Before Report Stage commences, I would like to remind the House that Members may speak only once on Report Stage except for the proposer of an amendment who has the right of reply. I call Senator Costello to move amendment No. 1.
Larceny Bill, 1989: Report Stage.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, between lines 24 and 25 to insert the following:
.—Section 29 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the deletion in subsection (3) of the words `or any solicitation, persuasion, promise or threat offered or made to any person whereby to move or induce such person to commit or permit the abominable crime of buggery, either with mankind or with any animal'.
I welcome the Minister here today. I am delighted that he, and not the junior Minister, is here in the Seanad. Certainly, I am delighted the Minister has been here for the previous debates and is here again to finalise the debate here in the Seanad.
The reason for the amendment is that this legislation — the Larceny Bill — which I agree with in principle, has quite a number of shortcomings. We have a golden opportunity here to amend the Principal Act, which is the 1916 Larceny Act. That Act is very considerably outdated in many respects. What I am identifying here is one area where the Act is inadequate and that is in relation to the crime, as it is called there, "committing or permitting the abominable crime of buggery" and so on. That is outdated, I state, because we have decisions in the European Court of Human Rights taken as a result of the Dudgeon case and the Norris case — one of our own Senators here — in relation to decriminalising homosexuality. In that respect we do not as yet have legislation enabling us to introduce a protection for people of homosexual orientation.
This legislation contains a provision, as is outlined there, whereby such a person can be penalised and can be criminalised. We have an opportunity of eliminating that particular section from the legislation at this time. I do not know if the Minister is going to introduce legislation in relation to both the Norris and Dudgeon cases but certainly it would be useful if we could eliminate the existing provision which criminalises homosexual acts. We should, in fact, be thinking in terms of decriminalisation of homosexual acts. My complaint about this Bill is that so much of it is merely tinkering with the 1916 Act when we have an opportunity to introduce some worthwhile amendments. This, I believe, is one.
Acting Chairman
Is the amendment seconded? If the amendment is not seconded, it lapses.
I second it.
Acting Chairman
The amendment is seconded.
The amendment is opposed now for the same reason as it was on Committee Stage. The primary reason is that it falls outside the scope of the Government's aim in introducing the Bill. That aim was clearly defined by me on Second Stage as being to update the law on receiving stolen property and in possession of burglarious implements and only the minimum consequential changes arising out of any of the proposals provided for in the Bill. Any other changes which may be required in the Larceny Act, 1916, have been deferred until the Law Reform Commission gives us its detailed report on how those changes should be made. I would be the first to acknowledge that the Larceny Act needs a comprehensive overhaul. However, I see no point in making a change now on the lines suggested by the Senator in the absence of an overall plan for such an overhaul such as can be expected when the commission makes its report.
I am pleased to hear the Minister say that he expects the matter to be dealt with by the Law Reform Commission. Of course, this Bill as it stands has scant regard for the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission in relation to the Larceny Act and how it should be revamped. That is one of the major faults of the Bill, that it does not in any way comprehensively address the problems in the 1916 Act that need to be updated. When the Minister says he is thinking of a major overhaul or a comprehensive overhaul, could he in winding up give us a clear indication of what he means by this? Is the Minister talking about this particular area of legislation, namely, the finding of the European Court in relation to the criminalisation of homosexual acts, or is he talking about the 1916 Act? Is the Minister talking about a major overhaul of the 1916 Act? I think both are required, but what I am trying to seek here is a worthwhile amendment: that in the interim, before we get a comprehensive overhaul — and we do not know how long we will be waiting for that — at least we should seek to eliminate the problems and the offence which is enshrined in this Act against people of homosexual orientation.
The Minister can easily delete this section by accepting the amendment and that will not in any way interfere with the introduction of a comprehensive piece of legislation on the matter in question. It would be a worthwhile change. We may have to wait for years for a comprehensive overhaul of either the 1916 legislation or in relation to the European case, the Norris case. Senator Norris is here himself. The Minister could without in any sense interfering with any plans by the Law Reform Commission to update these matters, usefully accept this amendment.
Acting Chairman
Is the amendment withdrawn?
