Before we proceed with the amendments I wish to bring to the attention of the House a printed error which occurs in amendment No. 4 where the indefinite article "a" should appear before the word "member" in the fourth line.
Combat Poverty Agency Bill, 1985: Report and Final Stages.
Government amendment No. 1:
In page 5, to delete lines 25 to 29 and substitute the following:—
"(1) The Agency shall, at such times as, and in respect of every period to which, subsection (2) of this section relates, draw up and submit to the Minister for his approval, given by him after consultation with the Minister for Finance, a programme outlining the Agency's projected activities (in this section referred to as a `strategic plan')."
The amendment before the House arises from the discussion on Committee Stage of this section of the Bill. A number of Senators were concerned that the process of submission of strategic plans and the consideration of these plans by the Minister concerned could hold up the work of the agency. During the debate on Committee Stage I endeavoured to explain the reasons underlining this section. I pointed out that the Ministers concerned could not be required to approve the agency's plans within certain time limits and, furthermore, if the plans were not approved the work of the agency would not come to a standstill but would continue to carry out their functions within the limits of the resources available to them. I was satisfied, therefore, with the general principles underlined in the section, including the provision for ministerial approval.
However, I agree with one point which was raised by Senator O'Leary concerning the role of the Department of Finance with regard to the approval of the agency's plans. Senator O'Leary pointed out that the section as it stands appears to envisage the Minister for Finance, who already under section 9, would exercise financial control on the agency, getting involved in the detail of the agency's programme and having to go through it in detail before approving it. This — Senator O'Leary felt — would result in excessive involvement of that Department, in unnecessary interdepartmental correspondence and in consequent delays in approving the strategic plans. The general point raised by Senator O'Leary is a good one. Accordingly it is proposed that section 5 be amended to remove the provision for approval of strategic plans by the Minister for Finance and insert instead a provision for approval by the Minister for Social Welfare, subject to consultation with the Minister for Finance.
The strategic plan for the agency will undoubtedly contain, expressly or by implication, a commitment to expenditure by the Exchequer. It is appropriate that the Minister for Social Welfare would consult with the Minister for Finance with regard to the plan, while the approval of the plan would in the ultimate be a matter for the Minister for Social Welfare. That Minister would then have to ensure that the necessary resources were made available to enable the plan, as approved, to be put into effect.
I thank the Minister for acceding to the points that were made not only by myself but on which I was supported by Members on all sides on the last occasion. I think it is refreshing that the Minister has accepted our points of view in that regard. It draws an essential difference between imposing on the Minister for Finance the obligation of going through this on a line-by-line basis and giving his general approval and the general duty of consultation which is now imposed on the Minister under whose control this agency will operate. I support the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 are related and amendment Nos. 4 and 5 are consequential. Therefore, amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 2:
In page 10, to delete lines 6 to 8 and substitute the following:—
"(b) elected as a member of either House of the Oireachtas or of the Assembly of the European Communities, or".
Senator Robinson proposed amendments on Committee Stage, the effect of which would be that members or employees of the agency would not, as proposed in the Bill, have to cease membership or be seconded from employment as the case may be when nominated as a candidate for election to either House of the Oireachtas or to the European Parliament. The amendments were withdrawn when I indicated that the Government accepted the principle of the amendments proposed and that the appropriate amendments would be brought forward on Report Stage after consultation with the parliamentary draftsman. This has now been done and the amendments have been circulated. The amendment to section 15(1) (b) provides: that a member of the agency shall cease membership when elected to either House of the Oireachtas or to the European Parliament rather than when nominated as a candidate, as originally in the Bill.
The amendment to section 15 (2) (b) makes similar provision with regard to the secondment of employees. The amendment to section 15 (2) (c) makes the consequential provision that payment of remuneration or allowances to an employee will cease only in respect of the period beginning on nomination as a Member of the Seanad or on election to either House of the Oireachtas or the European Parliament as the case may be and ending when he ceases to be a member of the body concerned.
The amendment to subsection (4) is necessitated by the new format of subsection (2) (c) and makes no substantive change. As there was a great deal of support for these amendments in the form in which they were first proposed I have no doubt that they will now be agreed without further debate and I commend them to the House.
