John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The purpose of the amendment is to address an instance of incorrect punctuation.

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 2:

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This a similar amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 3 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

Amendment No. 3 not moved.

Section 7 agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 4 to 7, inclusive, not moved.

Section 8 agreed to.

Sections 9 and 10 agreed to.

SECTION 11.

Government amendment No. 8:

In page 10, subsection (2)(b), line 8, to delete "subsection (1)(c)" and substitute "subsection (1)(b)".

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The purpose of the amendment is to address an incorrect subsection reference.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 11, as amended, agreed to.

Section 12 agreed to.

SECTION 13.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 11, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following new subsection:

"(2) The Minister shall, as soon as may be after making any direction under this section, cause a copy of such direction to be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas.".

The amendment relates to the concept of openness and transparency and the way the Government does its business. If a future Minister was to give such a policy direction to the National Tourism Development Authority, it would certainly be in the public interest to know all about it. The amendment does not attempt in any way to restrict the Minister's power to do whatever he or she likes in this regard. All it would require is that he or she would be open about what was being done, which is the very least we could expect. We are talking about the National Tourism Development Authority, not the secret service. I cannot think of any good reason such a policy should continue to be kept under wraps. The amendment does not attempt in any way to restrict the Minister's power, it just seeks more openness and transparency.

John Paul Phelan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I second the amendment which outlines my problem in regard to the section which I oppose. I agree with Senator Quinn that, in this age of transparency and openness, it would be more appropriate if the direction the Minister would wish the authority to take was made public.

Michael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I concur with the two previous speakers. In regard to the term "direction," what will that direction be and what will be the modus operandi of the Minister in this regard? I seek his clarification on what the term "direction," which is a little broad, covers as opposed to a strategy.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not proposed to accept the amendment, the effect of which would be that a copy of any policy direction issued by the Minister to the authority under section 13 would have to be laid before each House. This would be a departure from practice and may represent an undue encroachment by the Legislature on the Executive function. On balance, one cannot see how making every policy direction given to a State agency as part of the operational process a matter of political debate would serve the overall interests of effective administration.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I believe the Minister. Given his work in previous years, I know he is very open to the whole concept of transparency and openness. It appears we are now moving in that direction in everything we do. Therefore, I find it difficult to believe this is not the correct way to go. There may be a better way in this instance, but my proposal would not create any hassle for both Houses of the Oireachtas. It would not take up our time. We would not have to give it attention, it would be included just to be seen, if necessary. The Minister would be wise to find some way, if not this way, of achieving the same objective I am seeking to achieve in this area.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 13 agreed to.

SECTION 14.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 11 is consequential on amendment No. 10. Therefore they will be discussed together.

John Paul Phelan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 11, subsection (2), lines 43 and 44, after "Minister" to insert "following interview by a Joint Committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas".

Michael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What criteria for eligibility will be used in appointing the chairperson and 12 ordinary members? Is there a specific job description or are specific skills required?

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The effect of this amendment would be that any person appointed to the board would have to face a committee which could deem that person unsuitable. There is no doubt this could lead to a major political wrangle over nominations and would lead to opposition to appointments for political reasons. This would not be conducive to the good working of the board and everybody would agree with that.

There is such a vetting system in the United States and, while it is often quoted as being a good precedent for the appointment of members to boards, it invariably gives rise to unseemly and interminable political wrangles. They sometimes make good copy but little sense.

John Paul Phelan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I take what the Minister has said but there is already political wrangling about the appointment of certain individuals to various Government bodies. The amendment will not introduce new wrangling and, with the launch of the new authority, is a chance for a new departure in the way these appointments are made. I do not know if the Minister agrees with bringing this before a joint committee of the Houses and I am not sure if that is the correct way to do it. However, some new mechanism should be brought into play for the selection of members of authorities. The current system is unsatisfactory and the Minister should look urgently at it.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support Senator Phelan's amendment. It is unlikely that the Minister will accept this but it would be wise to stitch into the Bill a measure to deal with the unease concerning unsuitable appointments over the years. This may not be the ideal way to address that, as Senator Phelan acknowledges, but the Minister should give attention to overcoming the criticisms that have arisen over not just political appointments but bad appointments.

The Minister mentioned the American system and I accept it has presented difficulties. However, I urge the Minister to find a way around this, though not necessarily in this Bill or this area. There is a problem and an alternative method should be considered.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree it is important that people with expertise are appointed to boards, where possible. This expertise can take the form of expert knowledge on a given subject but can also take the form of common sense, which is often the most important ingredient in decisions boards take. It would be unprecedented for the Government to set up a committee system to vet members of the National Tourism Development Authority and an extraordinary step to do it with regard to one board and not to others.

I take issue with those who say that appointments to important boards such as this are purely political. I recently made appointments to a number of State boards. It would be unfair to name the boards concerned but those appointed are not of my political persuasion and have tremendous knowledge in the areas concerned. A mix is important but this is not the way to go as it would create wrangles. I do not mean the authority to be some kind of honours system and I assure the House it will not be.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 11 not moved.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 12, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following new subsection:

"(2) In appointing persons to be members of the Authority, the Minister shall in so far as is practicable and having regard to relevant experience, ensure an equitable gender balance between men and women in the composition of the Authority.".

