Amendments Nos. 1 and 5 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
National Treasury Management Agency (Amendment) Bill, 2000: Report and Final Stages.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:
"‘a claim of a class' means any claim based on similar circumstances pursued by either a group or by individuals;".
This amendment was discussed on Committee Stage and the Minister indicated that he would reflect on it. I would like to have the benefit of his reflection.
Deputy Noonan is correct. Amendment No. 1 proposes to define "a claim of a class". On Committee Stage I pointed out that my advice was that it was not necessary. I have checked the matter since then and have again been advised that there is no need to define "a claim of a class". The expression is used only once in the Bill and that is in the definition of "delegated claim" in section 6. All references of this nature in the Bill are to classes of claims or a class of delegated claims. A class of claim, for example, Army deafness claims or assault claims, is easily understood and this was accepted in the debate on Committee Stage. It was, however, considered necessary to define a claim and a counter claim so there would be clarity about the type of claim and counter claim which could be managed by the State Claims Agency. These are defined in sections 6 and 7.
Amendment No. 5 would exclude from the definition of a claim in section 7(1) any class of claim which might be prescribed by the Minister for Finance. I am satisfied that there are sufficient provisions in the Bill to meet the purpose of this amendment. Delegation orders to be made by the Government under section 9(1) will cover claims or classes of claims. Such orders can be revoked or amended to remove certain classes of claims or, if necessary, to put them in. This is the correct way to deal with the issue rather than give the Minister the power to prescribe that a class of claims be excluded. In these circumstances, I can not accept the amendments.
The Minister has made my case for me. He said the expression "a claim of a class" appears only once in the Bill. It is not something I have seen previously. If something only appears once in a Bill and is a unique expression in Irish law, it requires definition, and I was attempting to define it. If it means a class of a claim, which appears to be the burden of the Minister's argument, why not change the term to "a class of a claim", "a class action" or "a class claim". The expression "a claim of a class" is new. It requires definition so people will understand what it means.
I appreciate the Deputy's point but my advice is that it is not necessary to define it in the Bill. I asked about it because I could understand the argument he made on Committee Stage. I was concerned about it. If a definition was required on the basis of the Deputy's argument, I would have put one down on Report Stage. My advice, however, is that it is not necessary.
The purpose of amendment No. 5 is to add to the list of excluded claims "any claim of a class prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph by the Minister". The effect of that is to equip the Minister with greater flexibility to enable him to deal with any unforeseen circumstances by way of regulation.
The Minister referred me to section 9(1)(b) which appears to confer that power on the Minister. It states: “An order under paragraph (a) may exempt any class of claims against all or any of the State authorities from the delegation effected by the order”. The Minister appears to be saying it is an equivalent power and that the intent of amendment No. 5 is covered by this provision. Am I correct in that interpretation?
That is correct. That is what I said in response to amendment No. 5.
Amendment No. 1 is a technical amendment so I will not press it if the Minister is confident it is not necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 8, line 3, to delete "was" and substitute "may be".
This is a technical amendment to correct a drafting flaw which came to light when amendment No. 6 was being drafted.
Amendment agreed to.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 4 is an alternative to amendment No. 3. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 8, line 12, to delete "‘claim' means a claim" and substitute "‘claim' (other than in section 12(4)) means a claim, other than one involving a question as to the validity of any law having regard to the provisions of the Constitution,”.
The purpose of this amendment is to amend the definition of a claim to exclude a claim involving a question of the validity of any law having regard to the provisions of the Constitution. It is based on an amendment put down by Deputy McDowell on Committee Stage which I promised to examine further.
Members will agree that claims which raise constitutional issues are not appropriate to be handled by a claims agency. It might be argued that the existing provisions of the Bill are sufficient to ensure that such claims will not fall within the definition of a claim. A claim has to be one which is wholly or mainly one for compensation or damages for personal injury or property loss. The key word in the present context is "mainly". A claim with an incidental element additional to compensation or damages would meet the definition of a claim but a claim which involved a constitutional issue would not or would be extremely unlikely to meet it. This amendment will remove any doubt that might exist in the matter.
