This Bill was passed by the Dáil and amended in the Seanad. The Minister will move that Seanad amendment No. X be agreed to, for each amendment called by the Chair. Seanad amendments Nos. 1 and 34 are related so they can be taken together.
Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Bill, 1978: From the Seanad.
The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No.1:
Section 1: In page 4, between lines 14 and 15, the following subsection inserted:—
"(2) This Act shall come into operation six months after the date of its passing."
Question put and agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 30 are cognate.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2:
Section 2: in subsection (1), page 4, line 25, "Energy" deleted and "Tourism" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3:
In subsection (1), page 4, line 27, "Tourism and" deleted.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 44 are related.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 4:
In subsection (3), page 4, line 37, "of a contract" deleted and ", agreement or provision" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 5:
Section 3: in subsection (2), page 5, lines 14 and 15 deleted and the following substituted:
"(b) a sale by auction—
(i) of goods of a type, or
(ii) by or on behalf of a person of a class defined by the Minister by order,".
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 6:
Section 4: in page 5, lines 20 and 21, subsection (1) deleted and the following substituted:
"(1) Subject to section 43 (which provides for certain agreements whether made before or after the commencement of this Act) this Act does not apply to contracts made before such commencement."
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 7:
Section 7: in subsection (1), page 5, line 50, "or by the Director of Consumer Affairs" inserted after "Minister". "Minister".
Question put and agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 40, 41, 42 and 43 are related to amendment No. 7. Amendment No. 8 is consequential on amendment No. 9.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 8:
Section 10: in page 6, line 11, "13 and 14" deleted and "13, 14 and 15" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 9:
In page 8, between lines 32 and 33 the following inserted:
"Sale by Sample
15.—(1) A contract of sale is a contract for sale by sample where there is a term in the contract, express or implied, to that effect.
(2) In the case of a contract for sale by sample— (a) There is an implied condition that the bulk shall correspond with the sample in quality:
(b) There is an implied condition that the buyer shall have a reasonable opportunity of comparing the bulk with the sample:
(c) There is an implied condition that the goods shall be free from any defect, rendering them unmerchantable, which would not be apparent on reasonable examination of the sample."
That refers to a sale by sample?
Yes.
In relation to a sale by sample the amendment says:
15.—(1) A contract of sale is a contract for sale by sample where there is a term in the contract, express or implied, to that effect.
What is the position in regard to that? What type of contract does it refer to? Does it refer to an oral contract or a contract in writing?
It can be either an oral or a written contract.
It can be both?
All I am doing here is re-enacting at the request of a Senator something that appeared in section 15 of the 1893 Act.
I want to clarify this. It refers to both a written and an oral contract.
Yes.
In connection with section 10——
We are only dealing with amendments and not sections.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Presumably it is an amendment of some section.
In sale by sample, section 15 (2) (b) there is an implied condition that the buyer shall have a reasonable opportunity of comparing the bulk with the sample. Is the Minister satisfied that this should be implied?
Yes. It has been there since 1893 and I do not see any point in taking it out at this stage. This Bill is designed to protect the consumer and it is part of a package of consumer legislation which we are bringing before the Dáil and Seanad. Some of it has been passed already such as the Consumer Information Bill and the Pyramid Selling Bill is before the House. There are a number of other Bills which we will be bringing in. We are trying to extend protection for the consumer within the legislation. Why should we reduce his protection if it is there since 1893?
It appears to be reducing the protection and that is why I am inquiring about it. The Act of 1893 has in many ways stood the test of time but now we are trying to modernise and streamline the sale of goods and supply of services. That is why I question the wisdom of having it implied. It is implied that the consumer had a reasonable opportunity. A consumer may not have a reasonable opportunity, but the responsibility to inspect the bulk and compare it with the sample is thrown over on to him. Is it wise to have that? I presume the Minister understands what I am getting at.
I understand perfectly. I accept the Deputy's point fully that the 1893 Act has stood the test of time, and what we are trying to do in some areas is improve it. In this section all we are doing is restating it. We are not reducing it.
The Act stood the test of time in many respects but in this one my worry is that there is an implied condition. It is presumed that the person purchasing materials has had an opportunity to compare the two lots. The responsibility rests fairly and squarely on the shoulder of the consumer. The consumer should not have to prove this and the responsibility for it should rest on the seller or manufacturer.
This Bill is designed to protect the consumer. That is the initial design of it and the reason for introducing it. The Deputy is the first person in this or the other House to question the motive of protecting the consumer.
To clarify the position in regard to this matter, it has been discussed and dealt with in both Houses and we are going through the amendments passed by the Seanad. This is part of the amendments going through. There is a responsibility to look into the whole lot and I feel it is unwise that the condition should go back to the consumer and that it is his responsibility.
