Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 14 Nov 2000

Vol. 525 No. 5

ICC Bank Bill, 2000: Second Stage (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Cullen, on Thursday, 9 November 2000:
That the Bill be now read a Second Time.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann declines to give the Bill a second reading on the grounds that the stated reason for its urgent enactment (in order to increase the funds that may be subscribed for the Bank's share capital in order to restore capital adequacy ratio) should more properly be dealt with in separate legislation, rather than being added to unconnected provisions that enable a change of ownership of the Bank, which deserve more detailed consideration by the Oireachtas and do not require immediate legislation.".
–(Deputy McDowell).

On the last occasion when speaking on this Bill I was exchanging comparisons with my colleague Deputy Joe Higgins and attempting to point out that privatisation was not wrong in all cases. It is clearly the intention of Government at some stage in the not too distant future to sell ICC. In making comparisons we must recognise that business requirements change and, undoubtedly, will change again. We will not always have low interest rates, we may not always have an abundance of credit and we may not always have full employment as at present and, in such circumstances, it will be necessary to ensure a financial institution is ready and willing to provide for the markets previously provided for by the ICC.

When we criticised money lenders in the course of praising credit unions and small banks, a local authority colleague pointed out that it was necessary to ensure that at all times there were people available in the lending business who would be prepared to lend to small industry when it might not be attractive to the major financial institutions. That is the point to which I wish to refer in some detail.

Given modern banking methodology and that banking has become more impersonal it is possible to control a bank from a central location with nothing except automatic teller machines to deal with the public. Nothwithstanding advances in modern technology, it will always be important to ensure there is somebody to greet customers and who can answer to the consumer rather than a machine in a wall which either gives or refuses money. That may be an extreme comparison but it is a worthwhile one. I make it to emphasise the need to ensure a personal touch in the future.

I hope in the course of whatever happens in the sale of this and other banks that whoever purchases the ICC would bear in mind the important niche market catered for in the past. There will be those who will say the world has changed dramatically and that it will not be necessary to cater in the same way as ICC did previously, and that there are more efficient methods of dealing with the situation that may arise. I am not so sure. We can rest assured that at some time in the future the economy will not perform as well as at present. There may be a shortage of finance, a scarcity of investment and there may be a great necessity for a loosening up of the lending agencies towards business, particularly small business. If that loosening does not take place it will be difficult for small businesses to exist. I stress the importance of that aspect.

In the argument on public versus private ownership there is a good case for both. We should be careful of a monopoly, whether public or private, because there will always be an attempt to control the market. There are some utility services that are better provided by private enterprise and some that are better provided by public utility services. There is no situation in which one can say there shall be no adventure into privatisation on the one hand or into public ownership and enterprise on the other. On the last occasion on which a spate of nationalisations took place in the United Kingdom they did not work. I am not too sure that the present spate of privatisations is working either. The balance lies somewhere in the middle and we need to bear that in mind for the future.

I have mentioned the need for competition. When I was very young there was a multiplicity of banks so, in theory at least, there was competition. One could go to the Munster and Leinster Bank, the Bank of Ireland, the Hibernian Bank, the Royal Bank, the National Bank and a series of other banks. The amalgamation took place in order to achieve greater efficiency, better market impact and better delivery of services. The public tends to say now that there may not be as much competition in the market as there was. That is not necessarily a good thing. During any future reorganisation of banking institutions that may take place, we must keep in mind the necessity of ensuring competition, alternative views and an alternative methodology in respect of consumers, particularly business consumers. The economy will grow on the basis of the management and development of business and enterprise generally, and unemployment figures will depend on that also.

We need to beware of banking institutions cherry-picking lucrative clients from the market tree and, thus, doing what we have tried to avoid in the health insurance sector, for example. The community rating in health insurance was specifically designed to avoid cherry-picking and to ensure the market was catered for by having a reasonable application of insurance cover across the board. I am not too sure that in future we will be able to eliminate the possibility of cherry-picking, whether by way of existing structures or proposed ones. Everybody will want to go for the prize by lending in what they see as the most lucrative area. That is human nature and it is driven by the need to ensure a return for investors. That does not necessarily mean, however, that there is an even spread, equal opportunity or equal availability of funding to equally deserving sectors.