The amended definition will not, however, apply to claims under section 12(4), the subject of amendment No. 12 which deals with the background of persons who may be appointed to the policy committee. This is to ensure that claims referred to in that subsection relate to claims generally rather than to the restricted definition of claims of this section for the purpose of claims management by the agency. Deputy McDowell sought clarity on this matter on Committee Stage and I have responded positively.
I acknowledge the Minister's comments. The purpose of amendment No. 4 is to exclude any action involving the constitutionality of a statute. That question could arise during proceedings, either criminal or civil, rather than being confined merely to declaratory proceedings. The Statute of Limitations comes to mind as an example of where that issue might arise in a personal injuries action. I presume the Minister is well advised and that his amendment is superior to mine.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 8, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
"(f2>d) any claim of a class prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph by the Minister,".
This is an enabling provision but the Minister believes the issue is adequately covered in section 9. I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 9, line 10, to delete "may" and substitute "may, at the request of that body, if appropriate, and with the consent of the relevant Minister of the Government,".
This amendment is in response to the points made by Deputy Noonan during the debate on Committee Stage in relation to the reserve functions of local authorities. We had some lengthy discussion on it. I undertook on that occasion to come back to the matter on Report Stage. The amendment will ensure that claims against a local authority can be delegated to the agency only following a request from it and with the consent of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. The amendment is framed so that it can cover other bodies which fall under paragraph (j) of the definition of State authority in section 7(1). Any of those bodies which have autonomy for the way in which they expend resources under their governing legislation must comply with the legislation and rules governing that expenditure, which is essentially the point well made by Deputy Noonan on Committee Stage. In the normal course, if they have autonomy in the way in which they spend funds provided by them, they have autonomy in how they deal with claims against them. The Bill does not effect amendment of the legislation governing such bodies.
Paragraph (j) of the definition of State authority is an enabling provision. It simply acts in parallel, putting in place a mechanism to allow such bodies to be covered should they, in accord ance with their own legislation – for example in the case of local authorities – choose to request to be brought within the ambit of the agency and should the Minister decide that it is appropriate to accede to that request.
This arose on Committee Stage when I suggested to the Minister by way of amendment that if one looks at the manner in which local authorities operate, their functions are divided. As every Member of the House who has served as a member of a local authority knows, their functions are divided into reserve functions and executive functions. The expenditure of money is a reserve function. Money can only be spent after the elected members have voted that it should be spent, either by way of special vote or by way of voting for the Book of Estimates. The settlement of a claim would be analogous because there would be a payment of money by a local authority to an individual claimant. It seemed that this would require the assent of the local authority and the permission of the Minister before it could be dealt with by the National Treasury Management Agency acting as the claims agency for the State.
Arising out of the Minister's amendment, will he clarify whether he envisages a local authority ceding its right to settle insurance claims by means of a once-off decision so that they could say that any action taken against them in the future above a certain amount or above a certain level of claim will be dealt with by the claims agency or is he saying that his amendment will require an individual decision on the basis of each individual claim or class of claim being delegated?
My interpretation is that it is on a case by case basis. I do not see a unilateral declaration being made in the way the Deputy has put it. It would be imprudent of the local authorities to take a blanket view on the passing of this legislation. I imagine there may be particular cases where a judgment call would be made by the local authorities so I do not necessarily see it being forever and a day, that they would have all those claims dealt with exclusively on that basis.
Does the Minister's amendment make the provision applicable to class claims, claims of a class, class actions?
Where it applies specifically to the local authorities, as I said, and to the listed authorities under section 7(1), it would.
Yes, but I am asking whether they would require to move a motion of consent in respect of each claim?
Acting Chairman
We are on Report Stage.
Yes, but we will not delay the House. A little tolerance from the Chair and we will establish what the position is. The Minister is not answering me clearly.
