Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Feb 1991

Vol. 404 No. 7

Private Members' Business. - Competition in Food Processing Bill, 1990: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

As I said during the debate last evening, there has been, over the past year or so, a significant reduction in the number of co-operatives, and many more amalgamations of various co-operatives throughout the country are in the pipeline. However, I want to sound a note of warning in relation to these developments. It is the objective of the Irish Co-Operative Organisation Society and the Government to rationalise the food industry and the co-operative movement with the object of making it more efficient.

The extension of the public limited company concept to the co-operative movement in recent times slightly worries me. I am disturbed that financial institutions will eventually take control of these public companies and that the influence of the producer of the food will rapidly diminish. I am concerned that at least one merger will occur among the quoted food companies, prompted by institutional investment and pointing to obvious cost advantages for them. It is acknowledged that farmer control of milk supplies will dwindle from about 85 per cent at present to about 30 per cent by 1994. It is important that these facts in regard to development for the future are made known to the producer of the commodity and, through the co-operative movement, to the food producers. This development could remove much of the decision-making process from this country to ones based on the financial and economic viability of firms outside the country. I make this point on the basis that so much money was spent in recent years by various food companies, particularly public limited companies in this country, outside the jurisdiction of the Republic.

Avonmore Foods, plc., the IAWS and various other food companies have spent enormous resources in developing the food industry and their food portfolio in the UK and in the United States in particular. It is estimated that, within the next five years, at least two of the food companies will have less than 10 per cent of their turnover based in this country. That is a measure of the enormous reduction in influence which the present board members of many of our food companies and co-operatives have and which will continue in the context of the global, international and more competitive food companies after 1992. I hope that the overriding concern to satisfy institutional investors will not be achieved at the expense of the food producer and that the existing balance will continue to play a significant role in the future development of the food industry.

I was surprised that the Minister for Industry and Commerce launched a stinging attack on the efforts of Fine Gael in bringing forward the Bill which we are debating this evening, particularly relating to one sector of the economy. The Minister should recognise — as everybody else does — that the food industry makes a very important contribution to the overall well-being of the country. It affects many people, producers, processors and consumers. The Progressive Democrats published the Enterprise (Competition and Consumer Protection) Bill, 1989, which was debated in Private Members' time. Section 2 of that Bill dealt with the abuse of a dominant position in relation to competitive practices. I have no doubt that, with all the publicity and heat which Deputy O'Malley generated at that time in respect of one food company and individuals in relation to a dominant position. He was referring to the Goodman Group who were receiving much publicity at the time. He is now Minister for Industry and Commerce but at that time, as Deputy O'Malley, leader of the Progressive Democrats, he was obsessed with this matter. It is galling to hear the Minister in this House chiding another political party about seeking publicity, although the national interest is at stake.

The Irish food industry is facing an enormous challenge in the context of the Single Market and we are unprepared, as a nation, to tackle the problems of meeting the demands of the 300 million consumers in the enlarged market after 1992. We are not prepared to adequately meet this challenge. Therefore, it is important that the significant developments which have taken place continue to expand to ensure that we have a lean, fit and efficient food industry to make the rapid expansion which is needed to further our export drive and to make our economic situation vis-à-vis our exports even better than it has been over the last number of years.

As I said earlier, Fine Gael are motivated in the publication of this Bill by the desire to take an initial step to outlaw anti-competitive practices in an important sector of our economy. I realise — and I would be the first to admit — that it does not cover all aspects of the national scene, including the professional, business or other very important anti-competitive practices which are evident in the economy. However, it deals with a fundamental and important sector and I would love to see the Minister for Industry and Commerce publishing a Bill as soon as possible to deal with all the other aspects of anti-competitive practices which are so evident. His bona fide attitude in relation to the food industry would be demonstrated if he declared that he was in favour of allowing this Bill to go to a further stage of debate. He could introduce his own amendments if he feels there are inadequacies in the Bill.

As long ago as 1975 the Restrictive Practices Commission called for this type of legislation, yet, 14 years later, very little legislation in that regard has been introduced in the House. I suppose it is an indication of the slow process by which reports are brought to the legislature. In a small, open economy we cannot rely on this approach in the context of 1992 and the development of the Single Market. The legislation we are discussing this evening is important and necessary to deal with many of the anti-competitive practices in a small open economy like Ireland. The willy-nilly development of legislation in this House over the last 20 years has tended to protect restrictive practices and anti-competitive conduct in many sectors of industry, trade and the professional services. The best example to date is in the very sector about which we are speaking this evening, the food industry.

There are wholesale, anti-competitive practices inherent in the food industry in terms of restrictive trade cartel agreements, particularly in prices being paid to producers. How often do Deputies in this House hear of their constituents, particularly producers of food, recalling that they have sold cattle to meat factories — or looked for quotations to sell their produce to meat factories — but, because of the dominance of one individual in the entire beef trade, they find that there is an informal and anti-competitive cartel arrangement for reducing and artificially suppressing the price of their product to the producer of the food?

(Interruptions.)

I know there are not too many people around east Cork who would meet those criteria; they get good prices for their product in Cork. Deputy Ahern knows what I am talking about but Deputy Roche does not. Because of the dominant position of someone in a sector of the food industry the individual — or company — assumes very wide powers and when that individual — or company — runs into financial difficulties, which happened in 1990, other small companies who depend on 90 days' credit terms and because of a deliberate suppression of price to the producer, whether they are producers or supplying the dominant company or individual, will run into financial difficulties themselves.

They paid up front.

A dominant individual in a particular segment of the market has huge purchasing power and because of this anti-competitive and unfair advantage can put smaller firms out of business. The Bill before the House this evening incorporates Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome which prohibit the abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the Community. The control of trade practices in Ireland is covered by the Restrictive Practices Act, 1972 which was amended in 1987. In relation to mergers and take-overs, the Mergers, Take-overs and Monopolies Control Act, 1978 permits the Director of Consumer Affairs and Fair Trade to carry out investigations into trading practices which are deemed to be unfair. Such an investigation was carried out into the Goodman Group by the director but nothing much has been heard about that report since it was laid on the desk of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy O'Malley. Why does he not publish the report and have it debated in the House if it is only a myth that the Government are protecting a company which holds a dominant position? I challenge the Minister to publish it.

