This relates to the situation where a person is given a monopoly in relation to using a particular variety of plant. The section is concerned with the situation where he has already used the monopoly for the minimum period, which is 15 or 18 years, and still has not got enough money out of exercising his monopoly, that he should be entitled, according to the section, to apply to have his monopoly extended for a further period. If the controller is satisfied that this person has not got enough money out of it, he can grant an extension of the monopoly. If the person has failed to get enough money out of it, it is mostly his fault, and there should be no requirement on the State to extend his monopoly for a further period, unless it is in the interests of Irish agriculture to do so. We are proposing to add to this section the provision that the monopoly may be extended if it is in the interests of Irish agriculture, but that that must be taken into account. To be perfectly honest, I cannot understand why the Minister has refused to accept this sensible addition to the section. I do not believe that the only consideration which should be borne in mind in extending a monopoly is whether the person concerned has made enough money out of it, having had it for a minimum of 15 years anyway. That does not make sense to me. The broader considerations of the benefit to Irish agriculture deriving from this should also be taken in to account. The amendment is reasonable and the Minister should accept it.
Plant Varieties (Proprietary Rights) Bill, 1979: Report Stage (Resumed) and Fifth Stage.
Is the amendment withdrawn?
No.
Amendment No. 15 is in the name of Deputy Bruton. Amendments Nos. 16, 17, 19, 21 and 27 are related. Deputy Bruton will move amendment No. 15 and we shall debate with it Nos. 16, 17, 19, 21 and 27.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 14, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:—
"(4) Where the Controller is considering an application under this section he must have published notice of this fact in the Journal at least thirty clear days prior to making any decision on it.".
This amendment is concerned with the position where someone is proposing to extend a monopoly for a longer period and there may be objection to this. We are requiring that the controller should publish a notice of that in the journal, at least 33 clear days prior to making a decision. The idea would be that if anyone objected to the extension of the monopoly for a longer period they should have at least 30 clear days in which to lodge their objection. Is amendment No. 17 being taken?
It is. This is the reverse of the case the Deputy was dealing with yesterday, if he remembers. This is a case where the Minister has two amendments and he can only speak once.
Touché. Most unfair, on this occasion, too.
I am concerned, in amendment No. 17, with the problem of appeals. Any person who is aggrieved by a decision of the controller in relation to any matter should have not 30 days but 60 days within which to lodge his appeal, particularly in view of the fact that the material evidence may not be available so quickly. The notice of the decision having been taken may not be published in sufficient time within the 30 days to allow someone to become aware of it and to lodge his appeal within the 30-day period. A 60-day period would be more appropriate.
Amendments Nos. 21 and 27 are the Minister's amendments, so I shall let the Minister speak on them.
These are the amendments we propose and they are reasonable. Could the Leas-Cheann Comhairle get a bit of silence upstairs?
Quietly in the gallery, please. Ladies and children, please be quiet in the gallery. We just cannot hear ourselves down here.
We are dealing with amendments Nos. 15, 16, 17, 19, 21 and 27, two or three of which are the Minister's own amendments.
May I speak to them all?
The Minister may speak to the whole lot of them. Amendment No. 15 only is before the House at the moment, but the Minister must speak to them at this stage or remain silent afterwards.
In relation to amendment No. 15, section 19 of the Bill, which deals with the issue of the journal, provides specifically for the publication of the information mentioned in the proposed amendment. This is necessary so that users will know that the reproductive material will still be subject to royalties. Granting the extension would be a matter between the controller and the holder of rights and will be given only where the holder had not got a reasonable return on the work done in developing the variety. Of course, the purpose is to encourage plant breeding. I see no reason why an advance notice should be published in this case and I do not, therefore, accept this amendment.
Before the Minister deals with amendment No. 16 the Chair would point out that this is a substitute amendment which appears on today's Order Paper.
In regard to amendment No. 16 it is proposed to omit any reference in this section to the time scale within which notice of appeal must be served on the controller. Provision is being made for this in an amendment I will be proposing to Article 5 of the Second Schedule. I might mention, however, that it is proposed to increase significantly the period within which appeals may be lodged.
