I suggest that, as the Minister for Finance is not present, my colleague, Deputy Reynolds, who is very familiar with this subject, should move to the Minister's side of the House and take over his role.
Valuation Bill, 1986: Committee Stage (Resumed).
SECTION 3.
It may not be too long before he is there.
It was agreed on 11 December that the following amendments be taken together: Nos. b1, 1, 2, a2.a and 4 as numbered on the list of amendments then before the House. Since then further amendments have been received. Amendments have been re-numbered as they appear on the up-to-date list that was circulated today. They are now numbered as follows: b1, 3, 6, 8, 9 and 11. It is proposed also, by agreement, to include in this group amendment No. 7 which was tabled recently by the Minister. If amendment No. 6 is agreed to, amendment No. 8 cannot be moved and if amendment No. 9 is voted on, amendment No. 11 cannot be moved.
Debate resumed on amendment No. b1:
In page 2, subsection (1), in the Schedule, to delete the reference number "5." in column (1) and all words from and including "Plant falling" down to and including "Valuation Act, 1985)." in column 2.
—(Deputy O'Kennedy.)
On 11 December when we last discussed this Bill, I was making the point forcibly about the genuine fears among the manufacturing, industrial and commercial sectors regarding the section to which the amendment relates. I was supported in my view by Deputy O'Kennedy. On that occasion I made a few straightforward points which were not accepted by the Minister. I said that the whole processing industry, especially in the co-op area, as well as many other types of industry, would be under severe pressure if the Bill were to go through as introduced. I said then, as I had said in July, that I could not understand the attitude of the Minister to the Bill and to the effects it would have on our whole industrial base. He seemed then to disregard the points made. It was difficult to understand the advice he had been given in relation to the damage that I believed genuinely would be caused if the Bill were to be enacted as it was then. We shall not talk for the moment about the imposition of rates on the industrial and commercial sector, the only sector paying rates. I could not understand the introduction, by a backdoor method, of a huge imposition of further rates on this sector which is the productive base of the economy.
Last July the Minister would not accept that there was a fundamental change being effected by way of the Valuation Bill. He told us that the Bill would not have the effect we were claiming it would have. He told us we were being alarmist and opportunist. However, from what has transpired in the meantime it appears that we did impress the Minister and made him aware of the very serious view that was being expressed in the industrial and commercial sector about the damaging effects the Bill would have. I am glad that finally the Minister has accepted our point of view in the form of the two amendments he is putting before us today. Those amendments by and large meet the points we were making on those earlier occasions. We were told then by the Minister that our whole industrial base was expanding and not contracting as claimed by us. So far as the Minister was concerned everything we were saying was inaccurate.
Only yesterday, in reply to a question I tabled to the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism the following stark facts were revealed: in 1983 there were 369 factory closures, the corresponding number in 1984 was 372, and in 1985, 410. The Minister told me that those figures came from the IDA but that no official statistics are available. I asked him also about the total number of liquidations and receiverships that were notified to the Registrar of Companies during those three years. The figures in respect of liquidations were 522 in 1983, 584 in 1984 and 632 in 1985. The figures in respect of receiverships were, 136 in 1983, 584 in 1984 and 632 in 1985. The figures in respect of receiverships were, 136 in 1983, 112 in 1984 and 165 in 1985. These figures do not include factories that were not grant aided by the IDA so we do not have figures for the many small independent factories that have gone to the wall. We only hear about the large concerns. However, the stark fact is that in the three years in question there were 1,151 closures that we know of, there were 1,738 liquidations and 413 receiverships. Is that not a damning indictment of the financial policies being pursued by the Government and of the Minister in what he tried to misrepresent here both in July and in December last when he said that our industrial base was expanding? Clearly that was not the case.
However, I am glad commonsense has prevailed and that the Minister has acceded to our request to introduce sensible and pragmatic amendments on Committee Stage. We welcome the concession on the part of the Minister to this side of the House in that respect. We recognise that there may have been a little more time required than was envisaged at the beginning by the Minister in realising the difficulties that would have arisen in the event of his proceeding with the legislation as introduced. We shall never know why the Minister was not prepared on these earlier occasions to accept the points we were making, but we are grateful for his conversion on the road to Damascus and for taking steps that will mean there will not be an acceleration of the fears we expressed in relation to another contractor of our industrial and commercial base which is the only base producing the wealth that sustains our economy and employment.