A Cheann Comhairle, I will try to be as clear as I can for the Deputy. Perhaps I put it badly to him. This amendment clearly gives the local authorities the power to make that decision. My view is that they will make that decision on a case by case basis. That is what I was essentially saying. That was the intent of the discussion that the Deputy also had with me on Committee Stage and that is precisely what I tried to recognise in that. I do not want to spancel them.
I am trying to understand this. Is the Minister saying there would be no merit in a situation where up to a certain level of claim the authority would devolve to the agency? Would it not be a more efficient way of dealing with it? For example, up to a District Court limit, would it not be more sensible if that was devolved to the agency, having whatever access is necessary to the local authority in terms of documentation, advice and so on? Is there not some merit in devolving that to the agency rather than it still having to go through the fairly unwieldy process of case by case call by the local authority?
The Deputy probably would agree, speaking from the perspective of the House, that I should not prescribe or put limits, even small limits, on local authorities. In a general sense, the State Claims Agency will deal with the claims and it will be more in a specific type of case that the local authority may want to take a view. It is not necessary for us, for the Government or the House, in legislation, to prescribe that. There may be particular issues that could arise irrespective of the size of the claim that may warrant a particular course of action to be taken and I want to give that flexibility to the local authority. That was based on a fairly wide-ranging discussion we had on this matter on Committee Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 9, line 39, to delete "level." and substitute the following:
"level after the special circumstances of any claim or a claim of a class have been taken into account by the Agency.
(4) The Government may advise the Agency when, in their opinion, the special circumstances of a claim or a claim of a class should be taken into account.".
This proposes to amend page 9, line 39, section 8(3). In effect, section 8(3) mandates the agency to settle claims at the lowest achievable level. I raised this previously on Committee Stage. Once the agency is mandated to settle at the lowest achievable level, it is not possible for the agency to take other considerations into account. I put it to the Ministers that there would be particularly meritorious cases where the Government of the day or a particular Department or Minister would think that to err on the side of generosity would be not only just but also prudent. This will prevent the agency from erring on the side of generosity.
Anybody who was listening to the accounts of the proceedings before the Lindsay tribunal, for example, could envisage a situation where if claims were to ensue from the hearings before that tribunal, it might be the wish of everybody here that the claimants be dealt with in the most generous possible fashion. This subsection precludes such generosity on behalf of the Executive and would leave an Executive with no option but to withdraw the claim or class of claim from the agency and either settle it in the courts or by negotiation. This would defeat the purpose of the Bill.
Another issue arises also. The issues of either aggravated damages or punitive damages in terms of Irish case law are not particularly well formulated in this jurisdiction. Yet aggravated damages and punitive damages are areas of claim where there is particularly strong case law in the United States and extensive case law in the United Kingdom. This will be part of claims here in the future. The claims have been made in a number of cases in the past but there is little enough case law on which one could draw to decide whether the precedents are sufficiently strong to see whether such claims would be applicable to a particular claim.
Given the current development of law in these areas, it would seem to me that if the agency were to be mandated to settle at the lowest achievable level, it could not consider the type of argument which would be made before a court for punitive or aggravated damages and, consequently, would be inhibited from reaching settlements. I did not table an amendment to this section on Committee Stage but, on reflection, I believe the Minister of State should take the amendment into account, if not today, then prior to his visit to the Seanad. The agency should be able to deal with claims based on aggravation or punitive considerations in addition to the type of claims with which we are familiar. That would be specifically excluded by this subsection.
This is an important policy point. Claims based on punitive or aggravated damages are likely to become the norm in this jurisdiction in the near future and the Minister may be excluding a range of claims with which he foresees the agency dealing by not including the type of provision in section 8(3) which is proposed in this amendment.
