Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 15 Jun 2000

Vol. 521 No. 3

Planning and Development Bill, 1999 [ Seanad ] : Report Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 49:

In page 33, line 14, after "establishments," to insert "(including, where appropriate, the modification of any such development carried out after the coming into effect of that Directive),".–(Deputy Dukes).

Mr. Dukes

This is an amendment to a provision in section 10 relating to the major accidents directive, known as the Seveso directive. The section requires the development plan to have regard to the control of sites that come under the provisions of the major accidents directive. The Bill proposes that included in the matters which the planning authority must take into account in relation to these sites in drawing up its development plan are the siting of new establishments, the modification of existing establishments and development in the vicinity of such establishments. That is proper and correct but some issues arise which go slightly further than what is contemplated in this Bill.

I will not mention individual sites by name because that would be invidious. I know of one site which falls within the definition of the major accidents directive because substances are kept there which could cause serious complications if anything went wrong. At the time that installation was first put in place, we did not have the major accidents directive. It was put in a particular place because that suited – I am not saying the people who did it at the time were reckless, far from it. However, we did not know as much as we do now and we had not had an incident like Seveso. Within a short distance of that site there is substantial residential development and a hotel. If that installation was proposed on that site now, it would not be allowed under the provisions of the major accidents directive.

This section of the Bill requires the planning authorities to have regard to these considerations because it refers to development in the vicinity of such establishments. I put the following consideration to the Minister which arises in connection with another matter which I will deal with later. There are cases in this country where installations have been put in place which fall within the ambit of the major accidents directive where there is no development nearby but where, in the course of time, there has been development nearer the site. The planning authorities are now being given the job, rightly, of considering the dangers because we did not always know what they were. The clear intent of this provision is that we can require the operators of those sites to modify their operations in certain ways to take account of the dangers.

I propose that in the interests of fairness and equity we should also allow the planning authorities to require people who have carried out subsequent development in the areas we believe might be affected to reconsider their development. It goes back to an old principle I spoke of in the House some time ago, which relates to the mundane business of piggeries. Planning authorities around the country have problems with people complaining about the smell from piggeries. I have always been of the view it is most unfair to put limitations on someone operating a piggery because someone else has built a house within smelling distance of it. One is not entitled to complain about a piggery that was there when one built the house. Similarly, if the situation where someone carries out a development within what turns out to be the danger zone of a major accidents directive site is to be remedied, the person who carried out the subsequent development should at least be considered as one of the people who can be required to take action.

A similar question arises later in the Bill in relation to quarries, which we may not get time to deal with in detail. We are creating a system in the Bill under which quarry owners may have their operations restricted because of the effect on surrounding areas. There are many cases around the country where development has taken place in the vicinity of quarries. That is similar to a piggery or a major accident directive site. If people knowingly build within the dust drift vicinity of a quarry, within the influence of blasting operations in a quarry or within the area where the noise from the quarry can be heard and if we want to rectify that situation, it is just to allow planning authorities to require those who carried out the subsequent development to modify that development, rather than putting the whole onus on the original developer of the major accident site, piggery or quarry.

Amendment No. 49, which I hope the Minister accepts, is designed simply to allow the planning authorities have regard to that side of the equation, as well as looking at the actual development itself that is at the root of the problem. That is why I propose the insertion of the words "including, where appropriate, the modification of any such development carried out after the coming into effect of that Directive", that is, the major accidents directive. I have tabled a later amendment with a similar intent in relation to quarries.

Minister for Defence (Mr. M. Smith)

This amendment would provide that an objective to control development due to the risk of a major accident would also relate to the modification of developments carried out after the Seveso directive comes into force. This is unnecessary because the definition of development in section 3 includes any works carried out, unless specifically exempted. Therefore, any modifications to existing development would constitute development, unless they consist of smallscale works, such as domestic extensions.

The purpose of the section is to control new development, which includes modifications. The provision in this section only comes into operation where someone applies for planning permission. It is not intended to apply to existing development. I consider the amendment to be unnecessary and I ask for it to be withdrawn.

Mr. Dukes

I am not sure I agree the effect of the section is as the Minister has said. This section deals with the content of development plans. The specific provision I wish to amend by adding words to it says:

Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), a development plan shall include objectives for . . .

