The House will appreciate the speed at which the officials are obliged to operate in regard to the preparation of amendments and so on. I have been asked to draw your attention to line two of amendment No. 1. The indefinite article should be replaced by the definite article so that "made by a person" now reads "made by the person".
Private Members' Business. - Central Bank Bill, 1988: Report and Final Stages.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 11, line 26, after "Bank" to insert "and a statement made by the person conducting such prosecution that the prosecution has been commenced with the authority of the Bank shall be sufficient evidence that the prosecution was so commenced".
This amendment was proposed by Deputy McDowell on Committee Stage I promised to give it further thought. I have consulted the Attorney General's office and I now believe it desirable to take this amendment on board. The amendment does away with any doubt about the necessity for the provision of documentary or other evidence for which the Central Bank has decided to institute a prosecution.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 is consequential on amendment No. 3. Therefore, both amendments may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 12, line 17, to delete "The Minister" and substitute "Subject to subsection (3), the Minister".
During the Committee Stage debate I agreed to consider whether some sort of control be put on the new regulations made by the Minister specifying the fees to be paid to the Central Bank in respect of supervision. This amendment will ensure that those on whom the fee is to be imposed will be notified in advance of the proposed fee. They will also have a statutory right to make representations regarding that fee and to have those representations taken into consideration before the regulations are made. I think this gets over the fears that the new fees might be introduced without consultation and on an arbitrary or sudden basis.
Amendment No. 2 is a related drafting change necessitated by amendment No. 3.
(Limerick East): I thank the Minister for agreeing to bring forward this regulation. I agree with both amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 12, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
"(3) Where the Minister proposes to prescribe a fee under subsection (1), he shall—
(a) notify the persons of the class to which the proposed fee relates of that proposed fee, and
(b) only prescribe the proposed fee or a lesser fee after he has considered any representations made to him within such period, being not less than two months after the date the notification was sent by him to each person concerned, as he shall specify in the notification.".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 54, lines 8 to 11, to delete ", or an associated enterprise (within the meaning of section 17 of the Act of 1971 (inserted by section 36 of this Act), other than subparagraph (v))".
This amendment proposed to delete the reference to associated enterprise in section 71 (b) and to insert a new provision as subsection (2) of the section to allow the Central Bank to exempt certain share acquisitions by licence holders in other companies.
Section 71 (b) requires a licence holder who proposes to acquire a 10 per cent or more holding in another company to notify the Central Bank and to secure the bank's approval. Section 71 (b) also applies this requirement to an associated enterprise of a licence holder. An associated enterprise means a parent, subsidiary, fellow subsidiary of a licence holder, or a company in which the licence holder owns 20 per cent or more of the shares. It has been put to me that applying the notification and approval provisions of Chapter VI to these associated enterprises is a very wide provision and could cause severe problems for the normal commercial operations of the banks in such areas as venture capital, investment management, share underwriting and nominee account companies carried on either by a bank itself or by an associated enterprise of the bank. I accept that these problems are created. Having examined the matter and looked at a number of possible formulations to minimise the commercial disruption, I have come to the view that the wisest course is to remove associated enterprises of licence holders from section 71.
However, it is still necessary to provide relief for licence holders themselves from the requirement to notify certain share acquisitions where clearly the licence holder is not making the acquisition as a business venture to secure control or influence of another company but merely as part of a licence holder's ordinary banking business. The cases I have in mind are underwriting of shares, shares held or acquired as security for loans and shares acquired by a licence holder as a nominee for another. I propose to provide a power for the Central Bank to exempt such transactions on conditions applied by the bank, if necessary. I think it is desirable that the bank should have a role to play to prevent any possible abuse of an exemption, rather than by excluding these transactions automatically from the Bill.
In making these changes I am responding to requests from Deputy Noonan and Deputy McDowell, the banks themselves and the Law Society. I ask the House to accept these amendments.
