The reply to Question No. 19 on to-day's Order Paper, which has not yet been circulated, is a matter of great importance in connection with this Bill. Would the Minister be able to inform the House of the terms of that reply? I am referring to jury books.
Public Business. - Juries Bill, 1960—Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."
I would not have that information available immediately.
Is it not in the reply the Minister gave? Perhaps we could get it, because it is of great importance in relation to this issue.
On what section does it properly arise? Perhaps we could have it before the section is reached.
On Section 2.
The Minister's reply was in the normal form of a reply to a Question such as this, namely, that it would be circulated with the Report. If the Minister could circulate to us the statistical matter contained in the reply, then we would know where we stood; or perhaps it would be possible to get from the office an advance copy of the reply to the Question?
It should be available in the office.
They are never available until about half an hour after Questions have concluded.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
This matter was mentioned on the Second Stage of the Bill. I want to mention it again. Section 2 is the section which deals with the constitution of juries for civil or criminal matters. The point I want to raise on this section is this. I am quite certain that trial by jury in criminal matters is of fundamental importance to everybody. Whatever the inconvenience and cost of maintaining it may be, it is well worth it for the safeguard it bestows on the individual liberty of every citizen of the State. I do not think we should underestimate the burden of jury service on those who are called to serve. We have an amendment on the paper to Section 5, but I am afraid that amendment does not commend itself to the Ceann Comhairle. However, the question at issue can be discussed on the section. But whatever the burden of inconvenience may be, we think it is justifiable where criminal matters or the liberty of the individual are involved.
I want to suggest to the House that the time has come to inaugurate informed inquiry into the question as to whether or not we are getting the best service, both from the point of view of the litigant and from the point of view of the juryman or jurywoman, from the maintenance of the jury system in civil matters. It is a very great hardship indeed if a person is called away from his business or employment, especially from a one man business, to serve on a protracted criminal trial but at least he has the consolation of feeling at the end that he has discharged a very useful public service and is making his contribution to the maintenance of individual liberty in the community in which he belongs.
But if a man is called away at great personal inconvenience, and possibly at substantial personal loss, to act on a jury before which there is a protracted and complicated argument on questions arising out of a civil dispute, whether it be a complicated question of contract or of tort, which may go on for days, I think that man at the end of his period of service is bound to ask himself: "Why should I be called upon to bear this unendurable loss and inconvenience when in fact these matters could be just as well investigated and arbitrated by a judge, who is already there and who must preside over all our proceedings?"
As at present advised, I have great sympathy with that point of view but I do not think it is a matter that should be made the subject of a snap decision. I think the practice in Great Britain now amounts virtually to the disappearance of juries in civil proceedings. I think I am right in saying that there remains a limited right in a litigant to demand a jury but that, in practice, juries in civil suits have ceased to operate. I have heard no suggestion that that practice in Great Britain has interfered with the due administration of justice. I understand it has resulted in a very substantial economy of time and it must have relieved jurymen and jurywomen of a very material burden which I think it is unreasonable to ask them to go on bearing. We ought to remember in that context that at present the provision is if you serve on a jury in a civil action, you are entitled to recover from the successful litigant the sum of 5/- per day of service. We put down an amendment to increase that to £1 but I do not think that amendment has met with the favour of the Ceann Comhairle. I do not quite know why.
There are no provisions in respect of payment in the amending Bill.
It is not paid by the Government. It is a cost.
It is outside the scope of the Bill.
That is a different argument.
In any event, let us bear in mind when considering this matter that the juror in a civil suit at present is entitled to recover from the successful litigant 5/- per day of service. Even if you increase that, as we suggest, to £1 per day, there still can remain a very heavy burden on the extremely restricted category of persons who can be summoned for jury service. I invite Deputies to look at the schedule of persons who are exempted from jury service and then to realise how limited a section of the community our jury lists are drawn from.
