Foreshore and Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Bill 2009 [Seanad]: Committee and Remaining Stages.

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Section 2 is the definition section. I have a very simple inquiry. There is a difference between the common law definition of "foreshore" in the Foreshore Act 1933 and the later definition in the Planning and Development Act 2000, for example. Is the definition that the Minister of State is using an extension of the 1933 definition? It is important to have clarification because there are three or four possible definitions. Does the Minister of State's definition extend the 1933 definition to include the distance seawards?

That is the case. It is likely to be extended at some point, but it includes the amount——

There is nothing to preclude that.

No, there is nothing to preclude that.

I thank the Minister of State.

Section 2 agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 7, before section 5, but in Chapter 2, to insert the following new section:

"5.—The Minister shall publish and lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a strategic review of existing foreshore legislation and a new framework for foreshore licensing and development within six months of the enactment of the Foreshore and Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Bill 2009.”.

In his speech, the Minister of State stated that modernisation of the legal framework is not the purpose of this Bill. Lest we have an interminable delay, it is important to use the opportunity afforded by this Bill to put down a marker which ensures that within six months we will have a report on the necessary framework.

I support this amendment and ask the Minister to accept it. It will not do any damage to the existing proposals. This country cannot afford to wait any longer to deal with the issue of applications for offshore renewable energy. The matter is too important. The number of onshore jobs which would be created by the development of offshore energy is enormous. I will outline an example. I spoke to a large multinational company yesterday which bought a company in Denmark with approximately 50 employees some years ago. Today it employs 3,500 people in the manufacturing of turbines alone.

If somebody arrived at the Taoiseach's door tomorrow and said he or she wished to invest in this country and could guarantee that within a short space of time 3,500 jobs could be created in manufacturing alone, every agency in the State would be crawling over the person involved. He or she would be having dinner in Farmleigh and would be brought to every State function, and rightly so if he or she was bringing inward investment into the country. We are ignoring those who are crying out for immediate action to be taken to enable them to get on with their investments.

That is why, as I said in my initial contribution, it is essential that in dealing with this issue the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources is included. One cannot develop offshore energy unless there is a connection to the grid. A new grid must be built which is capable of carrying sufficient power so we could be net exporters of electricity into the interconnection into Britain and Europe.

The European Union is proposing a super grid structure, which is part of what we voted on in the referendum on the Lisbon treaty, namely, that we would enable the European Union to develop a European energy policy. We are an island nation sitting on the western extremity of Europe and are currently totally dependent on gas from Russia. We have a resource which people are crying out to invest in and we do not have the legislative structure for them to do so.

I ask anybody on the other side of the House to get up off their backsides and go to meet people who wish to invest. The Government should not listen to me if it does not believe me, but it can come to our committee when such people appear before it and listen to their complaints. It could look up the website where we published the remarks we received from all types of people, including investors and members of the public, regarding our future electricity requirements.

We are spending €6.5 billion each year on importing fossil fuels into the country. Within a relatively short space of time we could transfer that money into the development of a business which would produce exports. Instead of sending €6.5 billion out of the country we could develop an industry here with a natural resource, but we do not have the structures to do so. This Bill does not provide for these structures.

As I said at the outset, the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security has produced a Bill which has not been examined. There is no mention in the Bill we are debating of bodies such as the Marine Institute, which has all the necessary information and has done all the mapping. The committee has nominated the Marine Institute as the planning authority to draw up a development plan. It is based in the Minister of State's constituency, which is the correct place for it because all the major offshore development will take place off the west coast. If we get our finger out, places like Mayo and Galway will become the Aberdeen of Ireland in the not too distant future.

It is an absolute disgrace that not only will people not listen to us but they deliberately ignore us. Having produced a Bill 12 months ago, the Leader of the Opposition and I have constantly asked where the Bill has gone. We sent it to the correct place, the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, but nobody seems to care. The other side of the House is entertaining the unions, telling us how to run the country and where we will get cuts. We have an opportunity to create jobs and inward investment but nobody is bothering to create the circumstances in which such development can take place. One cannot take €16 billion, which is waiting to be invested, and throw it away. With every day that passes, investment is going to other countries. If the Government does not believe me, it should talk to the people concerned. The investment has gone to Portugal, Denmark and Scotland. People are opening their arms to such investment.