I understand where the Deputy is coming from but I do not believe the amendment is necessary. Even if it were accepted, I am not sure it would have any practical effect. The agency, in managing claims, must take account of the circumstances in each case, irrespective of whether special circumstances apply. I do not believe it is necessary to include the type of provision proposed in the amendment. There is already ample provision in the Bill to deal with any situations which arise in which Ministers would wish to give directions to the agency in terms of general policy or guidelines as to the performance of its claims management functions. This is provided for in section 15.
The agency will not be dealing with the type of cases mentioned during the Committee Stage debate in which special circumstances apply, cases such as hepatitis C where a compensation tribunal is sitting, cases involving an autistic child and its rights in regard to education and cases of institutional child abuse, in regard to which the Minister for Education and Science has already announced the establishment of a compensation board.
The agency will deal with claims for compensation or damages for personal injury or property damage. These claims, which are of a routine and recurring nature, will be dealt with by the agency in an efficient and cost effective manner. I emphasise that the agency will also deal with such issues in a fair and reasonable manner. We argued that point on Committee Stage when I pointed out that the circumstances of a claim will obviously be taken into account in making a settlement.
I reiterate the comments I made in response to the Second Stage debate. I have no doubt that cases will arise which will involve sensitive issues or in which injury will be caused, through negligence on the State's part. I assure Deputies that in such circumstances, the agency will deal with claimants in a fair and sympathetic manner. I have already referred to the fact that the Minister of the day can issue directions and guidelines to the agency.
There is general agreement that the present arrangements for handling the type of claims with which the agency will deal are unsatisfactory and that a new approach is required to put in place a structured and coherent response. Much has been said about the existence of a compensation culture in this country. There is a feeling that the State, the taxpayer, is being ripped off. It is entirely reasonable that the agency should be mandated to manage claims in such a way as to ensure that the State's liability and expenses are contained at the lowest achievable level. Therefore, I can not accept the amendment.
It appears to me that section 8(3) is very restrictive. The Minister of State said in respect of a previous amendment that the Government or the House should not be prescriptive in these matters. If the agency is to be charged with the management of delegated claims and must achieve the lowest possible level of expenses, etc. in connection with that management, that is a statutory requirement which would not leave the agency with any flexibility in particular circumstances which could arise. I take the point that the hepatitis C issue was not such a circumstance.
Surely, nobody can anticipate what other set of circumstances may arise with which, in the agency's view, it would be sensible, fair and just for it to deal, while perhaps not entirely conforming to the requirement to contain expenses and management costs to the State at the lowest achievable level. There should be some flexibility in this regard as it is very difficult to anticipate all the circumstances which may arise.
It goes without saying that the purpose of this exercise is that, inter alia, it will achieve efficiencies which have not existed heretofore given the diffuse manner in which such claims have been handled through the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. It should not be necessary to state that that is the Bill's purpose. The Minister of State appears to be saying that the section is required because it is necessary to state clearly that the State should get good value for money. I would have thought that was the Bill's obvious purpose and that the statutory invocation of section 8(3) could well give rise to a situation in which there would not be any flexibility in circumstances which, as yet, may be unforeseen but which will, indisputably, arise.
I concur with the comments made by Deputy Rabbitte. What is the purpose of including this subsection at all? Its inclusion will make flexibility difficult to achieve, particularly in such circumstances as outlined by Deputy Noonan. If the subsection were omitted altogether, the legislation would not be weakened in any way. The NTMA has performed its duties in an exemplary fashion to date and I cannot foresee it going off the rails and settling claims at levels above that which one would consider prudent. The subsection could cause problems in the future.
The Minister of State's reply has created more difficulties for me because he suggested that the claims agency's principal work would be the settlement of hundreds, if not thousands, of the routine claims made against Government Departments and agencies on a yearly basis, whether or not those who run the Departments and agencies are actually negligent.
I recall when the former Attorney General, Dermot Gleeson, first discussed this matter with me. Our discussions arose from the claims being made by members of the Defence Forces. The genesis of this Bill lies in claims of the nature of the Defence Force claims which caused great anxiety at the time. The Government of the day and its successor wondered how these claims could be settled in any kind of prudent or realistic manner. This is not about the multiplicity of accidents which occur across Government Departments.