On both those other occasions we reminded the Minister that if he were prepared to concede on the points we were making, the Bill could be finalised in a matter of hours. We are grateful to him for having acceded to our request.
I, too, welcome the belated but very welcome acceptance of our position as incorporated in the ministerial amendments which are in almost precisely the same terms as those we put before the House on the last occasion. In relation to accepting amendments a Minister is always at risk of being criticised one way or the other but I should like to put the record straight. We on this side of the House battled at length in July 1985 to have included a more precise definition of plant and of the limitation of the extent of the valuation base, to have these so clearly defined as to exclude certain processes.
Those who were in the House then and those who were in the Gallery would have been clearly conscious of our arguing at great length that if the Minister acknowledged that, for instance, plant which is moved electrically as well as mechanically should be excluded from the valuation base, we would have been happy. But no such reassurance was forthcoming. When we returned to the subject in December last, the Minister's intention was signalled to us beforehand. I am convinced that was a genuine and honest attempt to give effect to the suggestions we had made, but when we indicated to him that the amendments in his name would not have that effect we had to prolong the debate as Deputy Reynolds has indicated. That prolongation has been worthwhile.
The Chair has announced that a series of amendments are to be taken together, among them amendment No. 8 in my name. In the amendment we try to exclude constructions which induce or impact upon a manufacturing process or actively participate in the manufacture of a product. I proposed that at length in December, having given advance notice in July but on that occasion the Minister could not see fit to accept our case. I am glad the Minister has now seen fit to acknowledge our case, as will be seen from amendment No. 7:
In page 4, in the matter contained between lines 15 and 16, after "current" in column (2) to insert the following:
including any such construction which are designed or used primarily for storage or containment (whether or not the purpose of such containment is to allow a natural or chemical process to take place), but excluding any such constructions which are designed or used primarily to induce a process of change in the substance contained or transmitted.
That is the Minister's amendment and I am glad to see that he is now prepared to accept our amendment, which is only slightly different from his. I welcome the fact that the prolonged debate in December proved to be worthwhile. The Minister made the case that the practice has been to exclude these matters. All we were concerned about was the terms of the legislation, not the practice. Now we are happy.
An Opposition can do much, and I hope we will have the same degree of success with the Finance Bill when it comes before us soon. I hope the Minister will then listen, as he has done in this case, to the proposals we will make. I welcome the fact that the processes which were outside the traditional base of valuation will now be outside the base with statutory guarantee. This is a matter of great reassurance to the whole industrial sector, particularly the indigenous domestic industries which have been under very serious pressure in the past three years. An extension of the valuation base when the rate of impact is already considerable would have been disastrous.
I do not intend to prolong the debate, but I should point out to Deputy O'Kennedy and Deputy Reynolds that the pat they are giving themselves on the back should not be too hearty. From the beginning it was perfectly clear from the Bill what the intention was. I pointed out on a previous occasion that a detailed examination of six industrial plants, chosen by a major industrial interest group, demonstrated on the ground that the Bill would do what I said it would when I introduced it in the House. That has not been altered in any way by the amendments which the Deputies are prepared to accept and which have been rendered in a more parliamentary and elegant formulation. We could have decided this last July. In December the Deputies seemed to have some difficulty in accepting the objective demonstration of the effects of the Bill.
Because we are now making progress, I will issue an invitation to Deputy O'Kennedy and Deputy Reynolds to join me in the Members' Bar for a drink after our discussion here, during the course of which I will expand a little on the reasons why I was not going to prolong this debate.
It is a pity to interrupt this cosy mutual exchange of pleasantries being passed from one side to the other. This amendment appears designed to be a further assistance to manufacturing companies in Ireland and to assist them and relieve them of the burden of paying what might be an appropriate rate to the local authorities from whom they draw their services, assistance and so on. I would have thought that the manufacturing institutions were already well mollycoddled and catered for as a privileged body from the tax point of view. It seems to me that if they paid their rates they would have a credit against income tax they might be liable for, if they are paying any income tax. Those manufacturing companies come in here and use the facilities and grants awarded to them and it might be better if they paid reasonable rate contributions to the local authorities and retained some of their profits in the country as a small recompense for all the facilities given to them from the Central Fund and from local funds, rather than contributing to the black hole by repatriating their profits.