I met Irish investors recently who have spent €52 million so far on developing a machine for tidal energy, which is being tested in Nova Scotia and Scotland because they cannot get a foreshore licence to do it here as we do not have the structures in place. We are rushing this Bill through the Dáil in two hours. It is no wonder the public is cynical about what is happening in this place. It is outrageous and people like me and others on the Opposition benches are wasting our time trying to encourage people to invest in this country. The Government, which has the power to do so, will not bother to introduce the necessary structures for that to happen. It is an absolute disgrace and if it cannot be bothered to allow investment to happen and stop the haemorrhage of jobs and investment from the country, the sooner it leaves its position the better.

I apologise for taking up so much time, but it is the only chance I have on the floor of the House to discuss the disgrace which is taking place. It has taken the Government two and a half years to get to the stage where it is transferring responsibility for foreshore licences from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. We are a laughing stock. That we are an island nation and the Foreshore and Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Bill 2009 is being handled by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is a subject for a pantomime. It is a joke.

One can imagine the outcry in the country if it were decided to abolish the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The farmers would be marching on the streets. However, with the stroke of a pen Fianna Fáil abolished the Department of the Marine without consulting anybody. It is an absolute disgrace.

I support this amendment. Unless amendments such as this are incorporated in the Bill, it is a wasted opportunity and time will be lost. I could not agree more with Deputy Barrett's contribution. Instead of abolishing the Department of the Marine, we should have enhanced its role to include natural resources and developed that area. Some 93% of the territory of the country is under water, which is a significant resource. The Minister of State's speech noted that the guiding principle of moving the role and function, in terms of licensing, to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government was because its primary role was to pursue sustainable development.

We have an opportunity. We cannot bury the review of the foreshore licensing legislation any longer and waste more time. As Deputy Barrett said, Irish and non-Irish companies are waiting to invest millions of euro in this area and trials are being moved from this country to other parts of the world in an effort to develop prototypes.

It is not sufficient to say that only seven of the 420 licensed wind turbines have been allowed. There are other reasons for that. Wave and tidal power stand waiting to be developed. As I said in last night's debate on climate change, when the Gulf states discovered they had a resource and an energy source in abundance that the world needed, they got their act together and have had 40 years of sustained economic growth which they have invested well. The Celtic tiger might have been the Lotto 1 squandered, but this is an open door to the Lotto 2. We are procrastinating and waiting for another Bill. While the Bill is not perfect, it will be improved if the Minister of State accepts the amendment.

I support the amendment. I cannot understand why there could not be a faster track licensing system for licensing anything located at sea. We need to segregate those applications which have had an extension of the planning legislation towards them. In other words, there is a distinction between onshore applications and marine applications. Where they are purely marine applications, I suggest that the Minister of State, in the spirit of the co-operation on offer from all sides of the House, should take the survey by the Marine Institute and the economic plan — it had actually produced a plan on economic opportunities for marine based development — and in the short term look at the licensing system for that in accordance with standards already laid down. There is no reason not to fast-track that grouping. Where contentious issues arise regarding consultation, they are nearly always ones where, for example, the Planning and Development Act 2000 has extended into areas contiguous to local authority control zones and whatever. There is considerable merit in seeking to get the maximum employment yield from what can be done in the quickest possible term, driven on by organisations like the Marine Institute and the research institutions.

The Deputies have made four different points, one of which is relevant to the amendment. The question of abolishing and setting up the Marine Institute was discussed on Second Stage and I set out the reasons and history regarding this country and other countries. Deputy Barrett mentioned his committee's proposals previously, which refer to another Department. Regarding the research trials, my recollection and understanding is that the Marine Institute has approval for its research sites in Galway Bay and that a site investigation licence was issued for the only other one, of which I am aware, in the Mayo area, but it was not acted upon for reasons that had nothing to do with the grid or the granting of the licence. I understand they were for the reasons I outlined on Second Stage.