I do not have a problem with privatisation or the preparations for it. However, an assurance is required that the facilities and services currently provided by whatever structure is to be privatised, will continue to be provided in an equitable manner to all concerned. Just because we happen to be on the back of the Celtic tiger, we should not think it will roar on forever without assistance.

The purpose of the Bill is to provide for an increase in the authorised share capital of ICC and to put in place enabling provisions to facilitate its future sale. Whatever about the bank's future sale, it is important to authorise ICC's share capital, which is a welcome move. Over the years, the ICC Bank has been a major player in the growth of small companies when many other banks would not take such risks. The bank has been a great asset to small companies. I know from talking to people who have dealt with the ICC how it has supported such companies. Last year, a sale process was initiated in the House but it fell through. In the interim, the bank has carried out a review and has shown considerable profitability – up to £23 million – in the past year. To date the State has had a good return on its investment, so one would wonder about the necessity of selling the bank. We should be careful to whom we sell the bank because it could affect the growth of small companies. Up to now, the ICC Bank has catered for a niche market, unlike larger institutions, such as the Ulster Bank and the Bank of Ireland. It is clear that banks are devoid of sentiment and invest money to obtain a return. That is the bottom line for any banking institution, but the role of the ICC Bank in the growth of small towns has been due to the success of small companies it assisted. The role of the regular banks was different. For instance, it is reckoned that the Bank of Ireland in Ballymote has £20 million on deposit, but the amount of money given out locally in the area by the bank is very small. Lending facilities and cash on deposit would normally go through larger regional centres.

Under American statute law, banks must distribute a certain amount of money in an area, depending on how much is collected in that area. The Government should examine that system. Banks are driven by profit and, clearly, the ICC Bank has played a role in the growth of the Celtic tiger. Nowadays, banks in smaller towns take in so much money on deposit, but they loan out very small amounts by comparison. I know several business people who went to local banks with fantastic ideas, but were told that their proposals were beyond the capability of the local branch and so they could not obtain funding. That is where the ICC Bank stepped in to provide equity which has been so beneficial to small businesses.

The ICC Bank's current authorised share capital of £40 million has been largely subscribed to. The bank continues to grow and as long as it remains in public ownership the shareholder must provide the necessary share capital. This is one example of public ownership doing a good job because the ICC Bank has been successful in niche marketing. Few institutions are looking after small companies. We have Enterprise Ireland, the IDA and the local enterprise boards. From my experience, the enterprise boards have very little funding – something like £20 million for all 26 boards. Some very good people are working for the enterprise boards but the funding for small companies is inadequate. The ICC Bank is independent and, while it is not devoid of proper banking criteria, it has a broader vision than other banks that are solely driven by the bottom line.

In addition, the ICC Bank has the advantage of not dealing with day to day banking transactions across the counter. This week, the Bank of Ireland announced it was no longer cashing cheques unless they were crossed and paid into an account. This gives an indication of what banks can do in a cartel position. That is what is happening in the banking sector. If someone does not have a bank account he cannot cash a cheque. Cheques now have to be paid into an account and, therefore, it is being recommended that people open accounts.

Retailers are the local bank in a real sense because they accept cheques without any guarantee and lodge them to their accounts, taking the risk of not being paid. The Bank of Ireland stated that cashing cheques takes too much time and that, rather than having people queuing up to have their wage cheques cashed, it would be better served by not cashing those cheques unless the people had an account with it or an associated institution. That was stated in the business section of last Saturday's newspaper. It was also stated that the regulation would be introduced by Bank of Ireland from this week.

While small towns may have an Ulster Bank or other bank branch as well as a Bank of Ireland branch, a cartel is still in operation. For example, if it has a difficulty or a doubt one bank will ring its opposition to check on and benchmark different matters. The ICC is different in that it is geared for small and medium-sized enterprises. I appeal to the Minister that when the ICC is sold the development and growth of small Irish companies as part of its ethos will be enshrined in the deal.

The greatest growth sector in Ireland is small companies. While a small company in France or Germany, for example, might have 300 to 400 staff, the definition of small companies in Ireland is completely different. We must never lose sight the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises. Any sector of the trade, whether manufacturing, retail or whatever else, is the backbone of the current economic success in Ireland. It is important that a lender has a vision for such development, but many of the banks in Ireland do not have such vision. They are driven by the PAYE worker's cheque lodged to his or her account with direct debits coming out automatically, so there is no real risk. Very few banks will take substantial risks. I am a major promoter of the ICC Bank because it has done good work.