Question put and agreed to.
The Minister will move amendment No. 10 and amendment No. 26 is related.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 10:
Section 11: In subsection (4), page 8, line 57, "dealing as consumer" deleted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 11:
Section 12: In page 9, lines 1 to 9, section 12 deleted and the following substituted:
"12.—(1) In a contract for the sale of goods there is an implied warranty that spare parts and an adequate aftersale service will be made available by the seller in such circumstances as are stated in an offer, description or advertisement by the seller on behalf of the manufacturer or on his own behalf and for such period as is so stated or, if no period is so stated, for a reasonable period.
(2) The Minister may, after such consultation with such interested parties as he thinks proper, by order define, in relation to any class of goods described in the order, what shall be a reasonable period for the purpose of subsection (1).
(3) Notwithstanding section 55 (1) of the Act of 1893 (inserted by section 22 of this Act) any term of a contract exempting from all or any of the provisions of this section shall be void."
This is one of the amendments the Minister may have some worries about. There have been cases recently of Irish companies going into voluntary liquidation and companies which import goods such as electrical goods closing down. What is the position regarding spare parts? What safeguards and remedies do people have? I do not think this amendment tightens up the situation sufficiently. There is not sufficient protection for consumers. For example, if a person purchases a washing machine and after two months the company from which they purchase it goes into liquidation and if the machine goes out of order they have no redress and no way of obtaining spare parts. This is not tightening up the matter sufficiently. The Minister should include some protection for after sales services and spare parts. There should be some positive arrangement to protect people who purchase items such as washing machines.
This legislation deals with contract law between a buyer and a seller. It does not deal alone with spare parts but also deals with merchantable quality and other matters. While I sympathise with the point made by the Deputy, as far as liquidation is concerned unless the purchaser can get at the liquidator through the relevant Act dealing with companies he will not be covered by this legislation. For the information of the Deputy and the House I should like to outline the reason why the amendment was accepted by the Seanad. A certain dissatisfaction was expressed in the Seanad with the original draft of this section. Arising from that I re-examined the provisions of section 12 in consultation with my advisers and concluded that a certain degree of tidying up was necessary. The intent and framework of the section remained essentially the same. I should like to comment on the changes introduced by the amendment. It should be noted that the original order granting power has been deleted. Discussion in the other House satisfied me that that would have added little to the section. I should also mention that the Seanad devoted almost five days to the Committee and Report Stages of this Bill. The Seanad gave the Bill thorough and detailed consideration. We had a superb debate there.
The new subsection (1) now takes account of a situation where an offer of spare parts exists and this whole question of spare parts and after sales service is made without reference to a specific time period. In such a situation the implied warranty will be that the relevant parts and service will be available for a reasonable time but that does not take into account the question of liquidation. Subsection (2) enables the Minister by order to specify what shall constitute a "reasonable time". That power contemplates a situation where a problem arises in relation to a certain class of goods. It would be appropriate in my view for the Minister to intervene in the consumer's interest to define "reasonable" in relation to fridges, food mixers, motor vehicles and so on. The new section provides, in subsection (3) that any contractual term attempting to negate an offer made in relation to parts or after sales service shall be void. That provision is self-explanatory and seeks to prevent retailers from giving with one hand and taking away with the other.
There are many views on the necessity and wisdom of the legislation and the Minister has met the case fairly here and in the Seanad. The last amendment in the Seanad from the Opposition sought to give the Minister power to make an order in regard to spare parts.
That is correct.
I accept that the Minister is faced with difficulties in regard to this and I appreciate what he has stated in relation to a person who purchases goods from a company that eventually goes into liquidation. Such a consumer only has a right of action against the liquidator which is totally unsatisfactory for the consumer in that only a percentage in the £ will be paid after a considerable length of time. That is of little use. Companies involved in the manufacture of goods have a responsibility to provide adequate spare parts and an after sales service. I do not think the amendment gets to the nub of this. The Minister should make an order insisting on companies setting aside a reasonable quantity of spare parts for repairs. I appreciate it will be difficult to include such a provision but it is so essential that the Minister should take the power. Companies should be obliged to provide financial resources, in the form of a bond or otherwise, for consumers who experience difficulty in obtaining servicing and spare parts after the company goes out of business or into liquidation. Yesterday on an RTE radio programme I heard a consumer tell us how difficult it was to get spare parts for a watch.
Many items are disposed of at sale prices or high pressure salesmanship is brought into operation to get people to buy them but when such items break down they are useless because spare parts are not available. Such items may cost up to £100 or, in the case of a colour television, may cost up to £400.