No.
Senator Norris rose.
Acting Chairman
I am afraid, Senator Norris, as I understand it, Senator Costello moved his amendment, the Minister responded and Senator Costello replied. Since this is Report Stage that is all the discussion we can have on it. Is the amendment withdrawn?
No, the amendment is not withdrawn. It would be very appropriate, Sir, that Senator Norris would have a very short period to speak on this item.
Acting Chairman
We are not on Committee Stage; we are on Report Stage. I am advised that these are the rules of the House and I am afraid I have to apply them.
I would have to accept you ruling, Sir, but may I just make one point? It is that I was listening to this discussion on the monitor when this point emerged——
Acting Chairman
No, I am afraid really.
In that case I will of course, have to yield, drawing the Minister's attention to the point of misprision of felony which is advisable and I am requesting that he take it into consideration.
Acting Chairman
Is the amendment withdrawn? The question is "That the amendment be made". Those in favour say "Tá," those against say "Níl".
Senators
Tá.
Acting Chairman
I think the question is defeated.
How can you think that since nobody said "Níl?" May I point out that there is absolutely nobody on the Government side and, therefore, the amendment has to be carried.
Could I take the opportunity to answer the question I was asked by the Senator?
Acting Chairman
I understand the Minister can answer the question.
Can we take it that the amendment has been put and that the "Tás" have won the day?
Acting Chairman
My advice is that the Minister has a constitutional right to reply to a question.
But already the amendment has been put.
The reason I am going to answer the question, and I did not include it in my initial response, is this, I make the point to help the Senators in the discussion of this and in the judgment as to whether they should put it to a vote. I want to be helpful, and I am particularly trying to be helpful to the point that the Senators have made in view of what I know is their view on a particular issue. I just want to give it as a point of caution for them in their decision as to voting on it. While their intention is to solve a particular problem as they perceive it, they may be creating a larger problem at that time.
Let me say that one of the reasons the amendment is being opposed is because it does not achieve the desired result that Senator Costello is trying to achieve. The Senator's amendment would delete the reference to buggery related offences from section 29 (3) of the 1916 Act. The net effect of that would be that while it would still be an offence under section 29 to blackmail somebody by threatening to accuse him of, say, rape, which is one of the offences listed at section 29 (3), it would no longer be an offence under that provision to blackmail him by threatening to accuse him of soliciting buggery and I do not think any of us would want to get into that type of situation. It is my view that it is not a desirable change in the law and I do not really think it is what the Senators wish to achieve.
It is up to the Senators, obviously, to indicate which way they want to go but I do not think really this is probably the way they want to go and I do not see it as being a desirable change in the law. For that reason, as I said earlier, in relation to the amendments it was my intention to oppose them for the same reasons as I outlined on Committee Stage. I am pleased to be able to answer the question that was asked by the Senator.
The other question I asked, seeing that we have gone past the vote, was in regard to the Law Reform Commission, whether or not the Minister has specific plans to update this law and could he give us a timescale on this? What exactly are we facing? What are we looking forward to?
I cannot give you a timescale on it just like this this afternoon. I can give the Senator some information on it through the Leader of the House probably, which would be the most appropriate way.
Acting Chairman
I put the question, "That the amendment be made". The only response I got was "Tá." Therefore, having considered the matter, I think the only option I have is to declare the amendment made.
Hear, hear.
I do not want to disagree with the Acting Chairman. It would not be for me to do that. I was in the position of answering some points being put forward by the Senator. Could I suggest to the Acting Chairman that if this line is taken by the Seanad I am just going to have to go back to the Dáil and start all over again and then come back to you here. Is it really in the interests of the general public that this Larceny Bill should be delayed by going right back through the whole procedure? I was trying to be as helpful as I could on it to the Seanad. I would ask that commonsense would prevail. I appeal to Senators not to delay the passage of this Bill by what is a technicality, because I will have to go back to basics. I am not going to accept this amendment for the reason I have given and I would ask for the cooperation of Senators on it.