On behalf of Senator Robinson, who expressed a lot of our views in this regard, I thank the Minister of State for having conceded this amendment on Report Stage. This is the second piece of legislation on which the Members of this House have managed to convince the parliamentary draftsman and, indeed, the Minister, in regard to the automatic preclusion of people who are nominated for public office but who are not necessarily elected from being members of an agency such as this or of the dentists board, for instance. This is an important and fundamental piece of amending legislation to which the Members of the House have addressed themselves. First, it defends that right of people to be nominated, particularly in view of the fact that there are certain nominating procedures over which the nominated person has no control. A person could be nominated without his knowledge and thereby be automatically disqualified from membership of this agency. The Minister in conceding this amendment now agrees that such preclusion will not occur until a person has been elected to either House of the Oireachtas or to the European Assembly. This is the second piece of legislation in which we have had to amend the parliamentary draftsman's first draft of a Bill and we hope that in future the necessity for an amendment will not take place. I can assure the parliamentary draftsmen that if they continue to include sections like this we will continue to amend them, with the support of the Minister, I hope.
Very briefly, I should like to support the other speakers. On Committee Stage I supported Senator Robinson and I certainly agree now with the principle of the amendment and I would like to thank the Minister for making that amendment. The first challenge to this particular type of an amendment took place during the Dentists Bill. I note it is now a feature of the Nurses Bill also. We have won a battle in this area and I am glad of that.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 3:
In page 10, to delete lines 16 to 18 and substitute the following:—
"(b) elected as a member of either House of the Oireachtas or of the Assembly of the European Communities, or"
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No 4:
In page 10, to delete lines 25 to 36 and substitute the following:—
"any remuneration or allowances in respect of the period commencing, on such nomination or election, or when he is so regarded as having been elected (as the case may be) and ending when he ceases to be a member of either such House or Assembly.".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 5:
In page 10, to delete line 45 and substitute the following:—
"of a period therein mentioned as".
Amendment agreed to.
Before leaving Report Stage, I wish to mention three sections that I thought the Minister indicated he would give consideration to. On Committee Stage, points were raised and the Minister indicated at that time, if the notes which I have on my copy of the Bill are correct, that he would consider three other matters. We have not heard anything of them so presumably the Minister has decided not to make the amendments. I would like to hear what the Minister's views are on those matters. One was in relation to section 4 (5). It deals with the agency being required to perform their functions in accordance with directions issued from time to time by the Minister. The second point relates to section 5 (3) (a). The issue there was a proper timetable which would ensure that the matter would be considered within a reasonable length of time. The third matter was that the Minister would consider these matters before Report Stage. I would like to have the benefit of his consideration of the matter on section 7 (4) which provides that:
The Minister when appointing a member shall fix such member's period of membership which shall not exceed three years and, subject to this section, membership shall be on such terms as the Minister determines.
That was the point highlighted in the debate. Does that mean the Minister can say one could only attend half the functions? The Minister indicated he would have a look at that matter as well. Would the Minister like to share the consideration that he has no doubt given to these points and which have given rise to the situation where he has decided not to amend the Bill at this stage? I think it is right that we should get a response to committments given like that. It is important also from the point of view of the other House that there should be some consideration of these matters at this stage.
Again, I thank Senators for their constructive approach to the debate but I do not agree with Senator Fallon in describing it as a battle.
Perhaps not; a skirmish, maybe.
I do not think the Senator had to battle that hard. On the points referred to by Senator O'Leary and which I dealt with at some length on Committee Stage, I agree that when we had dealt with them he appeared not to be 100 per cent satisfied and wanted to refer to them again on this Stage. On section 4, which Senator O'Leary has referred to, it was generally agreed that the outline of the agency's functions in section 4 is fairly comprehensive and that under the powers given in the section the agency will be enabled to carry out their role effectively.
Concern was expressed by Senator Robinson on the Second Stage regarding the ability of the new agency to promote projects on the ground which would continue and expand the work developed in the pilot projects under the former combat proverty programme and engender local community self-help and so on. I agree that it is important to build on the experience of the last programme and I am satisfied that the powers given in section 4 and in particular in subsections (1) (b) and (2) (d), are adequate to enable the agency to assist in carrying out the work done by the pilot projects under that programme.