I go now to amendment No. 17 in the name of Deputy Bruton. In view of the amendment I have just moved on this section and the amendment I will be proposing of Article 5 of the Second Schedule I am sure the Deputy will agree that we have taken care of this issue.
Is it certain that the information will always be published in the journal with the 60-day period?
Yes.
That means the journal will have to be coming out very frequently.
The journal will be coming out as often as necessary. We cannot put a time scale on it because we might not always have the necessary information.
If the journal was coming out every two months only there could be some items that would be published on the 58th day, or something like that, when people effectively would have two days only within which to appeal.
I have allowed the Deputy a question but we are on Report Stage.
It is 60 days from the issue of the journal, so that would make a difference.
The Minister to continue. We are on Report Stage.
In regard to amendment No. 19 in the name of Deputy Bruton I should say that in view of the amendment I have moved to subsection (1) of this section and an amendment I propose to move on Article 5 of the Second Schedule I feel certain the Deputy will agree that I am providing for adequate notice to be given to any party who might wish to lodge an appeal against a decision of the controller.
In regard to amendment No. 21, as I mentioned when discussing an amendment to section 14, I will be proposing that the period within which appeals must be served on a controller be extended. This amendment is necessary to keep in line with the thinking in the amendment I will be proposing to Article 5 of the Second Schedule.
The next amendment is No. 27 in regard to which I should say that, in line with what I have said already concerning amendments to sections 14 and 17, I propose to extend the time scale within which notice of appeals must be served on the controller. The proposed amendment should allow any interested parties sufficient time to lodge their appeal. It will be noted that the period of 60 days commences on the date of publication of the notice in the journal.
Deputy Bruton to conclude.
I welcome the vast bulk of the amendments put forward by the Minister and the points he has made. However I have some reservation about the attitude he has adopted in regard to amendment No. 15. Perhaps I did not follow fully what he was saying. As I understand it, this is concerned with the position where somebody is applying to have their monopoly right extended for a period. The Minister is saying that this is something between themselves and the controller and that there is no real need for anyone else to know that they are seeking to have it extended.
I take it I am interpreting what the Minister said correctly—if I am not I hope he will be kind enough to correct me—but I feel that the question of the extension of anyone's monopoly from, say, 15 to 25 years is a matter of interest not only to themselves and the controller but to everybody who may be dealing with them. If somebody is applying for a monopoly right extension anyone who might object should have an opportunity of so doing. If, as I understand it, my amendment is not accepted there would not be any requirement on the controller to publish the fact that he was considering a request by someone to have their monopoly right extended. There would be no way in which that would necessarily become known to the public. Am I correct in what I am saying?
Yes, the Deputy is correct.
If that is the case there is then very strong ground for accepting amendment No. 15. All the amendment requires is that the controller publish the fact that he was considering an appeal from X to have his monopoly right extended from 15 to 25 years, or whatever. The number of cases in which this might be relevant could be considerable. For instance, if farmers felt that the monopolist was charging too high a price for seed, they might not have been able to apply for a compulsory licence under the existing procedures we discussed yesterday because none of them would be in a position to take on the monopoly to maintain the variety of seed and so on. Therefore, they would have no recourse. Unless they could get some other seedman to apply for the compulsory licence to be granted to him, there would be nothing they could do in relation to the overcharging for the seeds but to pay up. But if they discovered then that this monopolist was deciding to apply for an extension of his monopoly beyond the 15-year period to 25 years on the grounds that he had not got sufficient profit out of it—even though he might be overcharging—the farmers or their organisations should have an opportunity, firstly, to be aware of the fact that such an extension was being considered and, secondly, to lodge an objection to the controller, because the controller will not have all knowledge. Probably it will be a very small section in the Department of Agriculture that will be performing the functions of the controller. Indeed, he may not know of instances of overcharging by a particular monopolist or be able to prove it. He might have an idea that it was the case but be unable to prove it. He might feel that if he turned down the extension without having definite knowledge he might be challenged in the court by the monopolist on the grounds that he had acted unreasonably. Therefore, he would err on the side of caution and grant the extension.
