Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 12 Mar 1991

Vol. 406 No. 3

Private Members' Business. - Sugar Bill, 1990: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 22:

In page 5, before section 5, to insert the following new section:

"5.—(1) The Holding Company shall reserve four positions of the non-executive directorships on the Board of Directors for the purpose of the election of employees to fill the reserved positions. The aforesaid election shall be conducted in accordance with the rules and procedures specified in subsection (2).

(2) The election shall be by secret ballot and shall be conducted in the manner which applied heretofore within Siúicre Éireann c.p.t. and in accordance with the terms of the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act, 1977, as amended, save as herein provided.".

—(Deputy Sherlock.)

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Kirk)

Before we broke for Private Members' Time we had an opportunity to discuss three amendments. The Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy O'Kennedy, clearly outlined the position regarding his approach to the three amendments. In his contribution he also clearly outlined that he recognised the interests of the employees and the beet growers. He indicated that both interests would be catered for on the new board of Greencore.

The various spokespeople for the different parties on the Opposition benches may rest assured of the Minister's desire to have the respective interests represented on the board and that it will come to fruition. In view of that I appeal to the three spokesmen to reconsider their amendments and to place their trust in the judgment of the Minister for Agriculture and Food to do the right thing in relation to this matter.

Mr. Kavanagh

I do not intend to reconsider my position as I thought I made a reasonable argument for the continuation of worker directors in the holding company. I simply do not agree that having worker directors in Siúicre Éireann, a company which is being privatised and will be some form of subsidiary when this whole saga is completed and the new holding company are advertised and sold, is sufficient. As I said earlier — I know you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, will not let me repeat myself——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I should not allow it but I am forever magnanimous.

Mr. Kavanagh

The Minister made some rather disgraceful comments about the quality of worker directors and said it would be a disincentive to have them still in place as it would not attract prospective shareholders to buy into the new company. I do not accept that and I outlined the quality of the directors in this and other public companies. It is quite popular in Europe to have a sub-board level of worker directors but all it adds up to is deciding the colour of the towels in the washroom, or something like that. That is not my idea of the role of worker directors although I realise that they are not involved in discussing the existence and viability of their company. The appeal of the Minister of State falls on deaf ears, he has not persuaded me to withdraw this amendment and I do not intend to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

By order of the House we must put the question at 9.30 p.m.

Mr. Rabbitte

I mean no disrespect to the Minister of State but I had hoped that the Minister would have managed to stay with us because I want to bring up a matter which I raised earlier which is pertinent to this section.

The Minister has been basing his case throughout this debate on the fact that nothing has changed; he is not privatising the Sugar Company, at best we dragged out of him that it would be part-privatisation. It would appear, judging from the response to this group of amendments and specifically to this amendment, that indeed everything has changed and that it is anticipated, as I suggested earlier, the new regime will take an entirely different outlook. It is regrettable that the Government should sponsor the removal of worker directors with an established pattern from the board of this company. They have no regard for the arguments advanced about the unique input that workers can make to an enterprise like this, to how they form an integral part of a company as valuable as this is. It throws out the window all the Government rhetoric down through the years about worker participation and industrial democracy. For example, the report of the advisory committee on worker participation as long ago as 1986 recommended the extension of the experience and experiment in the State commercial companies to the private sector. Here we have an opportunity, if nothing is changed, to underpin it in the legislation that the position of worker directors will be continued; the response of the Government is very revealing and disappointing.

I wish to refer to a matter which greatly disturbs me; at an earlier stage of the debate I raised the whole question of guarantees which the Minister was trotting out concerning the special share and many other things. He said that the Deputy need have no worry, that it was all in the memorandum and articles of association. I pursued him on that and, eventually, he ageed to make the memorandum and articles of association available, emphasising that they are only in draft form, which I appreciate. I have the memorandum and articles of association of the new Greencore plc and it is, as you can see, a very unwieldy document, written in the ultimate of meaningless legalese. In respect of this argument on worker directors I wish to draw the attention of the House to article (31) on page 6, which reads as follows:

(31) To promote freedom of contract, and to resist, insure against, counteract and discourage interference therewith, to join any lawful Federation, Union or Association, or do any other lawful act or thing with a view to preventing or resisting, directly or indirectly, any interruption of or interference with the Company's or any other trade or business, or providing or safeguarding against the same, or resisting or opposing any strike movement or organisation which may be thought detrimental to the interest of the Company or its employees, and to subscribe to any association or fund for any such purposes.

