Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 1 Dec 2011

Vol. 211 No. 16

National Tourism Development Authority (Amendment) Bill 2011: Committee and Remaining Stages

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ring.

SECTION 1

I move recommendation No. 1:

1. In page 3, line 13, after " "€65,000,000"." to insert the following:

"Subject to the following conditions:

(a) the said expenditure shall be subject to a published appraisal in advance by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform indicating that the benefits to society as a whole exceed the costs and an ex post appraisal of the expenditure at the end of each accounting period;

(b) if the published appraisal in paragraph (a) indicates that the benefits do not exceed the costs of the proposed expanded allocation, the existing allocation will be maintained.”.

I welcome the Minister of State. We had a very valuable discussion on this matter on Second Stage.

The Bill involves a very large increase in money. I estimate the Bill has 85 words in it and the increase in expenditure is €85 million. We need to develop in advance criteria for assessment of the efficiency of expenditure to present a prospectus to the House on what is intended to be done with the money and then examine afterwards whether any of it happened. This is necessary because the country had to be rescued by the IMF and obviously the existing procedures did not work. There was a tendency towards excessive expenditure, taxation which we cannot afford and borrowing which is no longer sustainable because nobody is willing to lend. This is the failure of governance as well as Government. We need new procedures to know in advance what precisely we are being asked to sanction and what are the measures of the outputs from this expenditure and we can check it afterwards.

I have particular concerns about what is being proposed because as I stated yesterday, the track record in tourism over the past three years is very bad. It may have great prospects but there has been a reduction in employment of approximately 40,000. Within the total increase in unemployment, 140,000 jobs were lost in construction, approximately 50,000 jobs were lost in manufacturing and approximately 40,000 jobs were lost in tourism. During this period we spent €492 million on various agencies. This was all analysed by our staff in the Oireachtas Library and Research Service. Of this, 63% was spent on operating expenses and 30% was spent on marketing but — the key point — revenue from tourism decreased by 31% and the number of tourists declined by 24%. I have tabled this recommendation because we need to put in place new procedures and address the national problem. I know the Minister, Deputy Howlin, is doing that and there will be fiscal responsibility and whistleblower legislation coming before us. We must run our public finances differently and this seems almost to be a test. Here were people who had 31% less tourism revenue coming in and 24% fewer tourists. They had spent €492 million in getting that highly unsatisfactory result and were seeking a 130% budget increase, or €85 million extra. The onus was on them to prove that this would be an expenditure with which Members of the Oireachtas would concur.

The IMF recommendation is that Parliament must play a greater role in examining how the public finances are operated here. That obviously requires changes because what has been operating up to now is not sufficient. Seanadóirí should consider if somebody in a business said "By the way, our revenue is down 31% in the last three years". The immediate questions would be "Do we have to shut 31% of our outlets?" or "Do we have to ask 31% of the staff to go?" There seems to be a view in Irish promotional and development agencies that they are exempt from the budgetary constraints the rest of us must face. Serious questions have to be asked about the way the tourism industry was promoted during those three years, and in particular — according to the material assembled for us by the Oireachtas staff — the way the percentage of people who thought that tourism in Ireland was value for money went into a dramatic decline over the past decade. The heading "Good value or very good value" declined from 23% to 3%. What was this expenditure supposed to be for and why did it fail so spectacularly? In the Department's statements and those of the promoting agencies, why was there not at least some recognition of the crisis in the industry or even some remorse for how badly it had been doing? If we are being asked to send good money after what had obviously not worked, in the context of a Government which needs every penny it can find, I want to see something like a prospectus which somebody seeking to raise money in the private market would put before investors to see the record and what the return would be.

Along the same lines, €120 million is being sought for films but when will we get the money back? Advocacy is not analysis and we need analysis; I sought that in particular when tabling the amendment. We have a reforming and energetic Minister and Government. We have a system of governance which failed a year ago, so it needs reform and to this end we need to involve Parliament more. The old procedures of nodding through another €85 million to tourism or another €120 million for making films and hoping for the best are not good enough. People may say one can deal with it on the Appropriation Account or the Committee of Public Accounts where the Comptroller and Auditor General will examine it, but there are defects in all those systems. Why does Parliament not take the bull by the horns and deal with it now? This is a request to spend money which we do not have, on foot of a track record which I have to say is very unimpressive.

