otherwise dispose of land at its disposal to, a relevant company which engages in or promotes any activity of military relevance.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 6, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:
“(c) not make loans to, invest monies in and sell, transfer, lease or otherwise dispose of land at its disposal to, a relevant company which engages in or promotes any activity of military relevance.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 7, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
“(8) No loans, investments or disposals of land shall be made by the IDA under this section to any company which engages in activities of military relevance, including defence manufacturing or providing military goods or services.
(9) Enterprise Ireland and the IDA shall not cause a company to be formed and registered under this section if the purpose of that company is to engage in activities of military relevance, including defence manufacturing or providing military goods or services.”
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 6 is out of order as it does not arise out of committee proceedings.
Amendment not moved.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 9, to delete lines 9 to 11.
This is really the key amendment and is from myself and Deputies Gibney and Lawlor. We all submitted the same amendment and it relates to our belief that the Government has not been honest with this House or with the public about the real purpose of this Bill. I want to repeat that in the pre-legislative scrutiny process there was no mention of this at all. It was brought it in on Committee Stage, after the fact, and quite honestly, it could easily have been missed. The potential significance of it was not really advertised properly. Let us be clear, the Bill's explanatory memorandum states, "The Science and Technology Act 1987 will be amended to clarify the agencies’ capacity to support dual-use, security and defence projects". It also refers to the removal of section 8 of that Act, which required that enterprise and development agencies secure "formal Government approval before they engage in, or promote, any activity of a primarily military relevance". That section would be deleted so that the agencies can promote, support and give money to companies engaged primarily in the military sector and they do not have to tell the Government. This last-minute amendment comes in at the same time as the Government is exposed in a freedom of information request from The Currency magazine which shows that more than €20 million worth of dual-use technology exports went out of this country to the Israeli military. Getting this information took quite a considerable period of time and credit is due to Niall Sargent from The Currency magazine for chasing this up and writing up the story. He exposes that officials in the Department were warning about the possible end use of this dual-use technology going to the Israeli military. At that point, just to remind people, in the middle of 2024, when this stuff was exposed, 35,000 people had been slaughtered. This was in the midst of a genocidal horror beyond imagination. At that time a decision was made to approve it anyway, despite the warnings from officials that this technology was going to the Israeli military which was engaged in slaughtering men, women and children in Gaza.
More recently, in the last couple of weeks, The Currency exposed that it was not only to the Israeli military but also to companies that provided weapons, arms and so on, to Israel. As I said already, an official warned the Department that the end user has "direct ties to the Israeli defence industry" and said that there was a risk of diverting these dual-use goods to potential military end uses. The article says that there were multiple denials from the end user but the end user was a "defence company with deep ties to the Israeli State and military". We can take it that it was probably Elbit Systems but that does not matter; it was clearly spelt out by an official that in the midst of a genocide, this was going to a company with deep ties to the state carrying out that genocide.
How are we supposed to trust a Government that made the decision to approve, despite the warnings about the possible end use of the technology? In other words, we were saying that if we can profit from it, we will go ahead. It really tells a story, quite honestly, about the Government's shift in position. How long have we been out on the streets, demanding that the Government take action against Israel and impose actual sanctions instead of just making rhetorical, tokenistic statements about support for the Palestinians? In actuality, the Government did not want to, and even now it does not want to do so. We are one of the biggest trading partners with the Israeli regime, involving billions of euro every year. We are one of the biggest partners in Europe. We do not want to stop trading with a state that is committing genocide, so that decision was made. Subsequently, because of the massive pressure on the streets and the public outrage, somebody decided that we had better just hold off on this a little bit but, simultaneously, we will make sure that the IDA and Enterprise Ireland can support companies and not have to let the Government know about it. Now the Government will not know. It will put its head in the sand, deliberately. Hear no evil, see no evil and the supply of dual-use technology to end users who may be committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and even genocide can just continue because there is money to be made out of it.
I hate to say it but it is very difficult to put any other spin on what we are looking at here and the rationale behind it. The Minister described it as removing red tape but we need red tape when it comes to dual-use technology going to the State of Israel when it is engaged in genocide. In fact, we need it for technology going to the State of Israel at all, given its decades of crimes. We also need it for other states that have engaged in wars in the Middle East, against Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, and in actions to take out leaders in Venezuela and so on. Do we want to be sending dual-use technology to people involved in war mongering and war crimes, with all of the horror that involves and the economic costs it is now even imposing on ordinary people here? I say "No" and I think most people in this country say "No" to that.