Does the Deputy know what profits they had last year? It was 1 per cent gross on turnover.
The Deputy was talking about the black hole and the repatriation of funds. The benefits from this Bill will accrue to foreign companies who come in here and avail of advances and grants and repatriate their profits in substantial amounts. We have been talking about quite major companies coming in here, getting all these advantages from the IDA, getting the facilities of roads, sewers, lighting, etc., all paid for by the local authorities. Would it be the end of the world if they put back, through reasonable rate payments, some of the advantages they have been given?
We are on Committee Stage, not Second Stage.
I am talking about a practice which is directly relevant to this amendment. I am talking about the cosy arrangement in ease of manufacturing companies who should have a reasonable input into local authorities. We see the pressure being brought on local authorities by the CII and others so that those people would pay less in rates. It is not necessary to clap oneself on the back for these amendments. Would a plant involved in providing central heating for the establishment form part of this exclusion in the Minister's amendment?
The last contribution reminds me of a barrister picking up a brief on the way into the Four Courts and looking at a few headings on the way in. It is quite clear that Deputy Taylor has not acquainted himself with life in the Irish economy, when he makes some of the silly unsubstantiated statements he has made here today.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy was not even here at the start but what we said was that there were 1,738 liquidations in the past three years, 413 companies were put into receivership and according to the IDA alone 1,151 companies closed their doors, during the period when this Government were in office. I do not know what sort of economy the Deputy thinks we are living in when he tries to make a case like the one put forward. In relation to the profits the Deputy thinks are supposed to be made in this country I would ask the Deputy to go back and look at the facts, the fact that there is a 1 per cent gross return on sales in native manufacturing Irish industry.
How is it that the black hole is as massive as it is?
The black hole has not arisen because of native Irish industry. If the Deputy wants to talk about two separate sectors of industry, we will do that. If this economy were managed in the manner in which it should be managed, half of the black hole would disappear. If native industry got half a chance to pick up the 72 per cent of services and goods to the large multinational industries, half the black hole would disappear.
(Interruptions.)
The taxation system being employed here——
The Deputy is giving the benefit to all sides.
(Interruptions.)
If the Deputy thinks he can come in here from a legal practice and throw out loose statements and get away with it, the Deputy will not get away with it. If the party the Deputy represents have any interest in creating jobs or in sustaining productive employment, the Deputy is a disgrace to that party.
(Interruptions.)
The sooner the Deputy wakes up and faces reality, the better. Somebody has to produce the goods and services to be sold either at home or abroad to preserve employment and to try to contribute to an overburdened tax base. If the Deputy has the answer to that, we will be glad to hear it, but the Deputy should not come in with nonsensical statements representing an ideology that is being found to be wanting in every part of the world. If that is the sort of ideology the Deputy believes the Irish people want, he should test it in an election. The recent opinion polls should have given the Deputy his answer.
The existing ideology is not getting the Fianna Fáil Party very far. The ideology we have had for decades is not producing wonderful results.
(Interruptions.)
It produced the results until you taxed it out of existence.
Deputies, please.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Reynolds resorts to personal abuse and he is not directing himself to the substance of the thing——
I am part of it. I know the realities of life.
The Deputy accuses me of coming in here from a legal practice and that is true, but Deputy O'Kennedy also comes from a legal practice and I would not say that that in any way——
(Interruptions.)
Deputies, please.
I will deal with the main point. The crucial point is that the black hole is there——
(Interruptions.)
Do not tell me that the firms that have gone into liquidation have gone into liquidation because they are paying a contribution in rates. I know that Fianna Fáil do not like rates as they abolished them.
You started it with the first 25 per cent off. Get your facts right.
Fianna Fáil abolished rates on residential property. They are great at abolishing.
(Interruptions.)
Would Deputies stay with the amendment, please?
Fianna Fáil would abolish every tax under the sun.
(Interruptions.)
While Fianna Fáil are in Opposition or running an election campaign they are abolishing all the taxes.
You made a damn bad job of it, for the past three years.
Deputies, please.