In light of the Minister's reply to Deputy Barrett's Question today, Deputy Sweetman may have something to say about the regularity with which the jury books are revised. But even supposing we got the jury books regularly revised, and even supposing we increased the daily allowance of the jurors from 5/- to £1, bearing in mind the very limited number of persons who are liable to be called, it seems to me that there is at least a prima facie case for the proposition that the present system of empanelling juries for civil suits is an unjustifiable burden on those who have to bear it. I am not, however, prepared, without further inquiry, categorically to advocate its immediate abolition. I would ask the Minister for Justice to say whether on this occasion he would consider favourably having this matter examined by a suitable body with a view to securing the best possible advice as to whether we might not with advantage adopt the procedure followed in Great Britain and in effect retain the jury system in all criminal matters and relinquish it in civil suits with whatever safeguards expert advice might suggest were requisite for such a reform.
This Bill is a rather restricted measure and the Deputy is discussing it as if it were an all-embracing Bill. I stated very clearly on Second Stage what its functions were and in a number of the speeches reference was made to such things as the payment of jurors and the introduction of compulsory service for women, and matters of that kind. I made it very clear that these things did not come within the scope of the Bill, that they were for a measure that might be brought in at some later date. I want again to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this Bill is in the main being brought in to bring relief to the jurors of the city of Cork. We can apply it to other centres where we think similar relief can be obtained through the medium of this measure. Perhaps if I make clear what Section 2 does, it may help to clarify the position and at the same time shorten the debate.
This section contains the first of the two main provisions of the Bill, namely, that for sittings of all courts in county boroughs. The jury in every case shall be called from a panel drawn partly from the county borough and partly from either the county or a specified district or districts of the county. This makes no change in the existing law in so far as Dublin is concerned, but as regards the other three county boroughs, it replaces the following provisions in relation to county borough sittings:—
(a) a jury for the High Court or Central Criminal Court is drawn from the county borough.
(b) a jury for the Circuit Court in a criminal case is drawn from the county borough or adjoining county according as the case is a county borough or county case as defined in the Act of 1927, Section 33, and
(c) a jury for the Circuit Court in a civil case is drawn from the county borough or the relevant district of the county, according as the case is a county borough or county case as defined in the Act of 1927, Section 33.
Accordingly all the four county boroughs will now be on exactly the same footing as Dublin is already as regards the areas from which jurors are drawn, that is, mixed jury panels for all trials.
One of the advantages of the system of panels of mixed county borough and county jurors is that it enables the burden of jury service to be distributed more equitably where the jurors from one of these areas are being called with undue frequency as compared with those from the other. This mixed system already obtains in Dublin where it has worked with satisfaction and has a great deal to recommend it.
The distinction between county borough and county cases which is being discarded in the Bill has been one of the causes of the disparity in frequency of service and, now that it is going, the mixed jury is a logical consequence. I am unable to see the force of the suggestion made by some Deputies that the juries should still remain composed separately of either county borough or county jurors. I am informed that there are no administrative difficulties in providing mixed juries and I could see possible objections to types of case being tried solely by city or county men, now that the distinction in the cases is being abolished. Some might feel that the ends of justice were occasionally affected in this way.
It has been suggested that the mention of the Commission de lunatico inquirendo in the section is intended to meet the situation resulting from the decision of the Supreme Court in 1958 in relation to the disciplinary provisions in the Solicitors Act. This is actually not so. The purpose is to remove any doubt as to the authority of such a Commission to have a jury and secondly to remedy the imperfect position in the present law whereby the provision for a trial of this nature seems to envisage it being conducted by a court officer only. Any person may in fact be appointed to be a commissioner of a commission de lunatico inquirendo.
The section also provides that in the case of county jurors for county borough sittings they can, if desired, be called only from a district or districts of the county instead of from the county at large. Thus, in a relatively small county, all of which is convenient to the city, the jurors can, without excessive hardship, continue to be called to the city from the whole county. In the case of a large county like Cork, however, the circumstances point to limiting the calling of the county jurors to a district or districts convenient to the city and so avoid bringing the jurors from too far. In this way, the second main purpose of the Bill is achieved, namely, the avoidance of hardship of the kind resulting from having to travel excessive distances to county boroughs.