In 1998, the bank made pre-tax operating profit of £23 million and it announced its interim results in April of this year which showed pre-tax profit increasing by 64% to £80.3 million and the cost to income ratio reducing to 35.8% from 47% for the same period last year. This is an excellent performance by any standards from the point of view of where the bank is coming from and the market with which it deals. The Minister of State said that if a partner with huge equity is secured it will remove the burden from the State of having to invest in the bank. However, the results show the returns for investing in small companies. It is a good performance.

Section 3 of the Bill provides for an increase in the authorised share capital of the bank from its current limit of £40 million to £80 million. As the Minister already indicated in public, it is his intention to ensure the bank remains adequately capitalised as long as it remains in State ownership.

There is the question of the role of the bank. It is important from the point of view of those working there that it is stated clearly that the bank is for sale. The "For Sale" sign was removed when the previous sale fell through. Clearly, a cartel is emerging with insurance companies buying into banks and banks selling out to insurance companies. This is a market of 4 million people and, in terms of economies of scale, the population of Manchester would exceed that. We must be extraordinarily careful.

Banks make £1 million in profit a day. Customers are charged for everything now. It can cost a business person up to £7 to lodge £1,000 to their account. It has nearly reached the stage where banks have a charge on the door. Barring that, a person is charged for everything else. If he or she wants copies of statements or an appointment or whatever, it is all charged and built into the account. Customers must pay all these charges. Inflation has been a topic for discussion and all these charges add to it because businesses, if they are to survive, must pass on these charges. Someone must pay them. I had a situation where a customer's cheque for £15 was referred and the bank made £15 on it, £7.50 from the retailer and £7.50 from the customer in bank charges.

The most important function in a bank is the credit room because it monitors any exceeded limits or debits where additional charges can be applied. Any business with a reasonable turnover pays hundreds of pounds per week to service the bank. Those charges did not apply years ago when banks made money solely on interest. A breakdown of where they make their profits now would show that most of it is from built-in charges.

The term "interest charges" is a misnomer. There is a domestic rate and a commercial rate and they are way beyond what banks would give customers – they are 3% to 4% beyond the normal buying rate. The banks are making huge returns. Rates are at 11% or 12% on overdraft facilities for businesses.

That is why the role of ICC Bank in future is important. If it is sold to one of the main banks its independence will be lost. It will become part of the larger chain and part of the philosophy of getting a return on investment. The State should be paid handsomely for an asset which has served it well. It has helped small companies and has realised the dedication and commitment of entrepreneurial business people who began with nothing and little or no State aid or funding.

No grants or benefits are available to the services sector. People in it work a 40 hour weekend, not a 40 hour week. People refer to and have a perception of those in business as "fat cats" who make a great deal of money. However, many of my friends and colleagues in business work very hard and take all the risk under huge pressure.

While I respect fully the Minister of State's position and am delighted with the equity being put into the ICC Bank, I am sure he is in no doubt about the role of the ICC to date and the huge amount of work it has done throughout the country. Many companies would not be successful today, whether in manufacturing, hotels or retailing, had the ICC not taken a risk when the associated banks would not. Most business people today do not want grants; the grant mentality is almost gone. What is needed is someone who will be sympathetic to an idea and to a region that needs growth. It is from small acorns that large oaks grow and that sums up the attitude of the ICC Bank. It has grown large oaks and has played a huge role in the development of the State over many years.

While the State may be preoccupied with selling assets, we must be careful to achieve a balance and not to leave ourselves short of valuable assets.

We have seen the situation with Eircom. Business is devoid of sentiment. ICC had a reasonable amount of sentiment but regardless of the benchmark put in place we have seen what happened in the case of Esat. Denis O'Brien has been very successful in selling his stake and can buy into another asset in which the State invested heavily in recent decades. People can buy into assets cheaply and it is amazing how devoid of sentiment they can be when they are driven by shareholders. ICC operates in a niche market and was compassionate to business people, but that could change.

