Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 5 Nov 1998

Vol. 156 No. 18

Plant Varieties (Proprietary Rights) (Amendment) Bill, 1997: Second Stage.

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

The purpose of this Bill is to update the Plant Varieties (Proprietary Rights) Act, 1980, to take account of new developments in the area of plant breeders' rights, which have been adopted internationally since the Act came into force, and to provide for Ireland's ratification of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, as revised in 1991. The convention was signed by Ireland, subject to ratification, in February 1992 and the proposed Bill will give effect to the provisions of that convention.

The European Union, under Council Regulation 2100/94 EEC, has set up a separate system of community plant variety rights, based on the UPOV Convention but operating parallel to the national plant breeders' rights system in each member state. The Union legislation requires member states to provide corresponding penalties for infringements of community rights as apply for infringements of national rights and I have provided for this in section 12 of the Bill.

The Plant Varieties (Proprietary Rights) Act, 1980, provided for the establishment of a system of plant breeders' rights in Ireland based on the principles set down in the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants as revised in 1978. States which are party to the convention constitute the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, known as UPOV. UPOV currently comprises 13 member states of the European Union and 24 other states including the USA, Australia, Canada and South Africa. Ireland acceded to the UPOV Convention in 1981 because Irish plant breeding interests needed protection against infringement of varieties bred by them, many of which they also exported. As a State where agriculture is of such importance, we needed to have access to the very best varieties, such as grasses, sugar beet and cereals, which might not otherwise have been available to us in the absence of a national system of protection for plant variety rights. Most of the varieties for which plant breeders' rights are taken out are varieties that are of very considerable significance to Irish agriculture.

The central principle of the UPOV Convention is that the breeder of a new variety of a plant is granted a title of protection the effect of which is that the breeder has the exclusive right to reproduce and sell material of the variety and to authorise others to do so on conditions which he may specify throughout the territory where he has been granted plant breeders' rights. He can also apply to the appropriate authorities in other UPOV states to have the same rights granted to him in respect of his variety. Accordingly, breeders are enabled to obtain royalties from reproduction of their plant material and protection against infringements of their rights.

The main conditions to be satisfied for the grant of a breeder's right are that the variety must be novel, distinct from other varieties of the species, uniform, stable in its reproduction and given a suitable name or other designation. Novelty is essentially a legal condition to be satisfied at the time of filing the application for breeder's rights. Distinctness, uniformity and stability are established by means of growing trials under agreed UPOV protocols. The results of such technical examinations can be purchased from other UPOV member states under bilateral agreements.

As regards agricultural crops, the breeder's right is circumscribed to the extent that, under the various marketing of seed regulations, only seed of a variety which has been officially certified may be marketed. The seed can only be of varieties registered in the National Catalogue of Agricultural Plant Varieties or the European Community Common Catalogue of Varieties of Agricultural Plant Species which is an amalgam of all member state catalogues. Acceptance of varieties into the national catalogue is based on growing trials which establish value for cultivation and satisfactory use under Irish conditions.

The Irish plant breeders' rights system is administered by the Office of Controller of Plant Breeders' Rights. The controller is an official of my Department and holds his office under the general supervision and direction of the Minister for Agriculture and Food but acts on his own and not under the name of the Minister.

Under the Act, the controller is responsible for any decision taken under the Irish plant breeders' rights system, including the granting of compulsory licences. The scale of the operation of this office is modest. However, since 1980 it has received 487 applications for plant breeders' rights and issued 354 grants of plant breeders' rights, of which 112 are still extant. The office has also published 35 official journals of plant varieties and maintained the register of plant breeders' rights.

Under the UPOV Convention of 1978 there were clear weaknesses in the system. Other breeders could use a protected variety in order to produce a new essentially derived variety to compete with the protected variety without the payment of any royalties to the breeder. The many advances in the biological sciences since the 1978 convention only served to worsen the position. Plant improvement methods, such as selecting mutations of vegetatively propagated varieties or backcrossing sexually reproduced varieties, have had the effect that often, at little cost, another breeder produces a new variety from the protected variety. Such a variety is considered an essentially derived variety. It will possess all the characteristics of the initial variety and differ from the initial variety in one or a limited number of characteristics. The second breeder thereby takes full advantage of the investment made by the breeder of the initial variety without making any contribution to the costs of the development of the initial variety. In addition, breeders were concerned at the extent of the use by farmers of seed saved from previous harvests to grow their next crop without payment of financial contribution for use of the protected variety. Additionally, plant breeders' rights applied only to varieties of cereals, grasses, potatoes, fruit trees, ornamental shrubs and roses.

The International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, UPOV, was revised in 1991 to strengthen the protection afforded to holders of plant breeders' rights and to enable them to obtain a fair return on the investment made in their varieties from persons making commercial use of such varieties. The Plant Varieties (Proprietary Rights) (Amendment) Bill, 1997, incorporates the principles of the revised convention.

Under the Bill, protection will be extended to all plant genera and species of the plant kingdom. In practice, I expect that only a limited number of applications for plant breeders' rights will be received from Irish breeders. These will relate to the small number of cultivated species on which breeding work is being done and which are necessary to protect, and from nationals of other member states of UPOV who wish to market selected varieties in Ireland.

The right to apply for a grant of breeder's right belongs to the breeder and, where the grant is made, the breeder's authorisation is required in order to carry out certain acts of exploitation of the variety. Section 18 of the Bill provides that the breeder's authorisation is required for acts involving the propagating of material of the protected variety and, in certain circumstances, to harvested material of the protected variety. These are cascading provisions. Unless the breeder has had a reasonable opportunity to exercise his right in relation to the propagating material of the protected variety, he can exercise his right to harvested material obtained through unauthorised use of such propagating material. If the defendant can demonstrate that the breeder has had a reasonable opportunity to exercise his rights with regard to the propagating material, the breeder is barred from exercising his rights against the harvested material in question.

The Bill also provides that the holder of plant breeders' rights shall have the same rights in respect of a variety that is a dependent variety. Dependent varieties are those whose production requires the repeated use of the protected variety, namely, hybrid and essentially derived varieties. An essentially derived variety is a variety which is predominantly derived, but still clearly distinguishable from the initial variety by a limited number of characteristics. Typically it is obtained by selecting natural or induced mutants within the variety, by backcrossing and transformation by gene technology.