It may well be that the Minister has a perfectly coherent explanation for this, but this, I suggest to the House, is fantastic and extraordinary. Maybe there is a mistake somewhere in the drafting but article (31) is tantamount to ruling out even membership of a trade union. Certainly activity in a trade union for the purposes of "resisting, directly or indirectly, any interruption of or interference with the Company's or any other trade or business, or providing or safeguarding against the same, or resisting or opposing any strike... and to subscribe to any association or fund" may include a drafting error and perhaps there is a reasonable explanation for this. I would like to take the opportunity of Deputy Sherlock's and Deputy Kavanagh's amendments to get the Minister to say on the record of this House whether that clause says what it seems to say. Is a semi-colon missing anywhere? If so, does that explain how it goes on to talk about preventing, resisting and so forth? I would like to give the Minister an opportunity to consider that because it is a positively alarming clause. I have never seen it in the articles of association of any private company before now. I cannot imagine what its purpose is, in any event. I would like to hear the Minister explain what it is supposed to mean. Why is it there? Is this the attitude that is going to be taken to worker participation or industrial democracy, admitting, as I thought the Government admitted, that what they required were more participative structures in industry? Does the Minister for Labour, for example, know about this? I know not all his colleagues trust the Minister, Deputy O'Kennedy, on every matter but I wonder if he consulted the Minister for Labour here. I cannot imagine the Minister for Labour standing over that clause. If the officials have discovered an explanation for it at this stage I would like to hear it.

Mr. Kirk

I want to deal with a number of points, the first being Deputy Kavanagh's interpretation of what the Minister for Agriculture and Food said. I was here when he made his initial response to the contribution on these three amendments and I cannot agree with the Deputy's interpretation of what the Minister said. Deputy Rabbitte is obvioulsy at a disadvantage in not being here when the Minister made his initial response.

Mr. Rabbitte

With all due respect, I consider that an advantage.

Mr. Kirk

At least he would have had the advantage of hearing at first hand what he said in relation to worker representation on the board. My interpretation of it was that in the interest of the workers and of the beet growers he will be endeavouring to ensure that they have adequate representation on the board and that because of the position with the discussion of the matter at present he could not be more specific on that, but clearly the sentiments in what he said underline the fact that that was his intention in relation to it.

On the question of Deputy Rabbitte's quotation in the document here, surely the agreement with the ICTU and the company clearly provides for the normal union representation of the employees of the company. Surely we are not suggesting in the House that the ICTU would agree to an arrangement that would do other than provide for the adequate representation of the workers subsequent to the company being established.

Mr. Rabbitte

I thank the Minister for his reply but I must say it leaves me more alarmed than I was initially. I attempted to contact the General Secretary of the Congress this evening and narrowly missed him but I talked to a senior official of the Congress who assured me that they were not consulted about this memorandum and articles of association. They have not seen them. The Minister of State seemed to be asking us here to accept the good intentions of the Minister, of having the beet growers and the workers represented, albeit in drastically different fashion and diminished to the point of non-existence in the new arrangement. I sought from the Minister an explanation what that extraordinary article 31 in the memorandum and articles of association means. The House is entitled to know that.

I spent a long time here on the fundamental question of the motion to privatise and the amendment that would retain a majority stake for public ownership, and the Minister kept constantly referring me to the memorandum and articles of association. They were not available first, then he qualified them, saying they were only temporary and in draft because the law is not enacted. All that is fair enough and I accept it, but now we have got them, temporary and in draft though they may be. The article is pertinent to this amendment about worker participation and an extraordinary article for which I can conceive of no reasonable explanation unless there is a mistake in the drafting. It would seem to prohibit the lawful discharge by trade unionists of their functions of pursuit of a dispute or whatever or to subscribe to any association or fund for any such purposes. I think it is reasonable to ask the House to explain what that means. We could not contemplate buying that kind of pig in a poke.

I am not sure at this stage what other gems there may be in the remaining 80 pages, but it is not good enough to ask us, because it is the Minister's intention to include workers on the board, to accept this. We have four worker directors on the board at the moment and from the very beginning we have had legislation enabling workers to be elected to the boards of semi-State companies. I suggest with all due respect that generally it has worked very well throughout the State companies. An official report called for that to be extended to the private sector. Parties on all sides of this House pay lip service to that concept of giving workers a greater say in their own enterprise for all the reasons I will not take up the time of the House in rehashing. Here when we did find the memorandum and articles of association we have this unprecedented clause. I have never seen it previously and I think it is incumbent on the Minister to explain to the House precisely what it means.