I do not want to waste time by arguing this issue from scratch as nobody will disagree with it. This is the weakest form of words I could find concerning the gender of appointments. Its weakness is the only criticism that could be made. However, some recognition should be given to the need to achieve a gender balance in almost every Bill. This is a modest way of achieving it for this Bill.

I also plead for its inclusion on grounds of consistency. Other Bills have passed through this House this year which contained exactly this provision and I lifted the exact wording for this amendment from another Bill. If it appears in some Bills, why not in others? The amendment is weak in that it does not say genders must be equal but that this be taken into account.

The least that people should expect of legislators is consistency. I would hate to think it was a matter of personal whim whether a provision of this kind was included. This has been included in legislation before. I snitched it from another Bill and it is the exact wording from that Bill.

Michael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is plagiarism.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is exactly that. The Minister should accept the amendment on the grounds that we should be consistent. If some boards take this into account while others do not, the amendment is required.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is always a difficult subject. The Equal Status Act, 2000 and the Employment Equality Act, 1998, which I moved in this House as the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, govern equality in terms of employment and the provision of services. The grounds mentioned in those Acts are far wider than that of gender and include areas such as ethnic origin, religion, sexual preference and others. The gender issue is not the only one to consider when dealing with the attainment of equality.

There is a Government guideline to the effect that State boards should, as far as possible, be constituted of 40% females and the remainder males, though it is possible to increase the number of females. In some State bodies, there is a relatively even spread between genders, though this is not the case for all boards.

It is difficult to ensure that the question of gender is taken care of while also ensuring there is a reasonable spread with regard to the equality agenda generally. It is my preference to ensure that the Government guideline is adhered to. I admit that Senator Quinn's amendment is relatively mild. It may be replicated in the Industrial Development (Enterprise Ireland) Act, 1998 and there is other legislation on the Statute Book, for example, the Irish Sports Council Act, 1999, which deals with this in a different way. That Act provides that at least three members shall be men and at least three women. The new National Tourism Development Authority will, as far as possible, adhere to Government guidelines to ensure that 40% will be women.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the amendment being pressed?

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, but I hope the Minister will consider it before Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We move to amendment No. 13. Amendment No. 14 is cognate and the amendments may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

John Paul Phelan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 12, subsection (3), line 4, to delete "5 years" and substitute "3 years".

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The term of membership of Bord Fáilte Éireann currently stands at five years and members may be reappointed. Membership of CERT is three years while reappointment is allowed. The chairman has a five year term. It has long been the case with Bord Fáilte that members serve a five year term. This allows for continuity for the board and ensures the executive is relatively vigilant. Having longer experience as a member of a board allows an individual to make a greater contribution. It is best to leave the term of office at five years. It is debatable whether it should be three years. This is not set in stone but, on balance, a term of five years is right.

John Paul Phelan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister spoke about continuity – which is important – but a period of ten years is too long. There is always a need for new people to become involved and it would not hurt the new authority if it did not have members serving for ten years.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The maximum term for which an individual can serve is ten years. The Government will be in office for ten years and it is doing a great job.

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is debatable.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If the board does even half as well, it will be a great success.

Michael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Under the Local Government Act, the period of membership for members of local authorities is five years. I remind the Minister of the debacle that occurred in November 1994.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Many companies now consider it unwise to make changes at once. Has the Minister taken into the account the idea of giving some members three year terms and others five years? A sudden changeover is not always the wisest course of action.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That advice has been taken on board and the rotation period will be three years.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 14 not moved.

Section 14 agreed to.

Sections 15 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 13, subsection (1), line 29, after "functions" to insert ", but shall hold at least one meeting in each quarter of a year".

This is modelled on a similar provision in the Digital Hub Development Agency Bill. My earlier points about consistency apply again. This would add a minimum to what is otherwise an entirely vacuous enabling clause and deliver a hint to the authority of what we shall expect from it. This is a necessary provision given the structure of committees, subsidiaries and delegation of powers envisaged in the Bill. If the full powers of the Bill were invoked, it would be possible to delegate all the work to other bodies, subsidiaries and committees and turn the authority into an empty dummy. I know this is not the intention, but the amendment seeks to safeguard against this. Its acceptance would go some way towards reminding people that we do not want them to do this.

This is the very least that should be done – I would be surprised if there were not ten or 11 meetings per year. Including a stipulation such as this would strengthen the authority.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator will agree there is nothing worse than having a meeting simply for the sake of it. This happens all too frequently. On the other hand, it is important that the board meets regularly. I understand it currently meets once a month. The Senator seeks to invoke a sense of authority and urgency by making the holding of a meeting every quarter a statutory imperative. I have no objection to what he has proposed. The wording may have to be changed from "one meeting in each quarter" to "one meeting every three months" to give statutory expression to the proposal. I am prepared to accept the Senator's amendment.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 18, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 19.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 21 are related to amendment No. 16. Therefore, they may all be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

John Paul Phelan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 14, subsection (1)(b), line 7, to delete "elected as a member of" and substitute "nominated as a candidate to stand for election to".

