Amendment No. 1 is in the name of Deputy O'Malley. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and I suggest they be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Decommissioning Bill, 1996: Report and Final Stage.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, line 17, before "agreement" where it secondly occurs to insert "intended".
These amendments are similar to, but not the same as, amendments I tabled on Committee Stage. My principal reason for tabling them again is that the Minister indicated on Committee Stage that she thought there might well be some merit in them. She said she would examine them carefully and take advice on them before Report Stage. I had the opportunity to take advice on them too and I am advised that not alone are they appropriate but they are necessary for the kinds of reasons I outlined on Committee Stage.
It seems difficult that a Bill should pass through these Houses and become law and refer in the past tense to an agreement between the Irish and British Governments even though that agreement is not yet in existence and might or might not come into existence at some time in the future. One of the things that the agreement would envisage, if and when it came into existence, is the establishment of a commission for the purpose of decommissioning weapons which would receive the weapons or make arrangements for their reception. However, one cannot refer to these things, the agreement and the commission which might be part of the agreement, in a Bill which will become law here as if that agreement and, therefore, the commission, already existed. They do not exist. The appropriate way of referring to them is as an intended agreement between the two Governments and a commission which is intended to be established by that agreement. It will not change anything very radically, but at least it will get the tenses and the circumstances right. It seems to me that these amendments should be accepted.
The terms will be read as of the date on which the Bill is passed and becomes law. If, on that date, it is a proposed or intended agreement and a commission which it is intended will be established, then that is correct. The only answer to this point which the Minister seemed to have on Committee Stage was the fact that, if and when the agreement was entered into at some time in the future, there would then be an agreement in existence and, therefore, one could not have this Bill referring to an intended or proposed agreement, but it is perfectly proper and correct for this Bill to refer to a proposed agreement if the agreement has not been entered into.
Think back over some previous agreements between the Irish and British Governments. If legislation had been introduced in this House before the Anglo-Irish Agreement was entered into which envisaged agreement being entered into at some time in the future but it was not then actually entered into, one could not refer to it in the past tense as being something which is now in existence. It might never have happened.
In this instance it may never happen because, of course, the circumstances under which former Senator Mitchell and his two colleagues reported have changed. Their report was made at a time when there was a ceasefire and when there was no formal violence, that is, no violence against the security violence and no indiscriminate violence. There was, unfortunately, permanent personal violence in the sense that punishment shootings and beatings were taking place on both sides of the divide, but the circumstances are now different. It may be impossible in the future to apply the Mitchell report in the particular context in which it was written and published.
One cannot refer to an agreement in existence between the two Governments when that agreement is not in existence. I hope there will be such an agreement at some time in the future but the Minister confirmed on Committee Stage that it is not impossible to envisage circumstances in which it might not happen. It might all have to be done in a different way. If it does happen and, let us say, such an agreement is entered into by the two Governments in July and August and this Bill is passed in February or March, it is open to those who would wish to challenge such an arrangement — and we all know such people exist — to say that the Bill is defective.
The example I gave the Minister was the Fisheries Bill, 1995. She concurred that the same principle applied, even though I pointed out it is the converse of this. That Bill was not passed when a delegation order was made and, therefore, was not covered by the delegation order. We saw the result of that in this House in the past few weeks. The Minister for the Marine had to introduce a second Bill, which contained nine sections and was almost as long as the first one, to rectify the error made in the first one. The same principle applies here and I am trying to avoid that.
I have taken advice on this from a reputable source. I will not name the people concerned here. I asked them if there was a particular principle of jurisprudence on which I could hang this argument and they said it was a matter of common sense. I was told the Bill would be wrong if it were enacted in its present form because it refers to something as a fait accompli, which is not a fait accompli.
There have been instances of legislation passed here and, I am sure, elsewhere envisaging an agreement in the future and specifying that is what is envisaged, but not of legislation purporting to underwrite an agreement that does not yet exist. One cannot approve in statute in the past tense something that does not yet exist. One can approve of something that does not yet exist if one says it is intended or proposed to have such an agreement and under it to set up a commission some time in the future. These amendments will not involve any great change. I tabled them to avoid an error. An error of this kind was made during the past 18 months or less. It had to be rectified and this involved some slight difficulty and embarrassment. I do not want to see that repeated unnecessarily.
I respectfully submit that we hear Deputy O'Donoghue and any other Member who wishes to intervene so that the Minister might take all the views into consideration, especially in the situation where one is allowed to speak only once.