Senator Robinson was also concerned about what she saw as the lack of a clear commitment to develop a national forum which would enable poor people to speak on their behalf. The sentiment behind this idea, namely, to give poor people more of a say in the decisions which affect their own lives was one of the motives underlying the establishment of the agency. Section 4 (2) (c) gives the agency the function of acting as a resource centre for community development as a means of overcoming proverty and the fostering and encouraging of community development particularly in areas with a high concentration of poverty where there has been no tradition of community development activity. That will be a very important aspect of the agency's work.
Senator O'Leary repeated his concern today that the new agency should have maximum freedom to operate and this brings us to what was the nub of the debate on section 4 on Commitee Stage and in particular subsection (5) which provides that the agency shall, in the performance of its functions, comply with such directions as may from time to time be given to it by the Minister. I have carefuly considered what has previously been said about subsection (5). The subsection was put in as a standard provision. It previously appeared in the National Community Development Agency Act, 1982, and in the National Social Service Board Act, 1984, both of which dealt with agencies similar to the Combat Proverty Agency and was not seen as a threat to the effective functioning of those bodies. The first point in relation to this is that the Minister and the Government of the day have the overriding responsibility in all matter of public policy. The establishment of a new agency, as Senator Robinson said, will not in itself solve the problem of poverty. It will have a central role in identifying the causes and extent of poverty in Ireland and initiating measures to overcome it. But without a commitment by the Government to put into effect in their economic and social policies the measures necessary to address the needs of the poor, the work of the agency will have little effect.
We must assume that the Minister shares with the agency a concern to tackle the problem of poverty. For the effective operation of the agency there must be a degree of harmony between the agency and the Government, not necessarily total agreement. Some Senators appear to envisage a situation where the Minister and the agency are at loggerheads. That situation is unlikely where the parties involved are sincerely concerned to work for a common aim, but if it arose it would obviously have to be dealt with by either or both sides and might conceivably result in resignations or removals without having to resort to the ultimate power which the Minister would have under the Bill, that is to remove members of the agency from office. It could be argued that in recent times too little rather than too much ministerial control has led to failure in several areas of the public sector. It is hoped that the need to exercise the powers in section 4 (5) would rarely if ever arise. However, the Government have considered in the present case that the Minister has need of power to intervene, regardless of whether it will ever be exercised. This is something which will largely depend on the experience of the agency's operation. Therefore, the power to issue directions under section 4 (5) is in no way a radical measure and is not likely to be used in the event of any fundamental difference of opinion between the Minister and the agency, should that arise. The power to direct is limited very specifically to directions as to the performance of the agency's functions. It has been drafted clearly to exclude any power to prevent the actual exercise of any of the functions laid down in the Act, including the important freedom to publish the agency's reports.
May I raise a point which in turn was raised by Senator O'Leary on Committee Stage. It relates to whether the agency will be liable to income tax or corporation tax in respect of their income. Secondly, it is intended that gifts given to the agency should be liable for capital gains tax, or how is the taxation element of that gift to be dealt with? The Minister has not actually addressed himself to that, even though he said that he would return to this point on Report Stage.
In the case of social research the contributions which are covenanted enjoy considerable tax benefits from the Revenue Commissioners. Whatever about the liability of the agency in respect of taxation, I would make a plea to the Minister that the tax benefits associated with social research should be extended to donations given to the agency. In other words, that there would be a tax benefit to the donor of funds to the agency. I would urge also that where contributions are made by individuals or organisations to combat the pressing problem of poverty at local level, such people should enjoy tax benefits especially, where the agency are not able to fund a poverty need at a particular time.
As I can speak only once on Report Stage, I should like to add that in relation to research I welcome the provision in the Bill, at section 4 (c), that the agency will have the function of examining the nature, causes and extent of poverty in the State and for that purpose the promotion, commission and interpretation of research. I can understand the impatience of some people who say that funds pumped into research into the poverty problem are not all that necessary, that what needs to be done is to address the problem and get on with the job. I view research, however, as being of fundamental importance to an understanding of the problem and therefore I welcome this provision in the Bill.
