Amendments Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) Bill 2022: Report and Final Stages
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 14, to delete lines 9 to 41, and in page 15, to delete lines 1 to 12.
This amendment calls for the deletion of provisions relating to focused monitoring by a member of Garda personnel relating to arrestable offences and matters relating to the security of the State. I am seeking the deletion of the whole section.
This is warranted because, as I read the section, it lays out that An Garda Síochána can make use of this section off its own bat and that this monitoring can continue on. While the section does provide that it must be signed off by an officer at the rank of superintendent or above, I do not believe this allows for sufficient checks and balances or enough oversight of what is happening. For that reason, this is a very worrying situation. A situation could arise where An Garda Síochána continues to sign off on monitoring and it goes on forever without ever being scrutinised. In theory, that could happen and, if it can happen in theory, it is likely actually to happen. Even if a member of An Garda Síochána was particular enough to say that should not happen, from my reading of the section, one of these orders could be in place before lapsing for a day and another being signed off on and put in place without any scrutiny at all. There could be monitoring of a vehicle suspected of having been involved in a crime for an entire year, bar four days. That is very dangerous and very wrong. It is something we should remove from the Bill.
Am I taking amendments Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together? They are related.
I am sorry. I forgot about that.
They are all connected and one is consequential on the other so I will address them together, if that is okay. Essentially, this section allows An Garda Síochána to undertake focused monitoring, particularly through the use of automatic number plate recognition, ANPR. For example, if An Garda Síochána felt a particular person with a particular car needed to be monitored, it could get permission to be alerted if that car passed an ANPR monitor. Under the section, permission or approval would have to be sought from an officer at the rank of superintendent and this monitoring could be carried out for a maximum of three months. Evidence would obviously have to be provided as to why the monitoring was required.
The Deputy's first amendment proposes the removal of the entire section so as to disallow this kind of focused monitoring. The second amends the length of time monitoring can be carried out for. This second amendment would obviously fall if the section was removed. The third and fourth amendments refer to how this period can be extended. As I have said, approval must be sought at the level of superintendent within An Garda Síochána but any extension beyond three months would require the approval of a District Court judge. It is not the case that An Garda Síochána could decide to extend this monitoring for any length of time. If it goes beyond three months, it would have to go to a District Court judge. After those three months, if a further extension is required, it would again have to go to a District Court judge.
The Deputy's amendment suggests that if, after a number of iterations, another extension is sought, it would have to go to the Circuit Court. It is generally agreed that going to a District Court judge constitutes a level of oversight that is in line with what is being requested here. Again, this is to allow gardaí to be able to do their job. I believe there is relevant oversight. The section does say that approval "shall not exceed a duration of 3 months". It is generally the intention of An Garda Síochána for such monitoring only to be needed for a matter of weeks or months. If it exceeds that, the matter must go to a District Court judge. It is really important that An Garda Síochána has this type of technology available to it to assist gardaí in doing their everyday job.
To clarify, we are discussing amendments Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together. I should have clarified that.
I am sorry; that was my mistake. I will speak to the other three. On what the Minister has said with regard to oversight, the section actually says:
A member of Garda personnel may utilise ANPR data to monitor the movements of a particular vehicle (in this section and section 18 referred to as “focussed monitoring”) only if that utilisation—
(a) has been approved under this section by a member of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of superintendent following receipt of an application which shall be made by the member of Garda personnel, or
(b) has been authorised by a judge of the District Court
It does not say "and has been authorised by a judge of the District Court". Perhaps I am wrong but my reading of that is that An Garda can do this off its own bat. That is okay. If this amendment was accepted, the next amendment would amend the next section, section 18, to remove the mention of section 17. On amendment No. 4, I believe there should be some oversight of the judges as well.
It is not that anybody is saying that gardaí should not be able to do their job or that they should not do this job. What I am saying is that gardaí can do this job but there should be proper oversight and proper protections. Gardaí have to be conscious of the need to protect everybody's rights. While those subject to monitoring may be deemed criminals, it does not mean that they have fewer rights than any other person living in Ireland. Gardaí have to be conscious of the right of individuals within the country while they are doing their job. Having proper oversight is just par for the course in that job. That is what it should always be about. I do not believe that a member of An Garda Síochána getting authorisation for this kind of monitoring from his or her boss constitutes oversight. That does not work. With the best will in the world, this is also for the protection of gardaí in doing their job. It would mean that they would not be called into question in the future for having done this. This does not work and that is the reason I put forward these amendments. It is very important.