Certainly our co-operation has always been forthcoming on these matters. This amendment was introduced not in any way to stymie or to cause trouble; it was introduced with the best will in the world to improve a piece of legislation that has got very considerable shortcomings and to update a situation that has changed dramatically since that legislation, the Larceny Act of 1960, was passed. What we are seeking is a very reasonable amendment.
I would be very agreeable if that amendment had been accepted in the principle that it was offered — we were not hung up on the precise wording of the amendment — but that the Minister would go back and address the issue behind it, which I have outlined, and that would have been the approach to it but, as I see it, we have now voted on the matter. The Acting Chairman put the question, he put the amendment and there were three "Tá's" and there was no "Níl"; so, as I see it, our hands are tied on the matter. That is where it stands.
People may be open to blackmail——
I certainly——
Acting Chairman
I do not think we can have a discussion on the matter now. The question has been put, the response I got was "Tá," there was no "Níl", that I could hear at least, and therefore I have to declare the question carried.
Amendment declared carried.
Acting Chairman
We move now to amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
May I raise a question of procedure at this point? I listened to the debate on the monitor here. I listened to the Acting Chairman putting the question and I listened to the "Tás" and the Minister came in at that stage to question, so it was a question and answer situation. I do not think it is proper for the Acting Chairman to decide in the circumstances that the amendment is agreed to.
Acting Chairman
I have been faced with the situation, I have been faced with this dilemma and I have ruled as I think correctly in the matter. I have referred to Standing Orders. I am now calling amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
Before we move on——
Acting Chairman
We have now disposed of that amendment.
On a point of order, I was listening on the monitor. Your exact words were "I think the amendment is defeated". How could you decide that? There is a question of timing here — the whole issue — in relation to whether the Minister was answering the question that was being put or what exactly was the position. Under the circumstances I think we are entitled to review that decision.
I notice that people from the Government side stand up, too, to make a point in the debate. If this is going to continue I will want to speak as well. You have made your ruling, Sir.
Acting Chairman
To clarify the situation for Senator McKenna, Senator Costello moved his amendment, the Minister responded to the amendment, Senator Costello then replied to the amendment. I put, as I am required by Standing Order, the amendment at that stage and the only response was "Tá". I now declare, as I have already declared, the amendment made and I am moving on to amendments Nos. 2 and 3. I want to say they are related and that they be discussed together. I now call on Senator Costello to move amendment No. 2.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, line 31, to delete "14 years or to a fine or both" and to insert "seven years or to a fine or to community service or to make compensation to any injured party or to any two of these penalties".
I regard that as almost the most reasonable amendment that one could come up with and the most appropriate amendment in the circumstances we have seen over the past few days. The reason I state is that if you look at any legislation it prescribes for the Judiciary two penalties — a term of imprisonment or a fine. We have gone a long way down the road since those days and indeed in the present circumstances there are just two specified. In the 1916 Act there are a number of other types of penalties specified like the death penalty, like whipping. We have got rid of some of the worst forms of sanctions. What I want to do is to encourage the Judiciary to look into alternative sanctions. Why should we have a piece of legislation, a criminal Bill simply limited to two sanctions? Should we not focus the attention of the Judiciary on the range of sanctions that are available?
This is an eminently reasonable amendment. We have a situation where our prisons are grossly overcrowded as we saw over the weekend. That has been admitted. It has been detailed by the visiting committees in the report which we will see on Friday, I believe, but which has been leaked publicly. But this has not just taken place this year; it has taken place over a period of time. Why put people into an already overcrowded prison if we can explore various alternatives? The Whitaker committee of inquiry into the prisons in 1985 made one of its several recommendations that prison should be used as last resort. Why then should it be one of the only two sanctions that are mentioned in this amending legislation, the Larceny Bill of 1989? If we are thinking about appropriate developments and alternatives, if we are thinking about rehabilitation, we have an onus as legislators to draw the attention of the Judiciary to what has been developed, to areas like community service orders, which I mention here, to the question of compensation to an injured party, to provide the maximum of options. I must say I cannot for the life of me see how the Minister could neglect or refuse to take on board this type of amendment which must improve the Bill and must improve the variety of sanctions that are available to a judge.
