Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The amendment would make no material change to the meaning; rather, it would merely change the tense of the verbs and, therefore, would not improve the Bill which has been drafted effectively by members of staff in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. The amendment would not improve on the work they have done. The claim my team is making is that there is no material difference between what Deputy Ó Cuív is proposing and what we have included in the Bill. If that is not the case, we need to discuss the matter and decide which is the better version. We are trying to ensure the Minister can, by order, declare the State or part of it to be a disease eradication area for the purposes of containing a disease. The amendment would provide that he or she could only do this where there was a risk or a suspicion that disease was present, whereas the section states "at risk of or suspected of being affected with disease in the area". I am not sure what is the difference between them. I am saying the same thing in that the area has to be at risk of, or suspected, of being affected with disease. "Being affected with" is the same as "a disease being present". That is our definition. If that is not the case, I am happy to examine the matter.