The only way in which that situation could be avoided would be if the fact that he was considering the extension were to be publicly known by means of the procedure contained in amendment No. 15, and other people outside the Department and the controller's office who might be aware of facts of which the controller would not about the behaviour of a particular monopolist would have an opportunity to object to the extension.
The Minister has been so reasonable in the attitude he has taken to all of the amendments we have put forward so far—and I will be paying tribute to him more fully on Fifth Stage for the attitude he has adopted throughout this Bill, which has been exemplary—I do not fully understand why, if I am stating the case correctly, he cannot see the point of accepting amendment No. 15, which seems to me to be a reasonable one. It may not be perfectly drafted. Perhaps the Minister would indicate that he would be prepared to consider this as something that might possibly be introduced in the Seanad. I do not want to press this to a division but, on the basis of what I said—and it has not been controverted by the Minister—there is a very good case for this amendment. I would like to see the Minister accept it. The Minister had a very constructive approach to everything we have been saying so far, but at the same time, this principle should be upheld. I know the Minister cannot speak again, but can he give me any indication of his attitude on the matter?
I have tried to meet Deputy Bruton as far as I could on all his amendments. In my view, there is not any need for this, but I will have a look at it before it comes to the Seanad and we might be able to make some adjustment which would fit in with what he is proposing.
That is good enough for me.
I move substitute amendment No. 16:
In page 17, lines 11 and 12, to delete "not later than thirty days after the day on which the decision is made" and to substitute "within the period specified in Article 5 of the Second Schedule to this Act".
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 17, to delete lines 25 to 28, and substitute the following:
"(b) The Appeal Committee may, in confirming a decision of the Controller to grant a licence under section 8 (2) of this Act, modify any of the terms or conditions of the licence.".
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 18, line 41, after "variety" to insert "in Ireland".
This amendment is concerned with a matter raised on Committee Stage which deals with the requirement imposed on anyone who has a monopoly to maintain a variety. The section as it stands says that every holder shall ensure that throughout the period for which the plant breeders' rights held by him are exercisable, he is in a position to supply the controller reproductive material which is capable of reproducing the variety to which the rights relate with the morphological and physiological characteristics which were taken into account when the rights were granted in respect of the variety.
The only change we are proposing is that he should be capable of supplying the controller with reproductive material which is capable of reproducing the variety in Ireland. It is possible to maintain a variety in such a condition that in the most favourable circumstances it would be capable of reproducing itself but it might have deteriorated to such an extent that it would no longer be capable of reproducing itself in Irish conditions. For example, some things will grow much better in warmer than in cooler climates but at the time the variety was originally patented it might have been capable of reproducing itself in both Ireland and the warmer climates of, say, France, Germany or Italy. Because it was not properly maintained it might have deteriorated to the extent that while it could still be reproduced in very favourable environments, it would no longer be capable of being reproduced in Ireland. In other words, so far as Ireland is concerned the protection would be of no value.
As the Bill is at present framed, if the monopolist can prove to the controller that he can reproduce this plant anywhere in the world, that is sufficient. The insertion of the words "in Ireland" will ensure that this requirement means something here and is not merely a matter of pure abstraction.
It is not essential nor could it reasonably be required that all varieties be maintained in Ireland. This, in my opinion, would impose an impossible condition on the breeder, one which no other UPOV country requires. If breeders were required to maintain the varieties in Ireland, it is on the cards that some would decide against applying for rights and consequently might not be prepared in the absence of protection to make the variety available here.
The Bill requires that the holder of the rights must be in a position to supply the controller with reproductive material conforming to the description of the variety at the time of grants of rights. The reference sample of the variety would be stored by the controller. After a number of years when the germination of the particular seed starts to fall, the controller would require new reproductive material. Before such material would be accepted as representative of the variety, it would be compared in controlled lots with some of the old sample. If the new sample did not conform to the description of the variety the right would be revoked. In this way, the controller would have the possibility of periodically checking on the maintenance of the variety.