I support the Minister's decision. All the institutions of this, unfortunately, failed State — as of 1 December 2010 — need reform, including this one where we have to face a referendum to see whether we will continue. There are huge defects in nodding through expenditure, kicking and hoping for the best — particularly where the evidence is so strong that previous expenditure was absorbed in administration and marketing. Why is the State marketing? If somebody stays in a hotel, the hotelier gets to keep the money. Therefore, why is the State involved in spending 30% of this budget in marketing? Does anybody ever evaluate the marketing?

In the 1980s, I was asked by former Ministers, Mr. John Bruton and Mr. Séamus Brennan to go on the board of Bord Fáilte. At the time, it concerned me that the object of the exercise seemed to be to maximise the budget to promote the board itself, and there was very little tie in with whether it was doing anything worthwhile for tourism. The evidence in the past three years is that it was not, that receipts were down by about 31% and business by 24%. As part of the overall package that the Ministers, Deputies Howlin and Noonan are applying — as well as the Minister of State, Deputy Ring — my amendment seeks to apply better procedures to get the value for money we so badly need.

Níl me chun mórán a rá faoin scéal seo. Sílim go bhfuil go leor le moladh sa mhéid atá ráite ag an Seanadóir Barrett maidir le freagracht ó thaobh cúrsaí airgeadais sa tír seo. There is substantially a great deal to be said for the broad element of what Senator Barrett proposes. We obviously need to see value for money from every penny spent by this State. We have many organisations involved between the Government's purse strings and when a project is created. It is important to take the wage and administration elements into account in such organisations when grant aid is being made, in order that we do not just hand it out willy-nilly, although I am not suggesting that is what the Minister of State does.

As part of a broader call, Sinn Féin wants us to examine these elements in all State organisations. If a huge element is going into administration in an organisation on the way to getting an interesting tourist attraction built, we need to question that. If a chief executive is being paid more than €100,000 a year, is it money well spent? Part of the administration costs would go towards defraying the costs and expenses of CEOs. We should examine that aspect in all the organisations we fund. Perhaps we may need to draw up guidelines for the levels of remuneration in those organisations. The State is willing to put its hand in its pocket and support cultural and tourism development, but we will not do so at the expense of keeping people in comfortable jobs when the State cannot afford that. An element of proofing needs to be done through the process that has been described.

In addition, a tourism infrastructure audit should be undertaken in order that when money is being granted to Fáilte Ireland or other groups, they will have to state why they seek such funding. It should be done from a regional perspective, in order that if it concerned a theatre or tourist centre — or, in Connemara, for example, Ónóir do Phiarsaigh to commemorate Pádraig Pearse, which we have been advocating for quite a number of years — one must ask whether there are other tourist attractions in that area that are focal points to draw bus-loads of tourists there.

We need to examine matters from a regional perspective, as I know the Minister of State will appreciate as he is from the west. We need focal points — one attraction in each region that will attract visitors. There should therefore be a weighting system that looks across the regions, does an audit and can state that there is a deficit in south Connemara and therefore we need a focal point to attract people. From there they can move on to north Connemara, Westport and up to Sligo and elsewhere because there are gaps around the country.

In that context, an infrastructural audit is also required. Do we have other infrastructure in place which is underutilised? A former Minister for the Gaeltacht put a great deal of money into piers in Gaeltacht areas. In certain areas they were useful but other legislation came in which made it so difficult to fish from those piers that they are underutilised. Is there infrastructure that could be utilised, such as those piers, for cultural tourism or the like? I am using that as one example where an infrastructural audit could examine other elements whereby moneys were invested in piers or other things, that could have other uses. With our limited resources, should we develop such infrastructure as a priority?

We cannot build a Taj Mahal in the middle of a desert. If we do not have the proper road, rail and air infrastructure so that the public can access these facilities, there is very little point in building them. It is extremely important to link this in to the wider policy of what infrastructural development is going on. On numerous occasions I have mentioned the traffic situation in Galway, for example. We find it difficult to attract tourists to Connemara at the moment, even though it is one of the most beautiful places in the country, due to the difficulty of getting people through the city. If the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar cannot put in place the infrastructure from a transport perspective, it will impede development the Minister might try to promote in other areas. That needs to be joined up.