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is a constitutional difficulty with this amendment. I cannot see how one could deprive a member of an authority of membership on the basis outlined by the Senator. I cannot accept the amendment.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am unlikely to get much support for amendment No. 17. Our usual practice when we are faced with such sections in Bills which deal with the establishment of State bodies is that we go through a song and dance against the ban on elected Members of the Oireachtas. I want to extend that ban to include members of the local authority for a number of reasons. I can already hear a few sighs in the House. I fail to see the rationale for making a distinction between politicians at national or European level and local representatives. One could make a better case for excluding local politicians first as they are more likely to be affected by local issues. We should remember that the most blatant examples of corruption unveiled recently were at local rather than at national level. We should consider that approach for all State bodies. It will not be a surprise to learn that I also raised this issue during our discussion of the Digital Hub Development Agency Bill, although I did not get anywhere with it.

This issue is relevant to the Bill. Tourism is a national priority, but it is a local issue. No debate about tourism is complete without a wrangle between national and local interests because they do not believe they are getting a fair share of the national pot. That is all the more reason to formally exclude from membership any elected member of a local authority. They, by virtue of their membership, could hardly be expected to take a national view at the expense of the people they were elected locally to represent. Recent developments show this would be a good amendment to any Bill setting up a State body. We have a double reason for doing so in this case.

Brendan Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It was unfortunate that we extended the practice of keeping public representatives off such bodies. There was a good legitimate reason why many Members of the Oireachtas were on committees. I was a member of a fisheries authority for a number of years until legislation was introduced which excluded people like me from being on such authorities. It gave Members of the Oireachtas a deep insight into the activities of many bodies, particularly tourism bodies which have strong regional involvement, as the previous speaker said. I was not enthusiastic about prohibiting by legislation Members of the Oireachtas from sitting on committees. If a Member of the Oireachtas had a keen and legitimate interest in inland fisheries, it would be beneficial both to the Oireachtas and to the body if that person was on the board. I was not enthusiastic about the legislation.

It would be unwise to adopt Senator Quinn's approach because, as he knows, local authorities are involved with State organisations in the development of the tourism product. It is important that this body has the benefit of the views of members of local authorities who have first hand professional knowledge of what is required to develop a tourism product in the region. It would be unwise to introduce such an amendment which would prohibit members of local authorities from being on boards, either at regional or national level. Until recently, local authority members did not receive remuneration of any significance. Even now they only get a small allowance. They have a wide and vast knowledge of tourism, particularly in the regions. I will make further comments when we discuss other sections of the Bill about the effect the new body will have on the regions. It would be detrimental to introduce this proposal. I am not sure the sections we support, which prohibit Members of the Oireachtas and of the European Parliament from being on such bodies, are productive in the long term.

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not agree with the amendment or Senator Quinn's assertion that local authority members should be excluded. As Senator Daly said, if members of a local authority are interested in this area – many such members are involved in the tourism business – there is no reason they should be excluded. They give a lot of time and effort to serve the local community. Strategic policy committees were set up under the new local authority structure. In the majority of cases throughout the country the local representative attends the meetings rather than the people outside the local authority structure. I do not support the total exclusion of local authority members. People with an interest in the tourism business should be considered if it is necessary to put a member of a local authority on the board.

Michael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with all the previous speakers with the notable exception of Senator Quinn. If a local authority member meets the criteria laid down by the Minister and if he or she has a certain level of expertise, skill and knowledge in that area, there is no reason he or she cannot serve on this or any other board. Any system which is enhanced by the role of a member and which is able to elicit information is good. This proposal is akin to saying that a county councillor cannot be a member of the Irish Hotels Federation.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Given the time of the year, I suppose Senator Quinn did not expect turkeys to vote for Christmas. In the same way, I support the other Senators.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand," put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 17 to 19, inclusive, not moved.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 22 is related to amendment No. 20 and they may be discussed together, by agreement.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 14, subsection (2)(b), line 16, after "Oireachtas" to insert "or of a local authority".

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 16, subsection (2), line 24, to delete "€3,000" and substitute "€2,000".

This amendment represents my little effort to hold back the tide of inflation. In this very House today we dealt with Report Stage of the Digital Hub Development Agency Bill, 2002, which is very similar legislation to this. The Bill also made provisions in regard to revealing confidential information and the wording in it and the Bill before the House is exactly the same with one difference. In the other Bill the figure mentioned is €2,000 and in this it is €3,000. Surely, a 50% inflation in two hours is a record given that it was about 5 p.m. when we discussed the matter previously. Is the Minister seriously arguing that offences of this kind when committed in context of the national tourism development authority are exactly 50% more serious than when considered in the context of the Digital Hub Development Agency Bill? If so, I look forward to hearing exactly how those computations are made.