When it comes to the responsibility of providing a reasonable rate for the very hard pressed taxpayer of which they talk, that is the reason——
(Interruptions.)
Deputy, please.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
I would not be a hypocrite like you.
We need to achieve some reasonable recompense in rates from those who are contributing to the black hole and draining the profits out of the country. That is the point I am making. It is a fair point and Deputies opposite know it.
(Interruptions.)
Order please, order.
To get this back on the rails, the amendments which we put down which are now accepted by the Minister — six months later he has put down the same form of amendments — were said to have been agreed in a rather cosy fashion by Deputy Taylor after his belated entrance here. The case we argued 12 months ago has happily been accepted and Deputy Taylor came in at that point apparently to make a major point in terms of tax equity on the cosy agreement we had reached, without addressing himself to the terms of it. It appears that there is not only a division between both sides of the Government at the moment but that there is a major division emerging which will have very serious consequences——
You have divisions as well.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Taylor speaks for a party——
(Interruptions.)
——who have, we are told, 4 per cent of the popular vote.
On a point of order——
(Interruptions.)
This is a valuation Bill, not an electoral amendment Bill.
I would remind Deputy Taylor before he again makes the kind of statements he has made regarding tax on businesses generally, that every worker will tell one these days that the thing most needed now is investment and the thing we need to promote most is a climate for investment and the thing we need to encourage is enterprise.
Who said anything about that?
The Deputy can use all the crazy ideologies he likes and engage in a comfortable analysis of the various approaches to managing an economy but, if at the end of the day, the workers find they have no work because the penalty imposed on those who create the work has been too heavy, the workers recognise that they are going nowhere. That is evident in the fact that the support for the party who claim to be the Labour Party is down to 4 per cent. If they slip one more percentage they will be within a margin of disappearance. We are told there is a 3 per cent plus or minus accuracy ratio.
(Interruptions.)
If the Labour Party slip one more per cent they may find that what they claim to represent in their party is zero rated. Having listened to the Deputy's intervention without listening to what we are discussing——
I heard every word of what the House was discussing.
——I am not too surprised. If the Deputy heard every word of it, it was not evident. We are saying that processes and processing of a kind that hitherto has not been included on a statutory base should be specifically excluded. With the development of processing of a variety of plant and equipment used for that purpose, we are saying it should now clearly be excluded in this. That is all that was achieved before the Deputy came in. It would ensure that business in the future which would provide the jobs for the people about whom we are all concerned would not be unduly penalised. The Deputy chose to come in and use that as a means of attacking businesses for not making their contributions to local authorities.
The Deputy is getting carried away.
I am not. I will leave it to the record to show who was carried away.
We are discussing amendments bl, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11. I intend to support No. 7 but not the others——
(Interruptions.)
Could I also ask Deputies, if I may do so without impertinence, to treat this as a Committee Stage debate because I have had it up to here with the kind of waffle which has come from the Opposition——
(Interruptions.)
It is not doing our job properly to get involved in that sort of thing——
The Minister should be worrying about the Government side.
On the specific question raised by Deputy Taylor, a central heating plant is part of valuation base and is not machinery in the sense of machinery as excluded hitherto on both the base and the practice and henceforward both on the base and on the practice.
I am appalled at Deputy Taylor's remarks because he should be interested in job creation instead of knocking industry and talking about the taxes which should be imposed on it. This amendment is very important to my county because we have very large dairying and brewing industries. We also have chemicals, the co-operative movement, milling and feedstuffs industries. We were also affected by the budget——
Please stick to the amendment.
Other Deputies rambled and you did not stop them.
You are rambling to Cork.
Will a tank with a fitted agitator for keeping milk cool be exempt?
That is machinery and will be exempt.
Will a provender mill, which is mobile within the structure, be exempted?
That is also classed as machinery and will be exempted.
The Minister has at last come around to the views expressed here on the night of 11 December——
No. The Opposition have finally woken up to what is in the Bill.
The Minister has amended the Bill to meet our requirements and he has finally realised the importance of the industries to which I referred. Will pipelines which were lagged be exempt? If there is not a climate in which industry can expand and develop, it is equivalent to imposing a back door method of taxation which is what will happen if this Bill goes through because I am not too happy with the Minister's amendments. There will be further job losses and an erosion of our industrial base, especially in Cork.