That is what Section 2, in the main, proposes to do. It proposes that by the operation of these districts in future, instead of calling people, as was being done heretofore, from as far down in the county of Cork as Berehaven to the city, we should do it in such a way that we will, by having a radius around Cork city of a certain distance, be able to utilise a greater number of individuals for jury service and in that way be able to increase the period, or to reduce it, whichever is the correct phrase, from what they have been doing at present, service of once every 16 months to, at least, as a result of this, once every four years. That is, in fact, all that this Bill does. It does not propose to do anything in respect of any matters to which Deputy Dillon referred in the course of his speech, which would be matters for a separate measure dealing completely with not alone the question of jury service but all the matters appertaining to jury service. I hope that as a result of the statement I have made the position will be clarified in the minds of those Deputies who are interested in the matter.
The Minister seems to have misconceived entirely the debate that took place on this Bill on Second Reading. Everybody fully understood what was in the Bill, but in the debate on Second Reading, the complaint, as is appropriate under the Standing Orders, was that certain other things had not been put in the Bill that should have been put in it. The Minister is trying to meet that case by saying that it is not in the Bill. The reason the matters were raised on that occasion was that their absence was liable to impose an unnecessary hardship in jury service.
In this discussion on the section, then, we must consider two things. We must consider, first of all, the exact terms of the section as such, and secondly, we must consider the manner in which the terms of the section impinge on the people called upon to carry out jury service. One way to avoid that impingement being unnecessarily hard every time would be the way to which Deputy Dillon referred. As he indicated, I propose also to refer to another matter.
In reply to Deputy Barrett to-day, the Minister gave particulars in a tabular statement which will be circulated in the Official Report of the periods of duration of the present jury book in Cork. I have not before me any particulars in relation to jury books other than in Cork. I have heard, however, complaints of a roving nature in other places. This is one of the peculiar cases in which not only Cork feels it has a grievance.
As I understand the matter—and I am, quite frankly, open to correction by the Minister, if I am wrong—once the jury book is made up, people are struck off that book if it comes to the notice of the appropriate official—the county registrar, or perhaps in a county borough, it may be the sheriff—that that person is dead, that the person is permanently incapacitated from service by reasons of health or incapacitated by reason of acceptance of some other function. Once a person, for example, is appointed a peace commissioner, he can no longer serve as a juror. Once a person becomes a solicitor, he can no longer serve as a juror.
My understanding of the situation— and I invite the Minister to give me an authoritative denial, if I have misunderstood him—is that once the jury book is made up, no new names are added to it until the book is remade anew. During the course of the period the book operates, people are certainly struck off it, but no new survey, so to speak, of the people who will be liable for jury service is made, except when the book is renewed. It seems hard to understand otherwise what is the meaning of the words "jury book" in this particular context. One could have an annual jury book, in which case the Minister's reply to-day to Deputy Barrett would be nonsense. I do not believe it is nonsense, and if the reply is not nonsense, then it can only mean that this book in relation to Cork has been in existence since 27th September, 1955, with a duration of fifteen and a half years and that no new names of persons qualified to act as jurors have been added in Cork over that period.
We have other areas—Bandon and Clonakilty from 3rd of October, 1956 —fourteen and a half years. I do not quite understand the Minister's reply in relation to Kanturk and Mallow, because he said that it is 1949 and a duration of fifteen years, which does not seem to me to tot up. Perhaps the Minister can elucidate that difference between the years, because he sets out in the beginning the date from which the jurors book has been in operation and then he adds the approximate entire duration of the present jurors book in terms of years and the two things do not tot. I find, first of all, 27th September, 1955, as if it were 1945, because it says immediately after "15 years." Perhaps the Minister will explain that.
My understanding of the matter is, and I want the Minister to tell us whether it is right or wrong, that when a jury book is made up, when, for example, the jury book in Cork was made up on 27th September, 1955, after that date until the new jury book is made up, nobody is added as being qualified, but certain people as they become disqualified, whether by being called to their reward or otherwise, are struck off. If I am correct in my understanding of the matter on that basis, then the position seems to be that the book gets smaller and smaller every year, and that as the years go on, there are much fewer people on it, and those people, of necessity, are therefore called very much more often. I cannot see what on earth there is to prevent the jury book being made up annually. We get every year a new register of electors. On that register of electors are marked with the letter J those people who are bound to serve as jurors.