(j) the control, having regard to the provisions of the Major Accidents Directive and any regulations, under any enactment, giving effect to that Directive, of–

(i) siting of new establishments [that is, new development],

(ii) modification of existing establishments [that is, development in the major accident sites], and

(iii) development in the vicinity of such establishments.

The Minister is telling me that "development in the vicinity of such establishments" can mean modifications to existing developments. The section goes on to state "for the purposes of reducing the risk, or limiting the consequences, of a major accident". What the Minister is telling me might be strictly true within the meaning of that. However, I submit it will always be read as meaning that the planning authority will look at what can be done in the establishment itself to modify the risk.

I want to make that clear by adding to that sentence so that it reads "for the purposes of reducing the risk, or limiting the consequences, of a major accident (including, where appropriate, the modification of any such development carried out after the coming into effect of that Directive)". The Minister may tell me that is implicit in subsection (2)(j)(iii). However, I would like to make it explicit, so that there is no doubt about it.

Mr. M. Smith

I do not have very much to add to what I already said. The reason subparagraphs (i) and (ii) refer to the siting and modification of establishments is that we are using the language of the directive rather than the term "development" under the Bill. The only matter that can be considered when an application for planning permission is made is the precise nature of that application itself.

Mr. Dukes

We are talking not only about planning applications but about the obligation there is on a planning authority to look at the existing situation on the ground. A planning authority is not simply obliged to say "There is an explosives factory in Enfield, County Meath, which has been there since the year dot, it will always be there and we will do nothing about it". It is required, under the provisions of the major accidents directive, to keep the matter under review to ensure safety is continuously monitored. All I am asking the Minister to do is to make explicit in the section something which he tells me is implicit in it, but which I want to be brought specifically to the attention of planning authorities in the drawing up of the development plans by simply adding these words to the section.

Mr. M. Smith

It is clear we cannot manage this problem in the way Deputy Dukes seeks to. I recognise the nature of the kind of situation to which he is referring. However, it seems a much more appropriate matter for either EPA licensing or the Health and Safety Authority rather than the local authority.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 50 not moved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 53 and 81 are related to amendment No. 51 and all may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 51:

In page 33, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:

"(m) a list of public rights of way.".

These amendments relate to the provisions for public rights of way. My two amendments propose that a development plan should include a list of public rights of way and objectives for the preservation and protection of rights of way. There is a separate section in the Bill which deals with what is effectively the making of new public rights of way, for which it sets down a procedure. That procedure involves the notification of any landowner and provides an opportunity for submissions, appeals and so on to be made on that procedure.

One of the concerns I expressed on Committee Stage was that the section in the Bill which deals with rights of way will, instead of preserving and protecting them, have the effect of diminishing the number of public rights of way and dimin ishing their protection. At present, public rights of way are in many cases claimed and exist by virtue of tradition rather than on paper. A public right of way will exist in an area, the local community will know of its existence and people will have regularly used it. However, it is often difficult to find documentary evidence for its existence.

I am seeking to include in the development plan a list of such public rights of way where they are known to the public. When drafting the development plan, people in the community or the planning authority will be able to point out the traditional rights of way. People can make submissions in that regard and the rights of way will be either included or not included in the plan. The alternative procedure provided for in the Bill almost starts with the assumption that the right of way does not exist and the onus of proof that it should exist is effectively given to the local authority.

The only rights of way which will get through are those processed under that procedure. Other rights of way which in many cases are long established will cease to be rights of way because they are not dealt with under that procedure. In other words, if the right of way does not go through the procedure provided for in the Bill, it is not a right of way. That position will be adopted by landowners when disputes arise.

I am aware of relevant cases in my constituency. A person might put a fence across a laneway and include it in his or her garden or property. Often it is an older member of the community who will bring it to the attention of his or her public representative. He or she will point out that it has long been a public right of way saying: "We walked there when we were children; it was the link from X road to Y road and has been used for generations". In that situation the onus of proof is on the landowner to show it is not a right of way. The problem that will now arise is that if the right of way has not gone through the procedure provided for in the Bill, it will effectively lapse.