My amendment does not require them to maintain the varieties in Ireland. All it requires is that the plant be capable of being reproduced in Ireland. It can be maintained anywhere so long as the controller is satisfied it is capable of being reproduced in this country. In my view the Minister is overstating his case when he says that every person who has a plant breeders' right will have to keep a plot in Ireland and maintain it. That is not what my amendment is saying.
If the controller is satisfied that breeding stock from the variety, already sold to Irish people was capable of being reproduced in Ireland, that would be enough to meet the requirements of the proposed amendment. While I have no great scientific knowledge, the situation I have outlined of a variety deteriorating is not unreal.
We are enacting legislation for Ireland. We are not merely concerned with reproducing the terms of the UPOV convention any way we can so that we can say we have adhered to yet another international convention. We are concerned with making specific legislation to meet the needs of this country. A requirement about being able to maintain reproductive material so that it can be reproduced in New Zealand, Italy or somewhere like that, being enough to enable a person to hold on to a monopoly in Ireland is not finding an Irish solution to an Irish problem—to coin a phrase used in another context by a man of great knowledge. Perhaps the Minister should have another look at this.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 20, line 6, to delete "thirty" and substitute "sixty".
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 21, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:—
"(g) such information as is available to him that would be relevant to determining whether reasonable prices are being charged for the plant varieties in respect of which plant breeders' rights have been granted by him,".
This amendment is concerned with the information which the controller is required to publish in the journal. The section already states that he must publish information on all applications which he receives involving the exercise of his various functions. It does not include the extension of monopolies and I believe this omission should be corrected. It is required that the name of the plant variety being granted be mentioned and any alteration or correction made in the register and also any objections the controller has received to any decisions he has made.
The amendment proposes that the controller should also be required to publish in the journal such information as is available to him relevant to determining whether or not reasonable prices are being charged for the plant varieties in respect of which plant breeders' rights have been granted by him. I feel very strongly that the grant of a monopoly will prima facie lead to increased prices and perhaps in some cases unreasonable prices. The inherent quality of a monopoly is that it allows people to charge higher prices than would be possible if they did not have a monopoly. It is, therefore, inherent to the whole function of the controller that he should be required to monitor the situation to ensure that excessive prices are not being charged. One way of ensuring this is to require the controller to publish in the journal all the information he has about the subject. If he does not publish anything of great moment about prices it will be obvious to anybody who reads the journal that the controller is not doing his job in regard to unreasonable prices being charged by monopolists.
Most people in farming organisations share my concern that this legislation may lead to substantially higher prices for seed. That is not to say that there are no benefits in having legislation covering the rights of plant breeders; most of us will agree that there are such benefits and that they probably outweigh the higher prices which will be charged. This However, we must make sure that excessive prices will not be charged. This amendment will ensure that the controller keeps an eyes on prices and ensures that no person with a monopoly is enabled to charge excessive prices by virtue of the fact that he has a monopoly conferred on him by the State. In this Bill we have the very unusual procedure whereby the State decides to give an individual a monopoly. There are not many statutory monopolies in existence and the effect of this Bill will be the creation of a whole new set of statutory monopolies.
The National Prices Commission have expressed the very strong view that their price control should be directed at monopolies. They feel they should become involved in receiving full and formal application in support of a request for a price increase and rejecting or accepting the application. It has been clearly accepted by the NPC that the area in which increases in price are more likely to take place in an unreasonable way is where monopoly or semi-monopoly situations have been created. This is precisely the kind of situation which this Bill deliberately sets out to create. Therefore it is only right that one of the functions of the controller administering the system should be to ensure that although higher prices may be charged they will not be unreasonably high. Of course farmers will be affected, but so will anybody who keeps a garden because as a result of this legislation gardeners will have to pay higher prices for plants.
