Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 16 May 1995

Vol. 452 No. 8

European Communities (Amendment) Bill, 1995: [ Seanad ] Second Stage (Resumed) and Subsequent Stages.

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Andrews

I have come from a meeting of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, of which I am a member, where we had an interesting discussion with our Danish counterparts. Denmark has had a European affairs committee for a considerable time. They have been in this country for two days and we acquired considerable information from them during our discussions in the committee. They indicated to us the work which they, as a European affairs committee, have been doing. I place on record my appreciation of the fact that we met with them and had an important discussion with them from the point of view of our neophyte committee.

As I understand it, under the Bill it is intended to transfer European secondary legislation from the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs to the Joint Committee on European Affairs. I indicated that it was not good to place the additional burden of this aspect of the workings of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs onto a new committee. The Joint Committee on European Affairs met with the Minister for Justice on 5 May. In anticipation of that meeting we received a wheelbarrow full of paper. That was not a good precedent. Together with what I would describe as the hospital pass from the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs to the Joint Committee on European Affairs it does not auger well for the efficient working of the Joint Committee on European Affairs. It may be an ill omen. I do not suggest that members of the committee are not able to handle secondary legislation, quite the contrary. However, we are dealing with the matter post hoc. Most of the legislation we received in committee has been in existence for some time. I would like to think the committee would anticipate legislation rather than receive it.

The committee has an important additional role to play. I pay tribute to the Chairman, Deputy Ferris, who has made a good effort to ensure its efficient running. Ireland will hold the European Presidency in the second half of next year and there is an upcoming governmental conference in which we will play an important role. I do not imagine that conference will begin and end with the Irish Presidency. It may begin before Ireland holds the Presidency and continue after that period.

During the past five years we have held the Presidency on three or four occasions and the Government Departments, more specifically the Department of Foreign Affairs, have shown tremendous leadership. They did the country proud. I wish the Government well, or whatever Government will be in power in the second half of 1996. It is good for national morale that we are seen to run the Presidency efficiently. We have a good record and the officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs have been second to none in that regard. They are of great assistance to whatever figurehead is in the Department. I suspect Deputy Spring may be the Minister in 1996. The Joint Committee on European Affairs will have an important and fundamental role to play together with the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs.

The committee will have other fundamental matters to consider such as the ongoing obscenity of the distribution of arms by certain countries within the EU. As a small country with a non-colonial past, we have a very important moral role to play in leading on issues such as the obscene ongoing arms race and the distribution of arms to counties in Africa and elsewhere. When one thinks of the conflicts of Rwanda, Zaire, Bosnia and Croatia, one must ask where the arms are coming from. In addition to what is expected from it in the context of this Bill, the European Affairs Committee must deal with these issues.

We must consider the possibility of the European Union being given a place within the Security Council of the United Nations. Given the way in which the world has developed in the past ten to 15 years, it is a nonsense that only a certain number of countries are members of the UN Security Council. For example, it is a nonsense to exclude China, which has a quarter of the world's population, from membership of the Security Council. Consideration must also be given to membership by India and the countries of the Far East. I would like to think that the European Affairs Committee will consider these matters and humanitarian aid, an issue which has not been fully developed within the European Union.

The committee must also consider enlargement of the European Union and membership by Eastern European counties such as Hungary and Poland. This is a very interesting and exciting time for the committee and I welcome the prospect of having an opportunity to discuss these issues. The Government has set up 18 committees and I am concerned that some of the more important of them might break down due to an inadequate backup service and a lack of official input. I am not in any way criticising the officials on the committees. On the contrary, we do not have sufficient officials to operate the committee system and if additional officials are required they should be appointed. In addition we should have adequate research and backup services.

Mr. Deasy

This extremely important Bill has very far reaching consequences. As I have repeatedly stated in the House, we do not fully appreciate the importance of the future of Europe. We in this House have been extraordinarily negligent in not planning our future in Europe or attempting to deduce what will happen in Europe at the end of the century and thereafter.

