Before we begin, I wish to remind Senators that a Senator make speak only once on Report Stage, except the proposer of an amendment who may reply to the discussion on the amendment. Also, each amendment must be seconded.
Taxes Consolidation Bill, 1997: Report and Final Stages.
I thought it might be helpful to make a few remarks on the Bill, which I am delighted to have the opportunity to bring before the Seanad on Report Stage. I wish to give Senators a brief outline of the Bill which I introduced on Second Stage in the Dáil.
The Bill is the largest single piece of legislation in the history of the State. It consolidates the law relating to income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax. It is widely recognised and accepted that these three taxes have a large measure of integration and interdependence. For example, income tax and corporation tax share a close commonality of rules and concepts, and capital gains tax rules are applied for the purposes of charging corporation tax in certain instances.
The Bill is the first consolidation of tax law since the Income Tax Act, 1967. That Act was, as the title suggests, confined to income tax. Since 1967, we have seen the introduction of the Capital Gains Tax Act, 1975, and the Corporation Tax Act, 1976. These three codes of law have been amended annually, and on occasion twice or even three times a year, in various Finance Acts and other fiscal legislation.
There are, in all, currently 40 separate Acts containing income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax law. In addition, much of the legislation introduced in recent years has been increasingly complex in nature. There is no doubt that the difficulties of interpretation and administration which users of the tax code experience have been compounded by the absence of consolidation.
Since the last consolidation of income tax law in 1967 the legislation governing income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax has grown to over 2,000 separate sections and some 50 related Schedules. The Taxes Consolidation Bill, 1997, has succeeded in reducing this vast volume of legislation to 1,104 sections and 32 Schedules. What is even more important, from the point of view of the users of this legislation, is that the Bill organises all this law in a coherent and logical way so that one is able to navigate one's way around the legislation with a confidence which was not possible in the past. I know Members of both Houses and others have commented on that welcome feature of the Bill.
The purpose of a consolidation Bill is to consolidate all the existing statute law on a particular subject or subjects. I ask Members to note that the only permissible amendments are ones which remove ambiguities and inconsistencies from the Bill, substitute modern for obsolete or inconvenient machinery, achieve uniformity of expression in the Bill, or adapt the Bill to existing law and practice.
A consolidation Bill may not make any substantive amendments to the law. It must also be certified by the Attorney General as a consolidating measure. The Taxes Consolidation Bill, 1997, has been certified by the Attorney General as such. I assure Senators that this Bill makes no substantive changes in the law and has been certified by the Attorney General as such.
It may be a matter for comment as to why this mammoth task has been undertaken if it does not make any changes in the law. However, this is to miss the point; the Bill will deliver many benefits to the business community, tax practitioners and administrators, legislators and, to an extent, the public at large. It will transform the way in which accountants, tax practitioners and the legal profession deal with their clients' affairs, allowing them to ensure that the services they offer are efficient and cost effective.
The Bill will also have a significant impact on young people who are training in these professions, by simplifying their research tasks. As I have already stated, one of the principal benefits of consolidation will be to reduce the volume of income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax by almost one half. There are other important benefits which I want to bring to the attention of Senators. All income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax legislation will now be available in a single up-to-date Act, in a coherent, orderly and more simplified format. The legislation will be more accessible and user friendly to the business community, tax practitioners and Members of the Oireachtas. This will be of particular advantage to smaller firms of tax practitioners and smaller businesses. As part of the consolidation process a significant amount of deadwood and obsolete material has been eliminated from the tax code and there has been considerable simplication in content. All future changes to the taxes involved should be capable of being slotted into the Consolidation Act by amendment, an important feature which has been widely welcomed. Our tax legislation will be more coherent to foreign advisors and the task of future simplification of the tax system will be facilitated.
It is also intended that the Taxes Consolidation Bill will be available in CD-ROM format when the Bill is enacted. To assist in the consideration of the Bill the Revenue Commissioners arranged to have a document entitled "Outline of Provisions" published with the Bill. This very useful outline gives a brief straightforward description of each of the sections of the Bill and should be a useful aid to Members in their examination of the Bill.
In addition, the Revenue Commissioners will be publishing detailed notes for guidance on the legislation as soon as possible after enactment. This publication will also be made available on CD-ROM.
The Bill is divided into 1,104 sections comprised in 49 Parts, dealing with different aspects of the income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax codes. However, in order to facilitate the reader and to simplify the language and presentation, a number of novel features are introduced. These features include the concept of "superheading" or families of related subjects, the placing of definitions in all cases at the beginning of provisions, the elimination of archaic language and of the old fashioned and complex device of "provisos" to qualify the meaning of a section.
To assist readers, the Bill is accompanied by a memorandum, as required by Standing Orders, which shows the enactments which are proposed to be repealed by the Bill and the sections of the Bill in which these enactments are reproduced. If a particular provision has not been re-enacted in the Consolidation Bill an explanation will be found in the remarks column of the memorandum.
I would like to record my appreciation of the time and effort Deputy Michael Ferris obviously spent in examining this Bill. He tabled a large number of amendments to the Bill, some of which were ruled out of order and others which could not be accepted. However, quite a number of the Deputy's amendments were accepted and improved the form of the Bill by removing inconsistencies without affecting the underlying legislation. It was due to the Deputy's efforts that we had a constructive debate and a thorough examination of the Bill in the Standing Joint Committee. My thanks also to those Senators who participated as members of that committee.
I would like to place on the record my appreciation of the time and effort of everybody involved in this project. Initially, as Senators will be aware, a five year time frame was envisaged. It is a testament to the efficiency and professionalism of the Revenue Commissioners that the Bill is now before the House. On other occasions I have acknowledged the tremendous work done by the committee, the Department of Finance, the Revenue Commissioners and the private sector.
