This is the Neighbour Disputes (Vegetation) Bill 2017. I hope the neighbours are not disputing over cabbages or anything like that, but I am sure Deputy Ó Snodaigh will tell us. The Government has indicated it is not opposing the Second Reading.
Neighbour Disputes (Vegetation) Bill 2017: Second Stage [Private Members]
I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCeann Comhairle. Tá sé go maith go bhfuil an deis seo againn agus nach bhfuil an Rialtas ag cur ina choinne seo. Tá súil agam, amach anseo, go mbeidh muid in ann tacú leis le déanamh cinnte de gur reachtaíocht é.
Is mian liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil le roinnt daoine atá tar éis cuidiú liom anseo. Is é teideal an Bhille ná An Bille um Dhíospóidí idir Comharsana (Fásra), 2017, that is, the Neighbour Disputes (Vegetation) Bill 2017. It has been hanging around a while. The issue it relates to has come up continuously. Anybody involved in constituency casework, be it a Deputy, Senator or aspiring candidate, will have come across cases of neighbours falling out over a tree or hedge. One of the earlier iterations of the Oireachtas petitions committee examined this issue and made several recommendations. Afterwards, when nothing happened – it was 2013 – I asked the Library and Research Service to carry out research on how to address the issue and on the approach in our neighbouring states. The service produced a research paper, Overhanging Trees, in 2016 and it is still available from the service for those who are interested. I then worked with the OPLA, namely, with David Hegarty and David Dunne. One of the interesting approaches we took at that stage was to consider how the OPLA could help Members put together legislation. We worked through the legislation in question. Ultimately, it takes a lot from what obtains in England. Our approach is to try to prevent people from having to go to court or from ending up fighting with each other. I am referring to rows and fallings out between neighbours over the extent to which trees have overgrown boundaries or overshadow gardens, thereby preventing the owners of the gardens from enjoying them. It is an issue in urban areas, in particular, but it is not confined to them because I am aware that it also occurs in certain rural areas. The leaves that fall from certain trees, conkers and other material can interfere with neighbours' gardens and whatnot. There is no recourse at present. The Defence Forces can lop or prune trees, as can utility companies and local authorities, where those trees are interfering with public roads and so on. In the case of private property, however, there is no recourse for a citizen to protect his or her space. If trees or bushes are overhanging, neighbours can cut them back on their side. That is a given and we accept it, but if it is done to a large tree, it can undermine it and make it dangerous in itself. If you dig down and remove roots that interfere with your tiled garden, you could undermine the tree and make it dangerous. You would be within your right to dig out the roots and that is the cause of some of the disputes, where the look of the tree is interfered with if somebody cuts back.
I first contested an election in 1987 so I have come across this on several occasions. It is not the be-all and end-all. We have many more important and pressing issues but if you have a tree that is 60 ft high, having been only 20 ft when you moved in first, and the woman next door is a pensioner who does not have the wherewithal to cut it back, what is your recourse? You could bring her to court and force it but that is not what neighbours are meant to do.
The idea is to approach this as in England, namely, by making it a council matter involving mediation. Even if you brought somebody to court, there would be no guarantee that the works would happen. I have dealt with cases of houses in probate and cases in which a house’s owner, be it an absent landlord, a vulture fund or maintenance company that has gone bang, cannot be found. You cannot force them to address an issue of major importance. It is especially an issue if everybody else is out in their gardens enjoying the nice sunshine and having barbecues and you are in a garden overshadowed by trees or very high hedges, with no sunlight getting in. There is no automatic right to sunlight in gardens. There is if you can prove that for over 20 years you had sunlight, but since trees grow continuously you cannot necessarily prove it. Even if you can, it is very difficult to prove you have the right to sunlight in your garden. You have a right to sunlight in your house and trees must not overshadow windows but they can overshadow your garden.
This is one of the big issues when apartment developments are being planned for the city. Most big developers have to produce a daylight survey showing the effects of sunlight at different stages of the year. However, if trees are already in place, you will not necessarily have lost the sunlight. It can be a big issue.
