I strongly supported the points made by Deputy Gilmore and Deputy Keogh before we adjourned at 1.30 p.m. This Bill divides the greater Dublin area into three new county councils but it also dissolves the borough council of Dún Laoghaire. The whole concept of a borough will be superfluous from now on. It is disappointing that the views expressed on Second and Committee Stages, were not taken on board by the Minister. It reflects our handicap in the House when the Cabinet Minister responsible for the Environment is not with us today. This is no reflection on the Minister of State, who is merely substituting and riding to instructions. As we all said, and it bears reiterating, no matter how good or cogent a case is put from the Opposition the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Browne, does not have the authority to accept our amendments — or even their substance — and refer them to the Seanad for change. It makes the exercise of democracy futile if we do not have the Minister with the responsibility and the authority here to accept——
Local Government (Dublin) Bill, 1993: Report and Final Stages (Resumed).
I suggest that the Deputy address the amendments. That point has been made at some length during periods when I was in the Chair during the past 24 hours.
It is a mark of the disappointment of all Members on this side of the House with the way the Government treated the amendments put down in good faith — reflecting views of deputations to the Minister over a long period——
The point has been adequately made.
——across the party divide.
I ask the Deputy to address the amendments.
This amendment, with the others, is destined for the dustbin. The sound logic and good sense of members of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown Council— Deputy Gilmore and Deputy Keogh — are ignored and treated with disdain because the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, does not have the authority, no matter how well the amendment is put and no matter what sense it makes, to accept it. I am again asking him to make a stand and to make a name for himself in terms of the Local Government (Dublin) Bill and accept the amendment. I will not reiterate the argument and the facts discussed before lunch but we feel very strongly about the concept of a borough being dissolved and extending to the new council area the functions that were part of the borough's functions up to the date of dissolution. If that does not make good sense little will. I ask him to accept the amendment.
Wexford): Before lunch we had a lengthy debate on the question of school attendance. The first point I make is that the matter has already been taken up with the Department of Education, the responsible Department, which is currently reviewing the arrangements for the operation of this service. Second, I am having an amendment to section 39 circulated which will provide a ready mechanism for the Minister for Education to apply the borough arrangements throughout Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown and the three new counties. This should meet the concerns expressed. I am sure the Department of Education will give the matter urgent attention. As a former Minister of State, Deputy Doyle will understand, because of the cost implications and the fact that payment for school attendance is the responsibility of the Department of Education, I am not in a position to include any of the amendments put forward from the opposite side of the House. However, the amendment to section 39 will make it possible for the Minister for Education to apply the borough arrangements throughout the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown council and the three new counties. The Minister for Education represents that constituency and is aware of the concerns raised today. Deputy Doyle lived in that constituency formerly and I am sure she will put pressure on the Minister for Education to put into effect what I am now providing for in this Bill. That is as far as I can go. I am willing to go part of the way towards meeting the concerns of Deputies but, because of the cost implications and the involvement of another Minister, I cannot stitch into the Bill any of the amendments tabled.
I have seen some sneaky buck-passing by Government Ministers but this amendment beats all.
Hospital pass.
The section we are debating deals with the establishment of a school attendance committee and allows for the entire county area to have school attendance committees in the normal way. That is a matter for local government and this is a local government Bill. When replying on Committee Stage the Minister appeared to be attempting to drop the Minister for Education in the mire when he seemed to be suggesting that he would be quite happy to go along with our amendment but that the Minister for Education was conducting a review of the School Attendance Acts. Indeed, we have heard about this review for a long time. In fact, the position is that the State is in breach of the School Attendance Act, 1926 because it does not have a sufficient number of school attendance officers in Dún Laoghaire. A proposal that went more than 12 months ago to the Department of Education from Dún Laoghaire Corporation asking that it provide school attendance officers has not yet been sanctioned.
I do not have any great confidence that an amendment stating that regulations will be made under subsection (2) (a) in respect of the School Attendance Acts, 1926 to 1967 will amount to anything. It is interesting to note the ease with which — it is not my purpose to offer a defence for the Minister for Education — the Minister for the Environment attempted to slip the buck back so nastily in this case. This is local government legislation and it should be provided for in this Bill. We want to have a right as an entire county council to appoint a school attendance committee and we want the concept of the borough — which we have moved away from at local level — terminated. We do not want to see it continue in legislative form, as proposed in this Bill.