Allied Irish Banks, Bank of Ireland and Ulster Bank are large consortia which buy into foreign banks, including those in London. One of our leading banks lost a large amount of money in London. This bank would not advance money to people in Ireland who were crying out for investment but was ready to invest money in London where it was ripped off by several people.

Small is profitable and small businesses are critical to this country. ICC Bank plays an important role in the small business sector and I welcome the provision regarding equity which will allow it to invest more money. The bank has a successful track record and it is important that this niche market is serviced.

The Committee of Public Accounts DIRT investigation gave us an insight into what can happen. Banks were caught with their hands in the till and have had to pay millions of pounds. These banks were crucifying many people while the DIRT irregularities were taking place.

We must encourage enterprise and those with business ideas. The Government talks about growing the economy and it is important that we never lose sight of small businesses. People who have nothing today will be very successful in years to come. These people need support from enterprise boards.

There is great emphasis on IDA-backed companies and medium-sized companies backed by Enterprise Ireland. However, there is little or no support for companies employing fewer than ten people, bar their survival instinct. If these people do not make it they become just another casualty. It is important that they are encouraged.

I welcome the Minister's measures but I am concerned that the contractual commitment given by a prospective buyer should include a provision that it will continue to work in this niche market which ICC has developed. I would not sell ICC just for the sake of getting out of a business which has been profitable for the State. The situation would be different if ICC was a liability and the money invested by the Government was at risk. However, the State is getting a return on this money. Banks get a return on their investment and the State has obtained a massive return on its investment in ICC.

I am happy to contribute to this debate. I compliment the management and staff of ICC. The company has not always had good days but last year's report showed a profit of £23 million which is a profit for the State as the Government is the major shareholder in the bank.

The last time I remember banks being discussed in the House was a sadder occasion when the Dáil had to be recalled during the summer to save AIB. If some people and the Government had done their job properly, the Government and the people would now be major shareholders in AIB as the taxpayers had to pick up the tab when the bank invested badly abroad.

I am in favour of private enterprise but I am also in favour of safety. Deputy Perry referred to the sale of an asset. We must be careful when selling ICC Bank because the major banks are rapidly becoming more independent and are not operating in the manner in which they were set up by the State. These banks are not operating for people but for shareholders. One might argue that this is how it should be but that is not the case. Banks should be there for their customers but that is not happening.

If a widow receives her widow's pension by cheque banks will not cash it unless she has an account. The cheque must first be lodged to the account for which there is a charge and there is also a charge when the money is withdrawn. Given the behaviour of banks it is time the Government examined the position of post offices which are under the aegis of a semi-State company but the State has a major input. If the Government is talking about selling ICC Bank and its interests in other banks it will have to give powers to post offices to enable them to operate as banks. This must happen as banks are no longer prepared to provide services in rural areas.

The major banks used to have offices in towns such as Foxford, Louisburgh, Newport and Achill. However, they decided they were not getting the necessary return on these services. There was a time when they would have been happy for people to use these services. If the State had not intervened, AIB would not be in business today. Now that business is going well for banks they are reducing services and it is time we gave more powers to post offices. The day will come when big brother in Europe will decide that post offices will not be able to issue social welfare payments. Such a day is not far off as Europe is suggesting post offices will not be able to offer this service under the Competition Act.

I have previously spoken about the national lottery which is the greatest monopoly in this State. I have written to the Commissioner with responsibility for monopolies asking her to investigate the national lottery's monopoly. This is an abuse of power as this company which is set up, run and financed by the State will not provide services to rural Ireland. The company will provide services to cities as everything is provided for cities. However, it will not provide the service nationally.

I met national lottery officials as they were concerned about comments I made in the past.

I do not think the national lottery has anything to do with the Bill before the House.

A Cheann Comhairle, my understanding is that one can speak about any sort of funding on Second Stage. I heard previous speakers talking about many unusual issues without interruption. The national lottery has a financial dimension. I will finish my point on the national lottery and return to the banks about which I have much to say.

The Deputy should not go into too much detail on the national lottery.

I have hurt the national lottery people but I did not think I was hurting you, a Cheann Comhairle. They are very upset with me but I am not finished with them yet. The national lottery will not provide a service. It has a monopoly and decides where it will locate. However, I will have an opportunity to talk about the national lottery on another day.

