Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Mar 2004

Vol. 582 No. 4

Adjournment Debate.

Food Labelling.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting for the Adjournment this important matter, that of beef from outside the EU being further processed and sold as Irish beef. I am not satisfied with this position. I have been told from several sources that many meat processors, particularly those in the pork and poultry industries, continue to import meat into Ireland, process it and pass it off as Irish. It is imperative that this issue is resolved through the introduction of tighter labelling laws during Ireland's Presidency of the EU.

A survey carried out by the Department of Agriculture and Food highlighted the fact that almost 70% of consumers wanted to know the specific country of origin of the produce they buy. This is a fair and reasonable demand. Irish consumers have a right to know if what is labelled as Irish beef was born, raised, slaughtered and processed in Ireland. If not, the consumer should be clearly aware of this before he or she makes such a purchase.

Currently, the regulations do not go far enough. Country of origin labelling should apply to all imported meat products in the retail and catering food services sector. This is currently not the position. Irish farmers are not afraid of competition from imported meat, but it is only fair to our farmers that Irish meat means Irish. Consumers should be allowed to make up their minds but to do this they need information that is honest and transparent, which currently they are not getting.

The Minister has expressed his support for regulations at EU level that beef served in the catering and restaurant sectors would have country of origin on the menu, but this needs to be extended to all meat types, namely, chicken, pork and lamb. This provision will be meaningless unless Irish consumers can be guaranteed that what they are eating is Irish and not from another country. Currently, labelling requirements do not guarantee this. The Minister is claiming that he is waiting for the EU to enact regulations, but this does not have to be the case. He recently introduced legislation to ensure that consumers buying non-packaged poultry meat are made aware of the country of origin at the point of sale. Why can the Minister not act to ensure that the country of origin appears on all meat products sold to consumers in Ireland? He must take action.

The food labelling group set up by the Minister for Agriculture and Food failed to reach agreement on a clear recommendation for country of origin beef labelling. This is simply not good enough. We need to establish a clear, single, transparent label for Irish goods. That is what Irish producers and consumers badly need.

I assume the review of labelling regulations to which the Deputy is referring is the one being carried out by the Commission on the beef labelling regulations. Article 21 of these regulations obliges the Commission to submit a report on the possibility of extending the scope of this regulation to processed products containing beef or beef-based products. I expect that this report will be presented by the Commission shortly.

The current position in regard to the labelling of beef is that under the EU labelling regulations introduced in 2000, operators involved in the marketing of beef are required to label their product with a reference code to enable the beef to be traced back to the animal or group of animals from which it was derived, the approval number of the slaughterhouse and the country in which it is located, the approval number of the de-boning hall and the country in which it is located and an indication of the origin of the animal from which the beef was derived.

For the purpose of these regulations, marketing means all aspects of beef production and marketing up to and including sale through retail outlets. Where beef is imported into Ireland, the above labelling requirements, which are compulsory in all member states, apply to the marketing of such beef, regardless of whether that beef was produced within the Community or in a third country. Where beef is imported into the Community from a third country and not all the above details are available, that beef must at a minimum be labelled as "Origin: non-EC" along with an indication of the third country in which slaughter took place.

It should also be noted that the beef labelling regulations apply equally to branded and own label beef sold at retail outlets. Unfortunately, these regulations on origin do not currently apply to beef sold in the food service outlets, such as restaurants, canteens, etc. In the context of the review by the Commission to which I referred earlier, the Minister for Agriculture and Food was in contact with the Commission and asked that the requirement to indicate the country of origin be extended to the catering and food service sector.

In respect of the concern expressed by the Deputy on imported beef from Brazil, I would like to put beef imports into context. The total beef production in Ireland in 2003 was 560,000 tonnes, of which 500,000 tonnes were exported to over 50 countries worldwide. This is the highest level of exports since 1999 and is 12% higher than 2002. The value of these exports was €1.28 billion. This figure should be placed against the 4,977 tonnes of beef imported from Brazil during the period January to the end November 2003. This represents less than 1% of the total production of beef in Ireland. However, I wish to make it quite clear that it is totally unacceptable that consumers are misled either deliberately or by omission as regards origin.