We have heard much about the health service and its computers being hacked by the Russians. Why not develop digital technology in the health service to protect against cyberattacks instead of supporting the arms industry to send exports to companies committing war crimes?
I want to speak first to some of the comments that have been made. It is so crazy to think that this legislation has nothing to do with dual-use goods, which is essentially the premise that has been put forward so far by the Minister of State. This is literally money for dual-use and it goes even further and allows Ireland to invest money in single-use. That is what the Government is doing. He also spoke about how it is easier for these institutions and State agencies to meet their objectives but if we are allowing them to engage with military purpose industry, they cannot be doing a very good job. If what we need is to pivot towards military use then we genuinely need to look at what the IDA and Enterprise Ireland are doing.
Amendment No. 7 proposes to retain subsection (5) of section 8 of the Science and Technology Act 1987, which requires Government approval for engaging in activities of military relevance. The subsection states:
The Agency shall not engage in or promote any activity of a primarily military relevance without the prior approval of the Government.
The Minister of State could not accept our earlier amendments, which provided for guardrails to prevent the State investing in the military industry. The provision in the Bill to delete this subsection of the 1987 Act knocks down any facade in that regard. Deleting this line facilitates exactly such investment. The Minister of State cannot continue to spin a story that this is not about investment in the military industry, a move towards militarisation or pivoting our economy towards military investment.
Ultimately, we do not know the consequences of the goods or technologies that could be produced under this legislation. The Bill as it stands ensures that such decisions will have no Government oversight and that IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland will be fully free to use supports that could be used to help a local agricultural business or a new retail shop or service company to support companies engaging in military activities, a sector that is already extremely profitable and the recipient of millions of euro of additional funding, particularly in recent years. We know that military goods are designed to be used in war and conflict. They are designed for violence and, often, to maim and kill. In an effort to widen what is an acceptable use of taxpayer money, we risk victims of violence and conflict coming back to us to ask why the weapons, technology, goods and services used to hurt them were stamped with "Made in Ireland".
Additional evidence of this is found in an article in The Journal a couple of weeks ago detailing the comments by the Minister of State, Deputy Thomas Byrne, at an event in Strasbourg. Asked by the journalist whether there was a risk of Ireland having to contribute billions of euro to European defence spending, the Minister of State declined to endorse a specific figure, stating "I'm not going to go into figures like that because some of these figures can be bandied about." The article goes on to state:
However, Byrne acknowledged the broader concern.
He said Irish businesses have traditionally benefited when European countries increase spending on infrastructure and other major projects.
"That’s not the case with defence spending, because we don’t have a defence industry of any significance," Byrne said.
He said there are Irish companies operating in the sector and that the government is trying to increase their involvement so that "there’s an economic benefit back" to Ireland.
Byrne said the government is changing legislation to allow Enterprise Ireland to advise companies in the defence sphere, while a new security clearance system will allow Irish companies to participate in European consortiums competing for defence contracts.
Nobody in the Government is trying to hide what it is doing, yet the Minister of State, Deputy Dillon, comes in here and suggests to us that we are conflating issues and being disingenuous. This is exactly why the Irish public grappled with the Nice and Lisbon treaties. It is exactly why we need to be active members of the European Union, consistently and constantly pushing for the upholding of the founding values of the Union of social justice and peace. That is what the Government is absolutely happy to leave in the dust while it trots forward on the path to militarisation, down which the EU is hell-bent on going. I have been mocked by the Minister of State's colleagues for using words like that and describing the situation as such but every piece of evidence makes clear to me that this is exactly what is happening and that the Government is not only not resisting it but happily embracing it.
I questioned two Commissioners at a meeting of the European affairs committee in January. They further confirmed all of this. The multi-annual financial framework is being redesigned to support defence spending, and that means less money will go to communities and small businesses. The competitiveness and cohesion funding - all of the funding - is being adjusted in such a way that we, as 27 member states, will spend more on arms. The Government is not working to ensure that does not happen but, rather, to ensure it gets in on it and gets a slice of the pie. It is willing to leave behind our proud tradition of Irish neutrality and to hollow it out until there is nothing left of it. By way of the Defence (Amendment) Bill and all the other legislation it is trying to push through, the Government is, in effect, trying to get us to a point where Ireland might be compared with Switzerland, which is said to be neutral but has a massive arms industry.