Banks have not served the people very well. I used hear a man in Westport say, "The one thing about the banks is they give the umbrella on the fine day and take it back on the wet day", and that is certainly true. One advertisement for a bank used the song "Don't sit under the apple tree with anyone else but me", but when one stops paying the banks, they get very sour quickly.

No doubt the banks have mistreated many people. Deputy Perry referred to the county enterprise boards in his contribution. The ICC Bank, as bad is it was, assisted small businesses. If many young people had got a chance and had received a little help from the banks, their businesses would have been up and running many years ago. Many of them have been successful but they had to leave the State to be successful because there was no assistance available from the State and particularly from the banks.

The banks would only give money to people of whom they could be sure. They never take risks, except when they go abroad. When they go abroad and take risks, they expect the taxpayers of Ireland to pick up the tab for them. That happened in the past when the Dáil had to be recalled and the taxpayers had to bail out a major financial institution. We were not quick enough at the time. The Government should have taken a 50% stake in AIB at that time and now the bank should be buying it back. The taxpayers should be rewarded for that investment but that is not happening because the bank got a free loan and was well looked after. The bank did not do that for many young business men and women who found themselves in a little difficulty. The banks were first to pull the plug and close these businesses.

For many years the banks depended on funding from our emigrants who went to England in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. These were people who sent home a few pounds to people's bank accounts. If this bank is to be sold, I would ask the Government to look at ways of helping our emigrants. We forgot about these people last year when we celebrated the millennium all over the State. We did not put anything in place for our emigrants, who did badly abroad but who supported this State. The records will show the amount of money which these emigrants sent back to the State on a weekly and monthly basis. These emigrants in Britain, American and elsewhere kept this country going when it was collapsing and we have forgotten about them now. If the ICC Bank is to be sold, I hope the Government can do something for the emigrants. I hope the Government can put something in place in this State which can help them, particularly those who have not done so well abroad.

Today I received a letter from the Kerry Emigrants Support Group. That voluntary group makes the same point. I compliment the group and thank it for the wonderful work it has done over the years. They are the people who went without fuss over to England and brought back some of these people who had not done so well. If this bank is to be sold, the Government should do something, perhaps in the way of housing or care facilities, for these people who did not do so well to recognise what they have done for the State.

I wanted to make a point about the post offices. I did not make this point earlier because I went off on a tangent discussing the national lottery and I had not intended to do so.

Does the Deputy play?

I have not won the national lottery either.

The day will come when the banks will become more independent. They are independent enough already because they are certainly not serving the people who have kept them in business and generated the banks' profits since their foundation. Something must be done to protect the people who are not so well off. I am talking about the elderly and pensioners, people who rarely use the banks and many of whom may not have bank accounts.

I wondered in the past why elderly people put so much money under mattresses or in boxes under their beds and why there have been so many robberies of such people in the State. It is because people are no longer comfortable going into the banks because they are not treated as customers any more. The banks treat them as a number. Deputy Perry was correct – the day has nearly come when there will be a charge for going into the bank. We must do something about that. We have the opportunity now.

If the Government is selling off the ICC Bank, it must give further powers to the post offices in order that they can operate the same services as the banks. This will help the post offices to survive in rural Ireland. I ask the Minister to consider this because it is wrong that the banks are reducing the level of services in rural Ireland. If they are not prepared to take the business and provide the service, then the post offices will be delighted to do so because they are under pressure and feeling the pinch. The post offices may lose the contract for social welfare payments. This was threatened last year, although the Government negotiated in Europe to retain the status quo, but the day is coming when they will be told that the contract must be advertised and any European company may win it. The Government could find itself having to close more rural post offices. Already bank branches are closing and, as happened in the past, it is the people in rural areas who will suffer. This is a reasonable request and I hope the Government will look at it.

The ICC Bank does not have a bad track record. Its staff have worked hard and have turned it around, and they must be congratulated for that. The Government should be careful when selling off this asset. If the other banks are not prepared to provide the services, perhaps the Government should look at broadening the horizons of the ICC Bank, which deals with the business community, and sending it out to compete with the other banks. If AIB Bank, Bank of Ireland and Ulster Bank continue to operate in this way, we will not have much competition in the banking sector.