We have had a long discussion on this matter both on Committee and Report Stages. It is a very interesting test of the Government's real commitment to the idea of local democracy and devolving powers to local government. This Government is great at devolving powers to local government when there are bits and pieces of irritating administration which the Minister wishes to pass back to local authorities but without providing them with adequate finance. That is this Government's version of devolving power to local authorities. When the Minister does not want to make a decision, as he did not want to make a decision in the Chamber last night on the simple question of the name for the local authorities, he can say he will let the local authority members decide.
When the Minister wants to duck out of the high-minded statements he made last July on the review of the County Dublin development plan he can issue a response, as he did in a reply to a parliamentary question last week to me to the effect he would not want to interfere in decision-making at local level by the members. That is fine but the members of the local authority are asking the Minister to have a school attendance committee to cover the entire county area instead of half of it. They want the School Attendance Acts to apply across the entire county instead of a part of it or make the reasonable case, as we have done here, that there is no justification for boxing it off at Dún Laoghaire/Rathdown and that it should apply to every child so that no child in County Dublin should be treated less favourably than another child simply because of where they live. The absurdity is that a child of a couple who have been housed out of the inner city in a corporation house located in the county area would get a school meal if he or she was still living in the inner city but not where he or she is presently housed. This is discrimination against children. It is a disgraceful way for the Government to behave.
I regret that we have to divide on this issue. Certainly it was my hope that on Report Stage we would have a degree of response from the Minister so that we would not have to divide. I regret that on a number of occasions on Report Stage of a Bill which should not be controversial we have had to divide because of the Government's attitude.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- McDowell, Derek.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Penrose, William.
- Power, Seán.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Upton, Pat.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Currie, Austin.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harney, Mary.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Keogh, Helen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell Jim.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael
- (Limerick East).
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 19, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:
"(2) Each new council shall become and be a school attendance area for the purposes of the School Attendance Acts, 1926 to 1967, and there shall accordingly be a school attendance committee for each area.".
Tá
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harney, Mary.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael
- (Limerick East).
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hillard, Colm M.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- McDowell, Derek.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Morley, P. J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Penrose, William.
- Power, Seán.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Upton, Pat.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Woods, Michael.
We now come to amendment No. 27 in the name of Deputy Sargent. I observe that amendment No. 28 is an alternative and I suggest, therefore, that we discuss amendments Nos. 27 and 28 together. Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 21, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
"(a) to co-operate in regular joint meetings of elected representatives and officials from the respective local authorities in the metropolitan as shall be called by request from one or more of the Dublin local authorities,".
Failtím roimh an leasú atá curtha ag an Aire Comhshaoil atá ag teacht díreach i ndiaidh mo leasú. Ag an ám céanna, áfách, ba bhreá liom cúpla ceist a chur maidir leis an bun smaoineamh atá taobh thiar den dá leasú ach go mór-mhór maidir leis an ceann im' ainm-sa.
I wish to refer in particular to the Minister's amendment which relates to the holding of joint meetings of members of the new authorities in County Dublin. Provision is to be made for this in the legislation dealing with regional government which is still an unknown quantity but I hope not for long. As we will have to depend on this legislation in the intervening period it is important to clarify the matter now.
The Minister's amendment states that local authorities may hold such joint meetings of members of the authorities as may be necessary for the purposes of this section. Being reasonable people the chances are that the Minister and I will agree on this matter but we should bear in mind that a local authority comprises a wide diversity of people and that various authorities may not agree it is necessary to hold a meeting.
Whereas the words "as shall be called by request from one or more of the Dublin local authorities" are used in my amendment can the Minister say who will decide that it is necessary to hold a meeting? Will a number of county councillors be able to request a meeting? If that is the case, a meeting could be called without the full agreement of the county council. Will the Minister indicate how a meeting may be called if one of the major participants feels it is unnecessary and a complete waste of time?
This is not a hypothetical question as this issue has arisen in Dublin — housing comes to mind immediately. As the Minister is aware there have been occasions when one council requested a meeting but another felt that no useful purpose would be served by such a meeting. If in the view of one authority, no useful purpose can be served, does that mean there will be stalemate? My amendment provides that if one authority calls a meeting it must take place. Is there another alternative of which I am not aware? Will the Minister enlighten us? Although I agree that the sentiment of my amendment has been taken on board, which I welcome, the Minister's amendment lacks the clarity to provide for the meeting taking place. I would like clarification.