Ireland has been a member of the EU since 1973. Yesterday I read in the papers that this was the 25th anniversary of our participation in meaningful negotiations on becoming a member of the EU. While there have been considerable changes to date these have been gradual and anticipated and have not been unduly upsetting for us. However, by 1999 the changes in so far as Ireland's membership of the EU is concerned will be dramatic. We have not made any adequate preparation for these changes.

I welcome the establishment of the European Affairs Committee which hopefully will be relevant. If the committee is a talking shop then it will not serve any particular purpose. The time has come for definite questions to be asked about our future in Europe and for definite answers to be given. Initially we were the main beneficiaries from the European Union and it is extraordinary to think that the time when we will be net contributors is not that far away — it may be as soon as four or five years. People are not prepared for a financial or cultural shock of that magnitude. In future when people visit Hungary, Poland and Romania they will see signs which say that certain roads and bridges have been built with the aid of money from the European Union. Some of that money will have been provided by the Irish taxpayer. To date we have been recipients of this funding. We are moving from being huge net beneficiaries to being net contributors to the EU. To date no attempt has been made to indicate what our contribution will be and how it will vary as the countries from Central and Eastern Europe join the EU. The public is entitled to be informed about these matters. We should also inform school children, the people who will have to live with the decisions which will be made in the next four or five years, about the relevance of these decisions.

Having said that, I am not opposed to enlargement of the European Union; anyone who is opposed to it is guilty of selfishness. We have received much from the EU and we have been given the opportunity to compete with all the other economically strong countries in Western Europe. We have been given funding, markets and opportunities and if our house is not in order that is our fault. I wonder if we will be able to face up to the fact that we will not be net beneficiaries from the EU in four or five years time. Will we be able to take this on board or will it be too much for us to absorb? If we are not capable of facing up to this fact it will be because we were not informed in time and did not debate it in this House in good time. I have been asking for such a debate for the past three or four years and all I have heard from successive Ministers for Foreign Affairs is that we must do something about it. The formation of this committee would seem a good starting point. I hope the Minister for Foreign Affairs will attend all meetings of this committee and, perhaps, other members of the Government, including the Ministers for Finance, Agriculture, Food and Forestry and others will become directly involved.

The admission of countries such as Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey to the European Union will result in a massive drain on Community funds. The integration of East Germany into West Germany to form the present State of Germany caused such reverberations financially for West Germany that the institutions of the Community were shaky for some time. East Germany, a country of less than 20 million people, was supposed to be the flagship of the Communist world. Whenever one went to East Berlin or East Germany under the Communist regime, East Germany, and East Berlin in particular, were held up as models of Communism. We were led to believe there was no place else in the Communist world which was on a par with East Germany economically or aesthetically. When it amalgamated with West Germany the reverberations were tremendous, it caused huge financial problems. The run down state of its industry, the need to modernise its social welfare system to cater for the huge numbers who had been unemployed because of the change from a communist dominated system to a free enterprise one caused huge repercussions.

What will it be like when we get 40 million Poles, 13 million Hungarians, 23 million Romanians and 15 million Bulgarians into the European Union? None of those countries has an infrastructure which is anything approaching the state of the economy that pertained in Eastern Germany. It will mean that the finances of the Community will be under considerable pressure. I do not believe we in Ireland quite realise that. The sooner the debate gets underway and the sooner the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, together with officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs appear before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs to participate in a question and answer session the better. People will than be in a position to assess the country's future.

On enlargement, Hungary is reasonably well situated to face up to the trauma of joining a free enterprise economy which is represented by the European Union. That country has been trying to come to terms with it for some years and is the most advanced in that regard. Poland, which has made an attempt, would not be as far advanced. Romania and Bulgaria have a great need for huge investment to bring their economies into line with those of western Europe. The Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic also anticipate membership and their needs will not be as considerable as those of Romania and Bulgaria. Nevertheless, they will be daunting.

I understand Switzerland has expressed an interest in joining the Community but how strong that interest is remains to be seen. That will not be a problem, they will probably be net contributors. Lesser countries such as Cyprus and Malta have also expressed an interest in joining but their economic situation is reasonably good. The political situation in Cyprus would be the greatest problem although the Maltese connection with some of the more militant Arab states gives rise to certain security anxieties.