(Limerick East): I would like to thank the Minister for accepting the points put forward. Again, this matter was stressed by the Irish Bankers' Federation. I rely on the superior knowledge of the Minister's advisers that this amendment meets the point that was raised.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 54, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:
"(2) The Bank may, subject to such conditions as it sees fit, exempt an acquiring transaction, or any class of acquiring transaction, from the requirements of this Chapter where it is satisfied that—
(a) the acquiring transaction is being, or has been entered into, by a holder of a licence as part of the bona fide underwriting of a share issue, or
(b) the interest in shares is not being beneficially acquired by a holder of a licence or is being acquired only in the course of its normal business to secure the issue of a loan to be made by the holder to the undertaking or business concerned.".
Amendment agreed to.
I would like to draw your attention to the end of amendment No. 6 and the words, "the insolvency or default or any of those parties". This should read "the solvency or default of any of those parties".
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 60, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
"(2) The imposition of prudential, supervisory and reporting requirements and conditions by the Central Bank shall not constitute a warranty as to the solvency of entities covered by this section or entities forming part of groups covered by this section and the Bank shall not be liable in respect of any loss incurred through the insolvency or default or any of those parties.".
This amendment inserts a standard clause in section 92 limiting the liability of the Central Bank arising out of supervision of International Financial Services Centre companies. Similar provisions are to be found in section 101 (3) of this Bill in relation to the supervision of future exchanges and in section 110 (7) in relation to the supervision of moneybrokers. The Central Bank Act, 1971, has a corresponding provision for banks — section 9 (5) — in fact the approval given to International Financial Services Centre companies qualifying for a certificate under the Finance Act contains a disclaimer in similar terms to that proposed in this section. Thus we are giving no more than statutory effect to an existing procedure. This section should have been included at an earlier stage but did not come to notice in time.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 71, line 29, after "as soon" to insert "as".
This is a technical amendment to restore a word which was omitted in error. It has no substantial effect.
Amendment agreed to.
(Limerick East): I move amendment No 7a:
In page 74, line 42, before "to write" to insert "other than to facilitate a legitimate act of counting".
There is a fear in banking circles that the practice of putting a pencil or pen mark on the top note would be illegal under this Act and that what would be the normal procedure on the part of many cashiers when counting notes would now suddenly be an offence. If the Minister thinks my amendment does not meet the particular case, is there any other way in which the normal action of a cashier in counting notes would be exempt from the penalties of the section?
The same point as raised in the amendment by the Deputy opposite was made to me in representations from the banks which wished to mark notes in their counting operations. The section has been explained to the banks and they have accepted the situation. It is illegal to deface legal tender notes under section 123. Marking of notes by the bank makes the job of the Central Bank more difficult in preventing others from marking notes. There have been a number of complaints about the state of the notes in circulation and indeed such complaints were made in this House during the Finance Bill the problem of precedents arises. If bank tellers can mark notes in the counting process, so can shopkeepers, publicans and everybody else handling notes. The end result is more defaced notes circulating in public, thus reducing their attractiveness and status. The provisions in section 123 are re-enactments of sections in the Currency Act, 1927, which seems to have operated satisfactorily for 62 years. I hope the Deputy appreciates this point, as the banks do, when we explained it in its entirety to them.
(Limerick East): I accept the Minister's explanation and I withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
(Limerick East): I move amendment No. 7b:
In page 78, line 41, to delete "against" and substitute "with".
This is the result of another submission I have received and I would like to get the Minister's views on it.
This amendment is acceptable. It merely involves a drafting change.
Amendment agreed to.
In amendment No. 8, "legal proceedings" should read "legal proceeding".
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 79, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:
"(b) by the deletion in section 6 after ‘legal proceedings' of the words ‘to which the bank is not a party',
by the insertion of the following section after section 7:
7A. If, on an application made by a member of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of Superintendent, a court or a judge is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing—
(a) that an indictable offence has been committed; and
(b) that there is material in the possession of a bank specified in the application which is likely to be of substantial value (whether by itself or together with other material) to the investigation of the offence;
a court or judge may make an order that the applicant or another member of the Garda Síochána designated by him be at liberty to inspect and take copies of any entries in a banker's book for the purposes of investigation of the offence.'.".
