John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)

I apologise for the fact that I could not contribute on Second Stage. I had serious concerns that horticulture might not be adequately represented and I was disappointed at the loss of An Bord Glas to Bord Bia. However, I can understand why it should happen.

Amendment No. 4 appears to contradict amendment No. 2. If adopted, the section would have to state that the provision is subject to 3A. In other words, one of the two board members would have to be a practising horticulturist. I believe that section 18(a), which speaks of people having a knowledge or experience of horticulture, covers Senator Coonan's point. It does not matter whether a person is a practitioner within the industry, although that would be desirable, or an academic from one of the universities, provided the sector is adequately represented.

Horticulture is an important sector. I note from the report on the amenity profile which was prepared by An Bord Glas that the farm gate value of the food and amenity sectors is €406 million. The amenity sector is very important in my county and that was the origin of my reservation regarding the absorption of An Bord Glas into Bord Bia. Since it is not dealing with food, it is a slightly different area, albeit within horticulture. However, the provisions of the Bill meet my reservations about the absorption of An Bord Glas and I do not see the need for the amendment, given that the Bill specifies that two board members must have knowledge or experience of horticulture. In any event, section 19 makes provision for a subsidiary board which will deal with horticulture. People will be adequately represented on that board.