The biggest difficulty arises with Turkey. That country is problematic for a number of reasons. First, its population and the poverty of most of its people would cause tremendous financial problems. Second, the human rights record in Turkey is anything but satisfactory. Their treatment of the Kurds, even in more recent times, leaves much to be desired. Their military intervention in Cyprus 25 years ago also gives rise to considerable anxieties. There is a considerable problem with regard to Turkey which has been an applicant for membership of the European Union longer than any of the other countries I mentioned. That application has been put on the back burner and for very good reason.

There are numerous problems to be overcome, not least the huge financial strain it will put on the Community. As a member of the Council of Europe for many years past I noticed that not alone these countries but a number of other central and eastern European countries have joined the Council of Europe. Each of them has an ambition to join the European Union. That is exclusive of those I mentioned. If we take into account the Baltic republics such as Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, countries which have a considerable economic deficit vis-à-vis the European Union, and Albania, it is easy to see how the whole Community will come under considerable strain.

There is a time factor involved. We are led to believe from the media that Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic expect to be full members of the European Union within two years. The problem is considerable and the financial effect on our economy will be tremendous. I have not met any person who has contradicted me on that point because nobody has analysed the situation in sufficient depth to know what the cost of the membership of these countries will be and the consequences for the budget of the European Union.

Ireland is one of the countries which will be affected by any deficiency in the budget of the European Union because we go from being net benefactors to net contributors. The sooner we have an open debate in this House and in the Joint Committee on European Affairs the better. In regard to our economy it will mean that our biggest industry, agriculture, will lose export refunds, guaranteed minimum prices for our farm products put into intervention; in other words we will lose the guaranteed minimum price for beef, milk products and cereals which are our basic commodities. I do not know whether the farming community realise that although it has been explained to them.

The grim scenario of the GATT agreement has not yet filtered through but it will in the years ahead. That will mean open competition with every country in the world. Prices in many countries are one third or less of what pertains here. The difficulties for the farming community will be enormous. If our economy is not capable of standing on its own we will be in trouble. What we hope is that the money we have been receiving for a number of years through supports for the farming community and the Structural and Cohesion Funds will put us on a par with all the developed countries in Western Europe. However, that is doubtful.

We should be given an assessment of how we stand vis-à-vis countries with whom we will be expected to complete on a level playing pitch, because there will be no preferential treatment for Ireland once these other countries have joined; the preferential treatment will go to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and we will be expected to be net contributors, not net beneficiaries. A debate is badly needed because there are many questions that need to be answered, and the sooner we have such a debate the better.

How will the cohesion of the Community stand up under the additional strain of new members? The number of countries in the Community went from six to nine, to 12, to 15. It may rise to 20 in the not too distant future and, perhaps to 25 or 26. There is a daunting future in store for us. It will not be too long before large countries like the Ukraine will be looking for membership. They have already indicated that they wish to become a member of the Council of Europe. It is likely also that the Russian Confederation will seek to become a member of the European Union. They have already applied for membership of the Council of Europe. The Russian Conferderation is an enormous bloc consisting of 78 different nationalities, many of which we have never heard. Were it not for the war in Chechnya in the past year we would not have known that country existed. Nor have we heard of the adjoining countries mentioned in news bulletins. We are talking in terms of a vast European Union. For practical purposes the Russian Confederation is now being accepted as part of Europe, although the bulk of its physical land mass, including Vladivostok the major port on the Japanese Sea, is thousands of miles away from Europe. I would like us to have an in-depth debate in this House and in the Joint Committee on European Affairs as soon as possible, to include a question and answer session with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and his officials, because we are illinformed and ill-equipped to deal with the problems which face us in the years ahead.

Mr. Lenihan

I will be brief. I agree with Deputy Deasy's overall perspective with regard to the future development of the European Union. Undoubtedly counties in Central and Eastern Europe, in the Balkans, on the Baltic, plus Turkey, Malta and Cyprus are in line for membership of the Community. There is the further complication of the position with regard to the Russian Confederation and the Ukraine. All of this was dealt with in the last report produced by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs before responsibility for this was handed over to the Joint Committee on European Affairs. This report dealt with many of the issues raised by Deputy Deasy. It also dealt with an enlargement of the Union in the context not just of the recent applicant countries but of future developments in the Central and Eastern European sphere. That document which analysed all the information, is available to everybody and should form the basis of a discussion within the Joint Committee on European Afairs in due course because there will be major problems in the development of the European Union in the future.