We need a sense of regional proofing; we need to ensure the regions get their fair share of the budget. That should be part of the assessment process with regard to how the moneys are being spent by the likes of Fáilte Ireland. Let us look at the regions which are underdeveloped. Tourism is one of the industries that can be decentralised. People want to travel to the periphery and want to go to the coast and to areas of specific interest and they are outside of the urban centres. We need to promote that and we need to have a proper policy of decentralisation.

My last point - I began to make it yesterday - is that Gaillimh le Gaeilge did a study of the value of the Irish language to Galway city. It is worth €136 million a year to the city and county from the different spin-off industries, tourism and so on. There is no reason this cannot be developed around the country. Bodies such as Fáilte Ireland need to have a very positive attitude towards promoting the Irish language. That has not happened before. It should not just be a Gaeltacht issue but something we are promoting through every amenity and tourism destination we have, and that we use as a positive way of promoting our language and culture. There is an economic reason for it. By giving ourselves that specific cultural identity and showing to the world that we are different, it draws more tourists here. It has been shown as one of the factors that bring people here, of which the Minister of State is well aware.

Tá an Ghaeilge iontach tábhachtach. Tá cultúr, teanga agus saibhreas faoi leith againn. Ní dóigh liom go bhfuilimid ag baint barr feabhais astu. Ba cheart iad a thógáil san áireamh nuair atá meastóireacht á dhéanamh ar na hiarratais chaipiltil seo atá á lua. Ba chóir go mbeadh sé soiléir ar gach foirm iarratais cad atá an togra ag déanamh maidir le cur chun cinn na Gaeilge agus na Gaeltachta, agus ó thaobh na teanga agus an chultúir atá againn.

I remind Senators we are on Committee Stage, not Second Stage.

I listened very carefully to Senator Barrett and the points he made are worth considering. He is clearly saying that there should be a cost benefit analysis not only before but after the money has been spent. We have to be very careful in this area. We do not want to discourage entrepreneurship and to discourage a person who says "I have an idea; I think it can work; let's have a go". There will be failures and there will be occasions where a business decision does not work. Let us not then decide that heads must roll. If we are to run tourism like a business, there will be failures, so let us not be afraid to go back later and ask if we got good value for money. If it was not good value for money, we can at least identify the problem to help us not make that mistake again. The wording that Senator Barrett uses in his recommendation is:

(b) if the published appraisal in paragraph (a) indicates that the benefits do not exceed the costs of the proposed expanded allocation, the existing allocation will be maintained.”.

That seems to be a very sensible business. I will just touch on this point. In a business one takes chances, if one has an idea. It may not work but one tries it out. Every now and then one gets a great success and every now and then one gets a great failure as well. One has to be willing to look back and say it was worthwhile doing it. I was chairman of An Post for some years. I remember making a proposal on one occasion and the traditional civil servant said that we could not do that. On 10 January 1984, a proposal was made to have a St. Patrick's Day card that was already stamped and could be sent all around the world. I went to the former civil servants in An Post with the idea. They thought it was a good idea and agreed to come back with prototypes by mid-March. I replied that St. Patrick's Day is in mid-March. They asked: "Chairman, you did not mean this year, did you?" In fact we did manage to get prototypes and printers in three days but we did not go out and do all the traditional things. We sold 4 million cards and it worked very well. That was an idea that worked but we had others that failed dismally. In tourism and certainly in the case Senator Barrett has made, it is fair to say that there will be mistakes. Let us not be shy about making those mistakes. We ensure that we do the cost benefit analysis beforehand and then look back at it afterwards and ask if it worked. If it did not work, we have learned from it and will not make the same mistake again.

I am sure the Minister of State does not want to listen to a range of Second Stage speeches, having sat through an interesting debate yesterday. I will be as focused as I can. I was interested in Senator Barrett's position on this and that he revealed that he had been on the board of Bord Fáilte in the 1980s. My experience was different to Senator Barrett's. I agree, as I am sure the Minister of State does as well, with the broad thrust that there should be accountability and all of that. However, I do not think we should throw the baby out with the bath water. As chairman of Fáilte Ireland north west, a regional organisation, I discussed this issue with Senator O'Sullivan from Killarney in the south west. We fought very hard for the money that was made available for the various projects. The money made available through the festival and special events budget with which the Minister of State will be familiar, which has been reduced considerably as a result of the recession, is still a vital cog in the marketing machine. The festivals and special events budget is allocated to festivals and events across every town and village in the respective area. As far as the north west was concerned, we did our best to ensure that we gave this as a support. It was not a great deal of money but it made the difference in some instances. In many of the cases that money was used for marketing purposes.