The Deputy is getting away from the amendment and involved in a Second Stage debate on a Seanad amendment. That is not in order.
This is one of the few matters I shall dwell on at length.
We cannot have a Second Stage debate on an amendment from the Seanad. I have given the Deputy plenty of latitude but I cannot allow him to continue in this vein.
I appreciate the indulgence of the Chair. I am concerned about consumers who cannot obtain spare parts for items that can cost a lot of money. The Minister has some power but he should go a stage further and make it compulsory on all firms to retain a certain quantity of spare parts and provide an after sales service.
This matter was discussed at great length in the Seanad. If I made the order requested by the Deputy and the company went into liquidation the spare parts would become part of the liquidator's stock over which we would have no control. When this was discussed in the Seanad an amendment was put forward by the Opposition and I stated then that despite my personal sympathy with the terms of the amendment I was unable to accept it. Such an order would have far-reaching repercussions for the industrial sector to the possible long-term detriment of the consumer. I certainly sympathise with the consumers among whom I include myself, who may find themselves with an obsolete washing machine, car, television and so on. I can assure the House that when discussion on this problem gets under way at European Community level Ireland will participate fully so as to make sure that the problem is resolved equitably. We are now going to stage two of the consumer package before the European Community. The commissioner responsible for consumer affairs and the council are at this stage in working groups discussing stage two of the consumer legislation. The whole question of spare parts is not just an Irish question but an international one. The Irish Government will not be lacking in their contribution to this debate and will fight their corner along the lines the Deputy suggests and which are very much in line with my own personal sympathies in this matter.
Question put and agreed to.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 12."
"Section 13: In subsection (2), page 9, line 22, ", unless—" deleted and a full stop substituted and between lines 22 and 23 the following inserted:
"(3) Subsection (2) of this section shall not apply where—".
Question put and agreed to.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 13."
In page 9, lines 29 and 30, paragraph (c) deleted and the following substituted:
"(c) it is shown that the agreement referred to in paragraph (a) is fair and reasonable."
Question put and agreed to.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 14."
In page 9, lines 41 to 47, subsection (4) deleted and the following substituted:
"(4) Where an action is brought for breach of the implied condition referred to in subsection (2) by reason of a specific defect in a motor vehicle and a certificate complying with the requirements of this section is not proved to have been given, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that the proven defect existed at the time of delivery."
Question put and agreed to.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 15."
In page 9, lines 53 to 56, subsection (6) deleted and the following substituted:
"(6) A person using a motor vehicle with the consent of the buyer of the vehicle who suffers loss as the result of a breach of the condition implied by subsection (2) in the contract of sale may maintain an action for damages against the seller in respect of the breach as if he were the buyer."
This amendment substitutes a new subsection which states that a person who suffers loss as the result of the breach of the condition implied by subsection (2) in the contract of sale may maintain an action for damages against the seller in respect of the breach as if he were the buyer. In this kind of action does the consumer bringing the action have to join anybody in the action? Does he join in the two sides or how does the Minister envisage this will work out?
The action would be against the seller and there would be no compulsion on the consumer to join in anybody.
Is the manufacturer involved?
No.
Is the action against the seller in the first instance?
There is no contract between the buyer and the manufacturer. The contract is between the buyer and the seller. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify beyond all doubt that the right of action under section 13 (6) extends only to a person using a vehicle with the consent of the owner, that is a member of the household of the owner and not to the subsequent buyer or the vehicle. This was discussed at great length where it was assumed that the liability extended from the buyer to the next and the next.
If it has changed hands on a number of occasions?
No, this is only one-to-one. Each time it changes section 13 (6) comes into force only for that particular sale. If you buy a car from a garage, that is one contract. If you sell the car to somebody else, that is a new contract. It is a different contract each time.
If I buy from garage X and then sell it to garage Y and if garage Y sells it again, the action will be from the buyer against that garage?
That is right.
The manufacturer is in no way involved in this?
No.
We are referring to secondhand cars here?
No, new cars or——
But the garage owner purchases the car from the manufacturer and sells it. It is against the garage owner that the customer has the right of action, not against the manufacturer?
That is correct.
Question put and agreed to.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 16":
In page 9, between lines 56 and 57, the following subsection inserted: "(7) The Statute of Limitations, 1957, is hereby amended—
(I) by the insertion in section 11 (2) of the following paragraph—
`(d) An action for damages under section 13 (6) of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980, shall not be brought after the expiration of two years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.';
(II) by the insertion in section 49 of the following subsection—
`(5) In the case of an action claiming damages under section 13 (6) of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980, subsection (1) of this section shall have effect as if for the words "six years" there were substituted the words "two years".' "
Question put and agreed to.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 17":
In page 9, between lines 56 and 57, the following subsection inserted:
"( ) Notwithstanding section 55 (1) of the Act of 1893 (inserted by section 22 of this Act) any term of a contract exempting from all or any of the provisions of this section shall be void."