A Cheann Comhairle, I must return to the subject of the national lottery on another occasion. I have a few unpleasant things to say about it but I will wait for the appropriate opportunity. I will not upset you today.

I want to tell the banks that they have not been good to the people of Ireland. The taxpayers have been good to one financial institution and one good turn deserves another.

I thank Deputies for their interesting contributions to the debate. I want to address a number of issues which were raised by a number of Deputies during the debate.

As I said in my opening speech, I accept the concerns of the Opposition as set out by Deputy Noonan and I will introduce an amendment on Committee Stage to provide that the Minister must seek a motion of approval for a disposal of any shares. The amendment will, however, as I have said earlier, exclude the sale or transfer of shares to the employee share ownership trust from requiring a motion of approval. Legislative provision for such a transfer has already been made in the ICC Bank Act, 1999, as the Deputy will be aware, and the ESOT has been agreed with the staff.

Deputy Noonan also asked for the strongest possible confirmation of the excellence of ICC Bank and this I am happy to give. ICC Bank has a strong record over many years of prudent lending practices and the quality and balance of its loan book is excellent.

I now want to turn to Deputy McDowell's comments in which he opposed any provision being made to give the Minister power to sell his shares. I have accepted a suggestion made by Deputy Noonan that the Bill would make provision for a motion of approval by the Dáil of any proposed disposal of shares by the Minister. In fact, many Deputies who spoke in the debate supported the enabling provisions for the disposal of the bank on the basis that the Minister should have all the preparations done in advance. In all the circumstances, I do not agree with Deputy McDowell's amendment to the motion.

A number of other issues were raised and I want to address these briefly. Several Deputies were concerned about competition in the sector when the bank is sold. Indeed, this evening Deputy Perry and others raised such matters again. I agree that the State-owned banks filled gaps in banking provision in the distant past but this is no longer the case. In competition terms, ICC Bank is a small bank and it must compete on a level playing field in both access to funds and in the provision of funds. It is not possible under the current rules applying to the Single Market to subsidise ICC Bank or to use it to subsidise borrowers.

Deputies also raised the issue of competition in the area of venture capital and the potential gap the sale of ICC might leave. While ICC was a pioneer in this area, it is now one of 15 institutions active in the venture capital market which is becoming more competitive over time.

A number of Deputies asked how it was possible that ICC Bank was a listed company on the Irish Stock Exchange without its share being traded. The answer is that the State, through the Minister of Finance, owns over 99% of the issued share capital. Because there is no liquidity in these shares, there is, of course, no active market. I understand – I think Deputy McDowell and Deputy Noonan specifically asked this question – that the last share transaction occurred in 1987 between two private shareholders.

Deputies also raised this issue in relation to employees being able to get value for shares appropriated through the ESOT. Shares must be held in the ESOT for a minimum period of three years for reasons of tax efficiency. The expectation is that a sale will take place well before the three years are up and that following a sale, the ESOT will swap its ICC shares for shares in the purchaser. If, however, no sale of the bank takes place in the three years after the establishment of the ESOT and shares are appropriated to employees, then any employee wanting to realise value for them could sell them on the open market. The most likely purchaser of such shares in this scenario would be the ESOT itself.

I am satisfied that the climate for the disposal of the ICC is much better than last year. First, the market for financial shares generally is much improved with financial shares on the Irish Stock Exchange up 53% since their low point last March. Second, the uncertainty which existed last year relating to the intentions of NatWest concerning the Ulster Bank were resolved when the Royal Bank of Scotland emerged as purchaser of NatWest. Third, the financial performance of and prospects for ICC are much stronger than last year. Many Deputies referred to this and to the interim results on Second Stage.

The Minister, for these reasons, has advised the board that he would be willing to consider any proposals in relation to his shareholding. The board, management and staff of the bank all agree that the change in shareholding arrangements is in the best interests of the company. I say to Deputy Perry, who mentioned it this evening, that the bank, its shareholders and staff are all in favour of the bank being sold. There was a number of other issues relating to specific matters to which I will return on Committee Stage. I have dealt with the main thrust of all the Deputies' points. I, therefore, commend the Bill to the House.

I must put the question on amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputy McDowell.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the main Question", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

In accordance with Standing Order 111(2), I declare the Bill to be read a Second Time.

Barr
Roinn