The Society of Saint Vincent de Paul make a very valuable contribution to addressing and relieving the poverty problem, but that organisation through their first hand experience of the problem of old people undertook a systematic study of the major needs of old people and produced a publication entitled Old and Alone which I understand was of considerable importance and value in the formulation of policy at official level. So a practical organisation such as they who do such valuable work recognise the need for more fundamental research in addition to coping with the problems on a day to day basis. They undertook a systematic study to enable them to better address the problem of poverty and indeed to give the policy makers that much greater insight when formulating policy. Very often in the poverty field, as in so many other fields, we have impressions that there are particular problems; but a clear and systematic study of problems can lead to results, like the publication to which I have referred, which facilitate an objective assessment by policy makers.
In regard to action research, the same organisation — they are one of a number of organisations coping with the poverty problem — launched a special residential care project in the north inner city of Dublin. Having established a house in the community for deprived and delinquent children, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul established a three year fellowship to which a person from the Department of Social Science in UCD was appointed to evaluate this project in the inner city of Dublin during the experimental period. The resulting report should, when published, enable them to improve the experiment where necessary and should also raise a number of important pointers for similar development elsewhere. I wanted to give two practical examples of the value of research, both of the action-orientated variety and also of fundamental research initiated by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul.
I would very much welcome the Minister's response to the suggestion I have made about the extension of tax benefits under covenants in respect of donations made to the agency and not alone that, but to individuals and organisations who may contribute financially to help solve local, poverty problems so that they, too, will enjoy the tax benefits now associated with covenanted social research.
Senator Hillery referred to the point raised by Senator O'Leary on Committee Stage regarding the question whether gifts made to the agency would be taxable. This matter appears to be governed by the Capital Acquisitions Tax Act, 1976, as amended. There is a provision in this Act that a gift or an inheritance which is taken for public or charitable purposes shall to the extent that the commissioners are satisfied that it has been or will be applied to public or charitable purposes be exempt from tax. Any gifts received by the agency would be expected to be applied for public purposes and therefore, they should be exempt from tax.
The question asked by Senator Hillery in regard to covenants etc. is a matter which I am not competent to deal with. They are questions for the Minister for Finance and the Revenue Commissioners. We will certainly try to get that information for the Senator.
Senator O'Leary referred to subsection (3) (a) of section 5. I dealt with this point on Committee Stage when I referred to a question raised by Senator Robinson. Senator Robinson was also concerned that no time scale was set for the preparation of the reviews. As I pointed out then, the legislation is designed to allow flexibility to the Minister in determining the period of the reviews and the time at which the reviews should be done. It seems logical that a review would cover the same period as the agency's strategic plan. This need not necessarily be the most desirable approach. The Minister might consider a longer period to be more appropriate. As far as setting the time at which reviews should be carried out is concerned, it is considered that this should remain at the discretion of the Minister. The agency may also be constrained by the availability of the professional expertise necessary for the purpose of the review.
The other main point raised by Senator O'Leary was in relation to subsection (4) of section 7. This subsection provides that subject to the section as a whole, membership of the agency shall be in such terms as the Minister determines. Senator O'Leary and other Senators expressed concern that this subsection might be used to circumscribe freedom of action of people appointed to the new agency. To avert this possibility, Senator O'Leary suggested that the power to set terms of appointment might be made specifically subject to the provisions of the Act as a whole rather than to the provisions of this section. I would have no objection to this if it has any legal effect but I am advised that an amendment along these lines would not materially affect the situation and I do not propose, therefore, to amend the section in this way. The section already outlines certain of the terms under which the members would be appointed, notably the length of the period of membership, powers of removal by the Minister and rights of members to resign.
In addition, section 8 contains provisions relating to payment of expenses. It is considered that the Minister should also be given the power to fix other terms of appointment to meet some situations which may arise. Such a power would be useful where, for example, the Minister wanted to appoint a person to represent a particular interest group or a geographical area, a rural area for example, whose appointment to the agency might only be for as long as he remained attached to that group or resided in that geographical area. The fears expressed by Senator O'Leary about the subsection are not justified. Any special terms of membership in any individual case would have to be expressed in the instrument of appointment and would be known to the agency as a whole.