Deputy O'Malley argued cogently on Committee Stage and today that one cannot legislate in the manner provided for in this legislation for something that is to happen in the future and that one should not provide for something in the present tense which shall be established in the future. That makes sense.
The definition section of the legislation states the agreement means the agreement between the Government and the Government of the United Kingdom establishing the commission, but if the agreement does not exist it is difficult to see how one could envisage a commission already existing. While I accept it is not the Minister's intention to convey that impression, nonetheless the fact that the agreement is referred to in the present tense indicates it is in existence, when it is not; in the same way the commission could not possibly be in existence.
I accept this legislation is aspirational. The Minister and her Department would have had considerable difficulty drafting this technical legislation on something to which we all aspire, the decommissioning of arms across the spectrum. I do not believe the Minister's objective will be interfered with much by inserting the words Deputy O'Malley suggests. Inserting the words "intended to be" after the word "commission" and the word "intended" before the word "agreement" will not damage the legislation although the Minister argued strongly that one might need to amend it subsequently if those words are inserted indicating a future event. I am not sure her argument stands up because once the intended commission is in place, it will have to be acknowledged as a matter of fact and as a matter of law that the agreement and the commission, which were intended to be in place, will then be in place rendering the word "intended" superfluous because the Bill would come into operation in effect on that date.
As Deputy O'Malley said, this is not a matter of life and death although this legislation is about life and death. The provisions he seeks to have inserted in the Bill were put forward by him in good faith with a view to improving and fire proofing it against a possible challenge. Unless the Minister has a cogent alternative argument, I support Deputy O'Malley's amendments.
I thank Deputies who have spoken.
As Deputy O'Malley said, I undertook to reconsider this issue before this Stage. Deputy O'Malley was concerned about this on Committee Stage and remains concerned despite my best efforts to explain why his amendments are not needed. I indicated then that my advice was that the definitions did not require that the agreement be in existence at the time of the enactment of the Bill. As I committed to do, I undertook to have serious discussions with my officials, the legal adviser to the Government and the drafts people to consider what Deputy O'Malley said. I did that and the earlier advice I received on the matter has been confirmed.
The essence of that advice is that the common law principle that legislation is "always speaking" meets the difficulties the Deputy anticipates. I will go further and say that the advice given states that a statutory provision has to be considered first and foremost as a norm of the legal system as it is currently whence it takes its force rather than just a product of a particular parliament at a certain time. A statutory provision has a legal existence independent of the historical contingencies of its promulgation and, accordingly, should be interpreted in the light of its place within the system of legal norms currently in force. Such an approach takes into account the viewpoint of the ordinary legal interpreter of today who expects to apply ordinary current meanings to legal texts. Page 117 of the fourth edition of Thornton's Legislative Drafting illustrates that principle, which is equally applicable in Irish law by reference to the following provision of the New Zealand law, “An Enactment applies to circumstances as they arise so far as its text, purpose and context permit.” This principle of statutory construction when applied to the relevant sections of the Bill ensures that if and when an agreement is made between the two Governments and a commission established, the Act will apply as required by circumstances that then exist. Other rules of statutory interpretation would equally point to such a result.
The effect of Deputy O'Malley's amendments would be that the Act would not be able to accommodate changing circumstances. That was also a problem with the amendments he tabled on Committee Stage and, although he has slightly modified them here, that problem still exists.
The effect of the amendments would be that the agreement and the commission would, by definition, always be the "intended" agreement and the "intended" commission. That, it seems, would be likely to give rise to greater confusion in law and in fact.
In Deputies O'Malley and O'Donoghue, I am facing two lawyers but perhaps I can allay some of their remaining concerns by highlighting constitutional and statutory precedents for the approach adopted in the Bill. I refer them to two such precedents. Article 34 of the Constitution provides inter alia that “Justice shall be administered in courts established by law...”. Kelly —The Irish Constitution, 3rd Edition, 1994 — relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the State (Killian) v Minister for Justice [1954] I.R. 207, states that the words of Article 34 “contemplated the future fresh establishment of courts to replace those exercising jurisdiction at the date of the Constitution's enactment”. Those courts were only established by the Courts (Establishment and Constitution) Act, 1961 — No. 38 of 1961 — which was itself expressed to be “An Act to establish, in pursuance of Article 34 of the Constitution, a court...”.