This relates precisely to what we are discussing. Deputy Barrett has put his finger on it. If the Minister's argument stands up, then subsection 8(3) is not necessary because the intention is the agency will settle in a way that is more efficient and less expensive then processing claims individually. The subsection states that "the agency shall manage delegated claims and counterclaims in such manner as to ensure . the lowest achievable level". However, in whose opinion will this be achieved? If it is in the opinion of the agency, then the provision is redundant. However, if it is in the opinion of the Department of Finance, subsection 8(3) allows the Department to second guess settlements made by the agency.
If that is the purpose of the subsection then there is an attempt by the Minister's advisers to subvert the thrust of the Bill, which should not happen. Responsibility is either being given to the agency, in line with the reporting mechanisms in the Bill and the consultations provided for, or it is not. Who will make the call? In whose opinion will a claim be settled at the lowest achievable level? The subsection talks about the State's liability as well as the State's expenses. The actual amount of the claim and the expenses needed to settle it are in question here.
This is something of a Trojan horse, with the Department of Finance second guessing the claims agency. It runs counter to the principle of the Bill and the subsection should be dropped.
I have listened to the arguments, and apart from legal advice or advice from officials, I disagree with what has been said. The arguments being put forward presuppose that the people involved in the claims agency and those negotiating any settlement would not have the capacity to come to a fair and reasonable settlement.
On the contrary that is my point.
I take the view, and Members on both sides have expressed the view quite vociferously in recent years in the context of various matters and costs to the State, that there should be terms of reference in the Bill and that the State, taking account of the fact that they are reasonable and fair, should ensure protection for the taxpayer and seek to settle these matters at a reasonable level while taking account of the lowest achievable level. I do not see anything wrong or contradictory in this. So what if, as the three Deputies opposite have said, it inserts specific terms of reference into the Bill? We are guardians of the taxpayers' money.
I take on board what has been said and that there will be circumstances in which they will have to be fair and reasonable, but every case will be different. There will be very low and very high levels of claims and settlements. We, as legislators, should include some terms of reference in the Bill in order that we do not have an open, free-for-all in terms of the possible liability of the State.
We should bear in mind that if somebody is not satisfied with the settlement they have the option of recourse to the courts, which I am sure some will exercise.
Given the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I will press the amendment.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
Tá
|
Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Andrews, David.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cullen, Martin.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Fox, Mildred.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy. |
Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael P.Kitt, Tom.Lawlor, Liam.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John J.Martin, MicheálMoffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.O'Dea, Willie.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Malley, Desmond.O'Rourke, Mary.Power, Seán.Reynolds, Albert.Roche, Dick.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V. |
Níl
|
Allen, Bernard.Barnes, Monica.Barrett, Seán.Belton, Louis J.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, John.Bruton, Richard.Burke, Liam.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Enright, Thomas.Farrelly, John.Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.Hayes, Brian. |
Higgins, Joe.Hogan, Philip.Howlin, Brendan.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Pádraic.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Olivia.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.O'Keeffe, Jim.Owen, Nora.Perry, John.Rabbitte, Pat.Reynolds, Gerard.Ring, Michael.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Spring, Dick.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Upton, Mary. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Power; Níl, Deputies Flanagan and Stagg.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 9 in the name of Deputy Rabbitte has been ruled out of order as it does not arise out of committee proceedings.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.
Amendment No. 11 in the name of Deputy Rabbitte has been ruled out of order, as it does not arise out of committee proceedings.
Amendment No. 11 not moved.
Amendment No. 13 is an alternative to amendment No. 12, which arises out of committee proceedings, and they may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 14, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
"(4) The Minister shall appoint a person to be a member of the Policy Committee only if he or she has substantial expertise and experience at a senior level in any of the following–
(a) the management of legal claims,
(b) litigation under the law relating to civil liability,
(c) insurance other than life assurance,
(d) risk management,
(e) actuarial matters,
(f) accountancy and auditing,
(g) the public service,
(h) trade union matters.”.