Not for the first time this evening, I make a plea for consistency in the legislation we pass. Perhaps a change should have been made to the last Bill, but they got in first.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They may have got in first, but as far as this legislation is concerned, they will have to come in second. The figure is €3,000 because that sum represents the upper limit of what can be imposed by the District Court. It is not for me to justify why the other Bill provides for €2,000 as I am not responsible for that legislation. In this case, the District Court's upper limit is the appropriate amount and, in any event, given inflation, over time the value of the amount will reduce.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would like to see some consistency which would appear logical. Two Bills were introduced in this House this afternoon, one providing for a sum of €3,000 and the other for €2,000. Should we have gone for €2,500 in each?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Government amendment No. 24:

In page 17, subsection (2), line 12, to delete "€65,000,000" and substitute "€50,000,000".

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is simply a drafting amendment to correct punctuation.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 22, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 23.

Question proposed: "That section 23 stand part of the Bill."

Brendan Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This section relates to the establishment of committees by the authority, while section 11, which we referred to earlier, delegates functions from the board. From what I can see in the section, even those who are not members of the authority can be involved in committees dealing with specific areas and I am not clear as to the purpose of that considering the inclusion of section 11. I need clarification from the Minister as to how many of these committees are expected to be established and what their functions will be. In what way will those functions relate to the functions of the authority?

Michael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I concur with Senator Daly. What will be the titles and functions of those committees? If that was answered already, obviously it escaped me, for which I apologise. Is there a more definitive explanation of the functions? We need to get that final detail to tease out an issue like this in the context of this legislation.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This section permits the authority to establish committees to advise it in relation to the performance of its functions or to perform functions the authority delegates to it. It also provides for the payment of members' travelling expenses subject to the consent of the Minister and Minister for Finance.

Brendan Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not wish to confuse the issue any more, but I raise this in regard to the relationship the new authority and the committees will have to Shannon Development. The Minister will be aware that the company operates and manages tourism in the extended mid-west region and I wish to know if it will continue to promote in the way it has. Will the company's functions, responsibilities and budgets be taken over by the new organisation? I ask if that is provided for in this legislation because it is not clear what the relationship will be between this new body and the Shannon Free Airport Development Company which has this remit in the mid-west region. There are also regional development organisations in other areas and the question of what will be the over all scheme of things in the long term begs to be asked. Is it envisaged by the Minister that in the long term the role and responsibilities of Shannon Development in this regard will be incorporated into the new tourism body?

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator Daly raises a very good point. No relationship between the new authority, to be known as Fáilte Éireann, and the Shannon Free Airport Development Company is proscribed or specified in the legislation, nor is any proscribed between the new authority and any other regional tourism body. The question of structures has exercised many minds over several years and it is best to address the structure in question in the context of the review I have ordered into tourism policy. The final report is expected to be completed towards the end of April next.

Many argue there is duplication in terms of promoting tourism in Ireland and are of the view the organisation could be slimmed down to avoid that duplication. It is important to have a regional input in the tourism policy. In general terms, the regional tourism bodies have been a success, one such example is Shannon Free Airport Development Company. If we are to look at tourism policy it is necessary to see whether the structures, as presently constituted, make the best contribution possible. I have asked the review group to look at that issue and will await its report before coming to a decision on how to proceed. Suffice it to say the Bill does not deal with the relationship which Senator Daly has raised. However, the relationship between the regional structures and the new authority is of considerable importance in the context of how to proceed with the development of Irish tourism.

Michael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I seek your indulgence, a Chathaoirligh. May I raise a matter on section 12 which relates to the contractor specified in the Bill?

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have gone past that section. If the Senator wishes to raise that matter he will have to do so on Report Stage.

Michael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My understanding was that I could raise an issue in respect of—

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No.

Michael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I accept your ruling and will raise the matter on Report Stage.

Brendan Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The reason I raise this matter is that in the context of the recently published Estimates, it appears the budgets of Shannon Free Airport Development Company regarding tourism are severely curtailed this year.

John Paul Phelan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is a good one.

Brendan Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It appears as if some of its functions will be funded by the new authority. If we can get the sums right at the end of the day I will be happy, but I am anxious to ensure the positive and progressive tourism development in the mid-west region and areas connected with it is accelerated rather than curtailed.

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator might know more tomorrow.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The actual marketing spend on tourism this year, despite the budgetary constraints, will be the highest in the history of the State. The amount available for marketing Ireland will be 20% higher in 2003 than in 2002. This is an indication of the seriousness with which we are addressing the tourism question. It is imperative from our perspective that the industry which is set to become the largest in the State grows. It is important that we are out on the ground selling Ireland. It appears likely the number of gateways from the United States into Ireland in 2003 will increase by one third.

At present there are six gateway cities. Recently Aer Lingus announced it would restore the Baltimore-Washington-Ireland route and that is welcome. This evening US Airlines made an application to the US Department of Transport which will enable it to fly direct to Dublin and Shannon from Philadelphia. That we will have eight gateway cities in the United States in 2003 is a substantial improvement. Between 1 July and mid-August 2002 there was a problem in that airline capacity was down 20%. While there were empty beds in many parts of the country and Americans willing to occupy them, many could not travel due to reduced capacity. That capacity has been increased by the addition of two gateway cities in the United States in 2003 which is immensely important in terms of increasing the number of US visitors. For example, in 2001, with six gateway cities there were in the region 907,000 US visitors to Ireland whose total investment in revenue terms was in excess of €700 million. That the number of gateways has been increased means, all else being equal, we should be able to increase the number of visitors from the United States. That is conditional upon there being no international events which interfere with that but that is something we cannot foresee. If the position remains as it is I would be confident of a good increase in visitors from the United States in 2003 arising from the news from Philadelphia this evening.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 24.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 17, subsection (2), line 12, to delete "€65,000,000" and substitute "€50,000,000".