The extension of rights to the dependent variety means that the holder of rights to an essentially derived variety cannot exploit the variety without the permission of the holder of rights in the initial variety. However, the holder of rights in the initial variety does not hold plant breeders' rights in the essentially derived variety. Accordingly, it is envisaged that the two holders will reach a commercial agreement which will allow the holder of rights in the essentially derived variety to exploit them. However, if there is no such agreement between the two parties, the holder of rights in the dependent variety may apply to the Controller of Plant Breeders' Rights for a compulsory licence where the holder of the rights in the initial variety unreasonably refuses to authorise exploitation of the essentially derived variety.

A compulsory licence is only issued in the public interest and requires that the holder of the breeders' rights in respect of whose variety such a licence is issued shall receive equitable remuneration. Legal provision for compulsory licensing of exclusive rights in the public interest is standard in all member countries of UPOV.

The 1991 convention requires a member country of UPOV to safeguard the interest of the breeder during the period between the filing or publication of the application for the grant of plant breeders' rights, and the granting of such rights. The holder of the breeders' rights is entitled to claim equitable remuneration in respect of such acts as would have infringed his exclusive rights had the grant been in force during the period of interim protection. I have made such provision in section 8 of the Bill.

Sections 16 and 19, respectively, provide for the exhaustion of the breeder's right and for the application of exemptions to the breeder's right which are very narrow. The holder of a breeder's right can only exercise his right and be paid royalties once in every production cycle. However, breeders' rights are not exhausted where further propagation of the protected variety takes place. The minimum period of plant breeders' rights under the Bill is 30 years for trees, vines and potatoes, and 25 years for all other species. The maximum period of protection for trees, vines and potatoes is 35 years and 30 years for all other species.

Section 19(1)(d) of the Bill provides for the farm saved seed exemption which has come about more through traditional practices than legal rights in the area of protection of intellectual property. The UPOV Convention of 1991 provides that a breeder's rights may be restricted within reasonable limits and, subject to safeguarding the breeder's legitimate interests, permits a farmer to use his farm saved seed on his holding. The section applies the equivalent provisions under national legislation as apply under European Union regulations for the community protected variety. The Minister will have powers to specify by order the species, such as cereals, fodder plants, oil and fibre plants and potatoes, to which the restriction applies. The Minister will also lay down by regulation the necessary arrangements to enable the farm saved seed exemption to operate.

Farmers who have saved seed of varieties of these species will be liable to pay holders of plant variety rights equitable remuneration which must be sensibly lower than the royalty charged for the use of those protected varieties. The amount to be charged is for the holders and farmers to decide between themselves. Small farmers will be exempt from the requirement to pay for the use of farm saved seed. Under EU legislation, small farmers are those whose cereal and fodder plant production will not exceed 15.13 hectares, excluding permanent pasture established for more than five years. In the case of potatoes, small farmers are those whose production area does not exceed 6.3 hectares.

When making regulations and orders in connection with farm saved seed, the Minister will apply the provisions of EU legislation establishing the implementation rules of the agricultural exemption on farm saved seed — EC Regulation 1768/95 of 24 July 1995. A particular problem arises for breeders of ornamental varieties such as rose bushes and pot plants, in that they face major difficulties in enforcing their rights, particularly in relation to royalty payments. These varieties are easily propagated, pass through many channels before they reach the consumer and are sold from a wide range of sales outlets. Unless the breeder knows the source of the plants being sold, he cannot establish if the material has been taken from an authorised propagation. It is not only the breeders of ornamental plants, but also traders who properly pay royalties, who are put at a disadvantage by illegal propagation of plant varieties.

The Bill enables breeders to exercise their rights more effectively by tracing plant material back through the supply chain from the retail sales outlet. Under its provisions, the holder of a breeder's right for the protected variety or his or her agent will serve an information notice on the trader asking him or her where he or she has obtained the harvested material being offered for sale. If the trader does not supply the information within the time limit laid down in the notice, certain presumptions will operate in any subsequent infringement proceedings in the civil case, unless the defendant proves otherwise or shows that he or she had a good reason for not supplying the information in the first instance.

In any proceedings in court between the holder of the rights and the trader, the holder of the breeder's right will have to prove the link between the harvested material which was the subject of the information notice and the harvested material which is the subject of the infringement proceedings in order to activate the presumptions. The presumptions are that the harvested material was obtained through the unauthorised use of the propagating material and the holder did not have a reasonable opportunity, before the harvested material was obtained, to exercise his or her rights in respect of the unauthorised use of propagating material. Any information obtained by means of an information notice can only be used in proceedings in connection with infringement of plant breeders' rights and any abuse of such information can be similarly proceeded against in the courts.

The Bill also makes provision for the annulment and cancellation of grants of plant breeders' rights. Revocation or nullity is retroactive to when the grant was made whereas cancellation is from the current date. Revocation or nullity arises where the grant of a breeder's right should not have been made in the first place, while cancellation will arise if the holder fails to meet obligations imposed on him or her arising from the grant of such a right.

The Bill is based on the principles of the UPOV Convention, as revised in 1991, which I indicated earlier was signed by Ireland, subject to ratification, in February 1992. The Bill will establish equitable relations between breeders, holders of breeders' rights and patent owners and between holders of breeders' rights for ornamental plants and traders.

I commend the Bill to the House.

This Bill is important in that it seeks to protect the livelihoods of plant breeders who put considerable effort and energy into their work. Although this is an aspect of agriculture I have not spent much time studying, I wish to comment on certain aspects of the Bill.

The subject of genetic engineering automatically springs to mind when one talks about plant breeding and is something which is creating a great deal of controversy at the moment. A great deal of irrational comment has been made on the issue, with people being frightened by very exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims. It is incumbent on the Government to show some leadership in this area and to promote a constructive and meaningful debate on the issue. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government is addressing this issue which the entire agriculture industry must become involved in. The Oireachtas could promote debate on the subject through the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

The Bill is principally concerned with the amendment of existing legislation to take account of the principles of the 1991 convention. Is it capable of dealing with all the technological and genetic advances which have occurred in the interim or does it need to be updated to deal with these developments? For example, does the Bill control the extraction of large royalties by multinational monopolies in the area of genetic engineering? Can those who have a worldwide monopoly on a particular breed and are in possession of plant varieties derived from genetic engineering charge what they like for royalties? Is any control mechanism provided for in the Bill? Fine Gael supports the Bill at this Stage but we reserve our options to table amendments on Committee Stage.