Apart from the economic implications for this country in terms of the common agricultural policy and Structural Funds, there are the questions of how an enlarged Union is to be governed, and how the decision-making process, which is basic to running any institution, will be effective in an enlarged Union. All the necessary analyses are contained in the report which is a basis for further constructive discussion of the major problems facing not just Ireland but the European Union in the future, including the question of making financial resources available to cope with the present policies of the Union.

However, that is not what I intended to speak on today. I proposed to speak on an area that comes within the ambit of both the Joint Committee on European Affairs and the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, that is, the development of a common foreign and security policy. We must have a position on that between now and the meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference scheduled for the second half of 1996. Ireland will chair that conference at which the European Union will have to come to conclusions as to the future of a common foreign and security policy.

Fianna Fáil has always maintained and favoured a policy of military neutrality. Side by side with that, since the 1930s, it has also as a party in Government favoured collective security under the auspices of international organisations such as the United Nations and the Organisation of Security and Cooperation in Europe. We have an attachment to military neutrality but this does not preclude us from becoming involved in international security work under the auspices of the UN or the OSCE. We have, over the past 30 years, made substantial contributions, particularly to peace-keeping with the UN. For that reason I wish to make it clear that Ireland should contribute positively to the development of the common foreign and security policy in the Union as envisaged in the Maastricht Treaty. Under that policy our party — I hope the Government will follow this lead — would be glad to make our defence forces available to the European Union for the purpose of crisis management, of preventive diplomacy where peace-keeping skills and resources would be required. Already our Garda Síochána in Namibia and our Army personnel in other countries made a substantial contribution in this respect. There is no reason we cannot do such work under the auspices of the European Union acting directly or in conjunction with the OSCE. This matter is being discussed at present.

Given our expertise in peacekeeping, crisis management, preventive diplomacy, humanitarian relief and the protection of those engaged in the provision of this relief, we could make a positive contribution under a common foreign and security policy with a defence component in the way we have heretofore contributed to the United Nations and the OSCE. There is no reason we should not evolve such a policy without going to one extreme or the other.

In the deliberations in the run up to and during the intergovernmental conference we should not encourage the adoption of a uniform approach towards framing a common defence policy. Each country has something to offer. This is not a large country and while we do not have infantry battalions, tanks, artillery, missiles or planes to offer——

Mr. Davern

We will have less according to the Government.

Mr. Lenihan

——we can make a contribution within certain niche areas which we should identify. A positive example is the transport company sent to Somalia. Under a common policy we could provide help when there is conflict by providing policing and peace-keeping personnel, humanitarian relief and medical assistance.

In framing a common defence policy member states should be allowed to play different roles. They will do this in any case. France, the United Kingdom and Germany will always play their own roles. We also have a role to play along the lines I have suggested. It is a question of how we work out the contribution each country can make and the role it can play without adopting a uniform approach or imposing a blanket common defence policy. We need to address this question in the run up to and during the intergovernmental conference.

This approach has also been adopted to some extent by Austria, Finland, Sweden and Denmark in regard to the contribution they would like to make under a common defence policy which forms an integral part of a common foreign and security policy. We should monitor the thinking of the foreign ministers of these countries and help to co-ordinate the policies of the smaller European states in the run up to the intergovernmental conference which is to be held next year.

No political party in this House should adopt a divisive approach to this matter based on slogans which are no longer relevant in the new Europe. Since the end of the Cold War there have been no divisions between the Warsaw Pact countries and NATO and there is no military alliance threatening any country. There is, however, uncertainty and insecurity in countries on the fringe of the European Union. In the months ahead we should think along the lines of formulating a common foreign and security policy with a defence component based on preventive diplomacy under which we can make a contribution along the lines I have suggested rather than engage in sterile debate on this matter.