Amendment No. 4 just provides that there should be oversight within the Judiciary. If one judge signs off on this, that is fair enough, but, after a certain period of time, an extra judge should get involved to provide oversight. I do not believe this is that onerous. Obviously, An Garda Síochána may think it is but I do not. We should look at it as providing protection for all citizens within the legislation.
The introduction of an element of formality to these extra powers being given to An Garda Síochána is welcome. On amendments Nos. 3 and 4, I agree that, if there have been two authorisations, notwithstanding that they have received approval from a superintendent and a District Court judge, in order to concentrate minds as to how serious these powers are, it would be more prudent if approval from a Circuit Court judge was required. It is an acceptable check or balance in the system. I support amendment No. 4.
To clarify, section 17(1) includes a section 17(1)(a) and a section 17(1)(b), the latter of which reads "has been authorised by a judge of the District Court under section 18." Section 18 states: "If an approval under section 17 has been granted and a member of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of superintendent believes that focussed monitoring of the vehicle concerned for more than 3 months [...] is justified" the matter will go to the District Court. For up to three months, approval may be granted by an officer at the level of superintendent or above. Evidence has to be provided to allow for this to happen. Where the matter goes to a judge, a member of An Garda Síochána would have to provide information on oath and swear before a judge. Obviously, this is not something gardaí will do lightly or without the correct facts and information. I fully agree with the Deputy that gardaí are there to treat all people equally but it is also their job to keep us safe. This gives them the ability to deal with criminals, those who would break our law. I believe it is important that An Garda Síochána has the right tools and technology. That is what this Bill is about. It is about providing the technology, with the right level of oversight, to allow An Garda Síochána to do its job and to convict criminals engaged in various different forms of crime. This section applies to arrestable offences, that is, offences attracting a penalty of imprisonment of five years or more. We are not talking about petty theft or antisocial behaviour but about very serious offences. It is not going to be applied in absolutely every circumstance. It is a very necessary part of this legislation and that is why I cannot accept these amendments.
Perhaps the Minister could clarify a point. Section 17(1)(b) says that this type of monitoring may be authorised by a member of Garda personnel of a suitable rank or through the process under section 18. Is that "or" in the wrong place? To my mind, that means that, if a garda wants to get one of these orders, he or she only needs to meet the first criteria.
That is the case for the first three months.
It says "or".
Section 17 relates to utilising ANPR. That is why it says "or" before referring to section 18. I assure the Deputy that this "or" applies only up to three months. Anything beyond three months must go to the District Court.
On what the Minister said there about petty thefts, a theft offence, if it is on indictment, carries a penalty of up to five years, so it is possible that could be included in it, and all the more reason that if we are going into a six-month time period of a continuous assessment of it, it would be prudent to go to a Circuit Court judge-----
That is, perhaps, not the example to use, but any arrestable offence, yes.
-----so they can weigh it up and take everything into account. There is definitely more scrutiny imposed in the Circuit Court than there would be in any other courts.
I would not be in favour of removing the section. The powers are required, and there would be circumstances, where there are mobile gangs and so on, where these powers would be very useful. On Deputy Pringle's point about longevity and that it is ongoing for a recurring three-month period, there is the notion that, and my colleague from Sinn Féin, Deputy Pa Daly, has much more experience of the courts than me, as a practitioner, I hasten to add, the seriousness would be underscored to An Garda Síochána by going to the Circuit Court. Would the Minister be open to that?
I will speak on the oversight, because obviously what the Deputy is trying to suggest is there would be oversight of the District Court judge by the Circuit Court judge in this instance.
No, but you would have to go to a separate court.
What I can say is that, each year, a High Court judge will have to report to the Taoiseach on the operation of a number of sections, but in particular where we have this focused monitoring. That judge would have to look at how this has been applied and where it has been approved. Certainly, if there is anything that arises where it potentially has been abused or not applied in the right way, that is something the High Court judge would have to report on. There is that level of oversight there in the fact this has to be reported on every year, so the High Court judge looks at this. Again, we have to see how this would operate, but the intention is that this would be used in circumstances less than three months, but obviously we have to build in where there may be exceptional circumstances or where this may be required for longer periods. However, I think there is that level of scrutiny with the High Court report at the end of the year.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 16, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
“(11) After the serving of 2 authorisations under this section the third and subsequent authorisations shall be granted by a judge of the Circuit Court.”.
Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 52; Níl, 80; Staon, 0.
Tá
- Andrews, Chris.
- Barry, Mick.
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Brady, John.
- Browne, Martin.
- Buckley, Pat.
- Cairns, Holly.
- Carthy, Matt.
- Clarke, Sorca.
- Collins, Joan.
- Conway-Walsh, Rose.
- Cronin, Réada.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Daly, Pa.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Donnelly, Paul.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Farrell, Mairéad.
- Funchion, Kathleen.
- Gould, Thomas.
- Guirke, Johnny.
- Healy-Rae, Danny.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kenny, Gino.
- Kerrane, Claire.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- Mitchell, Denise.
- Munster, Imelda.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Murphy, Paul.
- Mythen, Johnny.
- Nash, Ged.
- Nolan, Carol.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Reilly, Louise.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Laoghaire, Donnchadh.
- Ó Murchú, Ruairí.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Quinlivan, Maurice.
- Ryan, Patricia.
- Sherlock, Sean.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Duncan.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Tully, Pauline.
- Ward, Mark.
- Whitmore, Jennifer.
- Wynne, Violet-Anne.
Níl
- Berry, Cathal.
- Brophy, Colm.
- Browne, James.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Colm.
- Burke, Peter.
- Butler, Mary.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Cahill, Jackie.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Canney, Seán.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carroll MacNeill, Jennifer.
- Chambers, Jack.
- Collins, Niall.
- Costello, Patrick.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Cowen, Barry.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowe, Cathal.
- Devlin, Cormac.
- Dillon, Alan.
- Donnelly, Stephen.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frankie.
- Fitzpatrick, Peter.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Foley, Norma.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harris, Simon.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lahart, John.
- Lawless, James.
- Leddin, Brian.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- Madigan, Josepha.
- Martin, Catherine.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McEntee, Helen.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- McHugh, Joe.
- Moynihan, Aindrias.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer.
- Murphy, Verona.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Brien, Joe.
- O'Callaghan, Jim.
- O'Connor, James.
- O'Dowd, Fergus.
- O'Gorman, Roderic.
- O'Sullivan, Christopher.
- O'Sullivan, Pádraig.
- Ó Cathasaigh, Marc.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Rabbitte, Anne.
- Richmond, Neale.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smyth, Niamh.
- Smyth, Ossian.
- Stanton, David.
- Troy, Robert.
Staon
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Thomas Pringle and Joan Collins; Níl, Deputies Hildegarde Naughton and Cormac Devlin.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 33, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:
“(d) shall cause a public consultation and public information campaign to be carried out,”.
This amendment relates to the provisions within the Act with regard to who has to be consulted in the legislation which has been put forward. This is to ensure that there is a public consultation on the amendments. We had a great deal of discussion on Committee Stage with regard to this provision and the Minister says that she has outlined a number of people who have to be consulted with respect to changes that are made:
(i) the Minister;
(ii) the Policing Authority;
(iii) the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission; (iv) the Garda Síochána Inspectorate;
(v) the Data Protection Commission;
(vi) the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission,
(c) may, where appropriate, consult with the Local Government Management Agency
And so forth, but it forgets to mention that the public should also be consulted with regard to it. That is vitally important. I know that the Minister made the point on Committee Stage that it was implied that notice would be given but I do not believe that that is sufficient. There should be a requirement there to ensure that there is an active public consultation period in this regard. It might perhaps be that there may not be much interest in this or that many members of the public may not want to be consulted in this regard, but we should at the very least have the provision that they are consulted and that that is put into legislation.
It was also said on Committee Stage that it does not need to be specifically in the legislation but the Minister will remember when she appeared before the committee that she informed it that she was putting forward three or four amendments on Seanad Stage of the Bill, which were inferred in the Bill, but which she wanted to have explicitly stated in the Bill. I fail to see why they could be explicitly stated for the public and yet the public consultation should not be so stated in the Bill. For that reason, this amendment should be taken and that is why it is put forward.