I am sure Senator Barrett was not suggesting it for one moment, but having listened to him, I got the impression that he felt money spent on marketing tourism was a waste of time. The evidence is different. I paid tribute yesterday to Mr. Niall Gibbons, CEO and the staff of Tourism Ireland for the job they have been doing in the most difficult circumstances in the past couple of years. They launched their marketing strategy for 2012 yesterday. The figures speak for themselves. There has been a turnaround, albeit a small turnaround, in all of our major markets and this did not happen by chance. Tourism is a very competitive business and any suggestion that the marketing budget be spancelled at a time when we need to get more people into the country does not make sense. Accountability is fine but a cost benefit analysis on a marketing budget is questionable. Senator Quinn will be aware of the age old adage that when one spends a euro on advertising one asks which 50 cent is effective? It is not an exact science, but no one should suggest that the marketing budget should be subject to a reduction at a time when we need to be out there selling Ireland. The facts show that increased funding in the past two years — the Government gave increased funding for marketing at a very difficult time earlier this year — proved to be successful.

That is right.

That should be acknowledged. I think it was an extra €15 million, which was ring-fenced and was welcomed by the industry.

Last year there was an initiative in the UK which delivered the message of Ireland in a different way. They used what are called "flash mobs" operating at railway stations across the United Kingdom. The flash mobs in this instance, organised by Tourism Ireland, comprised Irish traditional musicians who appeared out of the blue at railway stations in the early hours of the morning right across the major cities of the UK to bring home the message. They then handed out fliers to passers by. Since there is a very strong attachment to Ireland in the UK — it is still to cool to be Irish — the figures this year showed an increase. I am convinced that it came about as a result of these marketing initiatives.

Yesterday, I said that an increase in the cap was a vote of confidence by the Government in the tourism industry that it was not just about tying up the legal niceties. It was also a vote of confidence. It could have been capped at €90 million or €100 million but it was capped at €150 million, which shows the capacity exists within this Government, if the money is available, to spend that money. This is based on the experience that has been clear over the past six or seven years.

I want to make a case, perhaps an opposing case to Senator Barrett, without compromising the central premise of the Senator's argument that there should be accountability. We all want accountability but I do not agree that the tourism budget should be processed in a way involving a clutter of State agencies. Tourism is vital to the continuing economic well-being of this country and it is the second most important industry after agriculture. If there was a proposal that the agriculture budget could be subject to the sort of suggestions aired by Senator Barrett, I have no doubt the Irish Farmers Association and every associated organisation would be at the Minister of State's doorstep, complaining bitterly that he would inhibit the development of agriculture worldwide.

I will not labour the point but I am interested in the Minister of State's comments on Senator Barrett's suggestion. I do not support the recommendation because of the manner in which it is suggested that, if implemented, it would in any way inhibit the orderly development of a tourism market that is vital not only to the national economy but to every town and village in the country. I said it yesterday but I will repeat it that I applaud the Minister of State for his enthusiasm in this regard. He comes from the west, which is particularly significant, and I do not wish to in any way suggest that because the Cabinet is Dublin-oriented, the people in it do not fully understand the matter. With the Taoiseach and the Minister of State responsible for tourism coming from Mayo, rural Ireland is in safe hands.

I applaud the efforts to bring more jobs to the tourism industry and I welcome the legislation before the House. I look forward to engaging with the Minister of State in future on the various initiatives to be brought forward. I hope this tourism year will continue to show the increases that have existed and that the improvements are not just a ship passing in the night.

This is my first opportunity to speak on the Bill and I welcome the increase proposed in it. It is good to have some positive news on days when we have very bad news. This is one of the very few occasions when we have come here to witness an increase in funding. I welcome it.