It is a good idea to set up this committee which was a sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs of which I was chairman as there is an enormous amount of work to be done. It is important that its work and that of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs be co-ordinated, particularly where there is an overlap as in the case of the common foreign and security policy. We must become more involved in the European Union as it will expand and develop policies which will be of importance to this country. We should ensure that we make a positive contribution.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mrs. Doyle)

The debate in the Dáil on 9 May on the Second Stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, 1995 has demonstrated three things. First, it has demonstrated the important role which can and should be played by the Oireachtas in the formulation of Irish policy towards the European Union. It is because of this role, this essential democratic input, that the Government originally proposed the setting up of the new Joint Committee on European Affairs to complement the work of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. I wish Deputy Ferris well in his chairmanship of the new committee. We very much look forward both to the contribution of the committee, with the statutory functions being conferred on it by the present Bill, and of the Houses of the Oireachtas to our ongoing consideration of European issues, especially in the run-up to the Irish Presidency in the second half of next year. During the debate several references were made to the importance of contributions by Ministers and civil servants to the work of the committee and that of other committees, and appreciation was expressed about participation to date. I assure the House of the continued constructive participation by members of the Government and officials.

Next year's intergovernmental conference will consider the role of national parliaments in relation to the business of the European Union and it is vital that views of national parliaments themselves be formulated and taken into account.

Second, the debate has illustrated the vast importance of the European Union to Ireland. The wide array of issues dealt with in the debate is evidence of how the European Union touches upon so many facets of Irish life.

Third, the debate has highlighted once again the complexity of the issues facing the Union, and the importance of greater openness and transparency so that these issues are easily understood by ordinary citizens. In explaining the workings of the European Union to ordinary citizens much can be done at European and national level by all concerned, including by the Commission, by politicians, officials, and the media.

I welcome the widespread recognition of the Government's efforts in this regard. The process of public consultation leading to the publication of the White Paper on Irish foreign policy as well as the Communicating Europe initiative reflect the priority which the Government attaches to securing greater public understanding of European issues.

Next year Ireland will hold the Presidency of the European Union, and as the Tánaiste mentioned in his opening address in the debate on 9 May, the 1996 Presidency will pose a stiffer challenge for the country than on previous occasions. However, we look forward to meeting that challenge and the Presidency will afford many opportunities for the conduct of everyday EU business to be brought closer to the ordinary citizen in Ireland. The people will be able to an extent, as it were, to see the decision-making processes at first hand.

I should now like to turn to a number of the specific points which arose during the debate. The Government welcomes the support for the Bill from all sides of this House and the Seanad.

Let me also clarify straight away the title of the Bill. It was suggested by one Deputy that the Bill should be called the European Union (Amendment) Bill rather than the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. I will explain why this would be incorrect. Technically, the purpose of the Bill is to amend an existing Act entitled the European Communities Act. Clearly, therefore, the Bill is properly entitled the "European Communities (Amendment) Bill" because it seeks to amend the Act of that name. More importantly, it should be borne in mind that the European Union consists of three pillars. Under the first pillar there are in law three Communities which continue to subsist: (i) the European Community, (ii) the European Coal and Steel Community, and (iii) the European Atomic Energy Community. The European Communities Act, as amended, gives the force of law in Ireland to those three Treaties, but not to all the provisions of the European Union Treaty. Thus, the title of the Bill as proposed is correct.

A number of Deputies referred to several instances of what they considered to be unnecessary or excessively detailed regulation at European Union level. I readily agree that there have been such cases, although I think the number of instances is often exaggerated by the popular press, particularly in Britain. It must be borne in mind that what may seem like very technical provisions may be necessary to transform the Single Market into a reality for exporters. Without many of these measures it would not be possible to reap the full benefits of the Single Market but I stress that the amount of new legislation being brought forward at Union level has declined in recent years, and this trend is likely to continue. The fall-off in the amount of new legislation reflects on the one hand the good progress which has been made towards the completion of the Single Market, and on the other the new emphasis on subsidiarity, that is the principle whereby the Union should not get involved in areas which are better dealt with at national level.