We do not want that here. Neutrality for the Irish people means not just that we are militarily neutral but that we do not support military arms development. Our companies should be founded, and supported to be founded, in ways that are for good. Going back to my earlier point, even in the consultancy part of this, we are drawing our talent away from positive forces in Irish society and positive advancements in science and technology and towards war. This issue is so fundamental to us, but the Government is willing just to toss it out there because it wants a slice of the European money pie.
The deletion proposed in section 8 of the Bill is bizarre when one considers the Taoiseach's speech to the UN just a few days ago, where he stood up in front of the world and said the world will not forget the inaction on Gaza. A few days later, his Government is proposing to delete the following subsection in the 1987 Act:
The Agency shall not engage in or promote any activity of a primarily military relevance without the prior approval of the Government.
The proposal, in effect, is to take out the guardrails or safeguards that prevent our agencies for the promotion of enterprise and industry from dealing with companies that provide arms that will slaughter even more people in Gaza and elsewhere in Palestine.
In his remarks when rejecting amendments Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, the Minister of State, in effect, threw himself under the bus in saying the provisions under discussion were in no way related to military matters. This particular subsection absolutely is related to military matters. It is as clear as day that it is related to military matters. We have been talking about the possibility of the Government not knowing about such a connection to military matters. In fact, the Government will not want to know about what is going on behind the scenes in the context of IDA Ireland or Enterprise Ireland potentially interacting and dealing with companies that are sending weapons to slaughter innocent men, women and children in Gaza.
In the current geopolitical climate, section 8 proposes a bizarre, callous and extraordinarily concerning deletion. It is an absolutely regressive step. It is removing a check on how taxpayers' money is spent and how that relates to our neutrality. The prohibition on State agencies engaging in or promoting activities of primarily military relevance without Government approval was enacted in 1987 as a statutory embodiment of our neutrality. It means the machinery of industrial policy, including grant aid, promotional activity and equity investment, which is hugely important to this country and to the agencies, cannot be turned towards military ends without an explicit political decision at Government level. Why is the Government now determined to unwind that principle? It is obvious that the reason is the €800 billion to which Deputy Gibney referred. It wants to get a piece of that filthy, poisonous pie that is going to kill so many people across the globe.
A separate Government approval is needed under the Control of Exports Act 2023. We cannot imagine the domestic market for military goods is terribly large, so most of what is produced off the back of the agencies' investment will absolutely be bound for the export market. Therefore, they will still need approval at that stage. However, we have learned that we cannot trust the Government on that count either. This is the Department that approved €20 million worth of dual-use exports to the IDF and the Israeli defence ministry at the height of the genocide in Gaza. It is clear that the export approval process is not much of a safeguard.
With that in mind, we certainly cannot support section 8 of the Bill. As I said, it is bizarre in the context of all the condemnation of the actions of the war criminal Netanyahu. Of course, we already saw similar when the Government delegates sat and listened to his diatribe at the United Nations in New York last week, when the representatives of every other decent Government across the globe, who did not salute the manner in which he went about his business, left the room and turned their back on Netanyahu, the war criminal who should be arrested if he ever arrives in this country.
This is a callous deletion. It gets rid of a safeguard we have long held as a country that is proud of its neutrality. The Minister of State simply must look again at this.
The Government's previous amendments have certainly said that anything connected to military activity will not be countenanced. However, the Bill's provision is totally open to that and I urge the Minister of State to reject any removal or deletion within section 8 of the Act.
It is highly unlikely and unusual for a government to want to give away powers. The question has to be asked why does the Government want to delete the following: "The Agency shall not engage in or promote any activity of primarily military relevance without the prior approval of the Government." The Government does not want to know what is happening in this space. It wants a free for all and it wants taxpayers' money to pay for it. This is completely wrong. I see that the two amendments have been grouped together. I have put in some wording in amendment No. 8 knowing that the Government would refuse to accept the other amendment. I have nothing left to say in this space other than to ask the Minister of State to please not delete the paragraph as stated. There is no rhyme nor reason to do that but the Government will have to answer to the Irish people.