Senator O'Leary gave the example of a situation in which a Minister wanted to appoint a person on condition that he acted in a certain way or took a particular line in the agency's discussions. One would hope that this situation would not arise but if an individual Minister wished to act in this way he would not need any special legal provision to enable him to do so, nor would the absence of a legal provision inhibit him. In all legislation there is a general underlying presumption that the Minister responsible will act reasonably. We can accept this principle here without apprehension. Having reconsidered the matter fully and having sought legal advice I am of the the opinion that the extra powers in the section are useful and necessary and that the words in question should remain in the section.
I trust that what I have said will answer all the principal points raised by Senators both on Committee Stage and Report Stages.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator O'Leary — just one question.
Before I ask questions could the Chair explain this to me: the Minister undertook to consider three points; am I entitled to comment on his replies? The only contribution I have made to this debate so far is to ask three questions. I specificaly avoided commenting on it. Am I entitled to comment, because as far as I am conerned I have not yet spoken on Report Stage?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Where I am concerned, Senator O'Leary has spoken once.
On what? I spoke on an amendment and that does not count. All I did in addition to that was to ask a question because otherwise the matter would never have been debated. I thought that it would not be necessary for me to ask the question, but that the Minister would come back and say that the following six points were raised on Committee Stage and that these are the answers. Then I or anybody else who wanted to make a contribution could do so.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We are on the final Stage.
We are on Report Stage.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I thought we had cleared the amendments.
What we are now considering is that——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Bigger people than I have not won battles with you.
All I am asking is if I am entitled to speak. If I am not entitled to speak, I will sit down. There will be no problem.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The rules are that you are not entitled to speak a second time.
Then I will sit down.
Bill reported with amendments.
Agreed to take remaining Stage today.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I can speak about anything that is in the Bill on this Stage but unfortunately I cannot speak about what is not in the Bill. I thank the Minister for the courteous way in which he considered the various matters which are in the Bill. It is to his considerable credit that he has treated the House in this respectful and proper fashion. I thank him for that.
There are a number of points which remain to be considered and it is as well that they would remain to be considered because the Bill has yet to be considered in the Dail. I am sure the Minister will receive representations from Members of that House about what is now in the Bill. I support the Bill in general. It is a good Bill. It establishes an agency which will have a useful function to perform. I do not know whether the agency will perform the function, but at least the framework has been established, which is useful. The Minister is to be congratulated on that.
There are a number of matters remaining in the Bill with which I am not 100 per cent satisfied. I draw the Minister's attention briefly to those points. The matters in the Bill that I am not completely happy with are the general powers which the Minister has to influence, in a very strong way, if he wants to, the deliberations of the agency. The long debate which we had on Committee Stage on section 4 (5) does gives a good example of what can arise. Generally speaking, the Minister has the right to dismiss anybody whom he believes is not acting properly. It is only right and proper that he should have that power. In addition to that he has an unnecessary strong power to influence the decision at a time when he is unwilling to dismiss people by issuing directions under section 4 (5), directions which I think are inappropriate. It may well be that the Minister will say in reply that the directions are standard in other legislation of this type. We have shown on Committee Stage and on Report Stage of this Bill that standard insertions into legislation tend to outlive their usefulness. It is our job to examine them with a fresh mind every time they come before us. I hope the Minister will look at this section when it goes to the other House and give the matter some further consideration.
There are two other matters in the Bill which leave something to be desired. Section 5 (3) (a) does not adequately lay down a definite timetable and the laying of reports before the Houses of the Oireachtas could be unnecessarily delayed by the Minister. It could be delayed because he could delay the length of time which the strategic plan relates or he could take an indefinite length of time to consider the strategic plan before actually laying it before the House of the Oireachtas. Section 5 (3) (a) would be better if it was worded in slightly different form. The points the Minister made regarding membership are reasonable enough. He gave a reasonable example when he spoke about living in an area or representing a particular interest. This could be done in a much more restrictive fashion if the Bill was amended appropriately. It is a defective piece of drafting.