I have not discussed the following matter with anybody but will the Minister of State seriously consider the recommendation? I understand what has been said about marketing but that is not mentioned in the recommendation. Senator Barrett may have made an off the cuff remark in his contribution but the recommendation seeks a review of public expenditure indicating the benefits to society as a whole. There is nothing wrong with considering the recommendation, as part of it indicates that the existing allocation would be maintained if the review indicated that money should not be spent in a certain way. That is reasonable. We have seen what we get where reviews have not been carried out on different assets, finances and regulation in this country. Checks and balances are necessary everywhere, and when the Government was put in place, we stated that we would work in a different way. This would be a way to do that. Rather than giving away money with the stroke of a pen, there should be certain clauses arising from a review.

The local authorities are great but I want to put in a word for the county tourism boards. I come from beautiful Connemara, as referred to by Senator Ó Clochartaigh, but I represented south Dublin before coming here. Before setting up the county development board in tourism, the south Dublin area was ignored in Fáilte Ireland proposals. I ask the Minister of State to ensure that county tourism boards are not neglected. I compliment the Minister of State's actions since taking office as the tourism sector has never got as much free advertising and positivity as it has from this Minister of State. He will have everybody out on bicycles on the western trail. He has gone over to America and brought back tour operators. This positive action, costing very little money, is marketing. That needs to be done.

I do not agree with cutting the marketing budget as one must spend a bit to get much money. Aontaím le Gaillimh le Gaeilge agus Baile Átha Cliath le Gaeilge. Ba chóir go mbeadh gach contae le Gaeilge ionas gur féidir ár gcultúr agus an saibhreas atá againn a chur chun cinn. Molaim é sin freisin.

The Leas-Chathaoirleach is being very lenient this morning and afternoon as I have never heard as many Second Stage speeches on a recommendation in my life. We had a full Second Stage debate yesterday and the Minister of State was very good to listen and respond to it. I will speak to the recommendation, with which I do not agree.

We are not spending money but affording the Minister a facility whereby there will be no funding cap if suitable products arise in which he or she would like to invest. I am a businessman and any businessperson embarking on a development must get the ducks in a row to ensure there is a facility for laying out money. If I get a facility from my bank of €250,000 for a job, it does not mean I will spend that amount, although I will be sure I am not stuck for it. We are giving the Minister a reasonable and realistic amount, and if we keep developing as we have been, the existing cap will be gone by 2012. We are affording a facility to the Minister and there are checks and balances, which must be in place.

I understand the spirit of Senator Barrett's motion and there is evidence of waste from some of the Celtic tiger years, so perhaps checks and balances were not applied properly. I referred to that in my Second Stage speech yesterday. We do not want white elephants but we need good proven projects and proper business plans and management structures before anybody gets a shilling from the State. I cannot agree with the recommendation as it would impede the Minister's progress.

I thank everybody for their comments. Senator O'Sullivan is correct and as I noted on Second Stage, this is enabling legislation. The checks and balances are working because when this legislation was introduced approximately ten years ago, the cap was set at €60 million. We are currently at approximately €44 million and in the next two years we will exceed €60 million. If there were projects in the pipeline at that time, we would have to come to the Oireachtas with emergency legislation. We are acting to put the appropriate legislation in place, and that does not mean the cap amount will be available. The Minister for Finance will allocate funding to my Department on an annual basis and that will go to Fáilte Ireland and Tourism Ireland. Money will be spent on projects but that does not mean there will be €150 million to spend.

People seem to misunderstand the idea. This money is not about marketing or administration; it is simply capital investment and projects. Such projects are assessed. We are discussing this legislation today but the Irish Film Board has the same problem as well as Enterprise Ireland. There is a cap set out for those bodies and if they reach that cap, the Oireachtas must give permission to spend further money. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform has a procedure in place and this year checks and balances were carried out in every Department, line by line.

Within Fáilte Ireland there is also accountability. A project coming to that body will be assessed by a committee, with inside and outside professionals taking part. I agree with Senator Quinn in that we have marvellous infrastructure in the country but we need funding for future infrastructure and to maintain, retain and upgrade existing infrastructure in the tourism product. We cannot just stand still; we must move forward. I agree with what Senator Barrett said and the sentiments behind his amendment but the checks and balances, including the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General, are in place. If, at any time, he or any Member of this House, is not happy with the checks and balances I have no problem with their raising it in an Adjournment debate. I will come and reply to the matter. I have no problem either with having an investigation to examine how the procedures are being used. I would be prepared to do that. Money is scarce and we need whatever funding we have.