The existing cumbersome procedures under which complaints regarding anti-competitive practices can be taken to the Restrictive Practices Commission are indeed lengthy and unwieldy. I hope that as a result of this Bill being introduced in the House progress can be made in the food industry. Like every other Member in this House, I would be satisfied if it was extended to cover other areas but the Government should acknowledge the difficulties facing that industry and have regard to the difficulties the rescue package, which has been widely acclaimed, will create. If they continue to support an individual who controls over 40 per cent of the beef and processing sector we will run into difficulties with the price to the producer and the consumer being affected.

Irish food firms will have to face up to fundamental requirements in the context of 1992 and they must be prepared to examine their performance in terms of price, quality, marketing and service. They will have to become more international either through the purchase of companies or through joint ventures and partnerships and undertake more research and development. Indeed, the Minister of State present in the House is very much aware of this. Having regard to the vast amount of money which will be made available by Europe under the national development plan we will have an opportunity to improve our marketing and processing facilities which at present are inadequate and will not allow food companies to meet the challenges which will face them from 1992 onwards. There is a need for greater co-ordination in the food industry to ensure that companies do not diversify at the expense of the taxpayer and displace other products being manufactured by other food companies in this country.

The time available to the Deputy is well nigh exhausted. Perhaps he would bring his speech to a close.

In conclusion, this is important legislation which will have far reaching implications for the beef industry, the producer and the consumer and I commend it to the House.

I wish to share my time with Deputies Clohessy, Roche and Dempsey.

Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

At the outset I wish to make the point that Deputy Hogan seems to be confused in his thinking——

Very confused.

——as he spoke in favour of the rescue package.

I did not. The Deputy is confused.

In introducing this Bill Deputy Barrett spoke against the rescue package. I am amazed that the Bill is still before the House as there is nothing to be gained politically from it. Indeed it was rushed before the House to gain a few Brownie points for the new leader——

He does not need them.

——but the sheen has now gone from that explosive start. It is about time the Deputies opposite got down to some real thinking and some real politics. According to Deputy Barrett, this is an emergency measure which bears all the hallmarks of knee jerk legislation.

The Deputy knows all about that.

To start off with, it carries an incorrect name as its contents are not in keeping with the title. Furthermore, it is restrictive legislation.

Deputy Barrett further stated that the rescue package was a bad one as far as the beef industry was concerned. However, I would contend that if the package was not accepted the industry would have gone to the floor. It has been claimed, since the Bill was introduced in the middle of December, that prices have improved. The question that needs to be asked therefore is what would have happened if there had been no rescue package.

The Deputy must not have attended a cattle mart lately.

Deputy Hogan should cease interrupting.

It is quite clear that prices would have fallen further as organisations such as the one being attacked by this Bill would not have been there to pay prices up front and to ensure that the farmers had a market.

One major flaw in the Bill is that it deals only with one aspect of agriculture, that is, the meat industry. No mention is made of the dairy industry, the fruit and vegetable business or bread. It is quite clear, as we have pointed out right throughout this debate, that this Bill was introduced with one aim in mind and that was to attack one person. We contend that there is a need for a Bill dealing with restrictive practices in many areas including the fruit, vegetable, dairy, banking, insurance and legal sectors. It would be far more sensible to deal with each of those areas in a comprehensive Bill rather than to introduce piecemeal legislation for purely political purposes. The members of the Fine Gael Front Bench have not bothered to come in to listen to this debate as they are aware there is nothing to be gained politically from it. What they should do now of course is withdraw the Bill and not call a vote on it as they would only be making fools of themselves in doing so.

During the years we have seen how large multi-national companies, which we do not have to name, have been able to control prices, tell suppliers that they would pay them so much and then six months later tell them that they wanted to change the price, usually downwards. As a result of such activity they have put thousands of people out of work which is what happened during the bread war of a few years ago. A new bread war looms on the horizon.

We have seen over the years that the reduction in prices at the farm gate is not passed on to the consumer. This must be examined and that can be done only in the context of a comprehensive Bill. The price of milk a year ago was £1.05p a gallon, it is now 85p. It took the best part of a year for any little reduction to percolate to the consumer and that happened only in the last couple of weeks.

The Bill is flawed. It is too restrictive. Its raison d'tre is infantile. A serious political party would withdraw it immediately.

When Deputy Sean Barrett introduced this legislation last December he made it clear that not only had the legislation been prepared in a few days, but it had been done to demonstrate fears about the possible consequences of the Goodman rescue package which was being considered by the High Court.

Throughout the Goodman controversy and particularly since the collapse of the group last summer, the Progressive Democrats, and the Minister, Deputy O'Malley, in particular, have worked to safeguard and protect the interests of the farming sector which was placed in such jeopardy. As soon as news of Goodman's difficulties emerged last summer the Minister moved in swiftly to introduce special legislation to ensure that the group would be able to continue trading during the peak cattle feeding season. If these actions had not been taken there would have been a major disaster throughout the beef sector which would have put countless farmers out of business.

It is important now that we learn from the lessons of last year and act to ensure proper development of the beef sector rather than desperately throwing our eggs into one basket and becoming totally dependent on the success or failure of any one operator. The Progressive Democrats have always been determined that neither the taxpayer nor the farmer would be left picking up the bill for the Goodman Group. Major companies in this country have collapsed before now and the taxpayer is still paying for some of those collapses. The taxpayer has reason to be grateful that he has not been forced to pay for this collapse. Equally we must ensure that the cost is not imposed on the farmers who were the real victims of the collapse last summer. Unfortunately, that prospect cannot be dismissed out of hand. The rescue package which has now been approved by the High Court and is awaiting the approval of the Department of Industry and Commerce is designed to refloat the Goodman Group and return them to profitability. That profitability must not be won at the expense of Irish farmers.