Regarding the amendment, the Bill is specifically concerned with transferring foreshore functions from one Department to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has indicated that he intends to reform significantly the foreshore legislation. As I outlined at the end of Second Stage, three phases are involved, one of which was completed in September 2008. This legislation represents the second stage and the third stage which involves a degree of consultation with stakeholders and the wider public will come next, which the Minister, Deputy Gormley, has indicated he intends doing.

Of course I agree with the arguments and principle outlined by Deputy Creed because we want to see this happening as quickly as possible. However, it would be entirely inappropriate to place time constraints on a process that requires the input of stakeholders and interested parties into the legislation. It would be inappropriate if the third phase, modernising the foreshore licensing in legislation, was constrained in time and not done properly. While I understand the intent and obviously will use any influence I have to have it happen as quickly as possible, we need to have a reasonable degree of consultation.

All the major issues outlined by Deputies Higgins, Ferris, Cuffe and virtually every other speaker in elements of their speeches are taken into account.

I am disappointed by the response of the Minister of State. We are seeking to put a timeframe on it because of the economic imperative. Too much of this debate is open-ended and too much is taken on good faith. Regrettably, that good faith has not been honoured. We need only consider the last amendment I tabled on aquaculture licensing and the delays there. This amendment sets a timeframe. This is a sector that has enormous economic potential and I ask the Minister of State to reconsider.

It is ridiculous to divide up responsibility and give the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government responsibility for foreshore licensing. It is not possible to develop a marine policy to deal separately with offshore renewable energy, fisheries and commercial transport. They are all integrated. Our proposal is that the Marine Institute should be the planning authority and should draw up the development plan. It is not possible to draw up a development plan for offshore activities without taking into account all the other activities, including fisheries, ferries and normal commercial traffic on our seas. Here we are, an island nation, dividing responsibility between the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, which mainly deals with onshore activities and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The activities will now be spread all over the place. It makes basic common sense to anybody that when developing a resource — in this case our waters — we should make certain that responsibility for all the activities in that area is in the one place in order to have a co-ordinated plan. This is why the amendment placing a six-month time limit is so important. We cannot afford to wait — we do not have that luxury.

The philosophy underpinning this legislation is that there is a relationship between spatial planning on land and at sea and for that reason the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is the appropriate one for dealing with these issues. The sea fisheries responsibilities will remain with the Department that has food and agriculture responsibilities.

I agree with a number of the proposals that Deputy Barrett mentioned. However, I fundamentally disagree with undermining the independent standing of the Marine Institute as a scientific body, which is extremely important in strategic terms for Ireland, in fishery terms and indeed in consideration of any of these matters. While there is a strong case to be made for bringing that planning element under one body, I would be very strongly opposed to the Marine Institute being it.

In this instance I believe the timeframe proposed does not belong in the Bill. I do not believe it is attainable and it could impact negatively on the capacity of people to have an input if they so desire.

Amendment put and declared lost.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."

I wish to point out to the Minister of State that where our proposals refer to the Marine Institute as the planning authority, it meant an authority to draw up a development plan. The planning authority in dealing with planning applications would be An Bord Pleanála through the critical infrastructure provisions.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."

Section 6(1) proposes inter alia to insert the following:

‘1C.—References in the Foreshore Acts 1933 to 2009 to foreshore belonging to the State shall be construed as references to foreshore which for the time being belongs to the State, including foreshore so belonging whether by virtue of Article 10.2 of the Constitution or otherwise.”.