I thank the Deputies for tabling these amendments, and as with the previous amendments, I cannot accept them. The Act's section 8(5) provision is ambiguous and creates ongoing practical difficulties for the agencies. It hinders the agency support by creating uncertainty about what engagement requires prior Government approval and what does not. This blanket provision is outdated, given the multilayered regulatory framework that now exists. Increasingly, the Defence Forces have procurement needs related to the defence and security technologies required to protect the infrastructure on which our economy and prosperity depend. In this debate, not one Deputy mentioned our requirements around investments in our Defence Forces. We are raising the level of ambition to where we can continue to protect our citizens, strengthen national security and deliver more capable and resilient Defence Forces. I think we all accept that the landscape is changing in terms of the operational needs of the Defence Forces and also the opportunities in domestic and European funding.
We have been very clear on the priorities, which are in relation to defence, security and resilience opportunity, and streamlining these procedures facilitates that. The agencies remain subject to ministerial directions under the Industrial Development Acts. We will also have robust mechanisms in place for rigorous project appraisals by the agencies, our export control regulation, ministerial powers and Government oversight, and defence procurement safeguards. It is important that the agencies remain subject to these requirements under the Industrial Development Acts. Governance and oversight remain robust for agency project approval. This will ensure that every project is assessed carefully, transparently and consistently.
Deletion of section 5 of the 1987 Act, as proposed, will streamline the work of the agencies in supporting innovative SMEs and enterprises, including cutting-edge technologies of strategic importance to Ireland, such as cybersecurity, sensors, data analytics and maritime surveillance. That has been raised many times regarding our national security vulnerabilities.
I am unable to accept Deputy Conway Walsh's proposed amendment No. 8 because it would reintroduce the central ambiguity that the Bill is designed to remove. We should not delete any ambiguous statutory requirement and replace it with something that recreates the ambiguity. The section 8(5) requirement no longer reflects the reality of how innovation, research and industrial ecosystems operate. Instead of providing clarity, it has the opposite effect. It has prolonged legal ambiguity and encouraged excessive caution in the system when considering engagement with projects that involve emerging technologies with defence, security and resilience potential, and these are areas of importance for our Defence Forces.
Equally, the scope of Deputy Conway Walsh's amendment is open to interpretation and potentially is so broad that it would make the requirement challenging for agencies to interpret and burdensome for any administrative purpose, while the Bill is designed to streamline operations. Given the nature of the modern economy and the range of activities across civilian and dual-use activity, there is a potential for the Deputy's amendment to add an extra layer of bureaucracy to all engagements with a host of companies beyond those presumably targeted by the amendment, as the enterprise agencies would need to assess what is within the scope of statutory requirement and what is not. As a result, the work and focus of the enterprise agencies may be significantly hindered.
Ireland's approach to support for the sector will continue to be governed by a combination of existing policy frameworks, legal duties, governance standards, and oversight mechanisms, including the regime supporting export controls.
We intend to call a vote on this amendment so we will make sure we leave enough time to do so. Deputy Gibney prompted this thought. When I was in occupied Palestine in late 1987, during the first intifada, some young Palestinians the same age as me brought me to their home in a refugee camp near Hebron. There was no Hamas then. It did not appear until more than a decade later. In fact, there was no armed resistance from Palestinians at all. They were just young people being beaten and shot down by a regime that treated them as third-class citizens and dehumanised them in the most horrific way. They brought me to their home, through the barricades, with the Israeli military firing tear gas canisters. In the house, they showed me a tear gas canister and one of them told me to look at where it was made. It said, "Made in the USA." I was not involved in politics then, but in that moment my political education began. I started to see the relationship between what was being done to the Palestinians and the arms producers in the United States and western world providing the means to oppress people, which has led to all the horror we are seeing today.
These days, that horror is summed up by another person I met, a poet, Refaat Alareer, a Palestinian writer and literature teacher who taught Shakespeare. It was his anniversary recently because he was killed by the Israelis. How did they kill him? They phoned him beforehand and said they were going to murder him. As he did not want his friends and family to be killed, he left where he was and walked outside. Now, using digital technology, that is what they do. They phone people and tell them they are going to kill them and then they do so by firing missiles. He had to leave where he was so that the missile did not hit everybody else. Do we want the technology implicated in doing that to people to say, "Made in Ireland"? I say we do not.