These amendments to the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1879, arise from points raised on Second and Committee Stages. The new sub-paragraph (b) amends sections 6 of the 1879 Act to allow extracts of bankers' books, instead of originals, to be used in court proceedings whether or not a bank is a party to the proceedings. The present section only allows this where the bank is not a party, but in practice I am told the courts have facilitated the banks in either case.
Sub-paragraph (c) is an amendment to section 7 of the 1879 Act. Section 7 of that Act allows any party to a legal proceeding to apply to the court to inspect and take copies from bankers' books for the purposes of the proceeding. The DPP has drawn attention to the fact that in criminal cases he would wish to be able to apply for such an order before legal proceedings were commenced in order to obtain the requisite evidence to take proceedings. I believe Deputy McDowell may have had this in mind in his comments on Second Stage. This issue has also been examined in the UK in the recent report of the Official Review Committee on Banking Services: Law and Practice. That committee saw merit in a proposal such as that under consideration here.
Sub-paragraph (c) is carefully drafted to apply only to criminal cases where the use of the power would aid in pursuing criminal proceedings. A senior Garda officer must make the application. The court must be satisfied that the material sought is of substantial relevance and that an indictable offence has been committed. I believe that with these safeguards the amendment should be acceptable to the banks. It is important to preserve bank confidentially but the needs of the State in prosecuting serious crime must also be taken into account. Section 7 of the 1879 Act already allows for inspection of bankers' books in legal proceedings.
(Limerick East): This is a fairly strong power to vest in the first instance in the Garda Síochána and subsequently in the courts. It certainly has implications for the confidentiality of banking and of records kept by the banks. The particular trigger mechanism whereby the courts would consider an application where a member of the Garda Síochána, not below the rank of superintendent, has reasonable grounds for believing certain facts is the trigger mechanism which was introduced to Irish law originally in the Offences Against the State Act. Under that Act if a member of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of chief superintendent is of the opinion that certain members are members of an illegal organisation, they can be charged with the offence and the sworn word of the officer in court can be taken as evidence. It seems to be a borrow from legislation which, even though it is part of the normal corpus of our law now, is still a response to emergency-type cases and it does not seem to be the way to deal with the banking institutions. I am uneasy about the procedure.
The term "reasonable grounds for believing" is no real inhibition on a superintendent, because if a superintendent says he has reasonable grounds for believing, there is no way the court can look behind that and there is no provision in the amendment stating that he would have to bring forward any kind of evidence to support the reasonableness of his grounds for believing. Effectively, what we are saying is that the word of a superintendent would allow the court to grant an application whereby other members of the Garda Síochána, down to the most recent recruit out of Temple-more, would be empowered to inspect and take copies of bank records. That is a fairly sweeping power. On the face of it, there are a number of safeguards implicit in the section but I do not think they are safeguards at all. Once the superintendent acts, it seems the court has no choice but to grant the application. Once the application is granted, any other garda designated by the superintendent would then be given the right to check books and take copies.
I have the greatest respect for the professionalism of the Garda Síochána. I think any member of the Garda Síochána of the rank of superintendent will be reasonable in the exercise of his functions but this is still a very strong power to invest in one man, with no obligation to bring forward any further evidence. I suppose it is similar in a way to the issuing of a warrant but it seems to be less rigorous than, for example, the procedure that would have to be gone through if the Garda Síochána wanted a warrant to search a premises. I have no doubt but that this amendment will be used rarely.
I also believe there must be some mechanism under law to collect evidence in cases of fraud but I would have two fears: one is that people outside the jurisdiction who would not understand the professionalism of the Garda Síochána would have visions of the confidentiality of banking being broken down by gardaí intruding into the private affairs of companies and individuals; and, secondly, I would be concerned that in certain circumstances where certain crimes were proving very difficult to resolve, there might be a temptation on behalf of the Garda Síochána to go on fishing expeditions through the account books of banks. I hope I am not making a mountain out of a molehill but this measure is introduced at a late enough stage in the Bill and it seems to be the type of section with which we would be more familiar in other areas of criminal law than in the prevention of the type of activity we are talking about here.