Would it be beyond the wit of man to provide a couple of people who in a very short space of time would go through the register for any area and add on to a list the people from the register who are liable for jury service? If that were done every year, the number of jurors that remain in each area would be substantial and the more substantial that list of the number of jurors is, the less often they will be called for jury service. It seems, therefore, that if Section 2 is to operate in any satisfactory manner the existing method, of having a jury book in operation for a great number of years and subject during that period only to deletions and not to additions, would have to be varied. Before considering further the manner in which this section will operate and the manner in which it will be desirable, perhaps, to amend it, I should like the Minister to tell us whether the universal belief among practitioners at the Bar and in the solicitor's profession and among the public generally is correct—that once the jury book is compiled, made up and put into operation no new name is added but only those who are disqualified are removed.
The Deputy is correct in saying that no new names are added and that names are deleted as required. The simple explanation of the figures given in the tabular statement supplied to Deputy Barrett is that these represent the estimated life of the jury book.
What it has been and what it is estimated it will be?
Yes. I think I mentioned this on the Second Stage also: a person who is called from that book is not called again during its lifetime so that that only adds to the difficulty of getting jurors and shortens the period between each service. That is why we think this relief is not only highly desirable but urgently required. Because of the urgency of bringing relief to Cork jurors we think it is desirable to get this Bill passed quickly and if other matters are as urgently required as Deputy Sweetman and Deputy Dillon seem to think that will be a case for more extensive legislation later. As I have already said, this is a matter of bringing urgent relief to the jurors of Cork who are at present suffering by having to appear as jurors as regularly as every 16 months.
I am afraid the Minister is contradicting himself. He suggested a moment ago that I was right in saying that, once a jury book was made up, there were no additions to it but I understood him also to follow that by saying that a person would be called only once during the life of the jury book. I do not want to misrepresent the Minister if that was not what he meant to say——
What was that point?
I understood the Minister to say that once a person had served he would not be called again during the life or duration of the jury book.
Yes.
I do not think that can be right. First of all, people are called for jury service much more than once in 10 or 15 years. Secondly, one regularly reads in reports of court cases, or one hears if one is in court, of a judge giving exemption to jurors from jury service for so many years after a long, tiring case. If, in fact, the jury book were to carry on for another nine years there would be no sense in a judge giving an exemption for three years from jury service. I think the Minister must be misinformed on that point.
As I see it, the position is that the sheriff in a county borough and the county registrar in the rural area goes down the jury book and calls people. Admittedly, having called Mr. A for jury service in 1961 he does not call Mr. A again in 1962 unless he has exhausted, by calling them in the interval, all the other people in that book. If the jury book remains in existence for 15 years then the people in that book become fewer and in consequence Mr. A's turn will come much more quickly than it would come if the jury book were kept up to date year by year. I should even make the Minister a present of a compromise by saying every three years.
To suggest, as is suggested here, that once every 15 years is sufficient to prepare a jury book in a place like Cork city seems to be utterly and entirely unrealistic. Quite apart from anything else, I wonder how many addresses change in 15 years in a city, how many people who are there at the beginning of a 15-year period will be at the same addresses at the end of the period? I am sure there is provision in the book by which addresses may be changed from time to time but that must mean a pretty substantial amount of clerical work and the extra clerical work required to make a completely new jury book every three years cannot be very substantial. There cannot be a very great cost involved but there would be a very great easement of the burden on individual jurors.
It is all very well for a person to serve on a jury if he is an executive, an official of some sort in a big company or concern. Universal practice in such circumstances is for the company to continue to pay the man his salary while he is serving on the jury. It may be tedious; it may mean that he has to go back occasionally in the evening to see what is happening in his job but he does not lose financially by it.
On the other hand, if a person who is running a one-man business serves on a jury for any length of time, it can utterly disorganise his personal financial affairs. Such a person might be an architect practising on his own, just starting out in his profession, without any very large staff to whom he could delegate his responsibility while he is away. He could be a grocer running a small business in the suburbs, with the help of perhaps one assistant, who does his own buying in the market. He could be a butcher who buys his own cattle and without whose personal knowledge and personal touch the business might very well go wrong.