Question put and agreed to.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 18":
Section 15: In page 10, line 8, "other than for resale" deleted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 19:
Section 16: In subsection (2), page 10, lines 14 and 15 deleted and "person supplying the guarantee." substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 20":
In subsection (6), page 10, line 26, "the seller" deleted and "the manufacturer or other supplier" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 21":
Section 19: in subsection (1), page 11, line 7, "and, where goods are imported, `manufacturer' includes the importer" inserted after "guarantee".
How is it envisaged that this provision will operate?
The effect of the amendment is that in the case of imported goods the importer will be liable for the fulfilment of the terms of a guarantee as if he were the guarantor himself. Therefore, if the buyer is unable legally to enforce a guarantee because the manufacturer is outside the jurisdiction he will still be able to obtain redress against the importer.
Question put and agreed to.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 22."
Section 20: in page 11, line 14, "section 35" deleted and "sections 34 and 35" substituted and in line 15 "section" deleted and "sections" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 23":
In page 11, between lines 16 and 17, the following inserted:
"34.—(1) Where goods are delivered to the buyer, which he has not previously examined, he is not deemed to have accepted them unless and until he has had a reasonable opportunity of examining them for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are in conformity with the contract.
(2) Unless otherwise agreed, when the seller tenders delivery of goods to the buyer, he is bound on request, to afford the buyer a reasonable opportunity of examining the goods for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are in conformity with the contract."
Question put and agreed to.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 24":
Section 22: in page 12, from "to the extent" in line 49 to "term" in line 51 deleted and "unless it is shown that it is fair and reasonable" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 25":
PART III
Section 29: in page 15, line 44, "within the meaning of section 14 (3) of the Act of 1893 as set out in the Table to section 10 of this Act" inserted after "unmerchantable".
Question put and agreed to.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 26":
Section 30: in subsection (4), page 16, line 20, "who deals as consumer" deleted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 27":
Section 31: in subsection (3), page 16, from "to the extent" in line 38 to "term" in line 39 deleted and "unless it is shown that it is fair and reasonable" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 28":
Section 37: before section 37, but in Part III, in page 17, between lines 49 and 50, the following new section inserted:
".—(1) Nothing in section 31 or 36 shall prevent the parties to an international hire-purchase agreement from negativing or varying any right, duty or liability which would otherwise arise by implication of law under sections 26 to 29.
(2) In subsection (1) `international hire-purchase agreement means a hire-purchase agreement made by parties whose places of business are in the territories of different States and in the case of which one of the following conditions is satisfied:
(a) the agreement involves the hire of goods which are at the time of the conclusion of the agreement in the course of carriage or will be carried from the territory of one State to the territory of another; or
(b) the acts constituting the offer and acceptance have been effected in the territories of different States; or
(c) delivery of the goods is to be made in the territory of a State other than that within whose territory the acts constituting the offer and the acceptance have been effected."
This deals with international hire purchase agreements. How does it affect our own hire purchase companies? In the case of international companies with headquarters outside Ireland, how does one proceed?
Where the subsidiary here enters into an agreement it would do so in its own capacity and not as an agent of a parent firm. Therefore the agreement could not be said to have been made by parties whose places of business are in territories of different states. As a result it would not come within the meaning of international hire purchase agreements for the purpose of this amendment. The possibility of avoidance of liability by the use of subsidiary device—companies outside—will not arise.
Are they required to have a head office in this country?
No.
Question put and agreed to.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 29."
Before section 37, but in Part III, in page 17, between lines 49 and 50, the following new section inserted:
".—Where goods are let, otherwise than under a hire-purchase agreement, to a person dealing as consumer the provisions of this Part, other than section 26, shall apply to the letting agreement as if it were a hire-purchase agreement and in every such agreement there is an implied warranty that the goods are free, and will remain free, from any charge or encumbrance not disclosed, before the agreement is made, to the person taking the goods and that that person will enjoy quiet possession of the goods except so far as it may be disturbed by any person entitled to the benefit of any charge or encumbrance so disclosed."
Question put and agreed to.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 30":
Section 38: In subsection (6), page 18, line 40, "Tourism and" deleted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 31":
Section 39: In subsection (6), page 18, line 41, "whether in relation to such contracts generally or in relation to contracts of a class defined in the order in such manner and by reference to such matters as the Minister, after such consultation, thinks proper" inserted after "provides".