However, I do not believe this Bill is the correct way to protect the farmer. The key to protecting the farmer from any dangers of abuse or misuse of the dominant position of a player in the meat or any other sector is to have proper competition legislation in place which will regulate the conduct of players within the sector and will outlaw practices which would threaten producers or any other players in this industry. This Bill is only a hurried attempt to deal with the issue. It is not comprehensive. It includes possibly dangerous provisions that would at best add confusion to the whole area of competition policy. Even the title of the Bill and its specific aims are in conflict. The Bill is entitled "Competition in Food Processing Bill, 1990" but the definition of food in the Bill is very narrow and excludes whole areas that would normally be regarded as the food industry. Therefore, not only is this Bill legislating for only one sector of the economy, it is legislating for only one area within that sector. The Bill confuses the legitimate attempts to prevent monopolies endangering the industry with measures which would forever prevent the emergence of the type of large scale industries which are vital if Irish industry is to compete properly in post-1992 Europe.

The Bill limits a company to reaching 30 per cent of the market capacity. I presume this is done to prevent enterprises reaching such a scale that they might pose a threat to the rest of the sector. However, this risks throwing out the baby with the bath water. We should be legislating not against large industries but against bad industries. If we are to succeed in 1992 we will need good, large industries.

I appreciate that legitimate concerns led Fine Gael to introduce the Bill. However, that is not a good enough reason for accepting it. The Minister responsible, my party leader Deputy O'Malley, has demonstrated repeatedly his concern on this whole issue and his determination to ensure that the farmers do not become the losers in this mess. He is on the verge of introducing his own legislation in this area which will more than adequately address all the concerns raised. I think the House will agree that we would be better off waiting to deal with the matter on that occasion in the near future.

The debate on this Bill and many of the contributions have me a little at a loss. The Bill is entitled, "Competition in Food Processing Bill, 1990", yet many of the people who have contributed to this debate have been speaking specifically about an individual case, that of the Goodman Group, undoubtedly an important case and instructive as to what may happen when a large player begins to collapse or finds he has foolishly and imprudently over-extended himself, but it is not the purpose of the Bill. I agree with the Minister that the introduction of this Bill was nothing more or less than a cheap political shot.

Incorporating Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome into Irish law would be a very noble purpose indeed. Our present laws are, beyond a shadow of doubt, piecemeal and require reform. However, those of us who took time to listen to Deputy Barrett's contribution on this Bill on 18 December could with no difficulty discern a quite different purpose in his introduction of the Bill. His motivation was not noble; it was cheap, partisan, it was a waste of parliamentary time. When he introduced the Bill Deputy Barrett of Fine Gael attempted to put forward a view that the Bill would help us to move towards the incorporation into Irish law of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome. If that were the aim or, indeed, the effect of the Bill, then the Bill would have much to commend it, but the reality is different. This Bill is poorly focused, fundamentally flawed and ill conceived and in essence amounts to little more than a political jibe. If this is the best our main political Opposition party can do, it will be low in public esteem for a long time. The Bill is poorly focused.

It is political.

It is political. That is true, Deputy Hogan of course it is political. It is in response to the waste of parliamentary time you have indulged in.

Your record is——

My record can stand on a par with yours any time.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy Roche might address his remarks through the Chair and thereby avoid interruptions.

I will indeed. I am pleased that Deputy Hogan has taken the opportunity to point to my period as an official of the Department of Finance. Let me point out that while I was an official of the Department of Finance and the Department of Economic Planning and Development we achieved the highest rate of employment and growth in the history of this State.

The Taoiseach abolished that Department.

If I am to be blamed for something in that period I must surely also claim the credits. As I said, the Bill is poorly focused in that it applies to only one part of one sector of the economy, food processing as defined in the Bill. It takes no account of activities upstream or downstream from the processing area. The Bill and its proposers fail to explain why there should be control of any one sector of the community's operations and not of others.

Clearly, competition policy issues can and do arise in other areas as Deputy Ahern suggested a few moments ago. For example, they apply in the legal area, they apply to coal distribution and the collusion between bank and other financial institutions. While the Bill purports to apply to the food processing industry as a whole, it does not cover the entire industry. The Bill is fundamentally flawed within its terms of reference because of the laziness, if not incompetence, illustrated in its drafting.

From time to time spokespersons of the Fine Gael Party have belaboured us about the importance of definitional paragraphs in Bills. I absolve all those present in the Fine Gael Party of blame for this Bill — for which they should feel reasonably grateful — because neither Deputy Seán Barrett nor Deputy John Bruton, its author, is present. As has been pointed out already, rather than establish a working definition for food processing, the drafters of this Bill have borrowed a definition from the Finance Act, 1987. The Finance Act, 1987, has many things to commend it, but one thing it does not purport to do is to deal with the whole area of competition, nor does it deal with the definition of the food processing industry to the nth degree. It does neither of those things because that was not its purpose.

It is extraordinary, if the main Opposition Party support that this Bill be a fundamental piece of legislation dealing with the food processing industry, they did not actually take the time to define the term "food processing industry". As a result the Bill appears to omit activities such as liquid milk processing, packaging and retail sales, just to mention some specific areas that could be defined as being encompassed within food processing. It is far from clear whether that is intentional. It may be that there is an intention on the part of the drafters of the Bill to exclude those specific activities but the motive for such exclusion is not at all clear. Perhaps when somebody in the Fine Gael Party who is well briefed on the issue, speaks later this evening they will tell us why they have excluded those things. The rationale, if rationale be the correct word, for the exclusion of two or three important sectors of food processing has not been explained at all.