(Wexford): Amendment No. 28 allows the members of the principal authorities to hold such joint meetings as they feel may be necessary for the purposes of co-ordination. This matter was raised by Deputy Sargent on Committee Stage. I, therefore, ask him to consider withdrawing amendment No. 27 which meets the points raised regarding joint meetings.
The amendment would also allow for joint meetings with other local authorities and the question of joint meetings between Dún Laoghaire Corporation and Bray UDC was raised by Deputy Gilmore.
The question of joint committees may be raised. The provisions in the Local Government Act, 1991, regarding committees and joint committees have not been implemented. Pending the outcome of the review of sub-county structures which is now at an advanced stage, that Part of the 1991 Act dealing with committees and joint committees will be implemented in the light of Government decision as to future sub-county arrangements which is expected shortly.
I want to comment briefly on the Minister's response, particularly in relation to the establishment of committees and joint committees under the 1991 Act. When the 1991 Act was introduced, the provision was built into it — indeed it was flaunted at the time as one of the very attractive provisions in the legislation — that local authorities would have the freedom to establish committees which would involve a wider membership than members of the local authority. If, for example, a local authority wanted to involve the regular users of the library service on a library committee, sports clubs on the committees governing sports facilities or residents' associations on a committee dealing with traffic matters, it would have the freedom to do so. The local authorities could also devolve to those committees certain functions of the local authorities themselves. A typical situation which might arise is where the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Stagg would regularly send directives to local authorities with regard to housing, one of which related to the question of establishing some kind of local management structures for housing estates etc., which is a very good idea. The mechanism which was to be used to establish those was the committees provided for in the 1991 Act. In addition, local authorities could establish joint committees with other local authorities and those joint committees in turn, could have certain functions devolved to them. For example, the management of the Liffey Valley, which has been the subject of discussion previously, could be by way of a joint committee between the respective local authorities and that joint committee, in turn, could involve community and environmental interests from the local area. The excuse the Minister of State has given here this evening for not implementing those sections of the 1991 Act does not relate to what he calls the sub-county structures. This review of the town councils, urban councils and town commissioners does not relate to the 1991 Act. The fact that that review is going on does not prevent county councils, city councils or borough councils from having committees or joint committees. This is only an excuse. I would like to know the real reason these committees are not being set up. Is there lobbying by people who do not want this style of local government? It is absurd that we passed legislation in 1991 allowing for structures to be established at local level but that the Act cannot be implemented because the regulations have not been introduced. I am sick and tired of passing legislation here with Ministers reserving to themselves the right to make regulations, including the right to implement the legislation. Everything from film censorship to local government is now subject to ministerial directive and regulations. First of all Ministers insist in the primary legislation that they must implement the legislation and make the regulations. Having got the power in the primary legislation they will not do it and everybody else must wait for them. It is ridiculous.
I will be brief to give other Deputies the opportunity to get in before the deadline. Some comments by the two previous Deputies aroused my interest. The Liffey Valley was specifically mentioned. I made it well known that I would not consider even the establishment of powerful joint committees as sufficient to preserve and improve the amenity of our greatest asset. The Liffey Valley is, potentially, Ireland's answer to the Loire Valley. Therefore, we require an authority to look after its amenities and environmental interests in keeping with its importance and significance.
I noticed particularly what Deputy Gilmore said about wider membership of these committees. I have the highest respect for councillors; I was once a councillor myself, although not in this jurisdiction. However, when dealing with environmental and amenity matters it seems there is a very strong argument for the involvement of amenity and environmental interests. This would be particularly necessary in the case of the Liffey Valley. Such joint authorities should include those additional interests. I want to allow others the opportunity to speak but I would press the case of the Liffey Valley and the importance of an authority commensurate with its importance nationally and internationally.
I really need clarification — I am not sure how I will get it in the time left — of the Minister's amendment which provides that the principal authority may hold such meetings of members of the authority and other principal authorities. Would that include meetings of one of the local authorities with the Dublin Regional Authority? A nod from the Minister would satisfy my requirements in relation to that. I feel strongly that as we have not had the opportunity to debate the structures and functions of the new tier of government being introduced by diktat by the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Smith, we need to know how it will inter-relate with the local authorities in Dublin. We also need to know what co-ordinating and strategic planning function the Dublin Regional Authority may or may not have and as my next amendment — which will probably not be reached—indicates, there are certain areas of concern, particularly housing that will need strategic planning and co-operation right across the four local authorities that will now cover the greater Dublin area.