Acting Chairman
Is the amendment seconded?
I would like to second it.
Acting Chairman
I wish to point out that amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are being taken together.
Could I object to that, please, on the grounds that amendment No. 3 is the opposite to amendment No. 2? What amendment No. 3 is doing is worsening, if you like, penalties, whereas amendment No. 2 is giving a range of alternative sanctions. Amendment No. 3 is in a sense worsening a particular sanction, if I may say so.
Acting Chairman
I am advised that they both relate practically to the same subject matter.
If that is your ruling I will accept it, but I still would think that it is an unsatisfactory way of dealing with it.
Acting Chairman
We will take them together.
In seconding this amendment I would like to say, first of all, that we are lucky to have a pragmatic Minister for Justice who has shown his capacity to respond to situations and to think imaginatively. I cannot entirely regret the fact that he will now have an opportunity to be pretty pragmatic because it seems that this Bill will have to go back to the Dáil, and the Minister has said that. This provides him with the opportunity for further reflection on an amendment like this. In a way, I am sure the Minister, because he is a very astute parliamentary tactician, will not hold it against me because I spotted the loophole that there were no responses from the Government side of the House, allowing the amendment technically to go through. Will there be a possibility to comment on the general Bill when it is being put through, to make a comment on that amendment when the Bill is finally passing?
Acting Chairman
On the next Stage.
On the next Stage. I will reserve any comment which I will have to make in a general sense for that Stage. However, the general point is that we have a pragmatic Minister. He now has an opportunity, a window of opportunity, to use one of these celebrated cliches, where he can consider other amendments. This seems to me to be a very valuable one because the Minister, I am sure, knows much better than I do what the conditions are like in some of the prisons. There has to be what amounts almost to an arbitrary system of release when prisoners are piled up at the prison gates and then people have to be dislodged from the system. I am certainly not blaming this particular Minister for that. The prison situation has continued for a very long time under various administrations but nobody can doubt whatever that the prison system is an absolute and continuing scandal and a scandal of dangerous proportions and not just with regard to overcrowding and to HIV infection and so on, and the Minister is as aware of those as I am.
But this is a positive amendment. It provides for a situation where the overcrowding may be lessened, and is not confined only to that. I would remind the House, as the House is reminded very frequently — sometimes in tones of pious hypocrisy, I may say — that the Constitution of this State declares the Christian and democratic nature of the State. If anybody wants to consider the phrase "the Christian and democratic nature of the State" from a philosophers point of view, they will, I think, realise that this could not be more Christian. It allows for the possibility of positive redemption. It is not just the punitive attitude towards the penal system; that you punish people, you incarcerate them, that you damage them in revenge for some crime that they have committed, which is a fairly useless approach, in my opinion, but that they should have the opportunity of reparation by community service and perhaps community service in the interest of those whom they have damaged.
It seems to me that lengthy prison sentences, which have no determinable effect except as a very considerable burden on the taxpayer, are not anything like as good an alternative as having the possibility, in certain circumstances, to impose a sentence of community service under which the person who committed the crime or the felony has the opportunity to learn from contact once again with the community, and perhaps that part of the community which he or she has damaged, to learn the consequences of their crime. The Minister will be aware, of course, that in some of the Scandinavian countries, for example, people who have been convicted of dangerous crimes or of manslaughter or whatever, are sentenced to community service in hospitals where in casualty wards they are brought directly into confrontation with the results of their misdoings.
It seems to me that this is a very worthy and proper amendment and, as I say, I am glad the Minister has the opportunity now to reflect, at some leisure perhaps, on this amendment since he has indicated that the Bill will be referred to the Dáil.
I would like to comment, first of all, on amendment No. 2 and say that, while I fully agree with the second area of it, I do not accept that the sentence should be reduced from 14 to seven years. I would like to add to the areas which Senator Costello has in his amendment and include the confiscation of assets, the forfeiture of bail, if further crimes are committed on bail, fines by instalment to allow people pay the fines rather than serve imprisonment, attachment of income for the same reason, participation in training courses and other areas, which I am sure the Minister can consider. It is obvious that the present prison situation is in a state of chaos and I believe a dangerous situation has developed because of this. It is due to overcrowding and a solution to this must be obtained. The present situation whereby the prisons are overcrowded is creating the difficulties that have obtained over the past few months.