There must be specific provision in development plans for the lifting of public rights of way and for their preservation and protection. Unless the Bill puts that obligation on the local authorities and provides that they have the primary responsibility for ensuring public rights of way are preserved and protected, there will be a loss of the rights of way and, in particular, access to the countryside which people have enjoyed for generations.

I doubt that it was the Minister's intention to create a system whereby rights of way are put at risk. However, that will be the effect of this section unless it is complemented with the amendments proposed by Deputy Dukes and me.

Mr. Dukes

I support the amendment, particularly in light of the discussion we had on Committee Stage. Deputy Gilmore and I tabled a number of amendments which sought to ensure that public rights of way would be maintained. The Minister demurred and decided not to accept our proposals on the basis that if an obligation was put on local authorities to maintain rights of way, it would impose a cost on them and make them reluctant to agree to the nomination of any new rights of way.

That might be true. We are all a little imperfect and we might react in that way, but that would be an undesirable result. It is for that reason I have put forward amendment No. 81 which seeks to establish a register of public rights of way and a procedure for establishing the register. This is not a procedure which allows Alan Dukes or anybody else to claim there is a public right of way in a certain place and have that claim accepted. It contains a procedure for affected landowners who believe there is no such right of way to contest it.

The amendment provides a basis on which a register of public rights of way can be drawn up. It also provides that one year before it begins the process of reviewing the development plan, the local authority would publish the register of public rights of way so everybody would know where rights of way exist. That, together with the provision proposed by Deputy Gilmore and a provision which I hope will be eventually included in the legislation to provide that planning authorities will be obliged to maintain public rights of way, will preserve and enhance the value of these rights of way.

Rights of way are in danger and the dangers are rather difficult to accept. I can give one example, an old hobbyhorse of mine. There are many miles of canal in this country. When I had the time I used to go horse riding along the banks of the canal in a certain part of my constituency. The canals were taken over by what was then the Office of Public Works which then became Dúchas and is now Waterways Ireland. After some time I discovered that a barrier had been erected at two points on the canal. I was told that the Office of Public Works had decided that horse riding along the banks of the canal was not an appropriate activity.

I had several meetings with the relevant officials and Ministers of State and they solemnly listened when I explained that the banks of the canals had originally been built so heavy horses could pull barges along the canals. They were built for horses. For many years, the banks of the canals were virtually public thoroughfares. Not many people in the 19th century could afford a horse to ride along the canals but they had donkeys, and could walk. They walked along the canals and the banks were important thoroughfares for a long time.

However, the Office of Public Works decided that horse riding along the banks of the canal was not an appropriate activity. The excuses offered were that it would interfere with anglers or with pedestrians. That is baloney. When the canal banks were public thoroughfares everybody used them, people on horseback, on asses and on foot. Anglers had no problem with horse riding, although we never had a great tradition of fishing the canals. Pedestrians had no problem with it either. I never heard anything to suggest a problem with horses bolting because they saw pedestrians, although they sometimes do that.

I probably should not say this because I was probably committing an offence but on one occasion I brought a hammer with me when I went for a ride along the canal. I used it to knock out some nails and to replace them and the barrier when I returned. Then the Office of Public Works scuppered me by installing metal barriers. However, whoever put up the barrier did not know anything about horses. He put it just at the right height to make it a grand fence to pop on one's way for a gallop down the canal bank. That went on for about six months until the barrier was raised again and made too high to jump. Obviously, it was one's intention to avoid going into the water.

Now that we have Waterways Ireland and an admixture into the administration of our waterways of a bit of good, hard headed Northern Ireland common sense, I hope there will be a change in this. Someone who had a riding establishment near Mullingar decided to offer his clients who liked to go for a bit of hacking, a ride along the banks of the canal. However, the Office of Public Works decided the horses were cutting up the bank too much, took him to court and sought an injunction. It succeeded in obtaining an injunction from the courts to the effect that because the Office of Public Works did not want horses along the banks of the canal – it was the Office of Public Works's canal – that person should not be allowed to bring horse riders along that bank. Having obtained that injunction, the Office of Public Works decided the precedent was set and there would not be riding of horses along the banks of the canal, which is nonsensical. This is cutting off unnecessarily a very healthy, pleasant and scenic activity from a great number of people. My point is that it made its case on the basis that the banks of the canals were similar in law to the platforms of railway stations. God help us, the court accepted the banks of a canal can be held to be similar to the platforms of railways stations and that while there may be public access there is no public right of way.