On the issue of the marketing budget, which was raised by Senators Mooney and Quinn, one never knows what value one is getting for marketing spend. Senator Quinn, as someone who was in the supermarket business, knows that if one does not advertise, one is not in the game. One has to sell one's wares and let people know if one is offering value for money. That is what we are doing. When we came into government we talked to Fáilte Ireland and Tourism Ireland. We told them we wanted more aggressive marketing and selling of this country. However, we should not cod ourselves. I was in Paris at the autumn fair to announce our autumn programme and the events and facilities we have in this country and thousands of other countries were selling their products.

One should remember that this is a small country. On RTE and local radio one hears criticism of councillors, Senators and Deputies when they go abroad for St. Patrick's Day. I was pleased to hear Senator Quinn say how lucky we were in this country to have a national day. On St. Patrick's Day the traffic is stopped in New York to let the Irish walk down the street. Can one tell me any other country that could do it? We will have people criticising us but in other countries they know about this country and what we have because of St. Patrick's Day. That is something we should promote. Senator Quinn worked on a festival committee which promotes the St. Patrick's Day festival in this country. We did not have a proper festival for many years. We need to build on the existing festival. In recent years it has been getting better and better. Cultural and other events are incorporated into it. We need to do that in this country if we expect people to talk about us on St. Patrick's Day. We have a good tourism product.

Checks and balances are included in the Bill and, accordingly, I will not accept the amendment. If at any time a Member of the House has a concern, he or she should raise it on the Adjournment debate and I will come to the House to listen to it and go back to the Department to examine the procedures. This is only a technical amendment to the Bill to give permission in the coming years. I wish there was €150 million available for capital projects and that there was more money for marketing but we did not get agreement on the travel tax with the airlines. To be fair to the Minister for Finance, he allowed us to use that money for marketing and it was well spent. As I indicated yesterday, this year is the first time since 2008 we have had an increase in tourism. We must build on that. The work will not be easy. We need everyone to work together.

I would like to come back to the House in the new year to see what Members of this House can do, and what we all can do on the Gathering. We have an opportunity next year. We will have further announcements in that regard in the coming weeks. We are setting up committees on the matter in the Department. This will give everyone an opportunity — tidy towns groups, football clubs and cultural events. Everyone in the country can play a part. I will attend a few town hall meetings. We will go back to the old-fashioned way again. We will bring people into town halls, not to tell them what we can do for them, but to ask them what they can do for this country.

On behalf of Senator Barrett, the recommendation is not being pressed because the Minister of State, Deputy Ring, has explained very well what Senator Barrett was trying to achieve. What he wanted to do, which he did very well, was to issue a word of caution. He also wanted to stitch in that this was a concern of his and that he felt it had not been fully explained. The Minister of State explained that it is enabling legislation to avoid having to come back to the House. I hope it will be used because it will be needed.

Senator Barrett has explained it very well. There is little doubt that it is capital expenditure. It is not just marketing. There was a concentration on the point, as Senator Mooney also responded on the marketing end of it. He was correct in saying that of every euro one spends, 50 cent is wasted, but in marketing we do not know what the 50 cent is wasted on. Nobody ever does, but it is possible to have a cost-benefit analysis. The Minister of State has indicated he will do that. Senator Barrett is anxious to ensure that it does happen.

The Minister of State has explained very well what the checks and balances are. That is the objective. Senator Barrett's anxiety was to make sure that his concern was stitched in. He introduced a note of caution. The Minister of State has explained it very well. The Senator will be quite happy with what the Minister of State has said. The onus of responsibility on the tourism business is a heavy one. A great deal is depending on it. The reason it is so important is that it can give an immediate response compared with other areas of the economy. If we manage to get tourism off the ground it will create jobs, wealth and income straight away whereas other endeavours might take years to achieve that. However, one can lose business quickly as well. On that basis the Senator would say he is happy with the case made by the Minister of State. He was trying to stitch in a word of caution and he has done so.

Recommendation, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 1 agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without recommendation, received for final consideration and ordered to be returned to the Dáil.
Sitting suspended at 12.10 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.
Top
Share