What is meant by the phrase "which for the time being belongs to the State"? I would like the Minister of State to give an assurance that ownership by the people of the entire foreshore as outlined in Articles 10.2, 10.2 and 10.3 of the Constitution is not affected in any way. This provision disturbingly suggests that the State might dispose of the foreshore. I understand that when licensing the State gives a 99-year lease. There is, in some of the older Foreshore Acts, the dangerous possibility of adversarial possession by people who are effectively squatting on a public property. I ask the Minister to clarify that there is no mitigation of rights in this regard. I am interested in how the wording "which for the time being belongs to the State" came to be. The Minister has not in any of his speeches so far spoken about the vesting, sale or disposal by the State to private interests of what is public property.

I understand the term referred to by Deputy Higgins is a parliamentary drafting term. As far as I can see he is referring to page 9 of the Bill, which refers to "foreshore which for the time being belongs to the State, including foreshore so belonging whether by virtue of Article 10.2 of the Constitution or otherwise." It must be pointed out that as a general principle, foreshore licences are extended for a period of 35 years. There have been some for 99 years but they are the exception rather than the rule. There may well be elements of foreshore which are currently assigned by foreshore licences to individuals, bodies or companies; I understand the wording to which the Deputy refers is the drafting device for referring to the remainder.

There are references in the old case law to 17th century grants by the king of rights to the foreshore. I would like an assurance from the Minister that in phase 3 — the next piece of legislation — there will be an absolute quenching of any such rights, which are an abuse of the constitutional position under Articles 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3 and have caused incredible grief in different places. There is no basis for it in contemporary law, but there are some private claims. This needs to be quenched.

Deputy Higgins has raised an interesting point which was also raised by a number of Deputies on Second Stage. There are two functions in the area of foreshore licensing; one is ownership and the other is use, which is analogous to planning. There have been historical ownership issues, some of which are claimed to be extant. The important thing about this legislation is that there is no change whatever in the current situation with regard to public ownership of any of the foreshore. Another Department will deal with the next Bill so I cannot give the Deputy an undertaking in that regard.

There must be a commitment from the new authority that it will vindicate the constitutional right of the State under Article 10.3. It is the State, on behalf of all of the people, that owns all resources on the foreshore. Therefore, any attempt to exclude the public is wrong and unconstitutional. I ask that the new authority, when it moves to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, become the equivalent of an activist in terms of enforcing the rights of the public.

I understand there may be some interesting case law in this area.

I am sure the Department will consider this closely. I strongly agree with the principle enunciated by the Deputy.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 10, line 10, after "Minister" to insert the following:

"and the appropriate Department in the Northern Ireland Assembly".

This amendment proposes to oblige the Minister, when considering granting a foreshore licence in the vicinity of either Carlingford or Lough Foyle, to consult with the relevant Department in the Northern Ireland Assembly. This makes sense and I ask the Minister of State to accept the amendment.

The intent of this section is to ensure co-ordination between the two Departments involved after the transfer of functions, which is vital for the efficient and effective operation of the Foreshore Acts. There is already routine initiation of consultation with other authorities in certain cases and I have no doubt that will continue. In any event, there is an obligation on each of the Ministers to consult with the appropriate authorities under the European Communities (Foreshore) Regulations 2009, SI 404, which specifically provide for trans-boundary consultation in cases in which an environmental impact statement accompanies the application. Thus, the issue is already dealt with.

Is the Minister of State accepting the amendment?

It is already provided for. We must avoid duplication because that would raise questions about non-duplication in other instances.

I accept the Minister's assurances.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 8 agreed to.
Sections 9 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 12.

I move amendment No. 2a:

In page 11, line 42, after "provided." to insert the following:

"The Minister will also consult with representative community and business groups with an interest in the foreshore for which the application has been made.".

This amendment is complementary to that tabled by Deputy Higgins in that it would ensure local interest groups are given a say in how enterprises develop in their areas. There are painful memories of certain events that have occurred in the past two years, including the jailing of what I would call community activists for standing up against powerful multinationals which, shamefully, were supported by the Government and the legal system. I am referring to areas such as Rossport, Ballinaboy and the Corrib area, the latter of which contains fantastic resources. Nobody was against the bringing to shore of these resources, but there was a need for provisions to ensure the safety of the community as a whole. We have seen the latest results in this regard from An Bord Pleanála, which came down in favour of the community activists.