Assuming, for charity sake, that the Bill's drafters intend the Bill not to deal with the food processing industry, as it states, but rather to deal with a part of that industry, we are left with another conundrum, another set of totally unanswered questions. Those questions will remain unanswered because my belief is that, throughout the debate, the party who proposed this Bill have not spoken about the Bill but rather about another issue. I accept that while that is an important issue, it is not supposed to be the basis of this Bill.

Deputy Roche must not have been here.

I was and I read Deputy Seán Barrett's contribution in great detail. I would have to say this: it is quite extraordinary because very seldom have I come across a Second Stage speech that actually did not deal with the Bill under consideration. But the drafters of this Bill, Fine Gael, to date and here again this evening, do not tell us why they focus on one link in the chain or, more precisely, why they focus on one part of one link in the whole chain.

The Bill, as drafted, deals with the processors of some commodities but ignores the part played by primary producers. It ignores the part played by importers of raw materials who would certainly have something to do with the food processing industry. It ignores the part played by commodity dealers, wholesalers, distributors and retailers and it ignores any number of middlemen who intervene in the process of producing or converting food from its raw material state to placing it on the table of the consumer.

If this Bill was a comprehensive piece of legislation dealing with an important industry it would deal with that industry in a comprehensive way. It does not; it is flawed at least in that regard. There may be some logical reason for that. It may be that legislators elsewhere who have grappled with the complex issue of competition policy have been deficient. For example, it may be that Deputy Seán Barrett is more enlightened than the legislators of the United States who have dealt with competition policy for a long time, or it may be that there resides in his dome temple a greater degree of knowledge than those people who drafted the Treaty of Rome, those people who operate within the EC Directorate who handle competition policy or all of those people who occupy the benches of the European Court of Justice. With all due respect to Deputy Seán Barrett, he is a man whose energies, wit and debating energies I admire but I do not think that, by any stretch of the imagination, his wildest fans — and there are a couple present — could actually suggest that he is more au fait with the issue of competition policy than the people who occupy the Directorate dealing with competition policy, the people who drafted the Treaty of Rome, those who deal with competition policy in the European Court of Justice or indeed the people who dealt with competition policy in the United States for the past 30 or 40 years.

The reality is that competition policy is a very complex area. The other unassailable and indisputable reality is that competition policy cannot be dealt with on a piecemeal basis. It is not an area dealt with in any country on a sectoral basis; it is not one which is dealt with in any country on an industry basis. There are a number of Fine Gael Members present and if some of them speak on this Bill later I would challenge them to give the House one example of any OECD member state, any European nation, any nation worldwide, that handles competition policy on a piecemeal basis or on the basis of dealing with part of one sector or a part of one industry. That is a fundamentally wrong-headed way to deal with a complicated issue. Competition policy is dealt with on a broad, global basis, not just in Europe but in any other nation one cares to mention.

The third fundamental flaw in this Bill is that on an apparently arbitrary basis, it places, without any explanation a 30 per cent limit on the growth of any company within the beef or dairying industry. Setting aside the observation that food processing goes beyond beef or dairying, the limiting of any company, or group of companies, to an artifical and arbitrary share of production capacity of 30 per cent has no justification whatsoever. Indeed, no justification has been produced by a single Member of the Fine Gael Party who has contributed to this debate.

Focusing on production capacity takes no account of imports or exports. It also ignores the fact that an Irish company, or group of companies, might well have to grow beyond the 30 per cent limit in order to become a significant player in the European market of 1993 and beyond. That is an indisputable fact. There are many sectors within the food processing industry in which, if an Irish company is to grow, prosper, become profitable and give employment, inevitably must grow beyond 30 per cent of the domestic market capacity. I might give a couple of examples. One could imagine circumstances in which a company operating a niche market strategy could exceed more than 30 per cent of its market share. There are many small operators who operate efficiently who can be seen, within a niche market strategy position, to go beyond 30 per cent of the market. For example, if a craft cheese processor decides to specialise in, say, cheese produced from sheep milk — and there are a couple in County Wicklow — it could be that such a producer would account for 100 per cent of such processing.

Yes, that is where the vitality comes from. On the face of it, that type of operation could find itself in difficulties. In fact this Bill would actually criminalise such an operator; that is the extraordinary thing about this Bill. Even if an operator was not breaking the law, doing no harm to the common good, this Bill would criminalise him simply because he wanted to do, what successive generations of politicans and Ministers have encouraged him to do, which is go out, grow and become significant in the European market.

Another problem arises when a company, or group of companies, could find themselves exceeding the 30 per cent level without taking any action on their own behalf. For example, if there were a number of small operators operating in a part of a market and if, say two, three or even one operator withdrew, it is conceivable that a processor could find himself with 30 per cent of the market. What would such a processor do in those circumstances? Would he or she go knocking on the doors of all the neighbouring competitive firms and say: please come in and compete with us because somebody up in Dáil Éireann was silly enough to enact what is fundamentally a stupid Bill?

It should be clear to anybody — and it is clear to the Fine Gael Party — that the way forward in terms of regulating competition is to follow the line set out in the Treaty of Rome and introduce measures applicable globally. The Programme for Government contains a commitment to the introduction of legislation which will apply the principles of Articles 85 and 86 to domestic trade. That would be comprehensive legislation as distinct from the piecemeal approach adopted under current legislation and would be comprehensive as opposed to the piecemeal approach put forward in this Bill. This Bill has very little to recommend it and on that basis it should be rejected by the House.

This legislation is probably the best example of the worst kind of legislation that comes before the House. It appears to be a knee-jerk reaction to an immediate problem. It was prompted by the high profile nature of the problem when it was introduced in early December and by the desire of Deputy Bruton who introduced it, to generate the maximum publicity. It was a cynical exercise as pointed out by a number of speakers on the Government side and nobody has been fooled by it.

I listened to Deputy Hogan's contribution and curiously enough, I thought at one stage that he was making the best case against the legislation that I have heard, except for Deputy Roche's recent contribution.

That is gospel.