I understand the Deputy's fears in this regard. However, as I have said, we have had extensive discussions with the banks and they accept that in the public interest a change might be made, provided the safeguards we are talking about here are included. As I have already said, section 7 of the 1879 Act already allows for inspection of bankers' books in legal proceedings.
(Limerick East): What is the trigger mechanism and the procedure under that Act?
An application to the court by the party to the proceedings, and the courts decide. We are only extending this power in certain, clearly defined cases of criminal investigations subject to particular safeguards. The word of a superintendent will not be accepted in court in this regard because the court has to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds. The word of the superintendent is not enough. It only applies where the prosecution can show that an indictable criminal offence has been committed. It is a very tightly drawn section in that regard. We are not allowing any so-called fishing expeditions in civil cases or anything like that, about which the Deputy expressed fears. We are not allowing for the type of expedition whereby one can get an order to see what one can dig up just to sustain an action. If we were, I could understand the fears expressed by the Deputy. It is as tightly drawn a section as possible and we are very careful of the confidentiality aspect. The Deputy will appreciate, a worry was expressed only last weekend by ECOFIN about the movement of funds arising out of criminal activities around the world and they said they were wrestling with their own laws to make sure they can deal with this.
The safeguard is there to avoid any such fishing expeditions and I am sure the Deputy would agree that the court takes a very jaundiced view of anybody trying to use a section like that to produce evidence to prove a case at a later date. We gave this a great deal of thought. We had a discussion with the banks and we did not do this lightly.
(Limerick East): I am still unhappy about it. As it is drafted, a court does not have to have any modicum of evidence before it or a judge does not have to have any evidence at all. The procedure is that if a superintendent in the Garda Síochána is satisfied or has reasonable grounds for believing certain things, he goes into the court and tells the judge he has reasonable grounds, and then the judge has reasonable grounds because the superintendent told him. If it was drafted so that both the superintendent and the judge had to be satisfied, it would be a safeguard. The way it is drafted there are alternatives, it says “Superintendent, a court or a judge”, not “and a judge” but “or a judge”, and a judge has no grounds for believing the superintendent has not reasonable grounds once he says it. Consequently, he must accept that the superintendent had reasonable grounds and he must give the order.
What the Minister described as safeguards are not safeguards at all; they are window dressing. If the banks are happy with this they are happy, but I am not happy with it. I do not think there are any safeguards in that section but it is presented to appear as if there were. The safeguard is the professionalism of the superintendent or any officer of higher rank, which is a subjective safeguard. There is no objective safeguard in the section.
The Minister cited an Act which already gave the right to inspect books and records in banks, but it seems the procedure is there that a party to the action would have to go before the court and give grounds for his request to inspect books. I am not familiar with the Act, but I would be surprised if that is not the procedure — that a party to the action would have to go into court and have to give grounds. Certainly if, in the opinion of the party to the action, there was something hooky in the books he would not be given access to them purely on his opinion. In the final analysis a superintendent of the Garda Síochána having reasonable grounds for anything, ultimately means it is the opinion of a chief superintendent that there is something wrong.
Frequently in such cases a superintendent, even if he has evidence, will not be able to present it in court because what we describe as "evidence" frequently comes to the Garda Síochána as intelligence information from informers. The Garda superintendent would not be in a position to reveal either the source or nature of the information. Consequently, all he can say is, "I believe such and such is true". There seems to be no procedure to negative the opinion of the Garda superintendent either. In the Offences Against the State Act, at least if your local chief superintendent decides you are a member of a subversive organisation, goes into court and swears you are, that is an offence under the law, but if you go into the box and swear you are not, under law your oath is as good as his and one cancels the other.
However, there is no procedure here for the bank, for example, or a third party to say they have reasonable grounds, because if there is nothing wrong with the books, one opinion or one piece of evidence under oath does not negative the other. If the banks are happy with this, they are happy with it, but I would like to point out that this procedure goes beyond what is used in the criminal courts under the Offences Against the State Act when the State seeks to convict people for membership of unlawful organisations. Even though the opinion of the superintendent under oath is taken as evidence, if that is contradicted by the word of the accused under oath then the case is dismissed.