We seek to democratise this Bill. The Green Party, which is currently in government, sat on this side of the House and, in its position in opposition, advocated the decentralisation of power and its delegation to local communities, yet its members now stand against the communities they claimed to support. It is amazing what power does to people. It corrupts absolutely.

We do not ever again want to see citizens imprisoned as a result of their genuine concerns for their community. We do not want to see a multinational oil company paying for a facility for a political party at the Galway races. We do not want to see substantial donations from major oil companies compromising the political system of the State. What we want to see is the utilisation of our resources for the benefit of all. In particularly, we want to ensure that the rights of people and communities are protected. People who have genuine concerns, such as the concerns of those in the Rossport area about the laying of a gas pipeline at their own back doors, must be protected. I ask the Minister to consider accepting this amendment in the interests of safety, democracy and ownership of our natural resources by the communities at the front line.

Deputy Barrett mentioned the major resource potential of the west coast, all the way from Youghal and around the south coast, up through the Porcupine Basin and as far as the Corrib area. These resources are largely untouched. The political representatives from the latter area will testify to the disastrous decision regarding licensing. Communities must be protected. We want to bring back democracy to local communities and to undo the centralisation of power.

Much of this can be facilitated. The amendment is reasonable.

We will be defeated this evening, but the advantage of preparing for the third phase of the legislation is that some fundamental principles need to be laid down such as are contained in this amendment, namely, the concept of the public ownership of the foreshore, the concept of public usage, the concept of balanced multiple and differentiated usages, be it in terms of seaweed, fishing, access, recreation or public access. I have no hesitation in stating that the idea that any island people would face barbed wire cutting them off from the sea must not be accepted. It simply must be outlawed. More importantly, as Deputy Ferris has said, the sheer scale of what has been visited upon a small Irish-language speaking community is so vast that suddenly they are presented as the people standing in the way of something that is for the greater good, and we are right back to the definition of the public interest. There can be no serious consideration of public interest unless there is adequate consultation. The consultation, to which we will come in a moment, should be not be on behalf of local authorities with managers but with elected public representatives. Neither should it be between corporations and a few people locally but with representative community voices.

This is a simple point. We need jobs and development, but people have a relationship with place and community. The example Deputy Ferris has given is an Irish-language speaking community which one day woke up to find people with an appalling international record for trampling on native people's rights had moved in on top of them. As the Minister who was responsible for bringing into law some of the protections for the environment and for birds, I must say these were thrown aside. It really was a case of the media getting involved then and, as might be expected, it was the people who had the largest trough of money who counted in the end.

I understand the principle which Deputy Ferris is trying to establish and have included in the legislation, but it will not surprise him that I disagree with much of the remainder of what he said. The consultation requirements for foreshore consent applications are set out in sections 19 and 19A of the Foreshore Acts together with the European Communities Foreshore Regulations 2009. Public consultation via newspapers circulating in the local area, industry periodicals and the placement of application details in local Garda stations, libraries, etc., is a well-established part of the licensing process. If Deputies Ferris, Michael D. Higgins or anybody else have concerns in that regard, it is a principle established under the Aarhus Convention to which we are signatories — and a number of other directives — which guarantees that the consultation standards are set at a particular level and will continue to apply to both Departments subsequent to the enactment of this legislation.

I do not want to go back over what I stated already. I will press this amendment in the interests of democracy and local accountability. As Deputy Michael D. Higgins stated, it is disgraceful that elected local representatives are excluded and the power given over to unelected bureaucrats or county managers, etc. It is a dangerous step to exclude local democracy.

As I stated, the intent of Deputy Ferris's amendment is perfectly clear and is already more than adequately provided for in the legislation and in the convention. There is no merit in duplication in this instance. In fact, it creates all kinds of dangers. I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 11, after line 42, to insert the following:

"(c) regulation made under paragraph (b) shall be made within 30 days of the commencement of this section.”.