This amendment is based on Deputy Noonan's amendment No. 13, which was discussed on Committee Stage. Both amendments draw on section 7 of the National Pensions Reserve Fund Act, 2000, in relation to members of the commission provided for in that legislation. The areas specified in amendment No. 12 from which members of the policy committee are to be appointed are those which are considered to be appropriate and relevant to the policy committee whose functions under subsection (1) is to advise the agency on policy and procedures in relation to the performance of its claims management functions. This amendment is a response to Deputy Noonan's amendment.
This amendment substantially meets the point I raised. I tabled a similar amendment on Committee Stage, as in a parallel Bill dealing with the national pensions fund a similar provision was included to restrict the Minister from appointing members of the commission – a central part of that Bill – unless they had particular expert knowledge of their areas of responsibility. The Minister said it was a new departure and he envisaged that would happen regarding other Bills. It should happen in terms of this one as this amendment is tabled by the Minister.
Another issue raised concerning the other Bill was that the consumer interest should also be included. The Minister subsequently tabled an amendment on Report Stage to include the consumer interest in that Bill.
The Minister for Finance.
Yes. My amendment, which is along the same lines as the Minister's, includes the consumer interest, but it has been dropped from the Minister's amendment. If it decided to confine persons who will be members of the policy committee to persons with a particular expertise, the Minister's amendment runs very well down to subsection (4)(g). People with a particular expertise could be found in the public service, but it does not necessarily follow that the public servant appointed would have a particular interest. In terms of trade union matters, the subsection is widened to include a representative of the trade union movement. The Minister accepted the point that if a person who is expert in trade union matters is included, that category is not of the same level of expertise as the other trade descriptions. He said that I was right and that logically he should also include consumers. He went on to amend the section and include them. The Minister of State has, however, removed them from this subsection. Will he include them? Can he add paragraph (i) to his amendment and include the phrase regarding consumers used in the other Bill?
That phrase was not included in this amendment because it did not seem to be relevant.
It is as relevant to this Bill as it was to the other Bill.
I can include the phrase when the Bill goes to the Seanad.
If the Minister tables an amendment when the Bill goes to the Seanad, he will have to bring the Bill back to this House. Why will he not include the phrase before we finish dealing with the Bill? The phrase "consumer rights representative", "consumer interests" or, to be consistent with paragraph (h), “consumer matters” would be fine.
The phrase included in the other Bill was "consumer protection".
That is fine. I ask the Minister of State to table an amendment to this effect.
It does not seem to be relevant but in the interests of—
It is as relevant as trade union matters, which is the point I am making.
The Deputy knows what I mean.
I know exactly what the Minister of State means. Will he make that proposal?
I move: that "(i) consumer protection.” be added to amendment No. 12.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 13 not moved.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 15, line 10, after "Fund" to insert "or such other fund which on the advice of the Policy Committee the Minister may designate".
I would like to hear the Minister of State's reflections on this matter since we discussed it last.
In relation to this amendment, I point out that the payments, which the agency will make under subsection (1), will be funded from advances it will receive from the post office savings bank fund. All payments the agency receives from State authorities by way of recoupment should, therefore, go back into that fund and not any other fund. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 15 not moved.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 21, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:
"Director of Public Prosecutions".
This amendment adds the Director of Public Prosecutions to the list of bodies in the Schedule. It should have been brought forward on Committee Stage when the Schedule was being amended.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank the Minister and his officials, particularly for their work on Committee Stage and subsequently, and their generosity with their time in explaining certain aspects of the Bill to me. It is better legislation at this stage.
I concur with Deputy Noonan and I thank everyone involved. It was an interesting exercise and one to which everyone contributed; we have better legislation for that. I thank my officials for their time and effort. The Bill is better for the process of Committee Stage and this debate. I acknowledge everyone's contribution.
Question put and agreed to.