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I regret to disappoint Senator Quinn but no civil servant has been as creative as he described. Under the National Development Plan 2000-2006, the amount allocated under the tourism product development fund is €130 million. Senator Quinn will know that half of €130 million is €65 million. That is the reason for the figure of €65 million.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have no problem in withdrawing my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 24 agreed to.

SECTION 25.

Question proposed: "That section 25 stand part of the Bill."

Mary Henry (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not happy with this section because it allows the authority to pay such sums as it considers appropriate to such persons as it considers appropriate out of moneys advanced to it. There is no definition of the words "such persons as it considers appropriate". In view of the present situation regarding the payment of €250,000 to the Irish Open golf championship this should be examined. The money is not being paid to Portmarnock Golf Club which does not allow women members, but to those promoting the Irish Open. Are they really the appropriate persons to receive State money? We will find ourselves in the same situation with this authority which could also pay money to such an organisation. The promoters of the Irish Open are going to use facilities, the policies of which are not in accordance with equality legislation.

I heard the Minister explain on radio that if a woman took a case against Portmarnock Golf Club, she would probably win under equality legislation. How would the Minister feel if Portmarnock Golf Club could exclude black or Muslim men and the Irish Open was still to be played there? I realise it is an important championship and good for the promotion of golf in Ireland. However, how good is it for Ireland's image that some facilities here are segregated? Would the Minister have allowed the money to be given if it was to be paid to a club which excluded black or Muslim men?

Michael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with Senator Henry. Would the Minister be favourably disposed to an amendment tabled on Report Stage to amend this section of the legislation to the effect that only clubs under the auspices of the authority which conform with equality legislation would be permitted to avail of moneys? The Bill states, "For the purposes of section 8(2)(b) or (c), the Authority may pay such sums of moneys as it considers appropriate." Does this mean the chief executive officer on the advice of the members or would he or she be acting on a directive from the Minister? From where exactly does this direction come – the Minister, the chief executive officer or individual members of the authority?

John Paul Phelan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with previous speakers. The wording of lines 14 and 15 on page 17 is unclear as to the persons the authority might consider appropriate. The Minister should take on board the need to tighten up the section.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As I said, I condemn discrimination against women or discrimination of any kind. When Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, I introduced the Employment Equality Act and the Equal Status Act which prohibited discrimination on nine grounds in regard to employment and the provision of services. Legislation to deal with discrimination is on the Statute Book. Under the Equal Status Act, the position is that the Equality Authority or, in the alternative, a member of the public, may make a complaint of discrimination to the courts in regard to any private registered club. If such a complaint is upheld by the courts, there is a ready made sanction provided for in the legislation which provides that the certificate of registration may be withdrawn. In turn, this means that the drinks licence attached to the club could be forfeited. This is a major sanction.

Mary Henry (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I know the Minister would not support discrimination of any sort. He was thorough in the equality legislation he introduced while he was responsible. He is right to say this event will be beamed into homes all over the world – BBC commentators have already pointed out that the Irish Open is being played in a club which discriminates against women. This is not a good image and the Minister will hear about this increasingly until the event takes place.

It troubles me that Bord Fáilte felt fit to give money to the organisation even though the competition is to be held in one of the few clubs that discriminates against women. I accept the sponsorship is of the event rather than the club, as the Minister has stated tonight and on the radio. I also accept we have the finest links clubs in the world – everybody tells me so. Visitors get off the boat in Rosslare or the plane in Shannon, play their way around the country's courses and enjoy themselves thoroughly. I do not blame the Minister but it is a great shame this opportunity to promote golf involves Bord Fáilte's supporting an international competition being played in one of the few clubs that discriminates against women. Could the Minister publish a leaflet stating that few clubs in Ireland discriminate against women? It would help.

I was one of the first two women members from Trinity College in the Kildare Street Club which was run for many years as a men-only club. The late Ms Grace Carroll and I behaved so well that, after less than a year, the club asked if we could get more women members. We were good, did not complain and paid our bills. The club now has a considerable number of women members. I was fascinated by a member of the Government on television recently suggesting that women could not afford to join. What does he know about women with money? I am not suggesting women in the Seanad have money but I know plenty of women with money from other professions.

Bord Fáilte is being subsumed into this Bill and we must not pass legislation that would allow this problem arise again – we must alter it slightly so all bodies abide with the law of the land in every respect.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have allowed great latitude on an issue that is not pertinent to the legislation. As the Senator feels strongly about the issue, perhaps she could table an amendment on Report Stage. However, we should move on to the other sections.

Mary Henry (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would never delay the House but I want to make my point clear, given that I will table an amendment on Report Stage. From what the Minister has said tonight and on radio, I believe he is embarrassed by what has happened.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 26 agreed to.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 18, subsection (2), line 4, to delete "6 months" and substitute "3 months".