On the labelling of foodstuffs generally and, in particular, the origin of the product, the Minister's concerns on this issue have been on record for some time and the actions to date prove this fact. As the Deputy would know, the Minister addressed the concerns brought to his attention by the consumer liaison panel which was established in 2002 by setting up a food labelling group to examine all issues on food labelling. In December of that year, that group presented its report to me making a series of recommendations. In regard to the origin of meat, there was full agreement within the food labelling group that consumers have a right to information on the origin of the meat they cook in their homes or eat out. While the group could not agree on how origin should be defined, there was unanimous agreement that further research was necessary to establish consumers' wishes in this area. At the Minister's request, the consumer liaison panel has carried out this research, the results of which were presented in December 2003.

We are determined, in so far as it is within the powers available, to meet the wishes of consumers, as identified in the research. The Department recently introduced two regulations on the labelling of poultry meat, the first of which requires poultry meat — loose and pre-packaged — originating in a country outside the EU to bear an indication of the country of origin when offered for sale in a retail premises. The second requires information regarding class, price per unit weight, condition and slaughterhouse details in respect of loose poultry meat — that is non-pre-packaged poultry meat — to be provided to the consumer. Heretofore, while these labelling indications have been compulsory for pre-packaged poultry meat it had not been a requirement to provide this information for poultry meat sold loose.

It is the view that consumers should be made aware at the time of purchase of the origin of the meat they are being offered, whether in restaurants or in retail establishments so they can make an informed choice as to what they eat. To this end, in addition to the above mentioned action, I have arranged that each sector will be reviewed on a commodity by commodity basis to identify any deficiencies from a consumer viewpoint in the labelling regulations for those commodities. In light of this review, I wish to assure the Deputy that further action will be taken by me and the Department over the coming period in regard to labelling.

Adult Education.

Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, for allowing me the opportunity to raise this issue. It arises out of two incidents in the past year, namely, the failure to implement the McIver report which looked into further education and the Government's decision to place a control on enrolment policies in further education colleges.

The further education sector in Ireland services the disadvantaged, such as people who have failed at second level or have made a choice to go back to education in the form of adult education. It is in this capacity that it has served a vital social function over the past 20 years. It has been developed and led by teachers in the design of courses and their reaction to changing needs. The second function of further education is to react to whatever the economy might need at a particular time. In particular, in the past five years the information technology revolution has found the further education sector a source of employees.

I was a student in a VEC, albeit for a short time in transition year. I was a PLC teacher in a VEC in Ballyfermot and I served on Dún Laoghaire VEC as a member of the board. Therefore, in soccer parlance, I have been capped at all levels of the VEC and I know what I am talking about. The Government is in danger of being accused of not taking this sector seriously.

The McIver report arises out of the Government's commitment to lifelong learning. The OECD is currently looking into the area in order to decide whether or not the education sector can deliver the impetus for dynamism within the economy. It sees the education sector as the engine for growth in the economy and the further education sector within it as being very important indeed. However, the Government has not delivered on the recommendations made more than 12 months ago. I understand negotiations are ongoing with the TUI and the IVA, which one can only hope will come to fruition in the short term.

The more critical issue is the capping — as the TUI sees it — of enrolment numbers. The effect of this is that the number of students one has in, say, 2002-03 becomes the upper limit of the number of students one may take in the following year. That figure also becomes the upper limit in terms of teacher allocations, which is based on a pupil-teacher ratio, and the upper limit for general DES grants. If one's student numbers fall for any reason, the cap also falls which means that colleges can either remain at the same enrolment figure or reduce it, but they can never increase it. Furthermore, if they reduce enrolment numbers, they cannot return to the original figure.

Naturally, the understanding from the teachers, students, unions, management and everyone involved in the VECs is that this spells the end of this particular sector. Everyone involved is therefore entitled to an explanation from the Government as to why or if this is the case. I look forward to hearing the Government's position on this matter.

I thank Deputy Andrews for raising this matter. I have noted how many times he has been capped through the VEC system. I am a former chairman of the VEC, therefore, I had a cap too.

On behalf of the Minister for Education and Science, I am pleased to respond to the matters raised by him. A range of course options is available in the further and higher education sectors for young people who wish to continue their studies after second level or for adults who wish to return to education. PLC programmes are also provided for adults who return to education to obtain a qualification preparatory to returning to the workplace. The primary purpose of PLCs is to enhance the prospects of students to gain employment. PLCs also provide an alternative route to entry into higher education in the institutes of technology through the NCVA/FETAC links scheme.