I do not know if the Minister's amendment will allow for joint meetings of local authorities and the Dublin Regional Authority. We do not know how representation from the local authorities to the regional authority will be organised. In the absence of a debate we do not know what is happening. I wish to record my deep disgust and disdain at the manner in which this Government is operating in regard to introducing a new tier of regional government without debate in the House. Clarification is needed on amendment No. 28 and in respect of the strategic planning of the Dublin Regional Authority, and the co-ordinating of public services which will be the responsibility of four local authorities in Dublin.
Points in relation to the amendment have been well made and I am aware that time is marching on. I wish to comment on amendment No. 28. There has been a debate on the regional authorities, their roles and the Minister's thinking in that regard. I was struck by the vagueness of the amendment. It is not specific. It states:
...A principal authority may hold such joint meetings of members of the authority and other principal authorities or local authorities as may be necessary for the purposes of this section.
I do not know if the Minister of State knows the Minister's reasoning behind that amendment. Will the Minister indicate its precise meaning? Deputy Sargent's amendment is more specific and understandable. The Minister's amendment which was an attempt to head off Deputy Sargent's amendment, is too vague. The section does not clarify matters for me or, I am sure, for other Members.
I am sure the Minister has more to say on this matter and I look forward to hearing his comments. His earlier comments did not address my main concern. I thank the other speakers who, apart from their words of wisdom, have given the Minister time to reflect and, hopefully, as Deputy Keogh said head off my amendment. The Minister's amendment goes some way towards addressing the issue but, nonetheless, further clarification is required. The Bill should include some measure that will allow the holding of meetings rather than them being postponed and, in many cases, not held as has happened. That has been my experience in relation to meetings of Dublin County Council. Joint meetings are not being held as often as they should because one or other authority decides they are not necessary. That point must be addressed in the amendment which I will have to press if this matter is not clarified.
I hope the Bill will include a provision that will provide for the requisitioning of a meeting between local authorities. Unlike Deputy Doyle who spoke from a wider viewpoint having regard to her interests in Wexford, I referred to the Dublin local authorities as the title of the Bill indicates this legislation provides for local authorities in Dublin. The proposed legislation on regional authorities will provide the answers to many of the other questions raised. I hope the legislation will not be restrictive.
There will be no debate on it.
That is not clear. I hope there will be a debate but, unfortunately, most Members know what will happen.
The Minister should encourage us to support his amendment rather than forcing me to put my amendment to a vote. I cannot say I will support the Minister's amendment until I hear his reply.
Usually on Report Stage the Minister may not respond, but I will permit him to make a brief comment.
(Wexford): In relation to Deputy Sargent's query, section 32 will require the Dublin local authorities to consult one another with regard to the metropolitan interest. I am sure, none of the local authorities will refuse to take part in joint meetings or consultations. That would be irresponsible. I am sure the three local authorities being set up will act responsibly and meet and consult on a regular basis.
Deputy Doyle raised the issue of the lack of debate on regional authorities. That is a matter to be decided between the Minister and the Whips.
Acting Chairman
I said I would permit a brief comment.
(Wexford): The order setting up the regional authorities has yet to be made and I will bring the Deputy's view that there should be co-ordination and meetings between the authorities——
There should be a debate in this House before the establishment day.
(Wexford): I assured the Deputy that I would tell the Minister that the Deputy seeks a debate and I am sure that can be arranged with the Whips.
Tá
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Currie, Austin.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Noonan, Michael
- (Limerick East).
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harney, Mary.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- McDowell, Derek.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Penrose, William.
- Power, Seán.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Upton, Pat.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Woods, Michael.
In accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day I am required to put the following question——
On a point of order, may I request that the guillotine not be used on this most important legislation as most of the difficulties we have had to date in this area stem from the guillotine used on the debate on the 1991 Act? I urge that the remainder of the Report Stage amendments be dealt with in view of the importance of the legislation——
The Deputy should stop play acting.
I am sorry, Deputy, the Chair has no option but to carry out an order of this House. That is his function, duty and responsibility. I am putting the following question: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for the Environment and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and that the Bill is hereby passed".
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Bree, Declan.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hillard, Colm M.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDowell, Derek.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P. J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Penrose, William.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Upton, Pat.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Currie, Austin.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Yates, Ivan.