This is the type of decision which interferes with public rights of way and with the enjoyment of these rights of way. It is just one example of an official view which is inimical to public rights of way. We should be conscious of this and, where possible, we should include in legislation a reaffirmation of the rights of ordinary people to walk around the countryside on public land. This is why I support Deputy Gilmore's amendment and hope the Minister will accept my amendment No. 81, which seeks to draw up a public register of rights of way as part of each development plan so that the matter is put beyond doubt.

Mr. M. Higgins

I will make one or two points on these amendments which I support.

In 1974 when I became a member of Galway Corporation and Galway County Council until I left both local authorities, I was involved in both committee work and the general discussions in preparation for the different development plans. When the second plan was being discussed, I was horrified to find that the original maps, which showed public rights of way, were no longer available to those who wanted to draw up the plan. I had proposed an appendix to the plan to list the public rights of way which were under some threat. We found that through bureaucratic error the people who were closing off these rights of way had not been challenged by a previous official in a local authority. The case was lost in court and a decision was made to abandon a whole raft of territory. With this policy of abandonment of the assertion of the public's right went the maps that showed these original and traditional rights of way. I am not talking in the abstract because for anyone interested in landscape, the right to roam or ecology, these maps were of great importance. For example, there were a series of interlocking lanes which went from Rusheen Bay to the Corrib, across Tonabruckey and past the end of the Ice Age ridge which stretches down to Galway from Connemara. The old maps show this lace work. These were very interesting to people interested in rural architecture and the history of stone. The way in which some of them were protected by different kinds of stone wall was in itself of interest. At present if one takes an area such as Dangan out to Tonabruckey, which overlooks Galway city, one will see the stone walls have been flattened. First of all a piece of barbed wire might appear, followed by a few bushes and a mass of concrete where someone has encroached or built across a right of way. It is an absolute outrage that these rights of way are not being protected.

In the absence of any requirement in the plan or a register of rights of way, anyone seeking to use rights of way must almost represent themselves as some kind of crank, find others who use them and make the case for one's amenity usage or whatever. As a former Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht with responsibility for heritage, I know rights of way are a vital part of heritage. I urge the Minister to accede to these amendments, for which he will be thanked. In my lifetime there has been a massive deterioration in the number of rights of way in my area.

In relation to what Deputy Dukes said, on reflection, I agree with him. I recall a similar case being made to me about horse riding on canal banks. There is a difference between a public right of way and a right of way under the administration of the Office of Public Works. The case was put to me in a rather partial way that part of the bank would be insecure to carry the weight of a horse. Sometimes horse riding would be in competition with pedestrian use. Equally there was no legal basis for saying that the bank of a canal was to be used for pedestrian use only. The only way it would have been solved and towards which I was aiming as Minister was to set up a statutory waterways authority which would define the usage. This would make the banks safe. It would widen, protect and maintain the banks and define the appropriate uses. In one instance we reserved an area for fishing for handicapped people. This was very specific usage and the banks were made wheelchair accessible.

These are interesting times and I would like to put this matter in both a general and European context. I was speaking at a conference in Europe last year and reflecting on information provided by others. It seems to me that there has been a general contraction in public space at the end of the last century and the beginning of the new one. Looking across Europe, this is not the century that provided the great public spaces, parks, the right to have access to the countryside and so on. In one area after another, particularly when people critically review urban renewal schemes, one will find the traditional laneways and accesses have been closed off and much of the urban renewal has been the privatisation of what was previously a public area. The right to sit in public without the capacity to be a consumer or to purchase is something that existed in the old concept of the European street and all its laneways. Anyone currently studying urbanism in Europe will say that this has now been massively constricted. Orderly and proper planning should now fall in favour of the public's right to access, recreation and, without doing damage to private property, the public's right to roam.