Three or four years ago, after producing this legislation, I dealt with the case of an elderly couple in an inner-city terraced house whose neighbour had three or four trees. She is a bit chaotic. The trees had grown from the 6 ft or 7 ft they were 40 years previously when they were planted into huge monstrosities. The trees' height was bad enough but the couple said that any time they tried to do anything with their garden, the roots would come up and disturb things. The couple were getting very depressed about it and did not necessarily want to have a row with the neighbour or neighbour’s family. They were asking where to go for redress but I was not able to point to anything. Since I published this legislation back in 2017, several people have highlighted the problem. I have seen it come up in the property clinic column in The Irish Times. I have seen letters asking for help in The Irish Times and other papers. The responses point out that while somebody can go to court, there is no guarantee, it can be expensive and the problem could drag on for another five or six years.
After the back-and-forth with the OPLA service, we eventually settled on this legislation, which is in line with what the petitions committee recommended in 2015. It proposed the introduction of legislation dealing with the height and maintenance of trees and hedges and the consideration of an amendment to the environmental protection Act to deal with this. It talked about informing the committee of this approach. The new, amended legislation was to cover height restrictions, which was ruled out by the Law Reform Commission, which also examined this issue. The petitions committee also stated that if attempts have been made by neighbours to resolve issues in advance of going to the local authority, that also should be considered.
Moreover, the Department and the local authority should have the power to investigate the issue and once satisfied, issue sanctions on the offending neighbour to resolve the issue and bring their trees and hedges in line with the required height if that is set out in legislation. If there were to be no compliance, the issue should go to mediation. Should that mediation fail, there should be an option to allow individuals to go before the courts and apply penalties similar to those imposed in the UK.
The legislation I have produced follows some of that procedure. At the end of the day, anybody is entitled to go to court but at the moment, he or she would not have a strong case to stand on. This would at least allow a local authority to set its local standards or allow the Minister for the environment or local government bodies to set minimum standards if that is the approach we take. Mediation is the key. This legislation would place an onus on the local authority to put in place some type of mediation role to try to ensure there are officers in place, whether they are public realm officers or something similar, who would be versed in how to deal with such situations, how to mediate and how to encourage neighbours, which is what we want to do at the end of the day, without starting a row. Neighbours will sometimes fall out just because they get a knock on the door but they will definitely fall out if they are dragged into a formal mediation process or if they are brought to court and forced to act.
We must also consider the circumstances of an elderly person or somebody who cannot afford to loop or prune a tree or whatever else. There must be some way to help such people. I know from personal experience the cost of cutting trees and rolling them back. It is not cheap, especially in a city area when trying to be careful of the damage done to neighbours' properties. I previously dealt with a case where a neighbour got so frustrated that he went into the other person's garden, took out a chainsaw and did a whole load of damage. That person was done for trespassing, criminal damage and everything else, but that is the level of frustration some people experience. I do not know if a fund or charity is suitable but we need to consider some mechanism for the future. That is not provided for in the Bill but there will be cases where the local authority may be required to step in. Most local authorities have some expertise in dealing with overhanging trees because they deal with them on roadsides and footpaths. That is not the key element of this legislation.
The Bill is aimed at tackling some, and not all, of the problems. We cannot solve everybody's problems but at least we can put in place some mechanism by which people can consider how to resolve issues so they do not continuously grow. This approach would be less costly than blocking up our courts. The idea is that local authorities would take on such issues. Local authorities will give out to me for adding to their duties and that is something the State will have to take into account when funding them. The State will have to take into account that this is a new duty that might require extra staff or additional training. We may end up needing people who have full training in mediation and who understand this new law and the other laws relating to environmental protection.
This Bill is in no way an attempt to cut back trees. The more trees that are planted around the country, and the more Irish native trees, the better. Perhaps that is a matter we can consider at another stage. This legislation is intended to help neighbourhoods and neighbours be better than they are at the moment and to stop some disputes. Such disputes only crop up once in a while but when people come into my constituency office to complain about these issues, some of them are consumed by the dispute to such a degree that they are a bit irrational about how they think about approaching the problem. I will leave it at that. Other Deputies may wish to take part.
I am pleased to attend the debate to set out the Government's position on the Bill. I thank Deputy Ó Snodaigh for initiating the Bill, which is an effort to address the difficult matter of disputes that arise between neighbours over vegetation causing a nuisance. The Bill provides for mediation on neighbour disputes and formal adjudication, if necessary, by adjudication officers appointed by local authorities. It provides for the appeal and enforcement of decisions made by adjudication officers.