This also is a time-related amendment. We are anxious to ensure there is no undue delay.

The legislation with which we are dealing gives both Ministers — the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government following consultation with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food — power to make regulations specifying the bodies which are to submit their observations to either Minister on foreshore applications. I understand the intention of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is to make these regulations quickly. It will address, perhaps, one of the fundamental issues related to delays which was raised by several speakers in the course of the Second Stage debate because there then will be a specified period within which the bodies which have a right to make submissions must make such submissions. It will be dealt with in any event. In the context of the process for doing so, this amendment would be entirely unhelpful and I must reject it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 12, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:

"(4) The making of submissions by a local authority under regulations under this section or under section 19A shall be a reserved function.".

Put simply, this means a consultation with a local authority could, if one just leaves it like that, be a consultation with a nominated official such as a director of services or a nominee of the city or county manager. This amendment provides for an element of local consultation, in that the elected representatives will be the people who will have an opportunity to hear the proposal. I understood many Members from the Government side spoke in favour of such a development on Second Stage and I hope the Minister of State will accept this amendment.

I support the amendment. The Minister of State spoke of the Aarhus Convention. To my mind, that is a minimal set of standards. In this amendment we seek to buttress that even further to provide for some degree of democratic accountability. It also speaks to the issues raised by Deputy Ferris whereby if it is a reserved function, one is guaranteed it will be wholly democratic and wholly representative.

As Members will be aware, as a general principle a decision which is relevant to a particular site, individual grant, etc., is generally, under local authority law, a matter for the county manager, whereas the reserved functions of a council in general terms relate to policy making, the adoption of county development plans, etc. As someone who for a long time served as a member of a local authority, I wish our experience nationally had been such that we would be encouraged and in a position to transfer more functions directly to local authority members, but that is not necessarily the case. The effect of the amendment would be to quite strongly contravene Schedule 15 of the Local Government Act 2001 and would go against a principle which is set out fairly strongly in local government law and in planning law heretofore.

It is set out in planning legislation and it has not worked. The Minister of State draws on his experience and I draw on mine. There is a greater flair for efficient, fast consultation with those who are making a proposal than for wanting to embrace the views of the public in a wide way. I am committed as a person elected to an assembly. For a long time I was a member of two local authorities. I accept that in the long history of local authorities there have been people who behaved in different ways, but the local authority members are still the elected people in whom trust has been placed.

Frankly, I sometimes worry about the bureaucratic way. The most well-meaning suggestions are buried in the new system which has grown up around county and city managers. It would have been an interesting development if the McCarthy report had examined the question of the administration of the State and looked at all the managers. Maybe that is a way to save money. If the Government wants to do something very radical, we will do that on another day.

One of the principles to which I am absolutely committed is that if one holds elections and elects councillors and if one is not satisfied with them, there is another election coming. However, the same is not necessarily true of managers, assistant managers, directors of services and others. Therefore, I am pressing this amendment and will be calling for a vote on it.

Deputy Higgins is undoubtedly right that it is possible to dispose of all of us who are elected public representatives.

Unfortunately, decisions which are made by people often have an impact that lives on long past their political careers or even beyond their lifespan.

The evil that men do lives after them.

Like the city manager of Dublin who was not criticised by another city or county manager in the whole country.

Deputy Higgins should let the Minister of State reply.

Let me make it clear that I am not defending anybody on either side of the divide. However, there is a long-established principle in local government law and planning law that there is a division between the reserve function performed by elected members and functions performed by the management. In this instance, the particular matter we are dealing with falls into the area normally dealt with by management. I am not in a position to accede to the amendment.

Is the amendment being pressed?

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 61; Níl, 66.