A statutory precedent bearing on the approach adopted in the Decommissioning Bill can also be found in the National Treasury Management Agency Act, 1990 — No. 18 of 1990 — which I believe was enacted when Deputy O'Malley's party was in Government. This Act defines "the Agency" as meaning the National Treasury Management Agency "established" by section 3 in circumstances where the agency was to be established after the passing of the Act. The procedure in that Act involved an establishment day appointed by way of ministerial order. The Decommissioning Bill also envisages that, at some future time, the commission will be established by agreement. Section 9 contains a starting date for the Bill to come into force.
I do not know the source of Deputy O'Malley's advice and I can only provide him with the advice I received from the Attorney General. I tried to discover whether the Deputy's concerns could be taken on board because I do not want the legislation to be flawed. However, I am satisfied with the advice I received. I am also satisfied that the Bill as it is now framed will not, as Deputy O'Malley fears, negate its intended purpose to establish, by agreement, a commission in the future. Therefore, I believe the Bill does not require further amendment.
Unfortunately I do not have access to the various documents to which the Minister referred. However, the two examples she used to illustrate her point are very weak.
The Minister quoted Article 34 as stating "courts established by law". However, she was quoting from the Constitution which is in no way analogous to this Bill which is ordinary legislation. There is no way that the phrase in the Constitution which makes reference to "courts established by law" can mean anything other than "courts to be established by law". Courts could not be already established if they were to be established under the Constitution. Clearly, the meaning is "courts to be established by law" and it is impossible that another meaning could be inferred. To seek to prove a point relating to the construction of legislation by using something that is not legislation in the ordinary sense — the Constitution — is false. The Constitution takes precedence over all legislation and the two cannot be interpreted in the same way.
The other example to which the Minister referred involves the establishment, under an Act of 1990, of the National Treasury Management Agency. What was the purpose of that Act? Like other legislation, it was designed to establish a board or statutory body — these are sometimes referred to as "quangos". The Minister referred to "the Agency", as it is described in the Act, established by section 3. Of course it was established by section 3. I could name approximately 100 such bodies which were established by an Act. However, that which is referred to in the Decommissioning Bill will not be established by it. The proposed commission will be established by an agreement which has not yet been entered into, which is a different matter.
The National Treasury Management Agency was established by an Act and it came into legal existence on the day that Act was passed or, if it was different, on the day designated as its operative date. The commission will not be established by this Bill. The definition in section 1 states that it will be established by the agreement. The term "agreement" refers to an agreement between the Government and the Government of the United Kingdom establishing the commission, which is framed in the present tense. Therefore, the two examples to which the Minister referred do not work and do not invalidate he point I made earlier.
I considered the British Bill to see if I could obtain enlightenment. I did not do so because, as I informed the Minister on Committee Stage, the British approach this subject in a different way. Their draft Bill is very different and, in a sense, one would be of the opinion that they are not dealing with the same matter because their way of drafting legislation is different. It seems to be somewhat shorter and expeditious and does not refer to "the agreement" but to "an agreement". There is a great deal of difference between a reference to "the agreement", which can only mean a specific agreement already in existence, and "an agreement". Of its nature, the term "an agreement "is indefinite while the term "the agreement" is definite because of its use of the definite article. However, there is no definite agreement. If the Minister will not accept the amendment, she should change the definition to mean "an agreement" between the Government and the Government of the United Kingdom. The provision could then read "The commission means a commission established by the agreement referred to above".
I do not believe the Minister's point is valid. The examples to which she referred are misplaced and ill-founded attempts to highlight that point. The first invoked the Constitution, which clearly envisages the establishment of something after its adoption, but the Bill refers to an agreement in existence when there is no such agreement. I do not want to waste time arguing because this is not a matter of great significance. However, it is one of plain common sense. That is my reaction and it was also the reaction of others I respect when I inquired about this issue.
It is disappointing that the Minister insists on standing over something that is indefensible. Certainly the two examples she gave do not defend the point she makes. The National Treasury Management Agency was not set up by any agreement, present, future or past; it was set up by an Act of the Oireachtas as were 50, 80, maybe 100 other such bodies. Section 3 of that Act provides that there shall be an agency to be known as the National Treasury Management Agency and it shall have the following powers and functions. That has been repeated time and again in this House in legislation. However, this is a different and quite distinct matter. It is interesting that the British legislation does not refer to the agreement, to something as already having come into existence. It refers to it in an indefinite way which, if one were to choose between the two, certainly seems the more logical way of doing it.