The Deputy mentioned that Irish industry generally and the food sector in particular is facing major challenges and that the food industry must be prepared to meet those challenges. The Deputy pointed out that we are not yet prepared to meet the challenges and that we have a long way to go to meet the challenge of the integrated market. The Deputy mentioned that the food industry specifically should be lean, fit and efficient. However, the legislation proposed by his party would have the opposite effect. The basic philosophy underlying the legislation is that big is bad. The ludicrous situation in which we would find ourselves if this ceiling of 30 per cent of the market share were to be adopted by the House was well and truly underlined by Deputy Roche so I will not go over that again. This is foolish and ludicrous legislation.

One of the problems we have had in this area over the last 20 or 30 years, also referred to by Deputy Hogan, relates to willy-nilly legislation. This legislation is another sort of stop gap measure, a particularly bad example of willy-nilly legislation, one that would cause major problems if implemented. The faults in the legislation were pointed out by previous speakers. It applies only to part of one sector of the food industry. If Fine Gael were worried about this sector they would have gone to a little more trouble in preparing the legislation. They would have at least gone to the trouble of defining the food processing sector rather than drawing on the limited definition contained in the Finance Act. What we need in this area is comprehensive legislation that will cover competition in general. It need not be very complicated. Our basic philosophy should be to try to eliminate any practice that would be seen to be anti-competitive, rather than adopting this legislation which only refers to particular parts of the industry.

Gabh mo leithscéal, tá an t-am beagnach istigh.

The main Opposition party have always made great play about being committed to the EC and the Single Market and to adopting practices favourable to that process of integration in Europe. The legislation before us flies in the face of that and for that reason it should be rejected.

I wish, with the permission of the Chair, to share my time with Deputies Reynolds, Creed and Bradford.

I am sure the House would be reluctant to reject that request made by Deputy Sheehan. Is the suggestion agreed? Agreed.

Listening to the speakers on the other side one would think that everything was rosy in food production. They are as far removed from food production as they ever were. They do not realise how serious are the implications for this sector. Hundreds of millions of pounds worth of food is imported every year although we have one of the best food producing climates in the world. We have a clean atmosphere, good soil and an ideal climate. We could actually be the kitchen garden of Europe if the food industry were handled properly. For too long it has been neglected and treated as the Cinderella section of the Department of Agriculture and Food.

We have a Minister of State in my constituency with responsibility for food. The Minister of State is completely muzzled because he has no input at the Cabinet table. If the Taoiseach was genuine in his approach to the food industry he would have made that portfolio a Cabinet post or he would have given the Deputy in question a say at the Cabinet table to ensure that something would be done for this valuable industry. This only shows what the Taoiseach thinks of the food industry. Even as late as 24 hours ago the Taoiseach failed to recognise the importance of this industry and did not give a seat at the Cabinet table to the Minister of State with responsibility for Food, so that he could bring anomalies to the attention of the Cabinet.

I cannot agree that cartels and monopolies are the right approach to the food industry. They are a menace to the small processor and the small exporter. Cartels and monopolies are squeezing out the small producer and the small exporter. On the continent, particularly in Holland and Germany, the small producer is playing a vital role in the economy because he has the right to survive due to proper planning for the food industry.

The Taoiseach and the junior Minister for Food were loud in their praise of the Goodman Group during a television programme early in 1990. They portrayed this group and its Chairman, Larry Goodman, as the be-all and end-all of the beef and dairy industry. A short time afterwards the scene changed dramatically. The all-powerful tycoon foundered and the banks rallied quickly to bail him out. Would the banks rally so quickly to bail out the countless thousands of Irish farmers who are on the verge of bankruptcy because there is no policy for food production on the part of the Minister for Agriculture and Food? Are Deputies opposite aware that the banks' deal to rescue the Goodman cartel will be paid back to the banks, not by the Government or by the Minister for Agriculture and food but by every individual farmer? They are the people who will have to foot the bill and they should be in a position to call the tune. Unfortunately they are not.

I have grave reservations about this Government. They seem to be naive and uncaring. They do not even think about the farmers. All they understand are monopolies and cartels and creating exorbitant monsters of industry which founder when they get into difficulties and bring down with them countless other small industries. Surely the Taoiseach and his Ministers must see the danger of putting all their eggs in one basket. Monopolies and cartels are a menace and I reckon they are a cancer in any industry. Opposition is the spice of life and if we have no opposition in the food industry we will not have a viable industry.

I was at Bandon mart on Monday last where cattle were being sold at give away prices. The future of agriculture is very grim. The morale of farmers was never lower. They do not know whether to buy cattle, since there could be a further collapse in prices. Should they have a chance and let the land or do something other than stocking it? They are afraid to borrow money from the banks to buy stock in case the bank manager will have to send the county sheriff to collect any decrees against them. Where was the sheriff when this huge monopoly was being bailed out? Every facility was offered in that case.

What is wrong with the co-operative movement? The co-operative movement was an asset, bringing the first breath of fresh air to Irish agriculture. Co-operatives were responsible for the first bit of prosperity in that industry. They are now being stifled and bought out. A helicopter flew all over the country to meetings of shareholders, telling them they would never again see a poor day if they joined this group.

In my constituency Erin Foods, more than a decade and a half ago, gained a monopoly of food processing and closed the best factory in west Cork, the Fastnet co-operative. The short sightedness of the directors of that company brought about the downfall and closure of that plant because of their reluctance to change from dehydration production to fresh and frozen production. That was the kernel of the problem. They were producing a product that was not saleable in any part of Europe or the world. Had they changed their method of processing to fresh and frozen production the factory would still be in operation, giving employment to hundreds of people in my constituency. Erin Foods withdrew their support and the factory was closed. That was the end of food production in west Cork.

I am reluctant to interrupt you, but so that you may continue to enjoy your popularity in your own party I suggest that your nominated retinue of young people are getting a bit restless.