There is almost a movement on now to discredit the prison service. We must never forget why people are in prison. They are in prison because they have committed very serious crimes on many occasions. These people should serve their full sentences, people who have committed murder, rapists, child molesters, people who have committed robbery with violence and so on. We must not lose sight of the fact that these people are in jail for those offences and we must not forget the pain and suffering they have caused to the families of the victims and in some cases to the victims themselves. I feel that there is almost a tendency to romanticise the situation of the prisoners at the moment. I think that is very dangerous and for this reason the Minister should look very seriously at the situation and include the suggestions of Senator Costello and myself in his approach to sentencing policy. I presume both amendments can be put to the House separately.
With regard to amendment No. 3 I believe the penalty for larceny should be the same as that for receiving stolen property. Larceny with violence is very traumatic for the victims. I know victims who have suffered from the effects of violence, of robbery with violence. Many people in country areas live in fear of people calling during the night. Those who have experienced it often do not fully recover from the psychological damage. This is especially true in the case of old people. I believe that the penalty for larceny should equal the penalty for receiving. In that context I would like to move amendment No. 3.
These amendments are opposed. The first amendment in the name of the Labour Party Senators seek to have the maximum sentence provided in the Bill for handling stolen property reduced from 14 years imprisonment to seven years. This is totally unacceptable. The second amendment in the name of Senator Neville seeks to increase from ten years to 14 years the maximum sentence provided in the Bill for larceny and other related offences. This is equally unacceptable.
With regard to the question raised by Senator Costello, the point about the sanction of imprisonment, I want to reiterate what I said in the other House yesterday during the course of my reply to Private Notice Questions. There is no point in hiding from reality by saying, for example, what we need are not more prisons but more alternatives to prison. There is no point in pretending that the prison population could be drastically and dramatically reduced by means of greater use of alternatives. Alternatives are used quite extensively in this country. There are over 3,000 persons on alternatives of one kind or another as against 2,000 in custody. I am specifically examining the scope for further expansion of alternatives at the present. I have to say that looking at the present prison population, I would be misleading this House if I were to say that alternatives will provide a full answer.
In relation to the incident that took place last weekend I want to correct a point made by Senator Norris. It was not an overcrowding within the particular unit. There was no overcrowding in that unit of the prison. I am not saying there is not an overcrowded prison population there. There is and we are trying to do something about it but in the particular section involved that was not overcrowded.
I was speaking about overcrowding generally.
I took it the Senator was speaking about the HIV section and the special section for prisoners who cannot be held securely in any other parts of the prison. On the subject of community service orders, Senators will have received a copy of the report on the probation and welfare service with statistics for the year 1988 which was published recently. The report showed that there were over 1,500 referrals for community service work by the courts in 1988 and over 1,200 such orders were made within a 12 month period for the first time. This represents an increase of 55 per cent on the volume of orders made in 1985 which was the first year of the Act's operation. This bears out what I said during our debate on the Bill on Committee Stage on increasing use by the courts of this form of punishment as opposed to imprisonment for certain types of offences.
The number of hours of community service work exceeded 130,000, which is equivalent to 70 persons working fulltime for a year. This results not alone from a higher volume of orders made but also from a rise in the average number of hours specified per order, from just under 80 at the start of the scheme to 120 in 1988. The maximum number of hours that can be ordered under the scheme is 240 and one in ten orders which were made specified over 200 hours work to be performed.
In relation to the reference in amendment No. 2 to the payment of compensation, I have nothing to add to the undertaking I gave to the House on Committee Stage to have this whole question of compensation in the context of crime generally, and not just in the limited area of handling stolen property, examined in my Department as resources permit with a view to preparing comprehensive legislative proposals for consideration by the Government. Senator Neville's amendment No. 3 would destroy the relationship set up by the Bill and indicated by the maximum sentences specified in it between the seriousness with which society views handling on the one hand and simple larceny on the other.