Since 1985 PLCs have been developed in a wide range of disciplines supporting industry and community needs and have significantly widened the scope of educational provision. For example, during 2000-03, PLCs were delivered in 225 centres around the country in both second level schools and stand-alone colleges, mainly in the VEC sector, and the number of participants grew to more than 28,000 from 12,000 in the 1989-90 academic year.

The pattern of enrolments in approved PLCs in recent years is as follows: 1997-98 — 21,278; 1998-99 — 23,810; 1999-2000 — 24,453; 2000-01 — 25,519; 2001-02 — 26,722; 2002-03 — 28,656. The number of PLC places approved in 2003-04 is nearly 29,000.

In dealing with the question of PLC numbers, the Department of Education and Science is not always in a position to approve of all the PLC places applied for in any particular academic year. For example, a total of 37,900 places were sought nation-wide for 2002-03 from a planned pool of approximately 27,500 places. For the 2003-04 academic year schools and colleges sought approval for 40,733 places. It should be recognised that uncapped growth of the scale featured in the applications for PLC places may not be supported.

Statistical data on applications for places and actual enrolment does not point towards a decline in numbers in the sector in the future. There will be a continuing requirement to plan and manage expenditure and provide for future investment and growth, as necessary, within the context of overall educational policy and provision.

The sector plays a key role in meeting skill needs. Government commitment to the sector is evident in the following: the introduction of maintenance grants for students with effect from September 1998; substantial investment in equipment for centres providing the international teleservices programme and related student support scheme for placement abroad; recognition of programmes and national qualifications from the Further Education and Training Awards Council, FETAC, and; the PLC review.

The Department completed a review of the PLC sector in April 2003. The review arose from a commitment in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and in the White Paper on adult education, Learning for Life. Its purpose was to examine and make recommendations on the structures and resources required in schools and colleges with large scale PLC provision, having regard to good practice in related areas across the system and in other countries.

A steering group representing the Irish Vocational Education Association, the Joint Managerial Body, the Association of Community and Comprehensive Schools, the Association of Secondary Teachers in Ireland, the Teachers Union of Ireland and representatives of the Department of Education and Science was established to oversee the process. The consultancy study and the report and recommendations were prepared following an extensive research and consultation process.

The recommendations in the report are wide ranging and encompass proposals that extend beyond PLC provision. The report poses considerable challenges in the shaping of structures for the delivery of further and adult education in the future.

During 2003, in separate meetings, officials of the Department met the management and staff representative interests in the sector to examine their respective priorities and to consider issues surrounding a number of the recommendations of the report as well as areas of common interest, having regard to the implications for other areas of the education system. Further exploratory meetings with the relevant stake holders in the sector will be necessary in the period ahead in connection with this report.

Hospital Consultant Posts.

At a meeting of the North Eastern Health Board on Monday last, 22 March, the members were presented with a report from Comhairle na n-Ospidéal on dermatology services. The report recommended the creation of one additional post to the North Eastern Health Board, to give a total of three posts. However, the blow fell in the final two sentences of the report. The report recommended that all posts should be based in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda, contrary to the health board's earlier decision to base posts in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital and Monaghan General Hospital. This is a decision to which both Deputy O'Dowd and I were party, as members of the health board.

Once again, the people of Monaghan are witnessing a promise broken and a commitment reneged upon. This was no ordinary promise delivered from Dublin and dispatched to our constituency in Government party election literature or over the airwaves. This was a promise made and a commitment given by the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, himself, on a platform outside Monaghan General Hospital and in front of a crowd of 2,000 people.

On 22 January 2002, the Minister visited Monaghan where he was greeted by one of the largest protests seen in our county for many years. People were demanding the restoration of maternity, gynaecology and paediatric services, which had been axed at Monaghan. They were demanding upgrading instead of downgrading. As reported in our local newspaper, The Northern Standard, the Minister made the following very clear commitment:

In terms of the future, the health board had adopted a plan in March 2001 for all health services in the region. The Minister promised his audience that as part of this, two new consultants, one in dermatology and one in geriatrics — the latter having a specific interest in rehabilitative medicine — would be appointed at the hospital.