I will also keep my comments short. I will cut through what I would describe as a word salad in the Minister of State's answer. I call it for what it is, namely, deregulation. It is across Government policy but in this case, it is deregulation to open up Irish investment and Irish companies to manufacturing arms and dual-use goods. That is what the Government is doing. The Minister of State talks about the ambiguity, which is just insane to me. There is no evidence behind it. The Minister of State is not telling us. He is talking about it hindering things but he is not telling us how Enterprise Ireland and the IDA have been disadvantaged all these years by this one clause. Now, very conveniently and coincidentally at the same time there is increased defence spending available, the Government wants to get rid of it.
To suggest that none of us has spoken about the Defence Forces in our contributions is incorrect. As my party's defence spokesperson, I consistently speak about the underinvestment of the Government in Óglaigh na hÉireann. This Government and previous ones have led Óglaigh na hÉireann to the point where it is underfunded, with a crisis in recruitment and retention and without the capacity to even have ships in the sea at the moment.
The Minister of State should not talk nonsense about us ignoring our Defence Forces. We support level of ambition 2 funding in order that our Defence Forces can actually operate.
Our country has built its reputation on providing humanitarian aid and engaging in peacekeeping. What is proposed will undermine and hugely damage Ireland's reputation. The Minister of State spoke about ambiguity. There is no ambiguity. The 1987 Act states, "The Agency shall not engage in or promote any activity of a primarily military relevance". Where is the ambiguity? By removing that, you remove every safeguard and the reputation we have built up over decades as a country that people can look to for humanitarian aid or the provision of peacekeepers. The Government is going to totally undermine that. The grenades and rockets that will land on the children of Gaza will have our name all over them because that is what the profits will dictate. I mean the profits in monetary terms. That is what this is all about, and we utterly reject it.
Does Deputy Conway Walsh wish to say anything?
Deputy Gibney said what I was going to say.
Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 65; Níl, 78; Staon, 0.
Tá
- Ahern, Ciarán.
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Bennett, Cathy.
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Brady, John.
- Buckley, Pat.
- Carthy, Matt.
- Clarke, Sorca.
- Collins, Michael.
- Conway-Walsh, Rose.
- Coppinger, Ruth.
- Cronin, Réada.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cullinane, David.
- Cummins, Jen.
- Daly, Pa.
- Devine, Máire.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Donnelly, Paul.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Ennis, Daniel.
- Farrelly, Aidan.
- Farrell, Mairéad.
- Gibney, Sinéad.
- Gogarty, Paul Nicholas.
- Gould, Thomas.
- Graves, Ann.
- Guirke, Johnny.
- Hayes, Eoin.
- Healy, Seamus.
- Hearne, Rory.
- Kelly, Alan.
- Kenny, Eoghan.
- Kerrane, Claire.
- Lawless, Paul.
- Lawlor, George.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGuinness, Conor D.
- Mitchell, Denise.
- Murphy, Paul.
- Mythen, Johnny.
- Nash, Ged.
- Newsome Drennan, Natasha.
- Ní Raghallaigh, Shónagh.
- Nolan, Carol.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- O'Donoghue, Robert.
- O'Gorman, Roderic.
- O'Hara, Louis.
- O'Rourke, Darren.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- Ó Súilleabháin, Fionntán.
- Quaide, Liam.
- Quinlivan, Maurice.
- Rice, Pádraig.
- Sherlock, Marie.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Wall, Mark.
- Ward, Charles.
- Ward, Mark.
- Whitmore, Jennifer.
Níl
- Aird, William.
- Ardagh, Catherine.
- Boland, Grace.
- Brabazon, Tom.
- Brennan, Brian.
- Brophy, Colm.
- Browne, James.
- Burke, Colm.
- Burke, Peter.
- Butler, Mary.
- Butterly, Paula.
- Buttimer, Jerry.
- Byrne, Malcolm.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Cahill, Michael.
- Callaghan, Catherine.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Canney, Seán.
- Carrigy, Micheál.
- Chambers, Jack.
- Cleere, Peter 'Chap'.
- Clendennen, John.
- Connolly, John.
- Cooney, Joe.
- Crowe, Cathal.
- Currie, Emer.
- Daly, Martin.
- Dempsey, Aisling.
- Devlin, Cormac.
- Dillon, Alan.
- Dolan, Albert.
- Feighan, Frankie.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Foley, Norma.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Harris, Simon.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Keogh, Keira.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lahart, John.
- Lawless, James.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- McCarthy, Noel.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McCormack, Tony.
- McEntee, Helen.
- McGrath, Séamus.
- Moran, Kevin Boxer.