In response to Deputies who referred to the question of a referendum on any outcome of the intergovernmental conference negotiations that would involve Ireland's participation in a common defence policy, I assure the House that the commitment in the Government's Programme for Renewal to hold such a referendum is clear and unambiguous. This commitment will ensure that Ireland's policy of military neutrality will remain unchanged unless the people decide otherwise.

As regards the provision of adequate staffing for the different Oireachtas committees referred to during the debate, it is clearly important that all the committees should function effectively, and this means having adequate back-up. The Bill, of course, does not deal with this aspect, being concerned only with the transfer from one committee to another of certain functions in relation to the supervision of EC secondary legislation. The Houses of the Oireachtas are, I understand, in ongoing discussions with the Department of Finance on staffing, and additional staff have already been allocated to the committee secretariat.

In the course of the debate there was a reference to a recent suggestion which queried the authenticity of certain Irish national statistics. It is true, as indeed is the case for most countries that the quality of our national statistics needs to be improved. However, the problem must not be exaggerated. The positive trends in the Irish economy are clear and beyond question. Ireland is fully on course to move to the final stage of European Monetary Union.

As regards next year's Intergovernmental Conference, the question was raised of preserving the balance between the Union's institutions. I assure the House that this will be one of the top priorities of the Government at the negotiations. It is particularly important to ensure that the prerogatives of the Commission are fully preserved.

In response to Deputy Andrews's contribution this afternoon, I wish to make a couple of points. Now that there is a separate Joint Committee on European Affairs it is obvious that that committee, rather than the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, should exercise the statutory function in regard to secondary legislation. I agree with Deputy Andrews that the important role of the Joint Committee on European Affairs extends beyond the statutory functions conferred on it by the present Bill. I thank Deputy Andrews for his best wishes for the Presidency and I note his comments on the content of the Bill.

I listened with interest to Deputy Lenihan's views on the development of a defence dimension to the Union. I thank him for his considered contribution in which his expertise in this area was obvious. The Tánaiste has set out certain options which are open to Ireland in terms of the development of a security dimension of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. He also set out principles that should apply to the development of that policy. He indicated that Ireland will participate constructively in discussions and that there will be a referendum on any outcome of the intergovernmental conference negotiations that would involve Ireland's participation in a common defence policy, and I underline that as beyond doubt.

I assume my colleague, Deputy Deasy, that the Government is ensuring and will continue to ensure that Ireland is fully prepared to address all the challenges facing the Union: the Irish Presidency next year, the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference and future enlargement. The implications of these challenges are being fully explored. The Programme of Government recognises that Ireland will face a more complex relationship with Europe in the years ahead. As the Tánaiste emphasised earlier in the debate on this Bill, the Government is determined to encourage public debate on European issues. I accept fully the point made by Deputy Deasy in this regard. We have not perhaps given this matter sufficient air time, as it were, in these Houses. As leaders in our communities and Oireachtas Members in the various parties we should bring the debate to the people in our constituencies and ensure the cry of democratic deficit no longer has the validity it may well have had to date. We must encourage the people to participate in the debate and make them aware of the issues so that they feel it is their Union rather than just our Union as national politicians.

The forthcoming White Paper will play an important role in this regard. The question was raised on the Order of Business on when the White Paper would be published. I understand it is expected to be published by the end of June. The Tánaiste indicated that he looks forward to working closely with the Joint Committee on European Affairs. I agree with Deputy Deasy on the importance of the issues which must be addressed in the context of further enlargement. The countries of central and Eastern Europe legitimately aspire to European Union membership and that aspiration must be met. Enlargement must at the same time preserve the Union's essential achievements and policies to date and permit the continued process of integration. It is far too early to assess if and at what point Ireland will become a net contributor to the Union budget. I hope we can continue to derive enormous benefits from the Common Agricultural Policy and the policy of cohesion for a long time to come.

This debate has been useful and stimulating and augurs well for the work of the new Joint Committee. The Bill puts in place a small but important piece of the jigsaw of an appropriate and enhanced committee structure in the Oireachtas for dealing with European issues.

On a personal basis I wish Deputy Ferris and the members of the committee well in their most important deliberations in the days and months ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment and passed.