I would advise Members that in accordance with recent modifications to our Standing Orders Members may speak twice on Report Stage. However, the second contribution may not exceed two minutes. If the Minister or Deputy O'Donoghue wish to intervene again, they may do so.
The constitutional analogy can stand up. The Constitution is entirely different to legislation in that the Constitution is passed by the people, who are supreme in matters of this kind, whereas legislation is passed by this House. Deputy O'Malley has adequately answered the argument on the National Treasury Management Agency. I see no reason to change my mind. I accept that the Minister is acting in good faith, but it would certainly appear most undesirable to refer to a matter as being in existence when it is not in existence. It underlines the grave difficulty that always presents itself when one tries to legislate for an aspiration.
I assure Deputy O'Malley I am not ignoring all he says or declining to take on board his amendments because of pigheadedness. The advice to me is that the legislation as tabled is correct, that we do not need to include these words and that there is a greater likelihood that including them would do damage in the future rather than improving the Bill. If Deputy O'Malley were in this seat he would take whatever advice he got. I have been willing all along to take on board amendments to legislation, but I am satisfied in this instance with the advice I have got. The reason I used the constitutional example was to show that the word "established", standing as a word, can be taken to mean "to be established". Deputy O'Malley has taken that meaning from the word "established" in the National Treasury Management Agency legislation. If the Deputy reads "to be established" in other legislation when those words are not written, the same can apply to this legislation. This legislation is an enabling measure containing two sections which will require proactive actions by the Minister and the Secretary of State to bring it into force. Deputy O'Malley and I will have to agree to differ. I am sure if the Deputy's legal adviser and my legal adviser got together they would have hours of useful debate on the matter. However, neither are here, and I have a responsibility to take the legislation forward. With the greatest of respect to the advice Deputy O'Malley has got, I am satisfied that we do not need this amendment, and I cannot take it on board because of the risk, however slight, that the legislation might be the poorer for it.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 50; Níl, 68.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, David.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Flood, Chris.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Sean.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Kit, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
Níl
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bree, Declan.
- Broughan, Thomas.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Costello, Joe.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Gallagher, Pat (Laoighis-Offaly).
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McDowell, Derek.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Penrose, William.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Upton, Pat.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies O'Donnell and Callely; Níl, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I welcome the opportunity of the passage of this Bill to thank all Members who participated in the debate. It was an important debate, albeit that the legislation was enabling legislation. The Committee Stage debate gave us an opportunity to clarify exactly why we are bringing in the legislation in its present form. The Government passionately believes a resolution of the Northern Ireland issue can only be achieved by exclusively peaceful and democratic means. Violence and the threat of violence is not only morally wrong but it will not help to bring about a solution. Those who have engaged in violence for the past 27 years must realise it did not get them what they wanted. It is a matter of great distress to everybody that the violence has continued over the past few months. The use of violence continues to make it more difficult to find a solution.
The Bill can play an important part in securing a future free of violence, or the threat of violence, as it represents a first important step in establishing the framework whereby the recommendations of the international body's report on decommissioning can be given effect.
At the Northern Ireland talks during the past seven or eight months, we have been talking about the international body's report. It took us many months to reach the stage where we got agreement on the rules and procedures for those talks. We have not yet progressed to the more substantial issue of how we handle decommissioning but this legislation, like the legislation going through the House of Lords, will help set the framework in which the international body's report can be put into effect when we have reached agreement with the British Government to establish a commission on decommissioning. The House's endorsement of the Bill — and I hope its early passage into law after it goes to the Seanad — will serve to demonstrate not only our good faith on the issue of decommissioning but our willingness to bring it forward in keeping with the recommendations of the international body's report. That report will be quoted for many years throughout the world in areas of conflict as a masterpiece of ingenuity and, perhaps, conciseness and lucidity in the way in which it put the case together on how its authors thought decommissioning could be handled. I pay tribute to former Senator George Mitchell, Mr. Harri Holkeri and General John De Chastelain for the work they have done in preparing that report and the work they are continuing to do — at times frustrating — in the Northern Ireland talks.
The Bill is enabling in character in certain important respects. It ensures we will be able to give effect to any agreement consistent with the report of the international body on how the decommissioning process is to be handled in practical terms. There is a certain amount of frustration among Members that we did not have a more substantial Bill spelling everything out. On Committee Stage Deputy O'Donoghue agreed that was not the way to set down an exact prescription of how decommissioning was to take place because it would be neither in keeping with the international body's report nor conducive to ensuring we get decommissioning. That we say something has to be decommissioned and how it can be done does not mean we will get it. We need those people who are continuing their campaign of violence — the people with the guns, weapons, semtex and all the other bomb-making equipment at their disposal — and those at a political level who are unable to convince them to stop the violence at the talks.