I confess that when I saw this provision in the Bill I laughed. The subsection states:

Accounts kept in pursuance of this section shall be submitted not later than six months after the end of the accounting period to which they relate by the authority to the Comptroller and Auditor General for audit.

This does not refer to publishing or auditing accounts within six months but submitting accounts for audit within six months. I know the Minister has a strong sense of history but I assume his motivation is not to produce history books but rather books of account.

Speed of reporting is an essential component of accounting. I looked for RTE's annual accounts for 2001 today but they have not yet been published. It may be that RTE handed the books to the auditor three, four, five or eight months ago and they have remained there since. This Bill proposes to hand accounts to the auditor within six months but I want to see them published within three months.

There is no reason such accounts should not be ready within one month of the end of the financial year. Some of the biggest banks publish their accounts within days or hours of the end of the financial year. Since all well-run businesses keep accounts on a monthly basis, only one month's accounts would remain to be closed at the end of the financial year. On this occasion, I am not pushing to have the books sent for audit within one month – I am prepared to settle for three months. In doing so I am pursuing consistency – three months is the standard provided for in this type of legislation. In tabling these amendments, I looked at what has been provided for in other legislation and it is normally three months. I do not know where the six month period came from. Unless the Minister can make a convincing case that there is something unique about the accounts of the National Tourism Development Authority that do not apply to any other State body within the spectrum of the public service, I suggest he should accept this amendment.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The effect of this amendment would be to require the authority, under statute, to submit annual accounts for audit to the Comptroller and Auditor General not later than three months after the end of its financial year. While in practice it has been extremely rare for either Bord Fáilte or CERT to have been unable to submit their accounts within three months, it is possible, due to external factors such as a prolonged EU audit query, for example, that the authority might be unable to meet this deadline. Consequently, a six months period was proposed. The practice varies across State bodies. In many instances no deadline is set, as in the case of the Tourist Traffic Acts, the Air Navigation and Transport (Amendment) Act 1998, the Turf Development Act, 1998, and the Dublin Docklands Authority. In other cases, a three months period is set, as in the case of the Food Safety Authority and the Equality Authority. The specified period is six months in the case of national cultural institutions, the Irish horse racing authority and the Irish Sports Council.

I am aware of Senator Quinn's distinguished career as chairman of An Post and I do not wish to denigrate that contribution in any way. Accordingly, I have decided to accept his amendment.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for his sincerity and alacrity in accepting the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 27:

In page 18, subsection (2), line 10, to delete "accounts," and substitute "accounts".

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is a drafting amendment to address an instance of incorrect punctuation.

Amendment agreed to.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 18, subsection (2), line 11, after "cause" to insert "immediately".

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure the accounts are actually published.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I regret I cannot accept this amendment. The text of the existing provision is standard. The general practice on receipt of the audited accounts from CERT and Bord Fáilte Éireann has been to have them laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as possible thereafter and it is intended that this practice will continue. The insertion of the word "immediately" would not speed up this process in any appreciable way.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 27, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 28.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 18, subsection (1), line 13, to delete "6 months" and substitute "3 months".

As currently drafted, this Bill would require the National Tourism Development Authority to publish its annual report by 30 June each year. Two things will have happened by that time. First, the next year's tourism season will be half way through. Second – and this is the interesting one – the Houses of the Oireachtas will have risen for the summer recess. The publication of the annual report of a State body is an important occasion from a strategic point of view. It enables us to look back on what has been achieved with a view to adjusting policy or changing course for the future. In tourism, it is vital to learn the lessons of each year as quickly as possible. If the annual report is published by the end of March, rather than the end of June, the essential difference is that virtually the whole season will still be in front of us and there is still time to take appropriate action. The annual report can then have an effective influence on how we manage the tourism sector from year to year.

As far as the Oireachtas is concerned, publication of the annual report on the date now proposed would make it impossible for the report to receive the attention of either House of the Oireachtas until the following October at the earliest – some ten months after the end of the year under review and with another tourism season having passed in the meantime. We cannot have reporting on such a time scale and still claim to be applying accountability to tourism. I referred earlier to one or two State bodies which slipped through the net. Some bodies tend to be rather laggardly in this regard, including RTE. When I checked the position a few years ago, the publication date was 1 December, 11 months after the end of the relevant year. As of today, 11 months and three days after the end of last year, the RTE report has still not been published. Some action is essential in relation to such laggardly behaviour. In the particular case of tourism, competent modern practice demands earlier publication. I urge the Minister to accept my amendment.