Now we have a report from Comhairle na n-Ospidéal, which purports to overturn the Minister's commitment and the North Eastern Health Board's decision. It is totally unacceptable and should be rejected by the Minister and the board.

The chief executive officer of the North Eastern Health Board told last Monday's meeting that the consultant dermatologist post was advertised in late January 2003 and interviews held last May. A candidate was recommended but the candidate advised last week that he is not taking up the offer. The CEO went on, "Before re-advertising this post consideration will have to be given to the recommendations contained in the Comhairle na n-Ospidéal report".

Given the all-powerful role of Comhairle na n-Ospidéal and the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland in determining the configuration of hospital services in the State, this is, effectively, the axing of the Monaghan based consultant dermatology post. As my party colleague on the health board, Councillor Brian McKenna has said, "I am very angry and disappointed that once again it appears the people of this county have been cheated out of a speciality service which was promised for Monaghan General Hospital". I remind the House that it was promised by the Minister for Health and Children.

When he spoke on that cold January day in Monaghan, the Minister also promised the extension of the accident and emergency unit, which has since been closed, to all intents and purposes, while the Minister has stood idly by. That is something we will return to on another occasion.

Tonight I call on the Minister to intervene directly to ensure that his promise of 22 January 2002 is fulfilled and that the consultant-led dermatology service at Monaghan is provided. In his attempts to answer critics of the Hanly report, the Minister said, in a letter to The Irish Times, on 16 March:

The message of Hanly is clear. Decentralise a large proportion of care to our smaller hospitals as long as it can be done safely.

The reality of Hanly and of the Minister's promise is in the Comhairle na n-Ospidéal report. That reality is further centralisation, further downgrading of local hospitals and further neglect of the health care needs of communities. I urge the Minister to stand by his promise to the people of County Monaghan and preserve whatever shred of credibility he has remaining.

I am replying to this matter on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin.

Comhairle na nOspidéal published the report of the committee on dermatology services in November 2003. The terms of reference of the committee were, among other things, "to examine the existing arrangements for the provision of consultant dermatology services nationally and following consultation with the interested parties, to make recommendations to Comhairle na nOspideal on the future organisation and development of dermatology services".

I understand that during the review the committee met the Irish Association of Dermatologists, which comprises the consultant dermatologists practising in the public hospitals in Ireland as well as managerial representatives from all the health boards and relevant voluntary hospitals. Site visits were undertaken at the Mater and Beaumont hospitals and at a recommended centre of excellence for dermatology at Ninewells Hospital in Dundee. The committee also consulted literature relating to dermatology service provision in the UK, Europe, North America and Australia. In addition, all health boards and relevant voluntary hospitals made submissions to the committee.

The key recommendations of the report focus on the issues of equity, regional self-sufficiency and future consultant staffing levels. There are currently 19 consultant dermatologist posts approved by Comhairle na nOspideal, representing a ratio of one consultant dermatologist per 206,000 population. The report recommends a target of one consultant dermatologist per 100,000 population in the medium to long term which would result in a substantial improvement on the current level of service and staffing. To achieve this, the report recommends the appointment of an additional 19 consultant dermatologists.

The report further recommends that consultant-provided dermatological services should be located as near to the patient as possible. To that end, the committee recommended that consultant dermatologists based in regional centres should undertake outreach clinics at other hospitals in their region. Furthermore, the report points out that no consultant dermatologist should work in isolation and that each dermatology centre should be staffed by a minimum of two consultants.

There is currently one consultant dermatologist in post in the north-eastern region with a commitment of seven sessions in Drogheda, two in Dundalk and two in Beaumont. There is also one post waiting to be filled, which was approved by Comhairle in May 2002 with a commitment of six sessions in Monaghan General Hospital, three in Cavan General Hospital and two in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital. I understand that interviews were held in May 2003 for the new post and that a candidate was selected in September 2003. However, early this month, this candidate informed the board that he would not be taking up the position.