The work we have done in passing this legislation is a good day's work on our behalf as a Parliament. I thank all Deputies who have contributed to the Bill. I express my appreciation of the constructive and thoughtful way in which they have put forward amendments and made their contributions. In this way we send a clear message to the men of violence that we do not in any way condone violence as a means of getting what they want. I avail of this opportunity to call on the men of violence to lay down their arms and allow their political partners into the talks with a view to making progress towards a lasting peace on this island.
My party is pleased to have co-operated in the passage of this legislation. My fervent hope and prayer is that this legislation will be implemented de facto and that the day will come when all sides to the conflict in the North will hand over their arms.
I join the Minister in thanking the international body, particularly its esteemed chairman, the former Senator George Mitchell. The legislation represents a statement of magnanimity and generosity on the part of the people of the Republic. My sincere wish is that that generosity and magnanimity will be reciprocated by those involved in violence in the North.
The legislation on decommissioning is of considerable importance. I acknowledge the role of the Minister for Justice and her Department in relation to the publication of this legislation. I acknowledge also the tremendous contribution of all those involved over the years in trying to bring about a peaceful resolution of the conflict in the North. We can draft and pass all the legislation required but it is those who are actually involved in violence who must answer the hard question — which is the request and prayer of everybody on this island who believes in constitutional politics — and hand over their arms to a decommissioning body in order that we can have, at long last, a peaceful resolution of our problems in the interests of all the children of this country and future generations.
I agree with the whole principle of the Bill. I have had a few disagreements with the Minister about some of the detail and the drafting but they are not matters of fundamental importance. Of fundamental importance are the objectives of the Bill, if and when they are ever reached. I am less optimistic about their being reached than I would have been on the day I read the Mitchell report in January 1996. Unhappily for us the situation has deteriorated greatly since then. People have commented over the past week on the horrible and cowardly murder at Bessbrook last week as being a kind of turning point. The only sense in which it was a turning point was that a human being lost his life.
Since Mitchell made his report in January 1996 there has been an upsurge in punishment killings and beatings to which he refers in his six basic democratic principles. He said they should stop and that all parties or potential parties to the talks should take effective steps to prevent such actions, but that has not happened. Between 1994 and 1996 there has been a quadrupling of these incidents amounting to several hundred per year. They are unspeakably horrible but because they do not normally constitute a murder and we seem to be so inured to excessive violence, we almost accept this type of activity as the norm.
It would be no harm to remind ourselves what it constitutes. It is a highly sophisticated way of trying to cripple young people, usually young men, by breaking their knees and elbows so that the best medical and surgical science cannot put them together again. The fact that it goes on in any society is an indication of how extraordinarily abnormal the society is. It is not confined to one side in that two thirds of it is reputed to be carried out by what is called the republic side and one third by what is called the loyalist side. It is equally reprehensible from either side. That it happens on an almost daily basis is disgusting. There should be a greater outcry against this activity and we should not just wring our hands in public when tragically there is a murder, although that is even more awful.
The Mitchell report, the principles contained therein and the recommendations made were in effect repudiated by at least two groups, one of which, as has been pointed out, was the British Government. The British Government chose to disregard the kernel of Mitchell and to pick out a passing reference to the possibility of an electoral process in a remote and obscure paragraph and suggest that it was the essence of the report. It proceeded to hold an election on that basis which the majority in this House said would only have the effect of polarising an already polarised situation in Northern Ireland. Unhappily, that is precisely what happened. It was also rejected by those who only a few weeks after the report was published went back to their former ways, starting with Canary Wharf and continuing at frequent intervals to Bessbrook. We have no idea when they might stop.
Whatever about this country, the sooner there is an election in Britain so that meaningful talks may resume, the better. It is incomprehensible to people outside these two islands that there is so little meaningful talk and that the vacuum which, therefore, must exist is allowed to be filled in such a way. It is a great tragedy for all of us. If this had started a few months ago, it would be awful and we would lament it. However, the fact that it started 27 or 28 years ago and that we may be inured to it in certain senses does not remove its horror, the need to bring it to an end and to ask those involved in these awful actions to think and act as human beings for a change.
Question put and agreed to.