It is acknowledged that there is virtue in this legislation and many varieties which might not otherwise be available will now become available. However, it is necessary to ensure that excessive prices will not be charged and this is the purpose of the amendment.
As I mentioned during the debate on Committee Stage, we are adopting a format for the journal which has been suggested by UPOV. All member countries are working towards a uniform administrative system and the information which Deputy Bruton is suggesting be contained in the journal would put us out of step with other countries. In any event the controller would be most unlikely to have information at his disposal which would enable him to determine whether reasonable prices were being charged. He has no function in the fixing of prices for seed. His only function would be in deciding if the level of royalties and the terms generally in the case of an application for a compulsory licence were reasonable. The price of seed is dictated by market forces. As I mentioned earlier, the royalties of a holder of rights represent only about 5 per cent of the retail price of seed. The farming press is, perhaps, a better place for obtaining information on the price of seed. In the circumstances I am unable to accept the amendment.
The fact that UPOV are not recommending that we include this section is no reason for not doing it. We are still a sovereign country and we are entitled to require whatever we like in our legislation on this matter. Beyond meeting the basic terms of UPOV, there is no requirement whatever regarding the inclusion of the provisions contained in this amendment. We can still adhere to UPOV and require this information. We should act on our own and not be influenced by any recommendation of this sort.
If the controller does not have information on prices it will be very difficult for him to consider reasonably whether a person should be granted an extension of a monopoly. If he does not know whether reasonable prices are being charged, how will it be possible for him to decide whether a person who has enjoyed a monopoly for, say, 15 years should be given an extension? It is a matter of concern to me that the Minister has now admitted the controller will not have information regarding prices of seed in the market place. There is every reason for including this amendment and no reason for not doing so.
Tá
- Barry, Myra.
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Joan.
- Burke, Liam.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Cosgrave, Michael J.
- Creed, Donal.
- D'Arcy, Michael J.
- Deasy, Martin A.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan-Monaghan).
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- Lipper, Mick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, William.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Ryan, John J.
- Spring, Dan.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Kit.
- Andrews, Niall.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Colley, George.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Farrell, Joe.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Filgate, Eddie.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin South Central).
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Morley, P.J.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy C.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Fox, Christopher J.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Dennis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gibbons, Jim.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Herbert, Michael.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keegan, Seán.
- Kenneally, William.
- Killeen, Tim.
- Lemass, Eileen.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Loughnane, William.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray. Meaney, Tom.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Smith, Michael.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael J.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Amendments Nos. 23, 24 and 25 may be taken together.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 22, line 50, to delete "£100" and substitute "£50".
A fine of £100 does not sufficiently reflect the gravity of an offence under this section. The proposed fine of £500 is more realistic and should constitute a reasonable deterrent. A fine of £500 is the maximum fine permissible for a summary offence. In relation to amendment No. 24 similar considerations to those mentioned in relation to subsection (1) apply. The same applies to amendment No. 25.
We suggested on Committee State that the fines were inadequate and I am glad the Minister has introduced these amendments.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 23, line 11, to delete "£100" and substitute "£500".
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 23, line 21, to delete "£200" and substitute "£500".
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 24, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:
"(4) Any regulation or order made under section 2 of this Act shall only take effect after its terms have been approved by resolution passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas.".
This is a very important amendment dealing with the power of the Minister under section 2 of the Bill to enter into new conventions. If a new convention on plants breeders rights is introduced in the UPOV Convention with a range of new powers and requirements, under the section as it stands it will be possible for the Government to make an order which need never be discussed here agreeing to the convention. In that event all the things we have done here today and in the last few weeks in ensuring that various sections are reasonable will be shortcircuited. It will be possible under this section if there is another UPOV convention to incorporate it in our law without discussion in the Dáil. This is unreasonable. This amendment asks that wherever such an order is made we do not have to incorporate it into out law until a resolution agreeing to it has been passed by both Houses. That does not mean that each section of the Bill could be debated. It merely means that an affirmative resolution be passed and that there will be an opportunity for some debate on the subject. As the Bill is now framed discussion need not take place at all and the only safeguard is that if this is lodged before the House, within 21 days a Member of the House may put down a resolution seeking to annul the order and Government time may be made available to discuss it.