I am not making the point that reasonable encouragement should not be given to the manufacturing industry. That is basic and nobody could find fault with it, but that does not mean one has to go overboard and say that manufacturing firms should not make a reasonable contribution to the rates of the local authorities where their premises are situated.
Nobody is saying that.
A firm which is reasonably well run and paying rates to the local authorities will not be broken by that. Many of these firms have done very well from the public purse.
The private industry are making contributions to rates also.
We are dealing with processing and equipment related to it and whether they are included for valuation purposes. The Minister accepted the amendment and we were happy with that. Deputy Taylor continues to make a case on the basis that this particular exclusion, which is essential, is a good reason for arguing about whether manufacturing industry generally pay their proper share in rates. That is outside the scope of these amendments. If you want to have a full argument as to where the source of revenue for local authorities comes from, tell us we can do so and we will launch into it.
We will confine discussion to the amendments.
The point I was making is perfectly in order within the terms of amendment No. 7 which purports to provide illogical exclusions from the general liability of manufacturing premises and plant to pay rates to the local authority in whose area their premises are situated. Could the Minister explain the logical position — if indeed there is one — under which if one takes the position that the manufacturing industry is to be further mollycoddled and privileged above any other service industry——
God Almighty.
Why should the manufacturing industry be in a privileged position over any other service industry which also creates and provides employment? They already have an advantage in regard to income tax and are now apparently to be helped further. What is the basis for picking out this industry? Why not go the whole hog? When the goods are manufactured and stored in containers, they are subject to rates but the machine which produces them is not. Could the Minister explain the logic of this artificial, nice distinction? The proper course would be to pay rates in the normal way to the local authorities. Storage capacity is just as important as machinery. After all, if they did not have storage space they could not manufacture.
The intent of the Bill, contrary to what Deputy Taylor seems to have concluded, is to put beyond doubt the valuation base we have had up to now and to protect it. Without straying too far from the terms of the discussion, I am sure Deputy O'Keeffe is perfectly aware of some of the dangers in this regard for one particular local authority.
Amendment No. 7, which I think is the one Deputy Taylor is more concerned about, does not provide for any new exclusions from the valuation base. This amendment makes even clearer — although I have my own feelings as to the necessity for that clarification — the distinction that has always existed in our valuation base between plant on the one hand, as further defined in this Bill, and machinery on the other. The base of our system up to now has always been that plant, as defined for the purposes of the Valuation Acts, is that part which attracts a liability to rates. Machinery does not attract a liability to rates. This Bill is intended to put a number of matters beyond doubt to avoid a situation which has arisen on a number of occasions in the past where interpretations have been given to the term "plant" which have brought within the scope of an exclusion items which were originally intended to be part of the valuation base. The effect of this Bill is to preserve the valuation base, not reduce it. That is essentially the point which I think Deputy Taylor was worried about.
I do not intend to go into the judgment of a reasonable contribution because that is not my concern at the moment. My concern is to put beyond doubt the base upon which the contribution, whether it is regarded as reasonable, unreasonable, excessive or exiguous, can be based so that we are not in any doubt as to where we start from when we define the base upon which the contribution is made.
With respect to the question Deputy O'Keeffe asked, again I point out that in the Bill and in my amendments we have provided beyond any shadow of a doubt the basis for the distinctions that are made between plant and machinery. A pipe attached to a piece of plant is valued with the plant; a pipe attached to a piece of machinery, which is a part of a piece of machinery or which links one piece of machinery to another, is machinery and therefore is not subject to rates.
The Minister may not be able to answer this question offhand, but would it be possible to give an estimate of what the loss of revenue to the local authorities would be arising from the exclusion in his amendment?
I can tell the Deputy immediately what the loss of revenue to local authorities will be from that exclusion — it will be nil because what I am doing is putting beyond doubt the distinction which has always been operated between plant which is rateable and machinery which is not.
Will a steam pipe going from a boiler to the factory for heating purposes be rateable or will it be exempt? In other words will the pipe attached to a boiler which generates steam to service a factory or premises by providing heat carry a valuation?
Subject to correction and perhaps after further reflection, a boiler which is part of a heating system is plant and therefore rates as plant; the pipe which brings the steam from the plant to the factory is part of the plant and is therefore rated, as has been the practice up to now.