The Bill will have an important effect on Irish farming, particularly in regard to grain production. Grain farming has undergone a major change in recent years. Many farmers have bowed out of the area and prices and margins have become very tight. We must protect the people who have remained in the business and we must ensure the varieties they use are high yielding. In the past year, we have seen varying degrees of output from various varieties of grain, particularly in the malt area. That has had a huge effect on profitability levels. It is important that all new varieties introduced into the market benefit the industry. It strikes me that it is much more difficult to obtain a patent for plant breeding than for industry. Perhaps the Minister will inform us if the granting of patents will be policed.

It is extraordinarily difficult to keep track of varieties which cross again and again. I do not understand the process fully but I know that in the process of genetic modification, a scientist or breeder could perfect a new variety which would come under the criteria in the Bill and necessitate a patent being obtained. There is a danger that people's work could be hijacked and they would not benefit from it. The Bill seeks to ensure this would not happen. To every book its cover and every cow its calf is the basis on which the Bill is founded. People with the capabilities to invent new plant varieties will have their rights protected.

Although Ireland is a small country, we have a great plant breeding history. We have produced wonderful potatoes, particularly the Rooster variety. We must seek to develop varieties which best suit Irish conditions, be they white clover, perennial rye and grass, sugar beet or cereals. We must ensure maximum returns from such crops because we are competing on a European stage.

I pay tribute to the unsung scientists involved in this area which is an aspect of Irish agriculture few have an opportunity to witness. The annual information received on cereals is a case in point. It is very important to know which varieties do well and which are problematic. There has been a great deal of comment recently on the use of sprays and pesticides on Irish farms and their possible link with cancer. This issue must be examined without fail. We should try to do something about it as accusations have been made and people are very concerned.

It is always a pleasure to welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food, Deputy Davern. He adds good humour to the proceedings.

I welcome the Bill as it affords greater protection to plant breeders as new developments in this area are continually taking place. While a relatively small group, their work is of enormous importance in the agriculture sector and in an agriculturally dominated economy such as ours. We must all strive for new varieties of plants. This Bill is necessary to update the 1980 Act to allow for the progress of new varieties of plant. It is very important that Ireland, other EU member states and the 24 other states which are part of the UPOV Convention give effect to the protection of that convention as is proposed in the Bill.

The principle of the UPOV Convention is that breeders of a new variety of plant are granted a title of protection which means they have exclusive rights to reproduce and sell material of those varieties and to allow others do so on conditions which the breeder may specify in the area they have been granted breeder rights. The breeder can also apply to the appropriate authority in other UPOV states to have the same rights granted to him in respect of his variety. This allows breeders obtain royalty from reproduction of their material.

I believe the Irish plant breeders system operates well under the control of the Office of Controller of Plant Breeders Rights under the direction of the Department of Agriculture and Food. In 1981 Ireland signed the UPOV Convention as Irish plant breeders' interests needed protection for varieties bred by them, many of which are exported.

As an agriculturally dominated country, we need access to the very best varieties of grass, sugar beet and cereals, something which might not be otherwise available to us if a protection system was not in place. Most of the varieties for which plant breeders' rights are taken out are of very considerable value to Irish agriculture. As a farmer I am very aware of the need for top quality grass varieties to be available to farmers to produce quality grass, the cheapest feed for animals. This was never more important than at present when cattle and sheep prices are being severely hit. Farmers must cut costs and rely more on grass for lower production costs. The high quality of Irish grass is due to the fact that, before seed can be marketed, it must be of a variety officially certified by the Department of Agriculture and Food and registered in the national catalogue of agricultural plant varieties. It can only be registered following growing trials under Irish conditions.

The advances in recent years in science, etc., require the international convention for the protection of new varieties of plants to be revised to strengthen the protection afforded to holders of plant breeders rights and to enable them obtain a fair return on investment in their variety. Under the Bill protection will be extended to all plant species of the plant kingdom, whereas before rights only applied to varieties of cereals, grass, potatoes, fruit, trees, ornamental shrubs and roses. The Bill offers protection, and I urge the House to support it.

I was just watering myself as an especially sensitive plant variety. I do not welcome the Bill; I will oppose it. It is appalling and scandalous and has all to do with intellectual property. I noticed this some years ago during the GATT negotiations. There is no doubt that the net effect will be to further disadvantage people in the Third World. We are going to force them to pay for materials to which, in my opinion, they have a perfect and reasonable right. The issue concerns property and advantage. It is American driven and we ought to have taken warning from recent cases, one in particular concerning a doctor-patient relationship. Genetic material was abstracted from a patient by a doctor for tests relating to cancer. Without the knowledge of the patient the DNA material was patented by the doctor. The patient found out and took a case which went to the Supreme Court where it was found the doctor had a perfect right to patent the DNA structure of an individual without his permission or knowledge. This is the direction in which we are moving.

This is not the direct subject of the Bill, but I am sounding a warning that we are in very dangerous territory. It is all about profit and plant breeders' rights. We are implementing the UPOV Convention. I received material from a research unit associated with the EU Parliament which says that if the Bill is enacting UPOV 1991 it is moving us a long way on the road towards an intellectual property régime for plants which is not far short of a patent system. This is the direction in which we are going. The Minister acknowledged this and invoked UPOV as if it is something of which we should be proud and pleased. I do not believe this is the case. Neither do I believe that all these varieties are new. They may be newly discovered to Europe but may not necessarily simply be the product of the intellectual resources of the companies concerned. It is the interest of companies which is at stake.

Let us look at the phraseology: ". a fair return on the investment made in their varieties from all the persons making commercial use of such varieties ." There is also a very sinister passage:

These are cascading provisions. Unless the breeder has had a reasonable opportunity to exercise his right in relation to propagating material of the protected variety, he can exercise his right in relation to harvested material obtained through unauthorised use of such propagating material.