One thing that has been shown by the Report Stage discussion of this Bill is that Members of this House who wish to have matters considered on Report Stage should put down amendments themselves and not depend on the Minister to come back. I appreciate the Leas-Chathaoirleach's point of view, but Members are put in an impossible position if they can only speak once. What does that refer to really? If a Senator puts down an amendment everybody understands that he can speak on it. At the end of it there is another amendment and you can speak on the other amendment. It is a lesson for us all. If we think of something on Committee Stage which requires attention, we should put down as many amendments on Report Stage as will give us an opportunity to discuss the matter. I appreciate the difficulty the rules of the House necessarily impose on us.
Subject to all these minor matters, I welcome the Bill and the Minister's presentation of it. I wish him success in seeing it through the other House. I hope it gets as diligent a consideration in the other House as it got here and that, having done that, it will be successful legislation which will deal with this very important problem which faces us. It might be interesting to see the cross-section of Members who actually discussed this Bill on Committee and Report Stages and to compare them with the public's perception of Members who might be expected to contribute to this debate. I think the public would get a salutary lesson.
I have already congratulated the people who thought up the idea of an agency to combat poverty in Ireland. I do so again and say that it is indicative of a caring and compassionate society. We need not be ashamed of the position that we occupy in international affairs as regards, the question of social welfare, education and health. We rank among the best in Europe. Having said that, there still is the problem of poverty to be combated. I have already made my views known on the deep psychological wound that is caused by poverty, the shunning by society of the people impoverished, the impoverishment of the mind and the body and a new impoverished class. What I want to do today is ask the Minister to clarify what is meant by the wording — I am reading from the Order Paper of 13 March 1985: "to advise the Minister for Social Welfare on all aspects of economic and social planning in relaton to poverty in the State", and to go on then to initiate measures aimed at overcoming it.
This phraseology is grandiose. Will we have a central planning agency set up by the Combat Poverty Agency? Will we have co-ordinationed planning on a regional basis from the centre out? That is what economic planning means to me. The social consequences are bound to be fruitful. I suggest seriously that there is no concept of economic planning in this State. It is only in the real left-wing socialist countries that you apply the doctrine of economic planning and the social fruits which flow from it.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We are now on Fifth Stage of this Bill. The debate is more restricted on this Stage than earlier Stages and you must confine yourself strictly to what is contained in the Bill before us.
I am sticking to the wording in the Bill. I accept your ruling, of course, but I must insist that I am speaking on the question of how to plan the economy to alleviate poverty when you can only plan the economy to produce full employment. Full employment is one of the methods of eliminating poverty. The other method is to give an enhanced dole, increase the dole. If your only consideration is material as distinct from the psychological wound and its effects, how do you plan the economy for full employment in relation to poverty? Do you plan the economy for full employment? That language I can understand. It is a nonsense to talk about planning the economy in relation to poverty. It makes sense——
On a point of order, I am highly conscious of the fact that I was ruled out of order on a very technical ground on Report Stage. Senator McGonagle is not addressing Fifth Stage of this Bill at all.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I have already made a ruling, Senator O'Leary.
He is reading from something that is not on the Order Paper at all. I do not know what he is reading from. He does not know what we are discussing.
I am reading from the Order Paper of 13 March.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
In fairness, I made a ruling and I have asked you to restrict yourself absolutely to the contents of the Bill. We are now on Fifth Stage. In fairness, you have wandered a little. I made a ruling before Senator O'Leary's intervention and I ask you again to listen to the ruling of the Chair.
I accept the ruling of the Chair and simply conclude by asking the Minister to clarify this. If the contents of the Bill are as expressed in woolly wording I do not anticipate success if they do not get their phraseology and the terms of reference right.
The words referred to by Senator McGonagle can be understood as outlining the policy role of the new agency. An anti-poverty programme cannot be drawn up in isolation from economic and social planning as a whole but must concentrate on the broader aims of national policy, that is, on a more just distribution of wealth, a more just distribution of income and power, in line with the Government's programme. The agency must be seen as not just a source of support and funding for localised action by individual communities and groups but must be capable of having an input into policy making at national level. The detailed policies and programmes which are adopted at any time in pursuit of the objective of combatting poverty will depend on the situation, but the rule of the agency in this area, with their expertise and direct involvement in combatting poverty, will be of considerable benefit in terms of helping to define policy and determine priorities for effective action.
Question put and agreed to.