It is very important that we include public consultation in this from the beginning and make a requirement which serves several purposes. It first ensures that people know what the rules are and that they know the law. This is a chance for the people to understand how An Garda operates and for them to feed into consultation. I accept that the Bill states:
(i) the Minister;
(ii) the Policing Authority;
(iii) the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission; (iv) the Garda Síochána Inspectorate;
(v) the Data Protection Commission;
(vi) the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission,
The Bill, however, needs to be explicit when it comes to the general public. The second part of the amendment is in respect of a public information campaign. The Bill states that: "a draft code of practice is published on the website of An Garda Síochána to allow a person a period that he or she shall specify to make written representations in relation to the draft code." That is all well and good but without a public awareness campaign, the general public may not know that they have to go to the website in order to make this consultation. This is why we are calling for a public information campaign.
We have seen this before in previous legislation where a public awareness campaign can very much work. I will mention one which went through the Committee on Children, Disability, Equality and Integration, which I was a member of last year, on the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act. The reason I mention that today is that I spoke to a constituent who rang me today who was benefiting from this legislation but the only reason he knew about it was because of the public information campaign, which was the information campaign on the radio and on television. The message got out to the general public. I believe that it is very important to get as much information out there to the general public as we can so that they can be included in this process.
I will address Deputy Pringle initially as he outlined where the Bill said that the Commissioner shall consult. He then outlined all of the various different bodies and he, perhaps conveniently, stopped then by saying "and so forth" because section (d) states:
(d) shall ensure that the draft code of practice is published on the website of the Garda Síochána in order to allow persons a period that he or she shall specify to
make written representations in relation to the draft code,
This particular section (d) is specifically to ensure that it is not just for the authority, the Ombudsman, the inspectorate, or the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, but that any other person has an opportunity to make their views known, particularly where a code of conduct has been set out. Obviously, this is something that is very new, with the introduction of body-worn cameras. The code of conduct is a very important oversight mechanism in understanding how this technology is going to be deployed and used. This is to ensure that there is that accountability and transparency which is completely right and appropriate. This section (d) clearly states that a person, and this can apply to any person, will have an opportunity to make a written representation and that is essentially a public consultation.
To be clear about this, because I am aware that there were different discussions at the Cabinet, this obviously refers to this particular section which is focused on the code of practice. There was a wider discussion around an awareness raising campaign on the legislation itself and the introduction of body-worn cameras. This is obviously going to happen and I will give a commitment that this is something that will happen once the Bill is enacted. Is it the intention that this information campaign would solely focus on the draft code of practice, or are we talking in a much wider space because that is the discussion which took place on Committee Stage?
I am very happy to look at it on an either-or basis and to look at what generally happens in other legislation and I do know and Deputy Howlin will be well aware of Coco's law, which was passed almost three years ago, where it was not expressly stated but there was a clear commitment from the Government, working with other agencies, to ensure that there was a campaign highlighting the Bill and its benefits and ensuring that it targeted those who we were very much trying to target and, in particular, younger people. There was a success rate because of that. The number of people engaging with the hotline and with the amount of prosecutions then going to An Garda Síochána has greatly benefited because of the consultation. I fully agree with all of the Deputies. I believe that public consultations are appropriate but I do not believe it is necessary to include that in every single piece of legislation and it is something I am happy to discuss further with the Deputies to see perhaps how we can ensure that it certainly happens.
It would not do any harm to include it.
I suppose because we are talking about a public consultation and public information campaign, I generally believe that the public consultation piece is already addressing this Bill. It very clearly set out in section (d) that this applies to all persons. Perhaps this Bill probably still has a way to go and I can discuss further with the Deputies how can we can ensure that there is public awareness raising campaign once this Bill is enacted.
I have no fault to find with the Minister and I take her at her word when she says that there will be an awareness campaign but I also believe that it should be in legislation. It should be in the legislation that there is a requirement that the public will be consulted in this regard. I rapidly went through the Bill and I did not stop deliberately before section (d), or anything like that, but yes section (d) does say that there should be consultation and that it will be allowed on the Garda Síochána website. But, then again, that implies a certain amount of knowledge because one has to know in order to go to the Garda Síochána website to actually get the information in this regard. People may have an interest in this, and they will be looking at the Garda Síochána website but there are also people who may not. I do not believe there is any harm in having a public consultation in respect of legislation. It is no big secret what we are doing here, there is no problem with it, and we should be making people aware and let people know that stuff is happening so that they can inform themselves. This would lead to the wider distribution of knowledge in regard to the actual legislation and as to what is included in it. I do not believe it would be any problem at all.