In recent cases the Government have not given their time to discuss motions to annul orders. Until about four or five years ago if an Opposition Deputy put down a motion to annul a Government order, the Government invariably provided the time, usually about an hour-and-a-half to discuss it. Under the Government led by the former Taoiseach. Deputy Lynch, time was not provided to debate orders in this way. I do not know if any case has arisen under the new Taoiseach. The present Taoiseach is perhaps more concerned with the dignity of the House than his predecessor may have been, and therefore may be more receptive in providing time. As I understand it, there is not requirement on the Government to provide time, and unless a Deputy's party are prepared to use some of their precious Private Members' time for a debate on a motion, the motion will not be discussed and consequently under this section a treaty can be entered into by this State without any discussion in the Oireachtas.
We are all very much aware of the jealous way in which the US Congress preserve their treaty-making powers and will not allow the Executive to make treaties on their behalf without those treaties being accepted by the US Congress. We should be equally careful of our rights in the matter. The amendment I am putting forward is reasonable in that event.
What Deputy Bruton has in mind is that any important changes in the UPOV Convention should not be able to be implemented here simply by making an order under section 2 of the Bill. I assure the Deputy that any amendment of substance to the convention will not be incorporated into our system by order or regulation.
Is that just the Minister's assurance or is there a statutory basis for saying that?
That is just the Minister's assurance. All section 2 proposes to do is to enable by order nationals of countries with a similar plant breeders' rights system to be given the same opportunity of applying for rights and so on as are provided for Irish nationals. The purpose of the Bill is to set up a system of plant breeders' rights here. The system proposed is in line with the UPOV Convention and accordingly reciprocal rights can be given to breeders in all convention countries. If in future the UPOV system were significantly changed to the extent that the system provided for in this Bill needed to be changed to keep in line, the legislation would have to be amended. The section also enables us, where it is to our advantage, to make reciprocal arrangements with non-UPOV countries. In the circumstances the Deputy will agree that his amendment is unnecessary.
During the Committee Stage debate a question was raised as to when precisely we would become members of UPOV after this legislation is enacted. Once we have enacted legislation which provides for a plant breeders' rights system conforming to the UPOV Convention it is open to us to ratify the convention. Accordingly, the next step after the enactment of this legislation will be the ratification of the convention by Ireland.
Nothwithstanding the Minister's assurance, which I value as his own personal one, and I have not the slightest doubt that he means what he is saying, it is still the case that any subsequent Minister would be free to agree to a substantial alteration of the UPOV Convention imposing new and perhaps more onerous obligations on the country and incorporate that agreement into an order without any opportunity for it to be discussed in the House. The fact that the Minister gives an assurance that he will not do it is not sufficient, because this legislation will exist long after the Minister has either ceased to hold the office he has or has moved to a more august one. With all due respect to the Minister an assurance from him is of no more value than the length of time he holds office. The amendment I am proposing is reasonable and should have been accepted by him.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 27, line 15, after "decision." to insert "The period aforesaid shall be the period of sixty days commencing on the date of the publication of the notice aforesaid.".
I should like to avail of this opportunity to thank the Minister for the way in which he has approached the various amendments and suggestions made from this side of the House during Committee Stage. While I regret that he did not accept some of our points of view he accepted a great number of them. In the course of Report Stage he introduced amendments to give effect in many cases to suggestions we had made on Committee Stage. That is very reasonable and to his credit. I thank the Minister for the courtesy and responsibility he has shown in dealing with the legislation.
I should like to express my appreciation of the positive and helpful approach of the Opposition and particularly of Deputy Bruton who carried most of the debate for the Opposition. Although this is reasonably complex legislation, the House dealt with it most impressively and I express my appreciation to all concerned.