In other words, I can see a situation where, for example, someone would own the patent in material. I would like to put on record what the situation is with regard to the ownership of patents in Third World countries. According to the World Intellectual Property Organisation, citizens and corporations of industrialised countries hold 95 per cent of patents in Africa, 85 per cent of patents in Latin America and 70 per cent of those in Asia. The patent system operates for the northern economies. We bleat continually about our concerns about famine, yet we steal the intellectual property rights of people. Africa is rent by famine, but 95 per cent of its patents are owned by America. We are facilitating them in giving them the right not only to colonise these unfortunate people, to steal their genetic material, and then to patent it, but they have these cascading rights. As a good republican, I oppose these cascading rights of the capitalist régimes of the western world. It is outrageous that we are moving in this direction and I will strongly oppose the Bill for this reason. Other methods can be found to safeguard the real interests of traditional seed merchants in Ireland, for example, who have worked to produce certain useful varieties of grass. However, let us not fool ourselves. This is part of a rolling system which will damage the world economy and which, for various technical reasons, will not even increase plant diversity or strength; it will weaken plants.

Let us look at organisations that work in this area. Monsanto, recently convicted of criminal charges in the United States, said not long ago that its job was not to protect people from the possible malign impact of its products; it was the governments. Let us see governments do that job.

I spotted this during the GATT negotiations. It is a technical area and we all feel diffident about it because we are not trained as scientists. I listened with respect to Senator O'Brien because he is a farmer. I am neither a scientist nor a farmer but I try to keep up to date with the documents that come from Brussels and I am sometimes alerted by matters that worry me. When I noticed this matter during the GATT negotiations, the argument being made was that the absence of strong intellectual property rights in developing countries was a barrier to trade which was costing industrialised countries approximately $200 billion in lost royalties per annum. The TRIP agreement was expressly designed to ensure that intellectual property rights could be universally applied to all technologies, especially those which had previously been declared unsuitable for monopoly rights at national level. This is clearly moving us in the direction of monopolies.

This legislation is being used to establish monopolies over plant types and varieties. Every time I think of this I remember the remarkable native American chief who was eventually coerced into ceding property rights to the federal government. He plaintively said that it was outside his imaginative scope to understand how people could claim to own the sky or the earth. We are now claiming ownership of plants, and I am not fooled into thinking that all these plants are completely the product of western ingenuity.

These technologies include pharmaceutical products and biological materials such as plants and micro-organisms, all of which must now be eligible for private property rights. The idea of extending patents to biodiversity was strongly resisted by developing countries during the GATT negotiations. This was based on evidence that monopolies in the areas of food and health harm the interests of the world's poor and efforts to conserve and make genetic resources available. The new commercial opportunities opened up through developments in biotechnology have resulted in a massive campaign to wrest market control over biodiversity through the patent system, as well as to change the rules of that system in the process.

Why would the developing countries not oppose this regime? We own 95 per cent of what they are naturally entitled to own. We have passed through the celebration of the Famine, and we have bellyached and whinged about how the British administration engaged in laissez faire capitalism to the disadvantage of the people of that time, yet we are co-operating with these macro-economic structures in order to visit the same kind of situation on the people of the under-developed world. The justification for this is an economic one: it will be good for business, it will inspire people to do research, without patents companies will not invest in genetic engineering and without genetic engineering we cannot feed the world.

A number of assumptions are made. The first is that intellectual property is a matter of national sovereignty and policy because it establishes monopolies, which are in themselves dangerous. Historically, countries have taken great care with national intellectual property rights systems in order to protect the balance between private incentives and the public interest but the possibility of doing so is now forfeited to serve the imperative of the TRIPs agreement. Biodiversity represents cultural and ecological heritage developed over generations and upon which our collective survival depends. Subjecting this heritage to a legal regime of commercial monopoly rights will destroy the conditions for its conservation and sustainable use, especially by communities, and thereby destroy society's access to diverse food and medicine.

Examining the situation where such a regime has been implemented would be helpful as we can learn from mistakes made there. The obvious example is the United States. The rare studies conducted in countries where plant variety protection has been in effect for decades, such as the United States, show that this kind of legal system has resulted in little impact in terms of stimulating plant breeding, reduced information and germplasm flows from the private to the public sector and a decreased role for public plant breeding. Inevitably, there are increased seed prices for farmers, and farmers should look at the long-term situation if we become involved in this.

They will make plenty of money for the commercial interests and will pay a higher price for seed. Let us look at meat. Farmers are on television every night saying that they are not getting a fair price and that they are stuck at profit levels that existed three or four years ago, yet the consumer is paying more all the time. Beware of being enticed by this carrot of an increased revenue yield to farmers — it will be the multinational corporations and people who hold patents which they should never have been allowed hold, who will make the profits.

The rules set by UPOV hinge on genetic conformity as a requirement for monopoly rights. They also exact payments for farmers, the source of biodiversity on which breeding is based. Neither system, patent nor PVP, has any mechanism for sharing benefits between IPR holders and germplasm or knowledge donors, a requirement that is squarely embedded in the CBD objectives.

I always find it very irritating when people pose as having greater knowledge than they do by using a few initials. I think some people invent these initials — they talk about the PRSQ — and nobody dares penetrate it. However, for the record, the CBD is the Convention on Biological Diversity, which was part of the Rio Earth Summit Treaty. Seen from the perspective of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the rights conferred by TRIPs over biological resources are astonishing. By 2000, developing countries will have to implement a regime of private property rights on their own biodiversity for the benefit of northern transnational corporations. The West, particularly the United States, owns 95 per cent of this property in Africa, where there is famine. Such countries will be required to submit to this regime by 2000.

I am really worried about the situation which is developing here. This is not the end of this system but the beginning. It may be soft sold as the introduction of a system but I am warning about what is coming next. It is all part of a move by western monopoly capitalism to increase its profits as the result of naked greed. I have no doubt it will cause difficulties for people who are disadvantaged.

I also received a document from sources close to the European Parliament research unit about the sui generis trap of the TRIPs situation, to which the Minister of State referred. The implementation of the sui generis option for plant varieties under TRIPs means that, first, the majority of developing countries will need to provide some form of intellectual monopoly right on food and medicinal biodiversity for the first time; second, many countries may be lured into adopting the UPOV model of PVP, which imposes genetic uniformity as a legal requirement for monopoly rights; and, third, developing countries might rush to join UPOV before the 1978 Act closes — which it will, as the Minister of State knows, in April 1999.