There is an old saying that the truth is bitter. It will be bitter to those opposite. With the depressed cattle prices, falling prices for dairy produce and uncertainty in the farming industry it is evident that this Government have completely lost confidence in that industry.

I wish to share my time with Deputy McGahon. I thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, for referring to us as young gentlemen. I support everything my colleague, Deputy Sheehan, has said. Fianna Fáil have criticised this Bill and criticised us as a party for bringing it into the House. This legislation is necessary. When people say something negative they should try to be constructive as well. The Government have failed to do so since the Bill's introduction. I heard Deputy Roche giving absolution to members of Fine Gael. It might be more appropriate for Deputy Roche to give absolution to members of his own party, especially in the higher echelons.

This Bill has been introduced by Fine Gael to stop the near total collapse of the agriculture and food industry, which was threatened with the collapse of the Goodman group. The Fianna Fáil Government of 1987 gave a commitment to one individual to run our food industry. The economic folly of allowing a monopoly to develop in an industry with such potential can only be described as political expediency. At the time of this announcement the beef industry had 60 per cent surplus killing capacity and the Government were proposing to invest an extra £250 million into the beef industry. Many people remember that Ministers were rounded up and brought to the Press conference to hear the Taoiseach make his announcement regarding the investment of £250 million. We were told this would create major employment in the economy and be the saviour of a very depressed agriculture sector. I have no doubt that this investment was a means of building up the Goodman company's credibility with international bankers. We saw what happened afterwards.

Fianna Fáil committed taxpayers' money to fund a company whose only desire at the time was to amass a fortune for themselves. I would have no objection to this if every company or person in the same industry were given an equal opportunity. This did not happen and, unfortunately, a lot of damage was inflicted on the image of our food industry abroad.

This Bill would put the onus on companies to market their goods abroad rather than tying up their financial resources in acquiring similar companies within the State. If the type of aggressive marketing that was used within the State some years ago regarding takeover bids was put into acquiring new markets internationally, not alone would the food industry have prospered but there would have been growth in our economy.

The proposals in this Bill which do not allow any company or group of companies to control more than 30 per cent of the total processing capacity in either the beef or dairy processing sectors would cut out any likelihood of near total collapse of an industry within the State. It would also encourage greater competition in the industry and companies involved would be more determined to open up new markets abroad so that the whole food processing industry would flourish and, more important, the producers would be protected. When the Goodman group collapsed it was the producers who were most vulnerable. With the introduction of this Bill I have no doubt this would not occur.

We should also remember the unique potential of the food and dairy processing industries in Ireland. Throughout the world Ireland is seen as a country with a pollution free environment and this image should be enhanced and used to our advantage. I wish to take this opportunity to condemn the use of illegal hormones in the Irish beef industry today. The continuous use of illegal hormones will only lead to the deterioration of our food and agricultural industry.

With the GATT proposals it is now obvious that intervention is no longer a soft option for markets and producers. Fine Gael believe that the opening up of new markets or increasing existing markets is the only way to develop an export based competitive food industry. The emergence of the Single Market in 1993 indicates that Ireland needs special incentives as we are the only island on the periphery of the European Community. With the extra transport costs that our exporters will come up against, it is imperative, if we wish our food industry to grow, that exporters are given special initiatives and incentives. I call on the Government to give grant assistance to companies who are willing to increase their sales in markets they have already established and who will open up markets.

This Bill may not have all the solutions but I urge the Government to accept its Second Stage reading, as legislation is urgently required to deal with competition within industries.

I did not intend to speak on this Bill and while I am not insensitive to the general tone of the Bill which is to curb monopolies, as a Dundalk man I want to dissociate myself from some of the comments expressed from my side of the House but, more particularly, those from the looney left section of the Labour Party and The Workers' Party last evening.

The attacks on Larry Goodman have been without precedent in this House. In the 70 years that we have had a Dáil I do not think any man has been pilloried to the extent that Larry Goodman has. I am not a psychiatrist and I cannot really explain why begrudgery is alive here but I fail to understand why Larry Goodman has been subjected to such personal abuse, initially by former Deputy Barry Desmond, carried on by Deputy Dick Spring and latterly by the various ranks of the people I like to call the looney left. Larry Goodman is the biggest employer here, giving employment to 2,600 people. His success has been phenomenal. He is the biggest achiever here in my lifetime and is the biggest achiever in the beef industry in the world. We need more people like Larry Goodman and, indeed, the begrudgery that is very evident in every contribution from the left is just simmering below the surface. If Michael Smurfit or Tony O'Reilly some day get into trouble, these same people will be crawling out of the woodwork to criticise them.

The Labour Party and The Workers' Party never created employment. We need more people like Larry Goodman. The fact that he got into trouble due to a combination of circumstances, heavily influenced by the Gulf War, should be of concern to us all. Larry Goodman rose from nothing. He went out and sourced markets in unheard of and undreamt of places in the world and he sold cattle, and Irish farmers benefited enormously. Most of the farmers now continue to support him and Larry Goodman will rise again. In the thirties Frank Sinatra was chased out of Hollywood and he came back to go right to the top. In the thirties and forties Charlie Chaplin was chased out of America and he came back to win an Oscar. Larry Goodman is the best thing that ever happened to Irish industry and just because he is down I certainly will not kick him or do him any injury. As a Dundalk man I am proud of the success Larry Goodman has achieved here and in the world, and I believe Larry will rise again to the top. It is in the interest of Irish agriculture that he continue to be at the helm.

I would like to thank my colleagues for sharing their time with me. I have but a few points to make with regard to the Bill. Listening to the contributions from the other side of the House, one has to conclude that the criticisms of the Bill are faint indeed. They criticised it because they said it was not all encompassing and did not go far enough. We have never claimed that the Bill is absolutely what is required but we believe it could be the blueprint for the final document which would ensure that competitiveness is maintained in the food industry. The fact that Fianna Fáil will troop into the House to oppose this Bill purely for party political reasons rather than for logical reasons signals the sort of reactionary politics we have become accustomed to and an end to the concensus type politics that the House should engage in more often.