Mr. Garland

Having considered the three amendments before the House I am inclined to favour Deputy Deasy's amendment. He deals with the question of the representation of the growers, and they need to be represented in this company in the same way as the employees need to be represented. There is no effort in the amendment put down by Deputies Sherlock and Kavanagh to deal with this problem. On the other hand Deputy Kavanagh is very niggardly in his reservation of only two directorships, one for the employees and one for the growers. As I understand it there are four worker-directors at the moment in the Sugar Company. Surely we do not want to reduce that further. As a minimum we should have four worker-directors. It can be argued that there should be four beet growers' representatives on the board to balance the interests of the growers and the employees.

The balance of the board presumably would be the shareholders' nominees because we must face the fact that the company will be privatised and that the shareholders will appoint directors to look after their interests. That, however, should not be the limit of the workers' participation. The workers need to participate either as shareholders or by way of some profit-sharing scheme so that they will have a real stake in the industry and are not just waged employees with no vested interest other than keeping their jobs. That would be a recipe for disaster. Every employee must have a vested interest in the industry in which he or she works. That can only be done by way of worker shareholding, profit-sharing or some combination of both. I hope the Minister will introduce some suitable amendment on Report Stage.

Mr. Kavanagh

Nowhere in the document from the Irish Farmers' Association which sets out their demands have they asked for directors on the board. They want co-management of the Irish sugar quota and a fair payment system for sugar beet. I support those two demands.

There have been worker-directors in the Sugar Company since the passing of the 1977 Act and we want to continue that. Obviously, the trade union movement accepts that we cannot apply the worker director Act for State companies to a private company and, in order to continue that representation, they have asked that the Bill be amended accordingly. Deputy Sherlock has asked for four worker-directors. Knowing the attitude of the Minister up to now we decided to ask for two and try to debate which proposition would be the most acceptable to the Minister. The Minister rejected both proposals and, indeed, the proposal for one beet grower and one worker. I would remind the Minister that when the Minister of State was talking to this amendment he said that one of the reasons he was against this amendment was that he wanted a board of high quality. That is an assumption that worker-directors are not of high quality. That was a slight on the worker-director legislation and on worker-directors in other State companies.

By far the most telling reason for his obstinacy in relation to worker-directors was that the market would not wear worker-directors in the new company and that it would be detrimental to the flotation of the company on the market. Apparently his colleagues agree with that idea. I do not, and it would not have any effect whatsoever. The private sector are looking for profits and they must be delighted at the operation of this company which made £22 million last year and £14 million the year before. The fact that the company are making money is what attracts the private sector. If the private sector thought worker-directors were responsible for that they would be delighted to keep them there. I wish to draw the Minister's attention to that. The Bill will set a headline for other semi-State companies. What goes in this company will go in every other one.

In relation to the memorandum and articles of associations, I know that one can go to a legal stationery office and pick a memorandum and articles of assocation and apply them to a company. I do not know what shop the new company's memorandum and articles of association was brought in but I know that section 31 is unacceptable to me and would be unacceptable to most Members. Obviously, we cannot amend the memorandum and articles of association but we want the Minister, or the Minister of State, to come in before the Bill is fully discussed and say what sections are not acceptable. I accept that the memorandum and articles of association is a very bulky document.

Between now and when the debate on the Bill is concluded I will have to ensure that the Seanad representatives of the Labour Party are made aware of what is in the Bill. It is because of the way the Bill has been rushed through the House that we have not had a fair opportunity to study this document. From the time the Bill was introduced the Whip has been out, in every sense of the word, to get it through. At the Whips meeting last week there was pressure to get the Bill through. We know the Taoiseach has been saying that we are delaying the Bill. If provisions like this get through because we do not have time to discuss and consider all the documentation pertaining to this Bill, we will have real worries for the workers, and their representatives, in the Sugar Company, in whatever new company is set up. The Minister has been left the rather unenviable task of completing this Bill tonight. The least he should do is say that on Report Stage he will have that section, and others, looked at and eliminated in any document put forward as the memorandum and articles of association.