I am not going to hold up the House any longer. I have made my point and if the banks are happy, they are happy.
In my leniency I thought Deputy Noonan was coming in to ask a second question which on Report Stage in itself indicated a second contribution. He has elaborated to the extent that the record will show that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was remiss in allowing a second contribution on Report Stage.
(Limerick East): It will appear that you will be the most tolerant man who ever canvassed a doorstep anywhere in the city of Dublin in the next three weeks.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 79, to delete lines 16 and 17.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 79, line 30, to delete "form," and substitute "form, and' ".
This is a technical drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 11. Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are consequential and amendment No. 14 is an alternative. Amendments Nos. 11, 12, 13 and 14 to be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 80, between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following:
"(c) by the insertion of the following section after section 45:
45A. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, presentment for payment of a cheque may be made by a banker (in this section referred to as the "collecting banker") on his own behalf or on behalf of a customer or any other person to the banker on whom it is drawn (in this section referred to as the "drawee banker") by notification to the drawee banker of the essential features of the cheque other than by its physical presentment, whether by the transmission of an electronic message or by any other means.
(2) A drawee banker to whom a cheque is presented by notification in the manner provided for in subsection (1) of this section may, before the close of business on the next business day following receipt of such notification, request the collecting banker that the cheque be physically presented to him.
(3) A request by the drawee banker for physical presentment of a cheque in accordance with subsection (2) of this section shall not constitute dishonour of the cheque by non-payment.
(4) A cheque paid upon presentment in the manner provided for in subsection (1) of this section shall be deemed to have been paid in the ordinary course of business.
(5) Where a cheque is presented for payment by notification in the manner provided for in subsection (1) of this section, nothing in this section shall be taken to relieve the collecting banker or the drawee banker from any liability in relation to the collection or payment of the cheque to which the collecting banker or the drawee banker would have been subject if the cheque had been physically presented for payment.
(6) This section shall apply to—
(a) any document issued by a customer of a banker which, though not a bill of exchange, is intended to enable a person to obtain payment from that banker of the sum mentioned in the document,
(b) any document issued by a public officer which is intended to enable a person to obtain payment from the Paymaster General of the sum mentioned in the document but is not a bill of exchange, and
(c) any draft payable on demand drawn by a banker upon himself, whether payable at the head office or some other office of his bank,
as it applies to cheques.
(7) In this section, unless the context otherwise requires—
"the essential features of the cheque" includes—
(a) the serial number of the cheque,
(b) the identification code number of the drawee banker,
(c) the account number of the drawer of the cheque,
(d) the amount of the cheque as entered by the drawer of the cheque,
and any such particulars as may be given in the form of letters or figures or any other code which as between bankers represent those particulars;
"physical presentment" means presentment of a cheque for payment in accordance with banking practice other than as provided for in subsection (1).'.".
This amendment deals with the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, and the presentation of cheques for payment. Section 45 of the 1882 Act provides, among other things, that a cheque must be duly presented for payment by being presented at the branch on which it is drawn. Unless the cheque is properly presented the issuer's account cannot be debited. This requires a collecting bank, where the cheque is cashed, to transmit each cheque physically to the branch on which it is drawn. The Irish Bankers' Federation have asked that this requirement should be removed and the 1882 Act amended to allow the transmission by electronic means of the "essential features" of the cheque that is the amount, code, serial number, account number of drawer, etc.
This request seems reasonable and the proposed new section 45A to be inserted in the 1882 Act is designed to meet it. "Cheque truncation", as the process is called, is already a feature of other EC states notably Belgium, Denmark and West Germany. In the UK the Banking Review Committee have recommended in favour of amending the 1882 Act to allow its introduction by UK banks. There are clear efficiency gains for Irish banks in such a system, which, given the position in the other member states of the EC, the banks should be allowed to make use of.
The truncation of cheques in this way does not affect the position of the customer in having his cheques returned, since for some years the banks have discontinued the return of cheques to customers as a matter of routine. The banks have undertaken, however, to preserve a customer's existing right to get a copy of any cheque for particular purposes, to prove payment where a dispute has arisen, and will continue the arrangements already in place with auditors, who may wish to obtain copies of originals for their particular professional requirements.