We have never denied that the Goodman affair was the stimulus for the Bill. When a player becomes too big in an industry and is capable of controlling the market to the detriment of other competitors and producers then we must learn lessons from that. Deputy Dempsey seemed to suggest that the ethos on this side of the House is that big is bad. That is not so but one has to conclude from the contributions from the other side of the House, and their reactionary defence of Larry Goodman that their ethos is that bad is beautiful.

Given the expected outcome of the vote on the Bill we must ask what we have achieved by introducing it. From what Deputy Clohessy told us, we can take some credit. If this Bill was allowed to go to Committee Stage it could form the basis of a more comprehensive Bill. We at least can claim credit on this side of the House for speeding up the introduction of such a Bill.

I now call Deputy Paul Bradford. The Deputy must give way at 8.15 p.m.

I am aware that my time is very brief. However, initially I have to remark on what I can sadly describe as the very dismissive and arrogant performance of the Fianna Fáil speakers tonight and the performance of the Minister of State, Deputy Leyden, when he responded to the Bill last night. It was a sharp reminder that the Fianna Fáil tradition still appears to be that they strongly believe they should have a monopoly on legislation. They seem totally incapable of believing that anyone bar themselves can bring forward any constructive legislation in this House. That is a negative attitude. When one looks at the contribution of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy O'Malley, to the debate before Christmas one certainly has to think of the possibility that he has returned to the ethos of Fianna Fáil. While it was very pleasing to hear Deputy Clohessy from the Progressive Democrats giving some praise to the Fine Gael Party for bringing this legislation before the House, Deputy O'Malley was exceptionally dismissive when he spoke on the legislation.

When Deputy Barrett introduced this Bill he made it plain that as far as we were concerned this was not the be-all and end-all of competition law. It was but a small step but certainly a step in the right direction. If the Bill is allowed to move on to Committee Stage by the House and if the Progressive Democrats are as brave as they have always claimed to be, if they believe in open politics, and if they believe that Dail Éireann is a Chamber where legislation is brought forward, discussed and developed we could sort out the difficulties that still remain and make the necessary corrections on Committee Stage. The Minister, Deputy O'Malley, has been very active over the past 12 months in amending the Companies Bill and he could do the very same with this Bill, making the changes where he feels they are necessary.

The other point which came across strongly was that Fianna Fáil members saw this Bill as nothing but a bash Larry Goodman campaign. I think they are very wrong in that respect. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned we hold no personal grudge against Mr. Larry Goodman. Many of us come from areas of rural Ireland where Mr. Goodman's name was held in high regard for many years. Many members of the farming community had confidence in him and in his beef enterprise, but I am afraid that Mr. Goodman's Fianna Fáil associates have almost killed him by the kindness they have demonstrated towards him, and many of the debts he has incurred would not have arisen if the sort of legislation being brought forward by Deputy Bruton had been introduced a number of years ago. When a business gets too big and gets out of control the directors and management of the company can forget there are limits and if they are unable to sort out their difficulties, the banks will sort them out for them. That is the tragedy of the situation. This scenario would not have occurred if proper competition law had been in place. To those who say we are part of the bash Goodman campaign, the bash farming campaign or the bash business campaign, I would say that the legislation being proposed by the Fine Gael Party is the type of legislation urgently needed in order to ensure that competition and business will thrive and that producers and consumers can advance together.

This is the fourth attempt in the past three years to introduce competition legislation to implement in Irish law Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome. The first attempt was in the form of an amendment proposed by Fine Gael to the Restrictive Practices Bill introduced by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Albert Reynolds. At that time we proposed a comprehensive amendment which would have incorporated these two Articles of the Treaty of Rome which banned outright unfair practices, unfair trading right across all commercial sectors and made them a criminal offence. We proposed that as an amendment to the Restrictive Practices Bill then before the House. At that time, the Minister for Industry and Commerce was not disposed to accept the amendment but he agreed to ask the Fair Trade Commission to prepare a report setting out the case for the implementation of such an outright ban.

Subsequently, in 1988, the Progressive Democrats who were then, if I may remind the House, a party in Opposition produced a Bill of their own doing precisely the same thing that the Fine Gael amendment had sought to do. I think it was called the competition Bill. Fine Gael supported that Bill which was proposed by their spokesperson, the former Deputy Martin Cullen, and voted for by Deputy Des O'Malley, who is now the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Fianna Fáil objected to it and it was not passed. Subsequent to that, Fine Gael introduced a comprehensive economic development Bill one of the sections of which was a proposal again to implement a comprehensive ban on unfair practices. Again, Fine Gael voted for the Bill and the Progressive Democrats supported it.

There are, therefore, on record already three draft proposals to ban unfair practices, all of which have been supported in the past by the Progressive Democrats, whose leader now occupies the position of Minister for Industry and Commerce. In fact one of the Bills was actually drafted by his party. However, now he is 18 months in office as Minister for Industry and Commerce and is committed to a Programme for Government which specifically provides for the enacting of this type of legislation. He is the Minister responsible within the Cabinet for introducing the legislation but he has not introduced it. He is asking the House to vote against a proposal which is exactly the same as the proposal his party made when in Opposition two years ago, and which his party supported on three occasions in this House when it was introduced either by his own party or by our party. He supported it in Opposition but now as a member of Government he is asking the House to vote against the very proposals that he supported.

That is Deputy Des O'Malley, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the man who wishes to break moulds in Irish politics. It certainly can be said that he is breaking the moulds of consistency as regards maintaining some connection between one's words and one's deeds. I am very disappointed at his attitude. Indeed the attitude of the Minister for Industry and Commerce in replying to this Bill was marked by pettiness and scathing comments which suggested indeed that he was in a particularly weak position which required a defence of that distractive kind.