Mr. Sherlock

We suggest that the number of worker directors should be four having regard to different locations. I am sure if the person elected is from Mallow, Deputy Browne will be annoyed and say that Carlow will lose out. What does worker participation mean, and what has it meant in the past? It means that a person is elected to the board of a company by the staff and workers at factory floor level. Consultation can then take place between that representative and the management, staff and general workers at that level. Many issues arise at board level. As I said, this would be of benefit to the company and the workers. Given that many issues, such as capital expenditure and a programme of diversification, will arise it is very important that they have representation on the board.

Deputy Rabbitte, an experienced debater, has produced something now which must be a source of great concern even to the Fine Gael Party as well as the Labour Party and The Workers' Party. The Minister has placed great emphasis on the terms and conditions of the agreement — this one page letter — reached between the company and the union, but having regard to the fact that the Sugar Company will only be a subsidiary of the new holding company, may I ask him if it would not be desirable for the Sugar Company, or what will be left of it, to be represented on the board of the new holding company? Is that not the most desirable thing one could ask for at this time? What guarantee is there that our sugar quota will not be drastically reduced after 1992? The answer is none. We need a strong voice on the board of the company to ensure that there will always be a demand to get the highest sugar quota possible for this country.

The memorandum and articles of association represent the hidden agenda. As has been revealed, when we examine article 31 we see just how insignificant this little document, which the Minister relied upon so much when speaking about the preservation of workers' rights, is. In conclusion, it is desirable that they be represented on the board and the number we are putting forward is four.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

Deputy Rabbitte raised the question of article 31 of the memorandum and articles of association, but I would see this as a standard article in all memoranda and articles of association. Deputy Rabbitte knows full well — given his experience and university background he would be much more familiar with this than many others in this House — that it is included to protect the company. Deputies on the other side of the House have asked what is the rush, but it is not in the interest of the company to delay the Bill which has received much publicity. We are talking here about raising extra capital for the company to allow them to develop, and now is the time to hit the market given that we have low inflation and low interest rates. I see no reason we should continue to drag out this Bill or filibuster the debate as the company have held meetings——

Mr. Sherlock

Dairygold should have taken the Deputy on as financial adviser.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

I would love to have the Deputy as an assistant. The company have held all the necessary meetings with growers to advise them of the programme and make them aware of what privatisation will mean for the growers and the company. They have received a favourable response throughout the country. I only hope that growers will realise the value of the shares and take up their allocations.

Reference has also been made to the sugar quota, but I have no fears in this regard. Our quota of 210,000 tonnes has been well protected in recent years by various Ministers for Agriculture and Food, including Deputy O'Kennedy. I have no fear of 1992 and I believe we will continue to have a sugar quota which will satisfy both the growers and the workers.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Even though this is a serious debate and we have spent a good few hours discussing this Bill, I cannot help thinking that 31 is the reverse of 13 which is an unlucky number. In view of the fact that section 31 of this Bill and section 31 of the Broadcasting Act are causing us some problems, and in view of the fact that there will be many more Bills of this type, perhaps section 31 should be deleted from all future Bills.

Mr. Rabbitte

Section 31 of the Health Act is causing many problems.

An Ceann Comhairle

May I put the question?

Mr. Rabbitte

Is the Minister not going to reply to the substantive point made? What is the answer to the question raised? The weighty contribution from Fine Gael is in keeping with their position on the Bill so far.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I do not mind if Deputy Rabbitte wants to score a point but in fairness I have sat here all day when the going was tougher than it is now.

Mr. O'Kennedy

If anything, Deputy Browne is being a little modest. Not only has he sat here all day, he has been here every day and has constantly contributed to the debate.

Tomás Mac Giolla

So have Deputy Sherlock and Deputy Rabbitte.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

The Deputy has just come in.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Since coming into the House I have heard Deputy Sherlock make two points, the first of which was that it is desirable — and I agree with him — that the Sugar Company should have representation on the board of the new holding company. I can assure the Deputy that this is the intention and will be the case. Second, in relation to the various matters on which the workers want to receive guarantees, this will be done by way of consultation. As I have said already, I am confident that we will find a formula in relation to participation on the board which will be acceptable to the unions. I know that will be a dynamic and vigorous representation.