Deputy Taylor spoke about mollycoddling Irish industries. I resent that remark and it should have been withdrawn. The withdrawal of section 84 will cost Irish industries an extra £10 million——
That is not relevant here.
It is no harm reminding Deputy Taylor of that. He comes here wanting jobs but this Government are killing every incentive. This Deputy should not use the word "mollycoddle".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, lines 1 to 4, to delete subsection (2).
Section 3 reads:
(2) The Minister may by order amend the Schedule to the Act of 1852 (inserted by this Act), and may by such an order add to that Schedule a category of fixed property specified in the order, or vary the description of any such category.
(3) The Minister may by order amend or revoke an order under this section.
Since the amendments which have been accepted clear the ground to a very considerable extent, I am not as concerned about this amendment as I was. There is another reason for our stand. The Minister will recall that on the last occasion I asked why there should be such a provision which would mean that the Minister could come here and make an order which would extend the category of, say, rateable properties. I made that point because of the position as it was then. I recognise that that particular subsection cannot be interpreted as if there was absolute freedom for any Minister to add categories which are not there. The only basis on which any additions can be made will be within the base of the rateable hereditaments as defined in the Acts. On the basis that the base of the hereditaments so rateable is clarified to our satisfaction, I am not pressing this amendment because I do not believe the legislation would suffer by the inclusion of the section.
I confirm Deputy O'Kennedy's belief that this is not to confer an absolute discretion of any kind. What is involved in subsection (2) is an addition to the Schedule of a category of fixed property. Deputy O'Kennedy will agree that is is conceivable that at some time in the future it may be necessary to add a category of fixed property not up to now envisaged.
Or even a description, where there is confusion.
Of course, and confusion is something we all want to avoid. I want to draw the attention of the House to the provisions of subsections (3) and (4), in particular subsection (4) where we provide that "Whenever an order is proposed to be made under this section, a draft of the order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House". That is in distinction to the other procedure under which orders may be brought in here are given affect unless annulled within 21 sitting days.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 3 agreed to.
Sections 4 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, lines 46 to 48, to delete paragraph (b).
In view of another amendment which the Minister has accepted I will not press my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Amendment No. 4 is in the name of the Minister. Amendment No. 5 is an alternative. Therefore, if amendment No. 4 is agreed, amendment No. 5 may not be moved.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 4, subsection (3), line 11, after "mechanically" to insert "or electrically".
The Minister has accepted the points we made. On the last occasion we had an amendment to insert after the word "container" the words "nor any part of any plant which is activated electrically". Section 7 (3) states:
In valuing plant referred to in subsection (2) of this section, the Commissioner of Valuation shall not take into consideration a part of any plant which moves (or is moved) mechanically,...
In the debate on the previous occasion we pointed out it was not sensible to exclude plant that is moved electrically from plant that is moved mechanically. The Minister may suggest that plant moved mechanically includes plant moved electrically but we were concerned to ensure that that specific and precise qualification be inserted and the Minister has done that. The consequence of this will be very reassuring. As we said on the last occasion, it may not be the intention of the Minister or of his successor——
The Deputy need not worry.
After what I heard from Deputy Taylor today I think that perhaps we may have to get ready within the next few weeks.
Is the Minister not concerned what happens to the third smallest party, according to the polls?
We can discuss the matter on the Finance Bill next year.
The margin of error will have dealt with one of the associates of the Minister's party and his party will be in trouble. It is now stated very specifically that plant moved electrically is not included in the valuation base and the consumer, whether it be the ESB or Bord Telecom, will be greatly reassured. I acknowledge it has not been the practice to include the plant referred to but what we have done in this Bill has been worthwhile. In future no Minister, not even an enlightened Fianna Fáil Minister, will attempt to include that kind of electrically activated plant. We are satisfied.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 4, in the matter contained between lines 15 and 16, after "current" in column (2) to insert the following:
", including any such constructions which are designed or used primarily for storage or containment (whether or not the purpose of such containment is to allow a natural or a chemical process to take place), but excluding any such constructions which are designed or used primarily to induce a process of change in the substance contained or transmitted".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 8 to 11, inclusive, not moved.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.