Seed prices will rise in poor countries and the seeds will be tailored by transnational corporations to suit their related commodity market interest in agri-chemicals processing and trade. Farmers' access to diversity, their choice of planting material and options for management systems will be significantly impaired. Farmers' rights to save and exchange seed will be legally restricted, if not prohibited, because of protection granted only to the holders of the interests of monopolies. Varieties further selected by farmers from those with IPRs will be considered genetic derivations, falling under the extensive legal ownership of the original IPR holder. I am delighted the Minister of State used the word "cascade"— we will be drowned in this cascade if we are not careful.

The top seed companies will further consolidate their control of the industry, with 40 per cent of the world market already in the hands of ten firms. Corporations will be able to secure legal ownership of plant varieties which contain genetic information obtained from farmers' own fields in the South, which they will then sell back to them with an added royalty charge. Does the Irish public realise this is the kind of piracy we are at? We are taking over genetic material from the most deprived people on the planet, forcing it to be registered internationally and then, as if they were not poor enough, we are exacting royalties from them for planting their own seeds.

The biodiversity and associated community knowledge systems which form the basis of the adaptability of agriculture to population and other pressures will be lost. Food security and agricultural innovation will severely decline.

As I said, I am not an expert on these matters but this worried me when it came through under the GATT negotiations quite a number of years ago. I sought some briefings on it and everything I have read and all the information I put on the record of the House today makes me more worried about it. It is scandalous that a country with our record and history of starvation and the operation of laissez faire economics under an imperial control system in the last century should — perhaps unwittingly or without due examination — give in to these interests in Europe which are not in the general interests of humanity at large. It may be ineffective to do so, but I will oppose the Bill and I will seek an opportunity to vote against it.

The Senator is really having a bad day.

I quite enjoyed it.

I support the Bill. I wish to open with what Senator Tom Hayes said — to every book its cover, to every cow its calf. That is what we are talking about in this Bill. Senator Norris addressed what will happen tomorrow. We might have some comments to make on that, but of course with less dramatics.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill, the purpose of which is to facilitate Ireland's ratification of the 1991 International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants — the UPOV convention — and to take into account the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No. 2100/94, which set up the community plant variety rights system. The UPOV convention was signed in 1991, at which stage the terminator gene technology was not an issue because people were not aware of it. It was a new concept, which I will address later. The Bill is straightforward.

Ireland acceded to the convention in 1981 and adopted the Plant Varieties (Proprietary Rights) Act, 1980, to establish a system of plant breeders' rights in this country. As the Minister of State said, the Irish plant breeding interests at the time needed protection against the infringement of varieties bred by them, many of which are also exported.

This country must have access to optimum varieties of agricultural crops, which might not have been available to us without a national system to protect plant varieties. As a food producing island, we need access to top variety seeds to produce good quality food and to maintain market viability. If we did not sign this convention and bring its conditions into law, we might be denied access to optimum plant varieties which would give good yields. I have no problem with supporting the Bill and I am pleased the Minister of State has brought it before us.

The central principle of the UPOV Convention is that the breeder of a new variety of plant is granted a title of protection. The effect of this title is that the breeder has the exclusive right to:

— reproduce and sell reproductive material of the variety, and to authorise others to do so on conditions which he may specify throughout the territory where he has been granted plant breeders' rights, and

— to apply to the appropriate authorities in other UPOV Convention states to have the same rights granted to him in respect of his variety.

Breeders are thus enabled throughout the territories of the contracting parties to the convention to obtain royalties for reproduction of their plant material and protection against infringements of their rights.

The 1991 UPOV Convention was substantially revised in 1991 and Ireland signed, subject to ratification, on 21 February 1992. There was a weakness in the earlier UPOV Convention from the unqualified nature of the breeders' exemption. The breeders' exemption is the cornerstone of the plant breeders' rights system in that a plant variety may be freely used to create new varieties by crossing two varieties and selecting from their progeny a variety which will be better than the original. However, the production of an essentially derived variety from the protected variety could be done by using modern plant improvement methods such as selecting mutations, backcrossing or genetic modification without having to pay royalties. This gave rise to an abuse known as cosmetic breeding which the Minister mentioned and which has been tackled by extending the scope of the plant breeders' rights to essentially derived varieties.

I am happy to endorse the Bill which will give breeders greater control over their protected varieties of plants to take account of developments in plant breeding technology and provide that the holder of rights in the essentially derived variety cannot exploit the variety without the permission of the holder of rights in the initial variety. The holders concerned will have to reach an agreement so that the variety concerned can be exploited. If they fail to agree, the holder of the rights in the essentially derived variety may apply to the Controller of Plant Breeders' Rights for a compulsory licence, which can be granted in the public interest; extend the scope of protection to cover additional acts in relation to propagating material of the protected variety and to harvested material where this has been obtained from unauthorised use of propagating material; extend protection to the entire plant kingdom; allow the marketing of varieties for up to 12 months before an application for plant breeders' rights is submitted; provide for a minimum period for the grant of rights and for certain plant genera and species for a maximum period of grant of rights; provide provisional protection to all applicants from the date of publication in the Official Journal of Plant Varieties until the date on which the rights are granted — during that period applicants will be entitled to reasonable compensation for acts within the scope of the breeder's right done by others during that period; and provide that farmers who sow seed saved from a previous harvest on their land will have to pay to holders of rights equitable remuneration which will be sensibly lower than the royalties charged from certified seed sold in this country. I ask the Minister for a better definition of the term "sensibly lower".

Small farmers are exempt.

I recognise that this provision is similar to that adopted under the Community plant variety system. Farmers who are designated as small farmers will be exempt from paying this charge. A person is designated as a small farmer if, in the case of cereal seed and oil and fibre plants, they grow plants on no more than 15.13 hectares — 37.4 acres — including pasture established less than five years, in the case of seed of fodder plants if they grow them on no more than 15.13 hectares and in the case of potatoes if they grow them on no more than 6.3 hectares. This matter requires clarification.

I come from an area where grain is a typical crop. Seed wheat, barley — both malting and feed — and oats are substantial crops in the area in which I reside. From time to time farmers with a good strain or variety of barley or wheat would wish to retain a couple of tonnes of seed for the following year. If a farmer has 100 acres, for example, may he use farm saved seed on 37.4 acres? The Minister comes from an area in which there is intensive grain growing. Will he clarify that point and recognise that a portion of grain grown from farm saved seed is an important part of farm husbandry? We are not talking about sowing 1,000 acres of farm saved seed, but only a small proportion to make the job easier and to make the farmer more competitive. In these difficult times for grain growing, we need to protect that interest. If that is the definition of a small farmer, I have no problem with it. If not, I will have something else to say.