Many of us in this Chamber, as elected representatives, have come across scenarios or have been asked to assist in situations whereby neighbours are in dispute over trees and hedges that are causing a nuisance. Indeed, in initiating the Bill in the House, Deputy Ó Snodaigh drew attention to a case he had come across in his constituency. The very first representation I ever had was in 2013 and related to overhanging trees. It was from an elderly couple who were afraid that if there was a bad storm, the tree would come down on the roof of their house. I will always remember their distress. They found it hard to sleep on a bad night.
The Deputy mentioned that there are many more pressing issues with which we can deal. However, this is reality and what he is proposing is a common-sense approach. When there is a dispute, common sense can sometimes go out the window. There is no doubt but that disputes can be incredibly difficult and stressful for the parties involved and detrimental to their mental and physical health and well-being. The Bill proposes a formal solution to such issues and is, therefore, well-intentioned. For that reason, the Government has agreed in principle not to oppose it. I agree that when disputes arise between neighbours over vegetation, such as high trees and hedges, on adjoining properties, such disputes may be more appropriately dealt with through mediation. The Bill under discussion proposes to assign such a mediation role to local authorities that may appoint mediation officers independent in the exercise of their functions and refer disputes between neighbours over nuisance vegetation to a mediation officer for resolution to a formal mediation process.
While under the Local Government Act 2001, local authorities have a vital role in representing the interests of local communities in such a manner as they think appropriate, the mediation of disputes between individuals is not foreseen in local government legislation. The proposal to assign such functions to local authorities under the Bill in question is, therefore, novel. It is the case that mediation is increasingly used internationally, as the Deputy said, as a tool for the resolution of civil disputes rather than going through the courts. It is also the case that in Ireland, legislation giving mediation a statutory footing for civil proceedings was introduced by the Minister for Justice under the Mediation Act 2017. The Act came into force on 1 January 2018. It seeks to establish mediation as a viable, effective and efficient alternative to court proceedings, reducing legal costs and speeding up the resolution of disputes.
"Mediation" is defined in the 2017 Act as "a confidential, facilitative and voluntary process in which parties to a dispute, with the assistance of a mediator, attempt to reach a mutually acceptable agreement to resolve the dispute". There are likely a number of existing mediation options available to citizens who seek to resolve disputes with neighbours. While many of them are fee-based, others are free. Independent law centres, such as Community Law and Mediation, CLM, provide mediation services free of charge. CLM has established centres in Dublin and Limerick, and its mediation services are available for a number of types of cases, including for disputes between neighbours and for workplace matters. In 2022, CLM received funding from the Departments of Social Protection and Housing, Local Government and Heritage to support it in its activities. I therefore suggest that mediation services exist for parties who opt to avail of them, with the facilitative environment for same created by the introduction of the Mediation Act. I also note that CLM is only located in Dublin and Limerick.
The Bill proposes that a local authority may appoint adjudication officers who are independent in the exercise of their functions. The Bill also proposes that a local authority shall, subject to any mediation process, refer a dispute between neighbours over nuisance vegetation to an adjudication officer who shall adjudicate in the matter, including to issue a works order. There was no adjudicative element envisaged in the Mediation Act so the assignment of such a function to local authorities would be entirely new, particularly in a local government context. The assignment of such a function would require careful consideration from a civil law viewpoint.
Potential property rights issues arising would also need careful consideration in any progression of this legislation.
I would highlight that the assignment of significant new functions to local authorities for the remediation and adjudication of disputes between neighbours regarding nuisance vegetation would not be core local authority functions. As such, local authorities would be required to build considerable new expertise and capacity. There could therefore be significant staffing and financial resource implications for local authorities. The Bill does not address such matters but Deputy Ó Snodaigh referred to it in his opening statement.
Related to this issue I mention, with regard to dangerous trees, section 70 of the Roads Act 1993, which is under the responsibility of the Minister for Transport, provides:
Where a tree, shrub, hedge or other vegetation is a hazard or potential hazard to persons using a public road or where it obstructs or interferes with the safe use of a public road or with the maintenance of a public road, a road authority may serve a notice in writing on the owner or occupier of the land on which such tree, shrub, hedge or other vegetation is situated requiring the preservation, felling, cutting, lopping, trimming or removal of such tree, shrub, hedge or other vegetation within the period stated in the notice.
Similarly, section 58 of the Communications Regulation Act 2002, under the remit of the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, states an electronic communications network operator, or any person authorised by the operator may lop or cut any tree, shrub or hedge which obstructs or interferes with any physical infrastructure of the network operator. With regard to tall and dangerous trees on local authority property, local authorities, as well as landowners, are responsible for the safety and maintenance of trees on their land.