I could mention case after case of one-man business where, if the person concerned is caught—I use the word "caught" as being the most expressive—and has to serve on a jury for a protracted period—we had an example of such a period recently in our courts here in Dublin—that may spell virtual ruin. If we cannot go into a discussion on the wider aspects to which Deputy Dillon referred, it is at least incumbent upon us, so long as the present system obtains, to take every possible precaution to ensure that the burden is fairly shared between all who must carry it. The only way in which that can be done is by ensuring that the jury book is kept up to date so that a juror's turn on the rota will not come round too frequently.
I do not know whether the Minister is aware how a jury book could be kept physically in a city area for a period of 15 years. In a rural area people do not change so frequently. In a city area there is constant change. I wonder how Deputy Seán Brady would fare if he were to go out and fight a general election on a 15-year-old register. To put it mildly, he would find it somewhat confusing for his tallymen and his agents. But that is the method by which we select jurymen—a 15-year-old register brought up to date by striking off those who have died and not adding on those who have qualified in the meantime. That method requires radical revision.
Deputy Barrett was enterprising enough to put down a question in relation to Cork on this matter. I wonder has the Minister any information in relation to the registers in Dublin, Limerick and Waterford? It would be interesting to know how long the registers have been operating in these county boroughs which are brought in specifically here. It would be interesting to know how long the jury books have been operating in rural areas. I am sure the Minister's advisers have adverted to the relationship between Deputy Barrett's question to-day and this Bill. They must have anticipated that someone would ask questions with regard to the position in Dublin, Limerick and Waterford. Perhaps the Minister would give the House that information now rather than have the House wait to get it by way of another question. I am sure his advisers anticipated the likelihood of such information being sought and I am sure the Minister is prepared to give it, if he has it.
It seems to me incontestable that the long period in which a book operates must mean that certain people get their turn more frequently than they would if the book were brought up to date more frequently. Before we can properly appreciate what juries will have to do in the future we should approach the administrative problem of making the roster an annual, or at least a triennial, one and so obviate the necessity of some people being called with unnecessary frequency. I think the Minister made a mistake when he said people are called only once in a book. If he were right in that, then the remission that judges give of from three to five years would be utterly meaningless, and I do not think that it is.
This system has been operating, apparently successfully, since 1927. No one seems to have found any fault with it up to the present. We can do very little with regard to the Deputy's proposal for this is a matter of mechanics. The county registrar must surely be as well informed on these matters as Deputy Sweetman is. I am pretty certain he deals with them as they arise. With regard to Dublin, the lifetime of a book is two and a half years.
That seems reasonable.
Where the Deputy is making a mistake is in relation to the times; the times given are estimations. They may end before the estimated period. The Deputy has stressed his comparison with the register of voters. There is no comparison and the Deputy's comparison is therefore a false one. If the registrar were to try to compile a new jury book every year, what would be likely to happen? I very nearly used Deputy Sweetman as an example but he could not be called as a juror. Let us take the case of a person outside who was called this year. He could be called again next year because there would be nothing to show whether he served or did not serve. He would be put on the Register by the Registrar. The result is that you might have a situation in which for the 15 years the Deputy spoke about, one individual might be called upon regularly each year. That may be as extreme as some of the arguments which the Deputy made but the fact, nevertheless, remains that is a situation which could possibly arise.
In Cork city itself, up to the present, the life of the book is one and a quarter years. The figures given in the reply to the Question apply to rural Cork. That is the area outside of and contiguous to the city itself. In Limerick city, it is four years and in Waterford city, ten years. Those are the figures and they show that the life of the book varies with the district, but I do not think there is anything to worry about generally in respect of this Bill.
If it is thought desirable at any time, either by the Opposition or by the Government themselves, to bring in a Bill dealing entirely with the question of jury service, that can be just as simple a matter as the bringing in of any other piece of legislation. I have no doubt that if the necessity arose and if there were urgency, the Government would have no hesitation in doing it as they have done in a number of other matters of legislation which have been brought in in the very recent past and which will come before the House in the future.
The Minister assumes that I know something about the mechanics of this matter. I know absolutely nothing about the mechanics of it except what I have been told since the representations were made to me when the Bill was circulated. It is not the type of mechanics with which a legal practitioner has anything to do. They are mechanics in which only the Department of Justice, the sheriffs and county registrar are involved.