The Bill is confined to the food sector because previous attempts to introduce Bills of a more general nature have not been successful. There was also a particular problem arising in regard to the dominant position supported by the banks which might arise in the food sector as a result of the Goodman rescue package, and we felt that while the legislation was urgent in general terms it was particularly urgent in regard to the food sector because of the prospects of that package being brought into being. That is the reason the Bill is confined to the food processing sector but its confinement to the food processing sector in no way takes from the case for having such legislation right across all sectors.

I should like to say something about the actual provisions in the Bill. The Bill proposes to make it a criminal offence, punishable by a fine of up to £100,000 or six months in prison, for any group of enterprises in any food processing sector to get together to agree to fix the price they will pay for certain goods; in other words, to ensure that somebody who is selling something gets less than their value is worth because all those who might buy those goods have got together and said: we will not compete, we will not pay more than a certain figure. Something which can and probably does happen quite frequently under this legislation would become a criminal offence; in other words the small businessman, the small enterprise would be protected against the large enterprise under this Bill. We also propose to make it a criminal offence for people in the food sector to get together and say, for example, "we will look after this section of the market and, we promise we will buy milk only in Counties Cavan, Monaghan and Louth as long as you agree only to buy milk in Counties Kildare, Wicklow and Dublin". The farmers, or the suppliers in that area, would not have competition because there would be a market sharing arrangement, an arrangement where people would not get a fair price for their goods because the deck had been stacked in advance. That happens frequently at present but under this legislation it would become a criminal offence.

Likewise, this Bill proposes to make it a criminal offence for people to apply dissimilar terms and conditions to equivalent transactions. For example, a group of large businesses may decide to put a particular person out of business and they all agree not to pay him the same price for what he is producing as they will pay his competitors, in other words, they set out in a discriminatory fashion to cut off the lifeblood of that particular business. To use the terms of the Bill they will apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions, an inherently unfair anti-competitive and discriminatory practice. That practice would be banned under this Fine Gael Bill in the food sector.

We would also propose to make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by other parties of supplementary obligations, which by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts; in other words, to force people to make concessions in one area which has no relationship to the matter in which they are dealing with a business person at present, in order to get the business.

We have seen examples in the supermarket area where people are required to contribute towards the cost of advertising in order to get space on the shelves. That is unfair and it is something that will be banned under this legislation.

It may be said that this legislation would be costly to implement, that the Department of Industry and Commerce would have to recruit large numbers of civil servants to go around checking on whether particular companies had engaged in any of these practices which would be the subject of criminal sanctions under this legislation. The Fine Gael Party have thought of that problem and have provided an answer. We have said that any breach of any of the principles set out in this Bill would not be just a criminal offence but would also be a civil wrong. Any businessman or consumer who felt they were the victim of a price fixing arrangement, a market sharing arrangement, an arrangement to apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions or an arrangement to make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance of supplementary obligations, would be entitled, under this legislation to sue in the courts, privately, the people who were committing that wrong against them and to get damages. Individuals who felt they were being attacked in an unfair fashion could take civil proceedings to have that stopped. The legislation would become effectively self-policing and self-enforcing because it would be capable of being enforced by civil proceedings as well as by criminal proceedings. It is likely that the Minister and the Department of Industry and Commerce would not have to intervene in the overwhelming majority of cases because there would be more than adequate protection available, through the civil courts, where people could take action to defend their rights under this legislation.

As I said, the Progressive Democrats introduced legislation, almost word for word the same as this, in 1988. They insisted that legislation along these lines be included in the Programme for Government more than 18 months ago. They obtained two Ministries in the present Government where statistics would only have entitled them to one. One of the Ministries they obtained was the very Ministry responsible for the introduction of this legislation — legislation which they, in Opposition, were able to draft three years ago and which they, in Opposition, supported the three times it was introduced in this House first, by themselves and subsequently by the Fine Gael Party. They have now been in charge of the Department responsible for this legislation for 18 months. Their leader the Minister personally responsible for this legislation, has issued press statements and made speeches on any occasion to which he is invited, repeating time and again, his resolute intention, his determined intention, his vigorous intention, not to speak of his aggresive intention, to introduce legislation along these lines but he has not introduced it. He has failed to introduce it. His sermons have not been matched by his deeds. It is the height of hypocrisy that the Minister for Industry and Commerce should have come in here to oppose legislation which he had proposed three years ago when he was in Opposition. The only reason he could give for his opposition was that he would produce his legislation immediately — that was last December, but it has not been produced yet. We were assured it would be produced before the Dáil reassembled after Christmas. It has not been produced.

I believe we have, in this case, an example of inefficiency by a Minister of few comparisons in recent legislative history. We have had repeated promises — in Opposition and in Government — and no performance. Ultimately, Ministers are not paid to make speeches, they are not paid to make promises, they are paid to deliver. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has failed the test of delivery in the case of legislation to ban anti-competitive practices in the Irish food sector or in any sector of the Irish economy. It is for that reason we in Fine Gael believe this Bill should be passed by the House. It is legislation which the Government, and particularly the Minister concerned, have proven themselves incapable of implementing.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 74.

  • Ahearn, Therese.
  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Belton, Louis J.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connor, John.
  • Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Doyle, Joe.
  • Dukes, Alan.
  • Durkan, Bernard.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • Farrelly, John V.
  • Fennell, Nuala.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Finucane, Michael.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Gregory, Tony.
  • Harte, Paddy.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Lee, Pat.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Gerry.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheehan, Patrick J.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Brady, Gerard.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Brennan, Mattie.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Clohessy, Peadar.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lyons, Denis.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McDaid, Jim.
  • McEllistrim, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Noonan, Michael J.
  • (Limerick West).
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • Cullimore, Séamus.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
  • Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Charles J.
  • Hilliard, Colm.
  • Hyland, Liam.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kelly, Laurence.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Malley, Desmond J.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • O'Toole, Martin Joe.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Stafford, John.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Flanagan and Boylan; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy.
Question declared lost.
Top
Share