Mary Henry (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support Senator Quinn's amendment. In my experience, when we push forward the publication date of reports, the people involved in writing them are pleased. I refer in particular to the report of the inspector of mental hospitals. When Deputy Cowen was Minister for Health and Children, that report usually emerged some 15 to 18 months after the end of the year. Very soon, that interval had been reduced to nine or ten months and the people involved in producing the report were pleased with that improvement. Such reports should not be regarded as simply historic documents. As Senator Quinn has advocated, they should be issued as promptly as possible so that there is still time to take action to influence developments.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The effect of this amendment would be to require the authority, under statute, to submit its annual report not later than three months after the end of its financial year. A difficulty in that regard is that the Comptroller and Auditor General has rarely completed his audit of either the CERT or Bord Fáilte accounts within that period. Accordingly, the report would be incomplete due to the omission of information which would be contained in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. I do not regard that as a desirable option and, in those circumstances, I cannot accept the amendment.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister is not quite correct in what he has said. My amendment would have the effect of putting pressure on State companies to adopt standards which are normal practice in the private business sector. A State company should demand that its auditor will have signed the audited accounts within a specified period. The banks do this within days and other companies do it within three months. The State sector should set standards in this regard, as also should the Comptroller and Auditor General. I urge the Minister to consider the matter further before Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 18, subsection (1), line 17, after "Oireachtas", to insert "and shall at the same time cause the report to be published by electronic means".

Michael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support Senator Quinn on this amendment. In the 21st century, in a country where we pride ourselves on a fairly good information technology system – I am sure that Senator Daly would agree because Ennis is the information town – it is shabby, to say the least, that a body like Bord Fáilte did not display this type of information and make it available by electronic means. I support Senator Quinn and commend him for spotting this anomaly in the system. We will examine, at some stage, the possibility of introducing this type of amendment, which is consistent with every other Bill.

Mary Henry (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support Senator Quinn in everything he said, apart from the fact that he could ever be boring. He has mentioned before that it is much more environmentally friendly to put these reports on the Internet because you may only need one section. Large numbers of reports are clogging up our offices and we should be able to print only the section we require. It would save a great deal of pollution.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is proposed not to accept this amendment. The effect is to require electronic publication of accounts and reports. It is considered unduly prescriptive to include such provisions. The authority is obliged under section 8(5) to have regard to the policies of the Government for the time being extant. In cognisance of this, Bord Fáilte Éireann's annual reports and accounts are as a matter of routine published electronically on its websites. If in the future it discontinues this practice the Minister can direct it to be reinstated under the terms of section 13. The confusion has arisen because Bord Fáilte does not put it on the usual website. It is on the Bord Fáilte Éireann trade promotion website.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for that information and apologise for assuming that it was not published at all. However to someone looking for this information and unable to find it, the marketing technique does not seem very good. I will accept the Minister's point. I was unaware of this and did not find it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 28 agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Government amendment No. 31:

In page 18, before section 29, to insert the following new section:

"29.–The Freedom of Information Act, 1997 is hereby amended by–

(a) the insertion in paragraph 1(2) of the First Schedule, of 'the National Tourism Development Authority' after 'the National Gallery of Ireland', and

(b) the insertion in Part I of the Third Schedule–

(i) in column (2) of 'the National Tourism Development Authority Act, 2002', and

(ii) in column (3), opposite the mention in column (2) of the National Tourism Development Authority Act, 2002, of 'section 22'.".

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I tabled an earlier amendment. It is more or less technical.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 29 deleted.

Section 30 agreed to.

SECTION 31.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 19, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following new subsection:

"(10) The functions of the chief executive may be performed in his or her absence or when the position of chief executive is vacant by such member of the staff of the Authority as may, from time to time, be designated for that purpose by the Authority.".

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not proposed to accept the amendment. Bord Fáilte Éireann has had an acting chief executive officer for the past 15 months, Mr. Niall Reddy, who has done an extremely good job and is to be congratulated and thanked for it. My understanding is that when the chief executive officer is absent the secretary would be designated to take over his functions. This is something which happens quite regularly, for example when the chief executive officer is abroad the designation takes place.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That may well be the correct thing to do, that the secretary takes over. It should be the authority's decision. The point I was making was that it is accepted in business, for publicly quoted companies, that it is not good practice or good governance to have the chairman and the chief executive both doing the chief executive's job. The amendment was to avoid that. It has happened in the past and there was an effort to remind State bodies that it was not good governance.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 31 agreed to.

SECTION 32.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 19, lines 35 to 38, to delete the subsection (2).

Michael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I concur with Senator Quinn. I heard Senator Quinn raise this issue on the other Bill earlier this afternoon. The wording of this section is Dickensian. I cannot understand the wish of anyone to restrict the expression of another person's opinion. This goes against the notion of accountability and transparency and is not healthy. It also restricts the role of the chief executive officer. There could be a situation where a decision is made by the Minister or someone in the Department and the chief executive officer could not advise the members of the authority of his decision accordingly.

This definitely needs to be re-examined. If we look at the decision-making process and the workings of the authority that could be affected by the section, we can compare the effect of this provision with Senators not being allowed to speak on the Bill. The wording of the section seems to thwart the attempts of an individual who may wish to give his or her opinion when employed by the State to do so in many respects.

John Paul Phelan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with Senator McCarthy and support Senator Quinn's amendment. The wording of section 32(2), which states, "the chief executive shall not question or express an opinion," is quite amazing. Given that we are looking for openness, transparency and accountability in the various Government agencies, it is hard to believe such a clause has been proposed. It is a regressive and draconian step and should not be part of the Bill. I urge Deputy O'Donoghue, who is an enlightened and forward thinking Minister, to accede to Senator Quinn's amendment. He has shown this evening that he is prepared to listen.