- Moynihan, Aindrias.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Moynihan, Shane.
- Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer.
- Murphy, Michael.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Neville, Joe.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Connell, Maeve.
- O'Connor, James.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- O'Meara, Ryan.
- O'Shea, John Paul.
- O'Sullivan, Christopher.
- O'Sullivan, Pádraig.
- Ó Cearúil, Naoise.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- Ó Muirí, Naoise.
- Richmond, Neale.
- Roche, Peter.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smyth, Niamh.
- Timmins, Edward.
- Toole, Gillian.
- Troy, Robert.
- Ward, Barry.
Staon
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Richard Boyd Barrett and Sinéad Gibney; Níl, Deputies Mary Butler and Emer Currie.
Amendment declared lost.
As the time for the debate on the Bill has expired, I am required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the Dáil of 29 September 2026: "That Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed." Is that agreed?
It is not agreed.
Question put: :
The Dáil divided: Tá, 78; Níl, 64; Staon, 0.
Tá
- Aird, William.
- Ardagh, Catherine.
- Brabazon, Tom.
- Brennan, Brian.
- Brophy, Colm.
- Browne, James.
- Burke, Colm.
- Burke, Peter.
- Butler, Mary.
- Butterly, Paula.
- Buttimer, Jerry.
- Byrne, Malcolm.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Cahill, Michael.
- Callaghan, Catherine.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Canney, Seán.
- Carrigy, Micheál.
- Chambers, Jack.
- Cleere, Peter 'Chap'.
- Clendennen, John.
- Connolly, John.
- Cooney, Joe.
- Crowe, Cathal.
- Currie, Emer.
- Daly, Martin.
- Dempsey, Aisling.
- Devlin, Cormac.
- Dillon, Alan.
- Dolan, Albert.
- Feighan, Frankie.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Foley, Norma.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Harris, Simon.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Keogh, Keira.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lahart, John.
- Lawless, James.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- McCarthy, Noel.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McCormack, Tony.
- McEntee, Helen.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGrath, Séamus.
- Moran, Kevin Boxer.
- Moynihan, Aindrias.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Moynihan, Shane.
- Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer.
- Murphy, Michael.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Neville, Joe.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Connell, Maeve.
- O'Connor, James.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- O'Meara, Ryan.
- O'Shea, John Paul.
- O'Sullivan, Christopher.
- O'Sullivan, Pádraig.
- Ó Cearúil, Naoise.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- Ó Muirí, Naoise.
- Richmond, Neale.
- Roche, Peter.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smyth, Niamh.
- Timmins, Edward.
- Toole, Gillian.
- Troy, Robert.
- Ward, Barry.
Níl
- Ahern, Ciarán.
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Bennett, Cathy.
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Brady, John.
- Buckley, Pat.
- Carthy, Matt.
- Clarke, Sorca.
- Collins, Michael.
- Conway-Walsh, Rose.
- Coppinger, Ruth.
- Cronin, Réada.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cullinane, David.
- Cummins, Jen.
- Daly, Pa.
- Devine, Máire.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Donnelly, Paul.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Ennis, Daniel.
- Farrelly, Aidan.
- Farrell, Mairéad.
- Gibney, Sinéad.
- Gogarty, Paul Nicholas.
- Gould, Thomas.
- Graves, Ann.
- Guirke, Johnny.
- Hayes, Eoin.
- Healy, Seamus.
- Hearne, Rory.
- Kelly, Alan.
- Kenny, Eoghan.
- Kerrane, Claire.
- Lawless, Paul.
- Lawlor, George.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- McGuinness, Conor D.
- Mitchell, Denise.
- Murphy, Paul.
- Mythen, Johnny.
- Nash, Ged.
- Newsome Drennan, Natasha.
- Ní Raghallaigh, Shónagh.
- Nolan, Carol.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- O'Donoghue, Robert.
- O'Gorman, Roderic.
- O'Hara, Louis.
- O'Rourke, Darren.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- Ó Súilleabháin, Fionntán.
- Quaide, Liam.
- Quinlivan, Maurice.
- Rice, Pádraig.
- Sherlock, Marie.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Wall, Mark.
- Ward, Charles.
- Ward, Mark.
- Whitmore, Jennifer.
Staon
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Mary Butler and Emer Currie; Níl, Deputies Richard Boyd Barrett and Sinéad Gibney.
Question declared carried.