I think the Minister has completely made the case for me. With the figures he was kind enough to give in respect of the other areas, he completely made the case: Dublin, two and a half years; Cork, one and quarter years; and Limerick, four years. Waterford, of course, has been placed back in the unhappy position which is shown in the reply to a Question today. The Minister completely made the case by admitting that in Dublin, Cork and Limerick, these periods of duration of the book are not countenanced at all and properly so.
The Minister proceeded to make the point that a person might be called again next year and might so serve every year for 15 years. Theoretically, that is the case, but, in practice, it is not, for two reasons: first, there would be a sufficient number to ensure that his name could not regularly come out of the hat so often; and secondly, apart from that, it is not a mechanical matter that a person, who is summoned to attend as a juror, serves on a jury. He has the right of being excused by the judge. It is perfectly obvious that in those circumstances a person who was called this year and again next year would be given permission by the judge to stand down. That argument will not wash. I am grateful to the Minister for providing me with the complete argument in support of the case I make. I think it is imperative for the Minister now to make certain that the other areas follow the lead he has indicated he is carrying out in these three county boroughs.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
This section deals with sittings, other than circuit court sittings, outside the county boroughs and gives the power, not contained in the present law, to draw the jurors from districts of a county, rather than from the county at large, if this is desired. This will be a minor improvement.
Many counties are not divided into districts at all, in which case the provision would have no effect. Where, however, it may at any time be decided to create such districts, having regard to such considerations as hardships caused by excessively frequent service or long travel, the provision can then be applied.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."
This section does much the same for the circuit court as Section 3 does for the other courts. It enables jurors for sittings outside the county boroughs to be drawn from the districts of the county rather than from the county at large. In respect of criminal cases, the Minister may specify the districts but for civil cases, their is no option in the way of specifying: the jurors in civil cases will come only from the district of the county in which the court is sitting. The latter slight difference in treatment arises as a continuation of what is in the existing law. The only effective change made by this section in the existing law is to dispense with the obligation to obtain the consent of circuit judges before specifying districts. This provision is no longer regarded as serving a useful purpose.
Again, it must be remembered in this connection that many counties are not divided into districts at all, in which case, the power of specifying districts has no effect. If desired, however, they could be so divided at any time.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."
I have already indicated in connection with Section 2 that this section widens the provision in Section 65 of the 1927 Act to cover a commissioner of a commission de lunatico inquirendo instead of a court officer only for the purpose of the Juries Acts.
In connection with these three sections, has the Minister any reaction to a suggestion mentioned by us on the Second Stage to widen the jury panel by including every man of 21 years upwards living in the area as being eligible for jury service?
No, I have not considered that. As the Deputy is fully aware, to be a juror, you must have a certain standing and individuals just reaching 21, while they may be fully entitled to vote, might not be considered suitable to act as jurors. As I said in connection with the many points which the Deputy and Deputy Sweetman raised in the course of the discussion, these are all matters which can be considered in due course, should the necessity arise to bring in a Bill dealing in general with this question of jury service.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."
This section merely continues in force the Orders already made under the 1927 Act with regard to the districts from which jurors are to be drawn for sittings of the Circuit Criminal Court outside a county borough.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."
This section includes the commission de lunatico inquirendo in the arrangements for enpanelling High Court juries.
I would like the Minister to say whether any regard has been had to the question of the remuneration of jurors in civil matters. The Chair has ruled that an amendment to deal with these matters specifically would be outside the ambit of this Bill, but the fact is that at present a juror in a civil matter can recover only five shillings a day from the successful litigant. That manifestly is fantastically inadequate compensation for the loss sustained by such a juror. Would the Minister give consideration to a proposal to raise that to a figure of £1 a day or something which would be more commensurate with the loss involved for that juror?
Of course it cannot be considered in relation to this Bill but, as I said in reply to a similar question in regard to this Bill, we can have it considered if the necessity should arise.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."
This section repeals the existing provisions as to the areas from which juries may be drawn for all courts, these being now substituted for by Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That Section 9 stand part of the Bill."
This section provides the short title, collective citation and date of coming into operation.
I take it the Minister proposes to bring this Bill into operation as soon as it has been passed?
I imagine that would be the intention.
Question put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendments.
Agreed to take remaining Stages to-day.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.