Question put and agreed to.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 32":
Section 39: Before section 39, in page 18, between lines 41 and 42, the following new section inserted:
".—(1) Subsections (2) and (3) apply to any statement likely to be taken as indicating that a right or the exercise of a right conferred by, or a liability arising by virtue of, section 37 is restricted or excluded otherwise than under section 38.
(2) It shall be an offence for a person in the course of a business to do any of the following things in relation to a statement to which subsection (1) refers:
(a) to display on any part of any premises a notice that includes any such statement, or
(b) to publish or cause to be published an advertisement which contains any such statement, or
(c) to supply goods bearing, or goods in a container bearing any such statement, or
(d) otherwise to furnish or to cause to be furnished a document including any such statement.
(3) For the purposes of this section a statement to the effect that goods will not be exchanged, or that money will not be refunded, or that only credit notes will be given for goods returned, shall be treated as a statement to which subsection (1) refers unless it is so clearly qualified that it cannot be construed as applicable in circumstances in which the recipient of the service may be seeking to exercise a right conferred by any provision of section 37.
(4) It shall be an offence for a person in the course of a business to furnish to the recipient of a service goods bearing, or goods in a container bearing, or any document including, any statement, irrespective of its legal effect, which sets out, limits or describes rights conferred on the recipient or liabilities to the recipient in relation to goods acquired by him or any statement likely to be taken as such a statement, unless that statement is accompanied by a clear and conspicuous declaration that the contractual rights which the recipient enjoys by virtue of section 37 are in no way prejudiced by the relevant statement."
Does that restrict the rights of a person getting a service? Could the Minister say how this will operate?
Perhaps I should explain the reason for the amendment. It was suggested in the other House that it was somewhat inconsistent to create a criminal offence for sellers of goods displaying notices which purport to restrict or exclude the buyer's rights without making a similar provision for comparable practice in the area of services. I agreed that in the circumstances suggested it would clearly be in the interest of the consumer to provide that a recipient of services could not be misled by means of notices which essentially take advantage of the consumer's lack of knowledge or inability to negotiate his or her legal rights. Accordingly, I introduced this new section in Part IV to cover this situation.
Question put and agreed to.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 33":
Section 40: In page 18, line 53, ", an agreement for the letting of goods to which section * applies" inserted after "agreement".
(* The reference is to the section inserted by Amendment No. 29.)
Question put and agreed to.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 34":
Section 43: In page 19, line 30, "passing" deleted and "commencement" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 35":
In page 19, lines 37 to 40 deleted and "that provision shall not be enforceable unless it is shown that it is fair and reasonable." substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 36":
In page 19, between lines 40 and 41, the following subsection inserted:
"(2) Subsection (1) shall not affect any right to refer a difference to arbitration."
Question put and agreed to.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 37":
Section 47: In page 21, line 37, "or under a letting agreement to which section * applies" inserted after "agreement".
(* The reference is to the section inserted by Amendment No. 29.)
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 38:
Section 49: In subsection (1), page 21, from "for the the" in line 51 to "service" in line 53 deleted and "who makes use of a standard form of contract (being a contract for the sale of goods, a hire-purchase agreement, an agreement for the letting of goods or a contract for the supply of a service)" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 39:
Section 51: In page 22, lines 12 to 16, section 51 deleted and the following substituted:
"51.—The Minister may by order provide, in relation to goods or services of a class described in the order, that a contract (being a contract for the sale of goods, an agreement for the letting of goods, otherwise than under a hire-purchase agreement, or a contract for the supply of a service) shall, where the buyer, hirer or recipient of the service deals as consumer, be in writing and any contract of such class which is not in writing shall not be enforceable against the buyer or hirer or the recipient of the service."
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 40:
Section 52: In subsection (1), page 22, lines 17 and 18 deleted and the following substituted:
"(1) The Director of Consumer Affairs shall have the following additional functions—".
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 41:
In subsection (1), page 22, line 21, "or under" deleted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 42:
In subsection (1), page 22, line 28, "or under" deleted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 43:
In subsection (1), page 22, lines 30 to 32 deleted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 44:
Schedule: In page 23, the following paragraph added to the Schedule:
"3. In this Schedule—
`contract' includes `agreement', `term' includes `agreement' and `provision'."
Question put and agreed to.
Seanad amendments Nos. 1 to 44, inclusive, reported and agreed to.
Message to be sent to the Seanad accordingly.
How soon does the Minister expect the Bill will be actually law?
The first amendment I had down was that from the time the Bill is passed it will be six months before it comes into force but it will be effective as soon as the President signs it.