I thank Deputy Ó Snodaigh for initiating the Bill and the debate. I look forward to hearing other contributions today. The Government has agreed not to oppose the Bill.
Next to speak is Deputy Ó Murchú. Is there a problem with trees in Dundalk?
Yes, we have a problem with most things in Dundalk. I thank Deputy Ó Snodaigh for bringing forward the aptly-named Neighbour Disputes (Vegetation) Bill. I thank the Minister of State and the Government for not opposing it.
Everyone agrees that this is the sort of thing that can become a big issue for neighbours and for many of us as elected representatives. I remember as a councillor dealing with some incredibly serious issues with regard to drug debt and intimidation and whatever else that would involve liaising with landlords, the Garda and a large number of stakeholders in the hopes of resolving a situation regarding people's safety but a consistent constant issue to arise was with regard to trees. This happens with regard to local authorities and individuals. People put trees in places where they think they look nice. It is grand when they are 5 ft tall. Then they are 10 ft tall and suddenly they are 25 ft tall and their roots are going under foundations and heading into pipework and impacting how we get rid of surface water. It is a big issue.
We need to be able to facilitate people. We all realise that people can take these sorts of disputes to court. We know the courts are backlogged as it is and we do not need these sorts of issues landing there where we do not know how exactly they will be dealt with. We know if we had a mediation system with some element of enforcement powers it could deal with these issues before they got out of hand, which sometimes they do. It is fair to say this. People fall out. What is the old phrase? Good fences make good neighbours. Sometimes trees can lead to the absolute opposite. The Minister of State spoke about the mediation service that is only available in Limerick and Dublin. This leaves out half the State.
The difference in this legislation is the fact that it provides some element of enforcement with the local authority. I get that the local authority will never thank us for giving more powers to it. If we wanted to we could talk about all of the issues that people request the local authority to deal with which it cannot necessarily do, with regard to this and the wider issue of estate management. We know the powers are not there. Sometimes we get complaints from the Garda or other stakeholders about them not necessarily having the tools to deal with this. Sometimes these issues get out of hand. Sometimes these issues fall in front not only of the local authority but also ourselves as elected representatives. Occasionally they even fall in front of An Garda Síochána. Anything that can be moved to a much simpler system makes complete sense.
I know that from time to time, and not only in relation to trees, elected representatives have to deal with mediation where there is absolutely no win for them. We have been lucky enough in Dundalk that we have sometimes been able to call on the likes of Community Restorative Justice, which operates in Newry. We hope that in future we will be able to have this type of service close at hand. The idea of this is that sometimes a third party can deal with people and take the sting out of the issue. We often speak about having early intervention before relationships get particularly bad but we do not always see it. This is something that I speak about.
We are speaking specifically about trees and this legislation can allow for dealing with these issues in a straightforward manner. Deputy Ó Snodaigh mentioned that nobody has an absolute right to light for their garden. Nobody has a right to a view. We often hear planning authorities speak about this. We often hear about light surveys and we understand that at times not a huge amount of light is required for buildings to get through the gap in this regard, and rightfully so. It is the case that we need a means of dealing with these types of issues before they get out of control as all too often they do.
All too often we have situations where house ownership is not necessarily a sure thing. Following somebody's death we could have a complicated scenario. We could also have a situation where people do not necessarily have the money to deal with cutting back trees. We know the large costs that are involved. It can have a big impact on people. I have dealt with many people who have no means of enforcing that their neighbours look after trees which are a definite danger. We all know that we deal with storms and these people are constantly worried that a tree will fall through their window or roof. At this point insurance will kick in and it is straightforward but we need to be able to get to the point long before this. At times we create a situation that could impact on people's safety. It impacts on their mental health. I accept that from time to time if we had cool heads and people could try to facilitate each other we would be in a better place but, as someone said before, if we were dealing with good manners across the board we would not need half the rules we have. This is not always the case.
We all understand the absolute necessity of biodiversity. We know the absolute necessity of trees. I will use the example of Ashbrook, and we can guess what type of tree we are speaking about. The trees looked very nice at one point in time, and they still do, but some of them are absolutely huge and have gone right underneath some of the buildings. This impacts on people's houses. They have probably impacted some of the systems, such as the water network. The roots search for water sources so it should not be shocking that this happens. It can be a big issue to try to get the local authority or whoever else to deal with it because of the large cost and the issues with regard to biodiversity. This is another issue that needs to be tackled and there is absolutely no shortage of them. I call for this to happen. I have dealt with multiple issues, such as in Ashbrook, where large trees are having a big impact.