The Comhairle report, which was published in November 2003, recommends a total of three consultant dermatologists for the north-east, with all three posts to be based at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda, with outreach services provided to the acute hospitals at Cavan, Dundalk, Navan and Monaghan. The Minister for Health and Children intends to enter into discussions with the North Eastern Health Board to chart the way forward for the development of dermatology services in the north-east.

Údarás na Gaeltachta.

I thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, for taking this matter and for allowing me to speak tonight. I welcome the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs to the House to answer these serious questions which are of national importance.

The Minister has ordered that Údarás na Gaeltachta must sell off many of its assets. I understand that up to €7 million worth of assets will be sold this year. The Minister must insist that a structure is put in place to deal with all tenders so that these issues do not arise in the future. The Government must insist on a fair, transparent and equitable structure for all people who tender for any of these contracts. The tender of €1.9 million was the largest tender, which is the most money that would be available to the taxpayer. The second biggest tender was from Gael Linn, which is the leading light in education and Irish language affairs for many years. It also lost out. The third tender, which was for €1.45 million, won. No one understands the process.

The questions I asked the Minister during the week and again today, which he did not answer, are simple and clear. Was each tender placed before the board? There were 11 tenders in total, but I understand only three went before the board. I acknowledge and accept that the board is not bound to accept the highest tender. Why then were all the tenders not placed before the board so they could be discussed fully? That question relates to value for money. If the board was deciding on the best value for money, it would have had to accept the €1.9 million tender. Where is the transparency, openness and equity in accepting a tender of €1.45 million?

Equally important is the question of the Irish language. The advertisement said that all those who tendered for the proposal had to have a plean gnó Gaeilge and plean gnó Gaeltachta. What happened to those plans? The question I asked the Minister, which he did not answer yesterday, was whether each of those plans in full had been placed before the board or whether only a memorandum and a summary of the cases had been put before it, as I believe happened. Is it true that Gael Linn is unhappy with what happened? If property is being sold off in the Gaeltacht, our strongest desire is that it would be used for the purposes of renewing and educating people in Irish. If I was to decide on a cúrsa gnó tré Gaeilge, I would choose Gael Linn.

The board of Údarás na Gaeltachta decided not to accept the highest tender or the one which would spend hundreds of thousands of euro in developing those homes into an educational establishment to further the Irish language. Did the successful tender have a full business plan? The information I have been given is that a full business plan was not in place. I do not know what happened.

There are serious questions which must be answered by the Minister in the interest of transparency and openness. I know the Minister is not a member of the board, but he instructed the board to sell the properties. He refused to answer the parliamentary questions I tabled in the House. I asked him two questions today which he refused to answer. The first question was whether the advertisement stated that those who submitted tenders had to have their tax affairs in order. Were those issues clarified and brought before the board? The other question was whether the proper State tendering procedures were in place before this situation arose. As regards the other millions of euro worth of property which the Minister has ordered to be sold, it is important that he openly answers those questions. I want the Minister to show leadership and courage in tackling this issue and to insist that the decisions made by Údarás na Gaeltachta are transparent and open and are put in the public domain tonight.

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Teachta as ucht an cheist seo a thógáil. Cuireann an Teachta beagáinín iontas orm mar níl sé ach cúpla seachtain ó shin ó bhí sé ar an ráidió ag tabhairt amach fúim mar go raibh i gceist agam smacht a choinneáil agus freagracht a glacadh as cúntasaí dímhaoin. Anseo anocht, nuair is léir ón reachtaíocht go bhfuil neamhspleachas ag an údarás i rudaí, tá sé ag iarraigh orm an smacht sin, a bhí sé ag tabhairt amach fúim faoi choicís ó shin, a glacadh chugam fhéin.

Mar a dúirt mé so bhfreagra a thug mé ar ceisteanna Dála 146 agus 592 den 9 Márta agus den 23 Márta 2004 faoi seach, tuigtear dom gur tógadh cinneadh maidir le díol na tithe saoire in Eanach Mheáin ag cruinniú de Bhord an Údaráis ar an 20 Feabhra 2004. Tá comhráití fós ar bun maidir leis seo agus tá siad len é a phlé arís ag an gcéad chruinniú boird eile atá le bheith ar siúl ar an 26 Márta 2004. Tuigim, freisin, nach bhfuil conradh leis an sealúchas seo a dhíol sínithe go dáta.