Deputy Sherlock spoke about the need, as he saw it, at board level to protect the highest quota possible. I want to reiterate, although I am beginning to wonder whether I can communicate this or whether other people cannot hear what I am saying, that the Minister for Agriculture and Food of the day will have the responsibility to protect the quota: it will not be the role of the directors of the board to get the highest quota possible. Any proposals to change the quota will come from the European Commission and will go before the Council of Ministers who will decide on the matter. I can only confirm once again that, as Minister for Agriculture and Food, I will vigorously protect our quota which is a very special asset and will have nothing to do with what is being proposed here. I cannot understand why this red herring is constantly drawn across the trail. I understand that during my absence a certain amount of play was made regarding article 31 in the articles of association. I cannot see how this is capable of being misrepresented or distorted.

Tomás Mac Giolla

It is very obvious.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Every Deputy is familiar with the fact that articles of association cover a very broad range to ensure that at no point can it be suggested that a company was operating outside the scope of its legal function. If I were to draw the attention of other Deputies to other articles it would clearly underline the point. I could give many examples. To interpret any one of the articles of association as if it were to be a binding negative force is to misrepresent the role of these articles. I cannot see how anybody could suggest that there is a threat to any worker interest in a proposal to promote freedom of contract. Corporate entities have to engage in contracts.

Mr. Rabbitte

We know.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I presume the Deputy has no objection to that.

Mr. Rabbitte

No.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The article goes on to provide that the company may resist, insure against, counteract and discourage interference therewith. If the company are promoting freedom of contract as an essential element in legal relationships, presumably they will also resist and discourage any interference.

Mr. Rabbitte

Is a trade dispute interference?

Mr. O'Kennedy

That is not capable of being interpreted here in that way. That provision would be repeated in the articles of association of any company. It has a very familiar ring. Does that mean that trade unions involved in a trade dispute can be driven out? Of course not.

Tomás Mac Giolla

It is guaranteed to crush trade unions.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I cannot see how anyone can imply that anything is being done here which will do other than protect the lawful activities of trade unions which have been enshrined in our law since 1906. I have some little experience in trade union law, though some in The Workers' Party suggest that I know very little about trade unions and their members. I have had contact with trade union workers over many years. In the 1906 Act and the earlier Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, all the trends have been to remove the sanction of illegality that previously applied to trade unions and to pickets. I welcome the fact that this has been done right through our legislation. Pickets were once regarded as unlawful but that has been changed. Then picketing was allowed only for the purpose of communicating information but that is also gone.

There is a whole corpus of law to protect the rights of unions. Even if the memorandum and articles of association were intended to exclude the statute law enshrined in the Constitution, they could not do so. It would be ultra vires.. They are not even purporting to do that. This provision which is intended to protect is being distorted as if it were to undermine the lawful rights of workers in their unions. I find that unacceptable. Deputy Mac Giolla has some experience of this. Anyone who has had experience of working with trade union law will know that this is a very grave distortion of what is intended in the article. All the things we now regard as normal actions by trade unions are not unlawful. The unions are protected. I reject any suggestion that article 31, which refers to lawful trade unions, is in some way intended to be a repressive instrument. Even if it were so intended, it could not take precedence over established statute law and the Constitution.

Mr. Rabbitte

After the long preamble and the references to trade union law, I thought we would get an explanation that was both credible and consistent with normal articles of association. We did not get that from the Minister. The right to strike is not lawful, either in the 1906 Act or the 1990 Act. A system of immunities is conferred. There is no legal right to strike in any law in this State. I cannot accept that one of the objects of the company is to protect the right to strike. I thought the Minister would say that the section is badly drafted and that, for example, there should be a semi-colon after "therewith" and that there should be a new section. It is meaningless as it stands. At the minimum, there is ambiguity about it. The law in relation to the right to strike is not as the Minister says. Before the Report Stage we are entitled to have this important matter clarified. Workers who will be in a new situation for which there is no precedent, but which is likely to be followed in the programme of privatisation which the Government have planned, will be very anxious to know what is being laid down.

It is wrong to say to this House that the matter has been agreed with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. I do not know the detail of the Minister's discussion earlier with Deputy Sherlock, but this matter has not been agreed with the ICTU. I have established that. Regarding the Minister's statement that the arrangement he proposes to make for the inclusion of worker participation is acceptable. The unions and Congress are this out and discovered that it is not acceptable. The unions and congress are not satisfied about the arrangements for worker participation. There should not be any ambiguity or pretence and it should not be implied that Congress have accepted the removal of worker directors and are prepared to accept the watered down version which the Minister is offering. They are not.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Nothing in these articles of association would render unlawful any action on the part of any union which up to the passing of this legislation was lawful. There is nothing in the legislation or in the articles of association that changes that basic fact. That is the assurance I have been anxious to give. Deputy Rabbitte can try to misrepresent or distort that in any way he wishes but I am saying categorically that in respect of this Bill when enacted into law and in respect of the articles of association, when the company are incorporated fully under law, nothing that is now lawful before the enactment of the Bill will become unlawful as a consequence of its passage. If Deputy Rabbitte has some other issue to raise such as the rights and status of trade unions I suggest it is more appropriate to other legislation than to this legislation. When the Deputy tells me about the right to strike, there are clear precedents in law and in the statute, there are judicial decisions of the Supreme Court——