The Minister in his reply has totally missed the point of the amendment. The function of the amendment is to put into the legislation some of the alternatives that are available at least, I would take on board what Senator Neville says about the scope for further alternatives. My point is to ensure that the judge, when looking at an offence under the provisions of the Larceny Act, as it no doubt will be in 1990, will see before him the option of sanctions other than imprisonment or a fine. In normal circumstances in relation to larceny a fine is not too relevant if the person is unable to pay the fine. The most relevant sanction is community service.
I am not trying to question in any sense the alternative or to say that alternatives are not in place. The probation and welfare service refers to various community service sanctions that are imposed. The entire function of this amendment is to draw the attention of the judge to the existence of a wider range of sanctions. That is not the point that the Minister addressed. The Minister has not given me one good reason why there should not be a fuller range of sanctions put in the Bill. If he can give me one good reason then I will certainly listen to it and, no doubt, withdraw the amendment, but until he does so I see no reason for considering withdrawing the amendment at all.
With regard to the reduction from 14 years to seven years which he says is totally unacceptable, he has not stated why it is totally unacceptable. He will be aware no doubt that Dr. Whitaker's commission in 1985 recommended that people should not be detained in prison for a period longer than seven years without their cases being reviewed because after that period of detention they stated that according to surveys that has been done institutionalisation set in, that people became damaged and that it was getting very difficult to have any possibility of reintegration into society.
I am proposing here what is in accordance with the recommendations of the Government commission that was set up to look into the prison system, the section where it recommends alternatives and the reasons for the alternatives. One of the reasons is in relation to the length of time a person spends in prison, of the dangers of a prolonged period of time in prison in relation to their returning to society. We must remember that all people in prison will return to society and the emphasis should be on ensuring that when they do come back that they are a better people and that they are better able to cope.
I would not accept the suggestion by Senator Neville that there is any suggestion of trying to romanticise the prison system. Certainly that is out of the question. I would have no wish ever to do that. My function in proposing these amendments is to put order where there is a degree of disorder, to improve the system. There is not much sense in talking in terms of the old traditional way of locking them up, throwing away the key, waiting for them to come out and expecting all to be well after that. You must have a system that has a rationale, that has a developmental and a positive approach not a negative approach. If we can introduce a positive element into our system of sanctions that would be desirable. I cannot for the life of me see why the Minister comes up with a response which misses the point. I ask him to reconsider the matter and accept the amendment, or certainly to accept the principle of the amendment, if he does not agree with its entire substance, and perhaps take on board some of the extra alternatives that were suggested by Senator Neville.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 14; Níl, 15.
Tá
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Honan, Tras.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Michael.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McGowan, Paddy.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- Ryan, Eoin David.
Níl
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Joe.
- Harte, John.
- Hourigan, Richard V.
- Howard, Michael.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Murphy, John A.
- Neville, Daniel.
- Norris, David.
- Ó Foighil, Pól.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Ryan, John.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Upton, Pat.
Tellers: Tá Senators McGowan and Farrell; Níl, Senators Upton and Costello.
Question declared lost.
This means that the words proposed to be deleted are deleted. I must now put amendment No. 2 formally to the House.
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 16
16; Níl, 16.
Tá
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Joe.
- Harte, John.
- Hourigan, Richard V.
- Howard, Michael.
- Jackman, Mary.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Murphy, John A.
- Neville, Daniel.
- Norris, David.
- Ó Foighil, Pól.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Ryan, John.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Upton, Pat.
Níl
- Bennett, Olga.
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Conroy, Richard.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Honan, Tras.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Michael.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McGowan, Paddy.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- Ryan, Eoin David.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Costello and Upton; Níl, Senators McGowan and Farrell.
Question declared lost.
There is an equality of votes and, therefore, pursuant to Article 15.11.2º of the Constitution, I have to exercise my casting vote. I vote against the question in this case. The numbers are now: Tá 16, Níl 17.
On a point of order, the position now is that words have been deleted from the Bill. New words have not been inserted.
That is right. There is now an absence of words.
Debate adjourned.