D'éirigh an bhaint a bhí agam leis an gcás áirithe seo nuair a tugadh rudaí chun suntais dom agus lorg mo Roinn soiléiriú ar na nithe seo. Tá roinnt eolais faighte go dáta agus tá curtha in iúl ag Údarás na Gaeltachta go gcuirfidh sé tuilleadh eolais ar fáil dom tar éis an chéad chruinniú boird eile atá le bheith ar siúl dé hAoine seo chugainn.

Tá a fhios agam go bhfuil tuairisciú forleathan déanta ar an gceist seo agus tuigim imní an Teachta i dtaobh na nithe atá ardaithe. Caithfidh mé a rá, áfach, mar a dúirt mé sa freagra le cheist Dála ar an ábhar, go mbéadh sé mícheart domsa mar Aire níos mó a rá ag an am áirithe seo. Is gnó é seo d'Údarás na Gaeltachta a bhfuil freagracht díreach air agus tá an rud fós faoi chaibidéal ag an mbord.

Ba mhaith liom athrá a thabhairt ar na príomh fhíricí. Is ar Údarás na Gaeltachta atá an fhreagracht maidir le díol maoine agus is air sin a chaithfidh a chinntiú go ndéantar é seo go dleathach agus de réir nósmharacht ceart, tá an cheist seo á phlé sa gcás áirithe seo i gcónaí, agus níl sé ceart agamsa dá bharr agus bhéadh se mífhreagrach agam mar Aire tuilleadh a rá ag an bpointe seo.

I wish to set out the background to the proposed sale of tithí saoire Eanach Mheáin. In October 1999, Indecon International economic consultants were appointed to conduct a review of expenditure of Údarás na Gaeltachta. Among the varied and useful recommendations which resulted from that review was a specific recommendation about undertaking significant revision of Údarás property development activities. This included rationalisation of the land bank, the sale of buildings to existing tenancies and the involvement of the private sector in new building projects on a partnership basis. The recommendation took into account several factors, for example, the land bank held by Údarás was in excess of what was required to meet likely demand for industrial premises in the near future, some existing properties were unlikely to be let for industrial purposes in the foreseeable future, and sale of buildings to existing tenants would result in a number of advantages, including release of public capital, although not only that. In summary, the rationale for this recommendation was that public capital should not be unnecessarily tied up in equity when it could be employed in a better alternative use.

My Department acted on this recommendation by appointing consultants, Farrell Grant Sparks, to undertake a study and provide advice on the feasibility of the introduction of a property sales programme for Údarás, the options relating to the organisation's equity portfolio, and the level of State aid that would be required to ensure that the private sector would provide new industrial and business property sufficient for the job creation targets of Údarás. While the contents of the Farrell Grant Sparks report are, in the main, commercially sensitive and must remain confidential, I can confirm that the holiday homes at Eanach Mheáin were identified as having potential for sale.

On the sale of the houses in question, I emphasise that Údarás na Gaeltachta does not have to revert to me or my Department on the sale of its assets. This position is set down in statute. Section 8 of the Údarás na Gaeltachta Act 1979 stipulates the functions of an tÚdarás and specifies at subsection 8(7):

For the purposes of this section, an tÚdarás shall have power to acquire, receive on transfer, hold, sell, mortgage, lease, let or otherwise dispose of land, buildings, markets, premises or plant and to erect, alter or maintain buildings, markets, premises or plant.

The Minister's five minutes have concluded.

The rest of what I had intended to say has already been said in Irish. Unfortunately, there is a difficulty when something relating to the Gaeltacht is put down in English. I am always in a quandary as to whether I should reply in Irish.

The Minister did not answer the question. It is ráiméis.

The Deputy asked specific questions and is probably wondering why I did not give specific answers. As this process is not completed, my obligation as Minister is to ensure that every step of the process is correct and carried out legally and according to Government processes. That is my role. I do not have the function of making individual decisions.

The Údarás will discuss this matter next Friday and everybody will benefit by leaving the Údarás to complete the process. However, it must do so according to the law and proper Government processes. I have made that clear. I have no doubt that, when the discussion that is due to take place is completed, the Údarás, which has the right to dispose of its properties without reference to the Minister, will do it according to good process.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.50 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 25 March 2004.
Top
Share