With less enthusiasm and dramatics than Senator Norris, I would like to deal with an issue of concern to me. I share some of the concerns expressed by Senator Norris but, as I said at the outset, the UPOV Convention was signed in 1991 and terminator gene technology was not known at that time. The convention could not consider something which was not known. There is a need to look at the way in which multinationals have entered into the grain assembly practice. Senator Norris referred to Monsanto which has acquired two enormous grain assemblers in the United States. It is before the United States Government seeking patent rights. That would confirm what Senator Norris said and I would share that concern if the multinationals were given a patent which gave them an almost exclusive right to worldwide rights. If they become the owners of plant breeder assemblies, we would face severe difficulties. Speaking as a farmer, I see an enormous difficulty. The Minister who is an enlightened member of that community will also see that difficulty and why it should be addressed.

The seed industry worldwide accounts for about $40 billion in sales annually. The commercial value of seed used by farmers globally is estimated at somewhere between $60 billion and $75 billion, so one can see that there is substantial use of farm saved seed. Reference was made to the Third World and I am aware of the convention held in Mexico at which South America and other Third World states rejected this development. One can understand that because they have developing economies and they do not want impositions which could lead to exclusions or inclusions of certain things.

The issue which is of the greatest concern to me and obviously to others in the House is the use and development of terminator gene technology. It would not only apply to plants and seeds. We import semen from high quality bulls from abroad for dairy and even beef purposes and have high quality male breeding animals. Would terminator gene technology spread as far as this field? Would that suit us? The answer is clearly "no". This Bill gives me an opportunity to put down a marker. This area needs further study and I appeal to the Minister to take this on board and ensure that we are well covered in that regard.

I draw the Minister's attention to the goal of genetic engineering in food production which is to ensure that food is produced cheaply and in large quantities to avoid the recurrence of famine. Genetic engineering claims to feed the world, but terminator technology gives exclusive control to one or two companies. This case involves Monsanto and a dangerous development which must be dealt with in the near future.

Another aspect of this matter is nearer to home. Companies with this technology can hold farmers to ransom when it comes to what they can charge for seed. A copperfastened farm seed guarantee gives the farmer a bargaining chip to negotiate a more realistic price for his seed. At present in the US one of the biggest seed producers in the world, Monsanto, is negotiating with the US Government for sole rights to the terminator gene technology patent. If this happens, we can be sure that this company will introduce this technology in all its seed products. The size and speed at which Monsanto is growing is dangerous. I have given thought to this matter and I do not make that point lightly. I am aware of Monsanto's involvement in genetic breeding of sugar beet in Ireland. I have no problem with that or anything which advances science and technology. I have been a recipient of pharmaceutical technology in the past and I benefited from it. However, there is a point which should not be passed. This is the point of monopoly and I caution against it.

I was most interested in the comments made by Senator Norris, Senator Callanan and others. I have tried to follow the scientific developments in genetic engineering and plant breeding. While I feel the scientific side is relatively secure, I wish one could get more information when one is trying to establish exactly what is happening in this field. Senator Dardis has been most kind in trying to get information for me from Monsanto because I was worried about what I thought was its monoculture philosophy regarding the development of seeds and plants.

While all the information is interesting and useful, it contains absolutely no references. One has no idea of the scientific papers on which its assertions are made. It is fine to be told that methods have been tested on different types of soil and leeching does not take place. However, one would like to be in a position to examine the scientific papers on which these assertions are based so one would know if the tests are done by independent assessors or the company. I am inclined to think that they are done by the company.

My concern with the Bill relates to the philosophy behind the current type of plant breeding and the fact that it may lead to a lack of diversity which can be dangerous. While something may appear to be extremely good and useful now, one may find after one or two generations of breeding that it was not such a marvellous development.

I am depressed by the assertions that these developments will feed the hungry of the world and save people from famine. Usually those who starve to death are in areas where sufficient food could be brought to them if transport was possible. Famine takes place because of lack of roads or wars.

This is also a feminist issue because 80 to 90 per cent of the agriculture of Africa is carried out by women. Women with hoes will not be in a position to buy any of the modern developments in terms of seeds. In common with Senator Callanan, my view is that the development of terminator seeds is vaguely immoral. I am sure that the scientific developments will make some tremendous breakthroughs in various areas, but there is a need to consider the philosophy of the developments in these areas as well as the practical implications.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Davern, and his officials. Will the Leas-Chathaoirleach confirm that there is no time limit on Second Stage speeches?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Within reason, there is no time limit.

It occurred to me that Edmund Burke on one occasion in the House of Commons spoke for two and a half days. I do not intend to do the same on this Bill and I am sure the Leas-Chathaoirleach would not allow me to do so in any event. There is a temptation to make hay with this matter and to discuss whether it should be plant varieties or cultivar and other similar obtuse points. However, the Leas-Chathaoirleach will be pleased to hear that I will also resist that temptation.

I support the legislation and I understand the need for it. It is reasonable to expect in a society where inventions of every nature are afforded protection that this area, which is effectively an invention in the context of new varieties, should be afforded similar protection. It is reasonable for the people who are responsible for generating the new varieties to expect protection and to gain some financial benefit. This is not wrong. It is the commercial world in which we live.

However, certain trends within this industry are not wholly desirable. One is the increasing tendency of Ireland and the United Kingdom to disengage from this activity. It is widely known that my party, the Progressive Democrats, is very much in favour of removing the State from many areas of commercial and other activity. However, there are instances where a strong case can be made for State involvement for the benefit of society and mankind. This is one such area and it is regrettable that over the past 40 years there has been increasing disengagement.

Many of the leading cereal varieties grown by tillage farmers in Ireland over the past 20 years originated from the plant breeding institute in Cambridge. Until recently, it was a state body in that it came within the ambit of the university and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. However, this institute, in common with many other bodies, is now in private hands. This was part of the Thatcherite agenda and I am not sure it is wholly desirable. The commercial imperative in terms of what emerges by way of new varieties may not always coincide with the societal or common good imperative.