  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Bannon, James.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Ulick.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Clune, Deirdre.
  • Coonan, Noel J.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Coveney, Simon.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Creighton, Lucinda.
  • D’Arcy, Michael.
  • Deasy, John.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • English, Damien.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Flanagan, Terence.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Hayes, Brian.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Lee, George.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Mitchell, Olivia.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O’Donnell, Kieran.
  • O’Dowd, Fergus.
  • O’Keeffe, Jim.
  • O’Mahony, John.
  • O’Shea, Brian.
  • O’Sullivan, Jan.
  • Penrose, Willie.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reilly, James.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheahan, Tom.
  • Sheehan, P. J.
  • Sherlock, Seán.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Timmins, Billy.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
  • Upton, Mary.
  • Wall, Jack.

Níl

  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, Barry.
  • Andrews, Chris.
  • Ardagh, Seán.
  • Aylward, Bobby.
  • Behan, Joe.
  • Blaney, Niall.
  • Brady, Áine.
  • Brady, Cyprian.
  • Brady, Johnny.
  • Browne, John.
  • Byrne, Thomas.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Carey, Pat.
  • Collins, Niall.
  • Conlon, Margaret.
  • Connick, Seán.
  • Cregan, John.
  • Cuffe, Ciarán.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Curran, John.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Devins, Jimmy.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Fitzpatrick, Michael.
  • Gogarty, Paul.
  • Hanafin, Mary.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kelly, Peter.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kennedy, Michael.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lenihan, Conor.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • Mansergh, Martin.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • Moloney, John.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Nolan, M. J.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • O’Brien, Darragh.
  • O’Connor, Charlie.
  • O’Dea, Willie.
  • O’Hanlon, Rory.
  • O’Keeffe, Batt.
  • O’Keeffe, Edward.
  • O’Rourke, Mary.
  • O’Sullivan, Christy.
  • Power, Peter.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Ryan, Eamon.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • White, Mary Alexandra.
  • Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe; Níl, Deputies Pat Carey and John Cregan.
Amendment declared lost.

I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for Committee Stage and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, in respect of each of the sections undisposed of that the section is hereby agreed to on Committee Stage, Schedule 1 is amended, Schedule 2 and the Title are hereby agreed to on Committee Stage, that the Bill, as amended, is accordingly reported to the House, Report Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 61.

  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, Barry.
  • Andrews, Chris.
  • Ardagh, Seán.
  • Aylward, Bobby.
  • Behan, Joe.
  • Blaney, Niall.
  • Brady, Áine.
  • Brady, Cyprian.
  • Brady, Johnny.
  • Browne, John.
  • Byrne, Thomas.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Carey, Pat.
  • Collins, Niall.
  • Conlon, Margaret.
  • Connick, Seán.
  • Cregan, John.
  • Cuffe, Ciarán.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Curran, John.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Devins, Jimmy.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Fitzpatrick, Michael.
  • Gogarty, Paul.
  • Hanafin, Mary.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kelly, Peter.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kennedy, Michael.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lenihan, Conor.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • Mansergh, Martin.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • Moloney, John.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Nolan, M. J.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • O’Brien, Darragh.
  • O’Connor, Charlie.
  • O’Dea, Willie.
  • O’Hanlon, Rory.
  • O’Keeffe, Batt.
  • O’Keeffe, Edward.
  • O’Rourke, Mary.
  • O’Sullivan, Christy.
  • Power, Peter.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Ryan, Eamon.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • White, Mary Alexandra.
  • Woods, Michael.

Níl

  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Bannon, James.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Ulick.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Clune, Deirdre.
  • Coonan, Noel J.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Coveney, Simon.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Creighton, Lucinda.
  • D’Arcy, Michael.
  • Deasy, John.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • English, Damien.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Flanagan, Terence.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Hayes, Brian.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Lee, George.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Mitchell, Olivia.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O’Donnell, Kieran.
  • O’Dowd, Fergus.
  • O’Keeffe, Jim.
  • O’Mahony, John.
  • O’Shea, Brian.
  • O’Sullivan, Jan.
  • Penrose, Willie.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reilly, James.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheahan, Tom.
  • Sheehan, P. J.
  • Sherlock, Seán.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Timmins, Billy.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
  • Upton, Mary.
  • Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Pat Carey and John Cregan; Níl, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg.
Question declared carried.