There is also the annoyance in relation to leaves or whatever. In certain places, we sometimes deal with a legacy where certain trees that were planted suddenly start ripping the surrounding pavement to shreds. It is a case of the wrong trees in the wrong place. We need some element of flexibility in the rules to allow people to deal with those circumstances and so that the local authority will actually deal with those issues. We could also have more sensible planning to avoid as much of that as possible. We all want and need to see more trees, but we want to see the right trees that make sense in particular places.
Deputy Ó Snodaigh spoke about the issue in respect of rural areas. Disputes can occur when someone has satisfied every aspect of planning but sight lines become an issue. This can involve a neighbour's trees. Sometimes it suits one party not to facilitate the other. We should support any means of getting simple, sensible solutions that avoid fallout and people going to court when there is no need.
On local authorities and mediation services, for instance, in respect of estate management, that is a far wider issue given the resources required from the relevant local authority and many of the other services. We know the issues that councils and elected representatives have to deal with, for instance, certain chaotic tenants or characters who make life a disaster for those who live around them. These are relatively simple issues that can get out of control.
We need to deal with the wrong trees being in the wrong place. We need to be able to facilitate people to find a sensible solution. There will always be a need to provide somebody with some sort of power so that, while mediation is available, an adjudication will be made. This would remove the matter from the courts system and prevent annoyance of the Garda. Members of this House and those in council chambers across the State would be only too delighted.
I will keep it brief because I would only be reiterating what was said already. I am grateful for the opportunity to make some brief closing remarks on what has been a fascinating discussion. I thank Deputy Ó Snodaigh for initiating this Bill and the effort to address an issue that can become both serious and distressing for some in our communities, where they are in dispute with their neighbours over nuisance vegetation. I have advised previously that the Government has decided not to oppose this legislation. As I have suggested, however, the Bill has at least to some extent been overtaken by events, namely, the introduction of the Mediation Act 2017 by the Minister for Justice from 1 January 2018. This Act has created an environment which facilitates a voluntary process whereby parties to a dispute can, with the help of a mediator, reach an agreement to resolve a dispute. Such mediation services are widely available now across the State, some offering services free of charge to clients with others charging.
In assigning both mediation and adjudication functions to local authorities, the Bill takes a novel approach. In progressing this legislation, however, consideration will need to be given to a number of important factors, including the civil law implications, the property rights implications, and the staff and financial resources implications for local authorities. Overall, despite the invaluable work they do in shaping the communities in which we live, local authorities are not currently involved in dispute resolution matters between individuals. I thank the Deputy.
I will start where the Minister of State finished. This legislation was drafted in advance of the Mediation Act, but that is not to say that it should end because the Mediation Act has passed. There is a need for mediation and in fact the local authority in the city here often acts as a mediator where there is an antisocial tenant or a row between neighbours, especially in an estate that it controls. The problem is when it is a private estate but it could be a mixed estate. There are issues. If a tree is on a council property, it is a lot easier because people can go to the council and it will often act and address the issue. In the main, we are dealing here with private tenancy and the Minister of State is quite right that there is the whole question of private property.
When we were putting together this legislation, we looked at the common law jurisdiction in England and how it was approached there. It works well in England. By its very nature, the fact that the law is in place allows quicker resolution. People do not even want to go into mediation; they just want the matter dealt with. People can then find out quite quickly what it is that has an individual so tied up with a particular tree. It might have been planted in memory of somebody. It might be that the person does not have the wherewithal to address it or does not see the issue.
A number of approaches were made to me asking that I look at this. Since I published the Bill, people have been asking me about its progress. They feel it would be ideal and they would be able to point to the legislation and get a maintenance company, landlord or tenant to address it. Only last month, a constituent wrote to me asking if I could help resolve an issue regarding overgrown trees at the back garden of an elderly lady's house in Crumlin. There are two large trees in the back garden and this property is at the back of the house of an 80-year-old woman. The trees block out the light, while the fallen leaves, conkers and bird droppings are a constant slip hazard for this elderly woman. She does not wish to be named. She has approached the local council and it says it cannot do anything; it can ask politely or request but it cannot force the issue.