People will be aware of rather dramatic examples. How will one explain to a child in the future that we are an island nation? When I went to school we all began by saying, "Ireland is an island nation". There are many places where access to the coast has been cut off, which is an outrage. I have long believed in making an order, valid throughout the country, and would have done so if I had the time and power, to create access to the sea. I regard the placing of barriers where people traditionally went to the sea as outrageous. It is not exercising a private right but is seriously obstructing a public right.

For all these reasons I support the amendments. The danger of the section is that it would be constructed as if it were a situation de novo, that it would be applied minimally and that an entire series of other things would fall away in the absence of being mentioned. Much has already fallen away. I would welcome the Minister for the Environment and Local Government instructing all local authorities to seek to rediscover as many of the maps as are in existence. Even basic mapping has been allowed fall away, which is a very serious loss to the public.

It is very sad that with the loss and obstruction of rights of way people are denied access to certain forms of cobbling and stone walls, of which there are many varieties including loose stone walling, and the accompanying vegetation. If people came to Galway city I could show them examples of this appalling encroachment for which there is no justification. When I was growing up in County Clare I heard about a particular form of madness in certain parts of a parish where people would dig out ditches to push the wall before them to gain a foot. It is that kind of craziness which has obstructed a public good. I hope the Minister sees fit not to be legalistic about it in terms of saying he is only dealing with the present or the future, but seeks to try as much as possible to reach back and recover some of that which has been lost, though I hope not forever.

Mr. M. Smith

Deputy Gilmore's amendments would require planning authorities to include a mandatory objective to preserve and protect rights of way in the development plan or to include a list of rights of way in the development plan. Deputy Dukes has resubmitted his amendment providing for a fast track register of rights of way. As the Minister said on Committee Stage, the new powers for local authorities to protect rights of way in their development plan under section 14 are the best way forward. I do not propose to provide that they will have to protect all rights of way in their area because that would be impossible and impractical. Neither do I intend accepting amendment No. 81 in the name of Deputy Dukes as it would place too much of a burden on landowners to disprove a right of way existed. Local authorities are the best agency to decide where it is appropriate to give protection to amenity rights of way and the procedures set out in section 14 are the best mechanism to achieve this.

Planning authorities have power to preserve public rights of way for the good of the general public. Section 14 sets out new and simplified procedures to allow planning authorities to include specific rights of way in their development plans. In future, once included for the first time in a development plan, it will not be necessary to continue to notify owners, etc., as required under the provisions of the 1963 Act. However, there is a danger that Deputy Gilmore's amendments would require planning authorities to protect and maintain all rights of way, public or private, in their area. Even if restricted to public rights of way, this would be overly onerous on planning authorities both in preparing and implementing the development plan.

It is often difficult to know whether a public right of way actually exists. For this reason section 14, unique among the sections on the development plan, includes an appeal to the Circuit Court when a person objects to a right of way being included in a development plan. Where a dispute arises as to whether a right of way exists, this can only be resolved by the courts. Therefore, it is not practical or legally sound to require all rights of way to be listed in the development plan. As drafted, the Bill contains a much more practical way to ensure that rights of landowners can be protected when rights of way are included in the plan, and I ask the Deputies to withdraw the amendments.

In law, all public roads are public rights of way, and these would comprise the major part of any list of rights of way. There is no sense in including a list of existing roads in the development plan. The Deputies are clearly thinking about rights of way which are amenities and which cross private land. However, it is clearly more appropriate for local authorities to be able to decide which rights of way of this kind need protection.

As an alternative, Deputy Dukes seeks to provide that once the Bill comes into force, local authorities must open a register of public rights of way, and any person could insert a right of way on it. A year before the review of the development plan, the authority would publicise the register of rights of way and it would be up to the owner or occupier of the land to challenge the inclusion of a right of way. No standard of proof is required of the nominator of a public right of way. The landowner with an alleged right of way going through his lands would have to go to the difficulty and expense of challenging it in court. A planning authority, before deciding to include a public right of way in a development plan, will prudently establish the prima facie existence of such a right of way.

The procedure to protect and create rights of way has existed in the Planning Acts since 1963. The procedures have been improved in this Bill. The fact that rights of way were not protected under the 1963 Act has not affected the status of rights of way since that time. Nothing will change, except that it will be easier in future to protect rights of way in development plans.