Many of the institutions in the UK and Ireland, some of which still exist, have a very good record that bears close scrutiny in terms of the benefits they have conferred on their countries, mankind and also the developing countries. It is noteworthy that the Nobel Peace Prize was won on one occasion by a plant breeder in Mexico, Dr. Borlaug. This is a measure of what is at stake in terms of plant breeding and welfare. I am open to correction but in certain parts of Bangladesh and India grain is now in surplus. It was in huge deficit and the change is primarily the result of the work done in Mexico in terms of the breeding of dwarf wheats. There are great potential benefits.

I agree with Senator Norris to a large degree in wondering how the developing countries will cope. I sometimes wonder about the benefits to Ireland of being party to the treaty. I have considered this matter for some time. It might be argued in some quarters that we should not be a contracting party to some international agreements. However, if we were not, while we would not have to pay royalties, many imported varieties on which we depend would not be available to us. This would throw us back on our own resources and would have a negative effect on the productivity of Irish agriculture.

Over the past 30 years yields have risen by about 2 per cent per annum overall, due partly to improvements in plant breeding and partly to invention of fungicides and modern production methods. It is a striking advance when viewed over an extended period. With regard to plant breeding it was argued that in terms of partitioning 50 per cent of the dry matter would come from the grain and 50 per cent from the straw and that it would be difficult to push the grain element beyond a theoretical limit. I understand that those barriers which in the past were perceived as immutable have been advanced.

Ireland has a good record in this field. An example are the achievements of Dr. Harry Keogh in Teagasc at Oak Park, County Carlow. Rooster and Cara potatoes and other varieties were commercialised as a result of his work. Were a plant breeder to come up with two or three varieties over a lifetime he or she would be regarded as a success. Dr. Keogh has done even more than that. The benefits from such achievements should accrue to the breeder and the institution to which he or she is attached. I note that provision is made in the Bill for arrangements to be made between the person who invents the variety, so to speak, and the institution where the person works.

Varieties of rye grasses and white clover have also been bred at Oak Park by Mr. Vincent Connolly and they have been commmercialised. Many years ago we used to grow Banba, Herta and Beorna barleys because these were the varieties bred in Ireland from the work done in Ballinacurrra, County Cork. More recently Dr. Eddie Walsh of Lyons Estate bred the Urrin and Boro bean varieties.

Although we have a good tradition in this regard in Ireland, that work was within the State sector and the benefits which accrued did not result in a large increase in production costs. It is interesting to note the difference between the prices of grain and seed 20 years ago and their prices now. At one point in the past we got £120 per tonne for wheat and we get £70 to £80 per tonne for barley nowadays. The price of seed has not reduced, rather it has increased. The seed manufacturers can give very plausible reasons for the price increases. However, I wonder why I must pay £315 per tonne for oat seeds when I am lucky to get £70 per tonne for dried oats off the combine.

I acknowledge there are commercial realities at play but there are issues about the degree to which the State should disengage and whether we should be a contracting party to the treaties. On the latter issue, although it may not be wholly desirable, we do not have much choice. We must remember that the seed manufacturers are in business for commercial gain.

The horticulture work being done by Teagasc at Kinsealy is also worth a mention. In one commendable programme they have gone to some of the country's old gardens, such as that at Birr Castle, and recovered varieties from them which would have disappeared otherwise. Some of the varieties recovered have disappeared from the gardens recently. It is apparent that quite a few of the varieties are likely to be propagated and may go on to commercial use. It was a worthwhile project on which Teagasc should be commended.

The issue of genetically modified organisms is relevant to the debate. In a few years time we will have to deal with legislation to address the issue. The Department of the Environment and Local Government has produced a consultation paper on genetically modified organisms and the environment. What emerges from the report is the multiplicity of Departments and agencies with responsibilities in this regard. The report indicates that environmental control is only one aspect and that other aspects include regulation of the marketing of novel foods for which the Department of Health and Children is responsible, a directive on the marketing of plant protection products for which the Department of Agriculture and Food is responsible and a directive on the protection of workers from the risks of exposure to biological agents at work for which the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is responsible.

There will be a need to come to grips on this issue because the technology is advancing at a rapid rate and it will present difficulties unless legislation keeps up with it. The issue that needs to be addressed is whether the gene or the variety will be patented. If it is the gene that will be patented it may or may not be a matter for the controller and the Department; if it is the variety derived from the recombination or insertion of a gene, it will be a matter for the controller and the Department.

The definition of a variety in section 2 refers to the expression of the characteristics resulting from a given genotype or combination of genotypes, the distinction from other plant groupings and being considered as a unit. Where does the genetically modified organism fit into that category? Does a variety which has been created by the insertion of a gene fall within the definition?

There have been great advances in Senator Henry's professional field, that is medicine, as a result of biotechnology. Insulin is a good example. In the past it had to be extracted from pigs but with the use of biotechnology it can now be manufactured and it is identical to naturally produced insulin in every respect. Some of the opponents of genetically modified organisms trot out the tired example of the effects of DDT. There is no question that it did great environmental damage, especially to the top end of the food chain. However, we should not forget that it saved millions of lives in Africa. All technological advances have attendant gains and risks. It is a matter of balancing the two, having the proper regulation in place and allowing the environmental agency to make judgments on whether the crops should be grown here.

It is also a matter of doing research in Ireland to ensure that the information emerges which is relevant to our conditions. It is correct to take and consider information from other countries but there are climatic and husbandry circumstances prevailing in Ireland which do not prevail elsewhere. There are varieties which are well suited to Irish agriculture but which did not work well elsewhere. A classic example of this is Midas barley which has a high susceptibility to brown rust. It could not be grown in east England because the climate there was favourable to brown rust but the variety was very successful here. Unless varieties are tested in Ireland it is probable that unsuitable varieties will be introduced to Irish agriculture. Given Agenda 2000 and the imperative to ensure that we have the best technology available to us, it is essential that the testing continue on the varieties, even if they are imported varieties or varieties which will generate royalties.

One of the concerns with the Bill has to do with the length of time which the protection would be afforded to the variety. If one takes the breeding of a potato, for example, one is looking at the order of eight or ten years before one gets to the field. Therefore, the breeder of the potato has submitted his or her application to the controller but it will take quite some considerable time before that potato actually gets into the field. For example, some of the classical varieties, such as Wilja in Holland, have been on the market for about 100 years. It has been available commercially for a long time. I wonder whether the 30 year limit is sufficient. I do not propose to table an amendment in that regard but I wonder about it. I think it was 35 years in the case of potatoes — the Minister can correct me if I am wrong. I wonder whether the limit is long enough and whether it should be longer.