Another issue I dealt with and which, thankfully, was resolved was the imposing height and overhang and the depth of private trees at the boundary wall to another property. The reduction of natural light meant the occupier had to have lights on in the house more often, especially during winter time. A tree surgeon indicated that the height of the tree was 50% over what it should be. This case was not in my constituency but it suggests it was a very tall tree, and not appropriate for a city.
Deputy Ó Murchú referred to trees. People love trees in their garden. They look fine, especially when we see all these programmes on the television now where people have all these beautiful little gardens. They must not have kids if they have those garden so nicely laid out because kids really run amok. Those are nice dainty trees. Trees do not stay dainty.
Nor do kids.
They grow. That is their purpose, and it is the same with hedges. Kids are the same. They are not as dainty either. Most people would cut their hedge back every year but will not touch trees. For trees, you have to be capable of going up a ladder and able to manage all the safety of cutting down a tree and so on. Sometimes it happens when a new estate is being built and because it looks nice in the sales brochure, trees are planted in the back gardens. If we were to go back 20 years later to see what those trees look like, a lot of the owners will have taken them out if they could. There is a cost involved to everybody, such as the cost of pruning a tree every year or addressing matters when it gets too big. There is also a cost if it is damaging gardens. If you have one of those dainty gardens, but there is a tree next door and its roots are coming up in your garden, it is no longer dainty. Legally, you can cut all those roots and cut back on one whole side of the tree to make sure it is not overhanging your side but, by doing so, you can create a danger.
The legislation provides for mediation and adjudicating officers. It also includes the terms and conditions of a work order and what happens if a work order is not complied with.
Let us take a situation where a work order is agreed to during the mediation process and the people concerned then refuse to go ahead with the works they have agreed to. Where do you go then? Obviously, as I said, there is always recourse to the District Court.
I am happy to have this hearing on this important issue for many people. I would hope they will heed what the Minister of State has said and what we said here during the debate on what is now the Mediation Act 2017. There is at least a process there and it is being rolled out across the country. It is possible for people to take this approach of mediation. When we get back to this legislation, then, we would be able to address the situation if there were to be an associated big funding cost. Most of the costs would come in the initial phases because everyone would want their local authorities to deal with these problems quickly. After that, though, most of the issues should settle down. There would, therefore, be costs involved. Training would also be involved.
It might be that we as a House would decide that instead of looking to the local authorities we would place responsibility for dealing with this process with the mediation service and have this as the approach people can take. The only concern I have is that the mediation service does not have an enforcement aspect to its remit. If someone signs up to an agreement between two parties, therefore, this is where the process stops in mediation. What if a party, and this often happens, goes, "Happy days, we have done that", and then a year later the tree has grown another 10 ft and the works have not happened? In this instance, and in the context of other mediation attempts, there is always the danger that one of the people involved will not comply with the outcome.
I will leave it at that. Gabhaim buíochas arís leo siúd ar fad a thug cabhair dom maidir leis an gcur chuige a bhí againn agus an Bille seo á chur le chéile, ach go háirithe leo siúd san OPLA, leis an bhfoireann taighde sa leabharlann anseo, agus dár ndóigh leis an Aire as ucht bheith anseo le déileáil leis. Gabhaim buíochas freisin leis an Teachta Ó Murchú agus leis an gCeann Comhairle. Tá súil agam go mbainfear tairbhe as an mBille seo agus go mbeimid in ann a rá amach anseo gur tháinig rud éigin foirfe as an iarracht a rinneamar ag an am coiste na petitions a chur ar bun. Bhí sé i gceist i gcónaí dá mbeadh fadhb bunúsach ann go mbeadh an coiste in ann é a ardú leis na hAirí agus a leithéid, mar a dhein sé ina thuairisc. Ansin, toisc gur lean mé leis an gcinneadh a ghlacadh ag an gcoiste sin, bhíomar in ann an Bille seo a chur faoi bhráid na Dála. Tá súil agam anois go bhfuil an Dara Chéim críochnaithe agus go mbeimid in ann díriú isteach ar an gcéad chéim eile.
Question put and agreed to.
Cuireadh an Dáil ar athló ar 3.53 p.m. go dtí 2 p.m., Dé Máirt, an 21 Bealtaine 2024.
The Dáil adjourned at 3.53 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 21 May 2024.