It is not seen as necessary to include provisions to cover these matters in the law. These are an aspect of bank/customer relationships. Moreover, the provisions already included in the Bill on the resolution of complaints by a banking ombudsman and on codes of practice to be laid down by the Central Bank can be used to bring about an equitable solution should difficulties arise.
The banks have indicated to me that they intend to apply cheque truncation initially to cheques under £500. I will expect any change in this position to be notified to, and discussed with, the Central Bank by the banks.
The provisions in each subsection are technical and are briefly as follows: Subsection (1) will allow a bank to present a cheque to the bank on which it drawn by notification of the essential features of the cheque rather than by physical presentment of the cheque itself. Subsection (2) allows the bank to whom the cheque is presented to look for and get the actual cheque if they request it within one day of notification, if the drawee bank requires this for any reason. Subsection (3) simply clarifies that the request for physical presentation does not constitute a dishonouring of the cheque. Subsection (4) is self-explanatory. Subsection (5) ensures that there is no change in liability in relation to collecting or paying the cheque on the part of the collecting or drawing bank by virtue of the use of electronic or other non-physical means provided for in this section. Subsection (6) applies the provision of the section to other instruments similar to cheques, but which are not bills of exchange, that is, (a) a document signed by a customer to require funds to be paid by the bank; (b) a document drawn on the Paymaster General and (c) any banker's draft drawn on the bank itself. Subsection (7) details the essential features of the cheque which must be given under subsection (1) and defines "physical presentment".
The text was drawn up in consultation with the banks and replaces an earlier proposal by them, which, I believe, formed the basis of Deputy McDowell's amendment on Committee Stage. I ask the House to accept the amendment.
Before Deputy Noonan intervenes let me direct your attention to the fact that in subsection (5), line 6, the word "liability" has been misspelt.
(Limerick East): My amendment No. 14 is an alternative. I appreciate that it is an inadequate alternative so I am withdrawing it and agreeing to the Minister's package of amendments. There was an omission from the Bill in that the truncation of cheques was not allowed. The clearing of cheques electronically is normal practice in may countries. Once safeguards are included to allow for the physical presentation or return of cheques subsequently for inspection purposes I have no objection. I understand this amendment has been drawn up in consultation with the banks. It meets the points I have raised in my amendment and in Deputy McDowell's amendment. I accept all the amendments proposed by the Minister.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 81, before line 1, to insert the following:
"133.—The Cheques Act, 1959, is hereby amended by the insertion of the following section after section 3:
‘3A. Where a cheque is paid upon presentment in the manner provided for in subsection (1) of section 45A (inserted by section [127] of the Central Bank Act, 1989) of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, the collecting banker (within the meaning of the said section 45A) shall, for the purpose of section 3 of this Act, be deemed to be the banker on whom the cheque is drawn.'.".
I draw it to the attention of the House that in page 4 the reference to section 127 of the Central Bank Act, 1989 in lines 2 and 3 of section 3A inserted by amendment No. 12 in the name of the Minister should be a reference to section 132.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 86, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
"139.—(1) A requirement imposed on any person by any enactment to retain for a specified period any voucher (by whatever name called) relating to an entry in the books of account of a holder of a licence under section 9 of the Central Bank Act, 1971 (as amended by this Act), in respect of any matter, transaction or account between such person and the holder of the licence shall be satisfied if such person or the holder of the licence retains a complete record of the information on such voucher by recording it on microfilm, magnetic tape or in any non-legible form (by use of electronics or otherwise) which is capable of being reproduced in a permanent legible form.
(2) Where information on a voucher to which subsection (1) relates is retained by the person concerned or by the holder of the licence under section 9 of the Central Bank Act, 1971 (as amended by this Act), by recording it in accordance with that subsection, then any duty imposed on that person or that holder by any enactment to allow inspection of, or furnish the original or a copy of, the voucher shall be treated as a like duty in the alternative to allow inspection of, or furnish a reproduction of, the information so retained, or of the relevant part of it, in a legible form.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
Bill reported with amendments and passed.