As to some of the sections of the Bill, one of my other questions relates to section 4 and the controller. Almost everything else is defined at the start of the Bill but the controller is not defined. I expect, and I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, it is defined in the Principal Act.

Section 3 states that "the Government may by order declare one or more foreign countries, which foreign country, or each of which foreign countries, shall be one whose government or any of whose departments of state is a party to the convention or agreement, to be a Contracting Party for the purposes of this Act". I do not have any difficulty about that statement but I wonder do we have the competence to do it. Can we declare what another country should be? I do not know if we are allowed do that.

The matter of the genetically modified organisms relates to the essentially derived variety which is dealt with under section 5. This again relates to the question of GMOs.

Hybrid varieties are certainly of interest. There have been attempts over several years to introduce hybrid wheats. Of course they exist in the horticultural area where they are quite widespread. There were always great claims as to what they might achieve but the delivery has not been quite as good as the hype which attached to them when it was being done.

There are several other queries but we can probably deal with them on Committee Stage if that is necessary. To return to the question of home saved seed, I am one of the people who indulged in the practice of saving seed at home. The Minister can by regulation remove the obligation in certain circumstances. There is the question of the small farmers having to pay royalties on home saved seed, but I wonder who is ever going to come after me.

They will read the Seanad debates.

In practice, where is the police force? The penalties under the Bill largely mean that it is a matter of civil action by the people who own the variety rather than the unit within the Department arriving on my farm to tell me to promptly desist or divvy up the money and go away. When the Department arrives at my farm to tell me that I must pay the royalties I will then resort to section 19(1)(a) and state that an authorisation in relation to a protective variety shall not be required for any act done for private and non-commercial purposes. I would argue most vigorously in the present circumstances that my farming activities are assuredly not for commercial purposes at least not until the area aid cheque arrives from the Department.

On that somewhat frivolous note I thank the Minister for his attendance. It is not my intention to oppose the Bill. I support its passage through the House and I hope it will have the effect which the Department desires for it.

I thank all those who contributed to this essentially technical Bill. Senator Tom Hayes raised the GMO concerns. It is the role of the bio-tech directive rather than the plant breeder directive to police the GMOs. Of course that is under the EPA also. Senator Hayes asked whether the Bill controls the rate of royalties. It does not. This is strictly a matter for the breeders. The controller has no role whatever in regard to the royalties but high royalties are essentially restricted by the price of seed.

Senator Norris raised the matter of patents. Plant breeders' rights systems are, in all EU countries, based on a unique system of plant protection and they are different from the patent system. If new varieties cannot be protected, who would bother improving varieties and who would bother making all the improvements which have been made over many years? It costs between £1.5 million and £2 million to breed a new variety over a ten year period — for example, in the case of a new grass or cereal variety, so we must in fairness protect those who invest in research and development.

Senator Norris raised the issue of bio-diversity concerns. Bio-diversity conservation also deals with the conserving of public genetic materials and those found in the wild. Plant breeders' rights deals with the private property and breeders are entitled to protect their creations.

Senator Norris spoke about cascading effects. These are restricted under the UPOV Convention and the breeder must collect his or her royalties on propagating material at the earliest opportunity. It is only in restricted circumstances that breeders can collect royalties on harvesting material, cut flowers and protected products derived from the harvested material, that is perfumes, etc.

Senator Callanan asked what are sensibly lower royalties. It would probably take a court of law to decide that. However, essentially sensibly lower royalties are practised in Ireland and some 50 per cent of the royalties are charged on the certified seed of cereals. This figure was agreed between the IFA, grain growers and the Irish Plant Royalty Office. Therefore, it is officially done.

Senator Callanan asked what is the definition of a small farmer. A small farmer is one who produces no more than 37 acres of cereals. If he produces more than 37 acres, he must pay the royalties on the use of farm saved seed of a protected variety on his farm. That is, if he grows 100 acres of barley from the farm saved seed, he pays 50 per cent royalty. It is sensibly lower. If the Senator wants to stand up here and say that he is reproducing from it, as a previous Senator admitted in the House, he is inviting people to visit him and look for their royalties.

I am only a small farmer.

I notice the Senator did not state that he had a vested interest.

The terminator systems, to which Senator Callanan referred are protected under the bio-tech directive. Plant breeders' rights have no role in excluding a variety containing such a gene. However, the EU seed directives which control marketing may be the best avenue to use to prevent such varieties being sold. It is important to state that it has nothing to do with this Bill but it can be done under the marketing section. There is a common interest in that matter.

Concerning generic resources, to which Senator Dardis referred, the Department of Agriculture and Food provides £50,000 annually to conserve old varieties of plants and rare breeds of animals like the Dexters. Old varieties of breeds provide the building blocks for the new varieties. That is something which is not often appreciated.

Senator Dardis asked if inserting a gene to improve variety constituted a genetically modified organism. One can patent the gene but not the variety. The variety with the inserted gene can only be protected by the plant breeders' rights. He also asked about the duration of rights.

In the case of potatoes, the rights are of 30 years duration. The first ten years of production of a new potato variety is usually used to multiply the variety. The EU limits protection for potatoes to 30 years. It can be extended to 35 years under the EU regulation by legislation and, under such legislation, by statutory instrument.

Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 22; Níl, 6.

  • Bonner, Enda.
  • Callanan, Peter.
  • Cassidy, Donie.
  • Chambers, Frank.
  • Cregan, John.
  • Dardis, John.
  • Farrell, Willie.
  • Finneran, Michael.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam.
  • Fitzgerald, Tom.
  • Glynn, Camillus.
  • Keogh, Helen.
  • Kett, Tony.
  • Leonard, Ann.
  • Lydon, Don.
  • Mooney, Paschal.
  • Moylan, Pat.
  • O'Brien, Francis.
  • O'Donovan, Denis.
  • Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
  • Ormonde, Ann.
  • Quill, Máirín.

Níl

  • Henry, Mary.
  • Norris, David.
  • O'Meara, Kathleen.
  • O'Toole, Joe.
  • Quinn, Feargal.
  • Ryan, Brendan.
Tellers: Tá, Senators T. Fitzgerald and Keogh; Níl, Senators Henry and Norris.
Question declared carried.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Top
Share