Mary Henry (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support Senator Quinn's amendment. There is something ludicrous about this section, bearing in mind the existence of the Freedom of Information Act. Somebody will probably make a request under the Act to find out what advice was given by the chief executive to the Minister or the Government and any dispute, such as those which happen each day, will emerge as a consequence. I hope the Minister will accept Senator Quinn's amendment.

Brendan Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not sure whether those who have spoken against this section are familiar with the events of recent years. The chief executive of a State body in the mid-west has been having an ongoing argument with the chief executive of another body in recent times. Both officials are in the service of the State as chief executives of Government agencies. Their public disagreement was bad for Shannon Airport and both agencies.

During a recent debate on tourism I raised the question of a huge public dispute between Clare County Council and Shannon Free Airport Development Company in relation to development works at the Cliffs of Moher, an important tourist destination. When the matter was referred to An Bord Pleanála, it meant that three State agencies were trying to resolve a dispute that should have been resolved by the two agencies involved. I do not have a problem with bodies expressing their views as part of their private communication with the Minister, but public expressions of grievance can undermine the bodies concerned. Regardless of where this provision came from, it is necessary in the light of the experiences of recent years.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government decided to insert this standard provision which relates to civil servants, who are instruments of Government policy. The Government of the day is charged with making policy, determining objectives and imposing plans of action. It is simply not permissible for the chief executive of a board like the National Tourism Development Authority to express publicly the fact that he or she does not agree with Government policy. It is his or her function to implement Government policy and it would be highly inconsistent for him or her to decide to criticise such policy. He or she could not credibly carry on the duties and functions with which he or she has been charged under statute, including the implementation of Government policy, after making such criticisms.

Those who criticise the policies they are charged with implementing may become political footballs and be used by various groups to score political points from the Government of the day. It is not acceptable, irrespective of the Government which happens to be in office, for the chief executive of a national board to go around the country criticising Government policy. There are instances where this has happened in the past and it has never been helpful. Those who make such statements may do so with the best will in the world, but it is always utterly undesirable. If one wants to set policy, as opposed to implementing it, one has to make a straightforward decision to run for election. The people can decide if such persons should set policies or not. Those who do not run for election, but instead decide to become civil servants, have chosen a clear role for themselves. This is a free country.

John Paul Phelan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not a free country if one does not have freedom of speech.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Nobody is forcing public servants to stay in their positions if they do not want to do so. If one's objections to Government policy are sufficiently great that one cannot continue in one's position as a civil servant, one can retire from one's job and decide instead to try to change the policy. It is a reasonable situation. Any other provision would be unreasonable, unworkable and quickly lead to chaos in the system.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have difficulty with the Minister's views on my amendment. Section 32(2) is strongly worded. It states, "The chief executive shall not question or express an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government". It does not merely state he or she should not criticise the policy. If I was on a committee that invited members of the National Tourism Development Authority to speak, I might like to ask the chief executive if he or she could do more if he or she had more money. It would be foolish if he or she was legally compelled to say he or she could not answer, as it would mean that members of the committee would be gagged. Under the section, the chief executive will not be allowed to speak out on the merits of Government policy.

John Paul Phelan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I urge the Minister to reconsider the section.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is possible that the converse could occur. The chief executive of the authority, with a view to ingratiating himself or herself to the Government of the day, might decide to tell the committee that the authority has money in abundance when he or she knows quite well that it does not. Surely this is the converse of the argument made by Senator Quinn. It is never desirable for a chief executive who is charged with the implementation of Government policy to be at liberty to criticise it. It reminds me of an old song: it does not work in politics.

Acting Chairman:

Is the amendment being pressed?

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I hope the Minister will reconsider it before Report Stage because I intend to push this hard.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 32 agreed to.

Sections 33 to 35, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 36.

Acting Chairman:

Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 are cognate. Amendments Nos. 34 to 36, inclusive, may be discussed together.

Acting Chairman:

Government amendment No. 34:

Acting Chairman:

In page 22, subsection (8)(a), line 3, to delete "section 34" and substitute "section 35".

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is to correct a subsection reference, as are amendments Nos. 35 and 36.

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 35:

In page 22, subsection (8)(b), line 17, to delete "section 34" and substitute "section 35".

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 36:

In page 22, subsection (9)(a), line 23, to delete "section 34" and substitute "section 35".

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 37:

In page 22, subsection (10), line 41, to delete "In this section, 'superannuation benefit'" and substitute "In this section 'superannuation benefit' ".

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is to correct an instance of incorrect punctuation.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 36, as amended, agreed to.

Section 37 agreed to.

SECTION 38.

Government amendment No. 38:

In page 23, line 3, to delete "enactment," where it secondly occurs and substitute "enactment".

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is to correct an instance of incorrect punctuation.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 38, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 39 to 41, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 42.

Government amendment No. 39:

In page 24, subsection (2), line 32, after "made," to insert "and".

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Again, this is to correct punctuation.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 42, as amended, agreed to.

First and Second Schedules agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Acting Chairman:

When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Brendan Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On Thursday, 5 December.

Report Stage ordered for Thursday, 5 December 2002.

Acting Chairman:

When is it proposed to sit again?

Brendan Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.