Mr. Rabbitte

You are a lawyer, Minister. You know well what I am saying and do not misrepresent me. Immunity is conferred to acts that otherwise would be unlawful. Let us not mislead other Deputies.

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us hear the Minister. The Deputy will be afforded another opportunity should he wish to intervene.

Mr. Rabbitte

I apologise, a Cheann Comhairle.

Mr. O'Kennedy

——and of our courts which consistently vindicate the right to withdraw labour. They are there constantly. I am surprised that Deputy Rabbitte is not aware of that. It is in statute law, it is in common law and it is a constant feature of the law. I think the Deputy once again is trying to introduce into this debate, for his own purposes and those of his party, a matter to somehow create doubt and suspicion.

As far as the Irish Congress of Trade Unions are concerned, I want to make it clear that I said I was confident, as I still am, that as a consequence of the ongoing discussions on this issue the outcome would be acceptable to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. I said that and no more. I did not say that a final agreement had been reached.

Mr. Rabbitte

Let the record speak.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The record will speak. When one looks at the record of this debate and the manner in which your party, Deputy, have distorted and misrepresented the reality from time to time for your own purposes——

Mr. Rabbitte

Verbatim, scriptum manet.

Mr. O'Kennedy

——to the extent of saying that the agreement between the Congress and the company was not worth the paper it was written on——

Mr. Rabbitte

I did not say that, Minister, and you know it.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Your spokesman did and he said it on behalf of The Workers' Party. He went on to say that it was null and void, and many other things. He criticised the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.

Mr. Sherlock

On a point of order, Sir, may I now ask that the amendment be put.

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us hear the Minister.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The rabbit is running and looking for the burrow. I have no reluctance to let the rabbit run into the burrow at this stage because it has done too much squealing up to this point.

Mr. Rabbitte

Your wit, Minister, is up to your knowledge of the law.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I am quite happy to have the question put.

Mr. Rabbitte

It is a good job the Minister does not have to make a living at the Bar.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I did, you know.

Question put: "That the new section be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 65.

Tá

• Bell, Michael.
• Byrne, Eric.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Garland, Roger.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Gregory, Tony.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• McCartan, Pat.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Spring, Dick.
• Taylor, Mervyn.

Níl

• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Frank.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flood, Chris.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Harney, Mary.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kelly, Laurence.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Lyons, Denis.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McDaid, Jim.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Morley, P.J.
• Nolan, M.J.
• Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• O'Toole, Martin Joe.
• Power, Seán.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Smith, Michael.
• Stafford, John.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies McCartan and Byrne; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy.

Amendment declared lost.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am required now to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day. The question now is: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Agriculture and Food and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill and, in respect of each of the sections not disposed of, the section or, as appropriate the section as amended, is hereby agreed to; that the Title is hereby agreed to, that the Bill, as amended, is hereby reported to the House."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 91; Níl, 24.

Tá

• Ahearn, Therese.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Allen, Bernard.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Belton, Louis J.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Harney, Mary.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kelly, Laurence.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Lowry, Michael.
• Lyons, Denis.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McDaid, Jim.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Morley, P.J.
• Nolan, M.J.
• Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
• Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
• Creed, Michael.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Dukes, Alan.
• Durkan, Bernard.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Frank.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• Finucane, Michael.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Flood, Chris.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• O'Toole, Martin Joe.
• Owen, Nora.
• Power, Seán.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Reynolds, Gerry.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Smith, Michael.
• Stafford, John.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

• Bell, Michael.
• Byrne, Eric.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Garland, Roger.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Gregory, Tony.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• McCartan, Pat.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Spring, Dick.
• Taylor, Mervyn.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies V.Brady and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Howlin and McCartan.

Question declared carried.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mr. O'Kennedy)

Tomorrow, with the agreement of the Whips.

Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 13 March 1991.