The Minister herself has said that this legislation is very new. It is new for An Garda, for the public and for ourselves in here. As much awareness as we can get out there - I take the Minister's word on it - and an awareness campaign would be very beneficial for the general public. As Deputy Howlin said, what is the harm in having an information campaign within the legislation?
The Minister referenced Coco's Law and the outreach subsequent to its introduction. She is right that it was not put into the legislation. She gave a commitment which she honoured in full. It has been extraordinary the number of contacts I have had even since, including invitations to be involved in seminars and online discussions with young people on it. That is really valuable. As I understand it, the difficulty the Minister has with the amendment is that is covers a public consultation and information campaign because she believes that the public consultation is already captured. What harm is it to take a belt-and-braces approach? If it is already captured, it will be made more explicit in order that it is understood that this is what will happen. It would improve the Bill to accept that and have the outreach to which I refer for people. It would allow people the opportunity to understand the implications of legislation like this. As with any new law in the criminal justice area, the Garda Síochána, requires a period between the enactment of the legislation and the Minister's formal order to commence the legislation in order that gardaí can become familiarised with it. Similarly, there could be a public outreach on legislation we pass so that the people are also familiar with it.
The Minister has been in three times already. Does anyone else have anything to add? The Minister might respond if she wishes, even if we are bending the rules a little bit.
I appreciate what the Deputies are saying. The public consultation is captured in this. When we are talking about codes of practice, we are talking about the technicalities of implementing a new procedure, and the development and roll-out of body-worn cameras. Any person who has an interest in this will be following the development of this legislation. Once this is enacted, the next steps will be for the Garda Commissioner to work through the codes of practice to put this online so there will be an opportunity for people to have their say. As I have said, I am very happy to engage further with colleagues on how we roll out this information and how we ensure that the contents of this legislation are known to everybody. I will endeavour to engage with colleagues on this prior to the Bill going back to the Seanad.
Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 49; Níl, 73; Staon, 0.
Tá
- Andrews, Chris.
- Barry, Mick.
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Brady, John.
- Browne, Martin.
- Buckley, Pat.
- Carthy, Matt.
- Clarke, Sorca.
- Collins, Joan.
- Collins, Michael.
- Connolly, Catherine.
- Cronin, Réada.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Daly, Pa.
- Donnelly, Paul.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Farrell, Mairéad.
- Funchion, Kathleen.
- Gould, Thomas.
- Guirke, Johnny.
- Harkin, Marian.
- Healy-Rae, Danny.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kerrane, Claire.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- Mitchell, Denise.
- Munster, Imelda.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Murphy, Paul.
- Mythen, Johnny.
- Nolan, Carol.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Reilly, Louise.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Laoghaire, Donnchadh.
- Ó Murchú, Ruairí.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Quinlivan, Maurice.
- Ryan, Patricia.
- Sherlock, Sean.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Duncan.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Tully, Pauline.
- Ward, Mark.
- Whitmore, Jennifer.
- Wynne, Violet-Anne.
Níl
- Berry, Cathal.
- Brophy, Colm.
- Browne, James.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Colm.
- Burke, Peter.
- Butler, Mary.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Cahill, Jackie.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carroll MacNeill, Jennifer.
- Chambers, Jack.
- Collins, Niall.
- Costello, Patrick.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowe, Cathal.
- Devlin, Cormac.
- Dillon, Alan.
- Donnelly, Stephen.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frankie.
- Fitzpatrick, Peter.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Foley, Norma.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harris, Simon.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lahart, John.
- Lawless, James.
- Madigan, Josepha.
- Martin, Catherine.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McEntee, Helen.
- McGuinness, John.
- McHugh, Joe.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer.
- Murphy, Verona.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Brien, Joe.
- O'Callaghan, Jim.
- O'Connor, James.
- O'Dowd, Fergus.
- O'Gorman, Roderic.
- O'Sullivan, Christopher.
- O'Sullivan, Pádraig.
- Ó Cathasaigh, Marc.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Rabbitte, Anne.
- Richmond, Neale.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smyth, Niamh.
- Smyth, Ossian.
- Stanton, David.
- Troy, Robert.
Staon
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Thomas Pringle and Joan Collins; Níl, Deputies Hildegarde Naughton and Cormac Devlin.
Amendment declared lost.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.