Deputy Dukes's story very well illustrates the problem of identifying a public right of way. In Deputy Dukes's words, they were virtual public thoroughfares. However, canal banks were presumably being used with the implicit permission of the canal operators. Therefore, no public right may have existed in the first place.

The Bill solves the problem raised by Deputy Higgins. If a development plan contains a provision identifying a public right of way, that right of way will automatically be contained in all subsequent development plans. This is a new provision. There is no further need to consult with landowners in respect of subsequent development plans.

I have no wish to interfere with Deputy Dukes's equestrian pursuits. I have come up against such objections from time to time and I think a little more common sense should be used. Securing the public rights of way referred to by the Deputies into the future may require specialist legislation and could be very impractical and extremely difficult for a local authority to cope with in the context of a development plan. However, I take on board the sensitivities mentioned and would like to have the opportunity to discuss with my colleagues the possibility of specialist legislation to deal with the intricacies of the issue.

Mr. Dukes

In response to the Minister's last statement, I would like to see that invitation being followed up. Having spoken about my equestrian pursuits, it seems to be an invitation to live horse and get grass. We can make such provision in this Bill.

What the Minister said illustrates the point I was making about the mindset of public authorities in relation to these issues. Things required of public authorities are onerous and no consideration is given to the fact that things taken away from the public are equally onerous on the public. It is one of a number of reasons I regret that Deputy Michael Higgins was not Minister for longer and that he did not have time to change the mindset in this area of our administration. My story, as the Minister called it, had no purpose other than to illustrate the mindset which the Minister has so expertly set out and so accurately repeated.

The Minister referred to section 14 which I am glad to see in the Bill. Deputy Gilmore and I do not have a difficulty with it, the problem is that it just does not go far enough. If we are to have rights of way let us have a register. For the Minister to say that nothing will change and that rights of way are being protected is beside the point. While notionally they are protected by legislation, as Deputy Higgins indicated, they are being lost and obstructed, by a process of omission rather than anything else in public authorities. I am not happy that the provisions of this and other legislation dealing with the problem and with the proposition that we should await separate legislation when in this Bill the necessary provisions can be written in.

Mr. Gilmore

Like Deputy Dukes, I am very disappointed at the Minister's response to the amendments, although I take a slight grain of comfort from his off-script remarks that perhaps separate legislation should be considered for the protection of rights of way. This goes to show that he is convinced by the argument being made. It is not sufficient justification for rejecting the amendments to say that they would place an undue burden on local authorities. What they would primarily require them to do is maintain a list of rights of way. If the Minister is prepared to accept this I will not press the amendment which would place an obligation on local authorities to maintain and preserve rights of way, if that is the difference between us, because what is of most importance is that they are identified and recorded to eliminate any doubt about their status.

Rights of way are falling like nine pins. Deputy Higgins gave a number of examples along which, interestingly, I used to walk. I know of a number in my constituency. There is a constant series of closures and disputes about whether they were rights of way. The only way to deal with the matter is to list them. This is the Bill in which to provide for this. Given the rate at which legislation is produced by the Department we could have to wait two to three years for separate legislation by which time many rights of way will have been lost, particularly when account is taken of the pace of development.

Mr. M. Smith

I have nothing further to add.

Amendment put.

Tá

Allen, Bernard.Barnes, Monica.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, Richard.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Enright, Thomas.Farrelly, John.Finucane, Michael.Gilmore, Éamon.Gormley, John.Gregory, Tony.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael.Kenny, Enda.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.

McGrath, Paul.Mitchell, Olivia.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Sullivan, Jan.Owen, Nora.Penrose, William.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Reynolds, Gerard.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Sheehan, Patrick.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack. Yates, Ivan.

Níl

Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cowen, Brian.Cullen, Martin.de Valera, Síle.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Fox, Mildred.Gildea, Thomas.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.

Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John.Moffatt, Thomas.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Malley, Desmond.O'Rourke, Mary.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Walsh, Joe.Wright, G. V.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Sheehan and Stagg; Níl, Deputies S. Brennan and Callely.

Amendment declared lost.

Debate adjourned.