I also wish to commend the work of Mr. Liam Hennessy, who chaired the committee. He has subsequently moved on to greater things but I am glad to see he is so interested in this area that he is here today to see the legislation's final passage through the House.
I congratulate and commend the former Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, who had the foresight to embark on this project. He announced it in his budget speech in January 1995. It has been a tremendous achievement by all concerned in such a short space of time. It proves that if the systems and structures are put in place there is great capacity within our own staff, in its various guises, to deliver the highest quality of excellence in the public service.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 79, line 37, after "shall" to insert "continue to".
I commend the Minister of State on his lucid introduction to the Bill and for the initiative which was taken initially by the Department of Finance under my colleague the former Minister, Deputy Quinn. Perhaps this type of consolidation could be suggested to other Departments who may follow the same line. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform might do something similar to the Code Napoléon in France which had the effect of consolidating a vast array of criminal legislation in that country. It extended to influence the entire criminal legislative system of other European countries.
This is the largest single item of legislation in the history of the State. It has meant that previous provisions have been reduced by approximately half of what they would have been, although it is still daunting legislation to read through.
My remarks on the amendments are within the terms of reference the Minister of State outlined as regards what is permissible for amendments, removing ambiguities and inconsistencies from the Bill, substituting modern for obsolete or inconvenient machinery, achieving uniformity of expression and adapting the Bill to existing law and practice.
This amendment is within the terms of the first permissible criteria of removing ambiguities and inconsistencies from the Bill. The provision in question ceased to apply in 1986 so in simple literal terms it cannot cease to apply again. It is illogical for something to cease to apply on successive or consecutive occasions. If it no longer applies it cannot cease to apply. The provision, as worded, does not, for that reason, express existing law as it implies that section 2(4)(b)(vii) of the 1985 Act currently applies.
This is a tidying up amendment. It would be simply more accurate to say that the 1985 Act "shall continue to cease to apply" because it already applies. It would appear to be a more specific and logical terminology.
Is the amendment being seconded?
I second the amendment.
I understand that we have groupings of amendments and that the first amendment is on its own. Is that correct?
The first amendment is on its own. We will announce the groupings as we go through the amendments.
I thank the Senator for raising this point. As I am sure he is aware, the amendment is a repeat of one discussed on Report Stage in the Lower House. It relates to section 7 of the Bill which consolidates the provisions of section 112 of the Finance Act, 1986. That provided for the application of the Age of Majority Act, 1985, to certain taxation statutes. In order to apply the provisions of the Age of Majority Act, 1985, to tax law, section 112 of the Finance Act, 1986, provided for the formal cesser of the provision in the Age of Majority Act, 1985, which had prevented such application — namely, section 2(4)(b)(vii) of that Act.
In relation to this formal cesser, the amendment now proposes that the words "shall cease to apply" in section 7(1) of the Taxes Consolidation Bill be replaced with the words "shall continue to cease to apply". The concern would seem to be that as section 2(4)(b)(vii) of the Age of Majority Act, 1985, ceased to apply back in 1986 when the underlying legislation was enacted, it cannot cease to apply again if it already no longer applies. The difficulty I have with the Senator's amendment is that it seems to suggest the legislation contained in the Taxes Consolidation Bill is in some way new legislation. As I have already pointed out, this is not so. The Bill consolidates existing law. Section 7 of the Bill, as drafted, faithfully replicates the underlying legislation, namely, section 112 of the Finance Act, 1986. Legislation is always current and should be read as current. Accordingly, the phrase "shall cease to apply", while having effect back in 1986, has equal effect in 1997. For those reasons I do not propose to accept the amendment.
I hope I have made it clear to the Senator that what was clear in 1986 and what it referred to, which was current in 1986, is equally current in 1997 because we have just consolidated the existing legislation. Therefore, I will not be accepting this amendment.
I accept the point made by the Minister of State that what we are talking about is consolidation legislation and we are bringing together all the existing legislation. Therefore, this is restating the present situation. However, what is actually in the text of section 7 refers specifically to the Age of Majority Act, 1985, which states that "accordingly, section 2(4)(b)(vii) of the Act shall cease to apply". While, obviously, it has been incorporated into the Taxes Consolidation Act, which consists of all the legislation's provisions that have been enacted, and that it is new legislation in that sense, nevertheless this proviso refers specifically to an Act of 1985. The form in which it refers to it, "that is shall cease to apply" as of now, is as though it is something new. However, in the context of the wording before us it certainly would in logical English be better to have it clearly incorporated that this would continue to cease to apply because the Act is referred to.
I know what the Minister of State is saying in relation to this new legislation. Nevertheless, within that the logic of the argument would be that the continuation of the cessation should be applicable. I know we are dealing with points of ambiguity and expression, but it seems to me that the amendment would be more accurate than the explanation given by the Minister of State.
I do not want to repeat everything I have said to the Senator. I understand precisely the point he is making. However, the implication in his amendment is that insertion of the words implies that something has been changed when nothing has been changed. There is no need to do it. If some future Finance Act contained sections which referred back to that and which made changes, it would be relevant in the context of that legislation. However, the Attorney General considered that there is no change in this consolidation legislation.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 15, 20 and 21 form a composite proposal and may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 97, line 39, to delete "the United Kingdom" and substitute "Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
The purpose of this amendment is to achieve uniformity of expression. The expression "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is used more widely in the Bill, for example, it occurs in sections 73 and 830. On Committee Stage, the Minister outlined that the present terms of expression —"the United Kingdom" and "Great Britain and Northern Ireland"— could be used. However, as the purpose of these amendments is to achieve uniformity we should agree on one term of expression. It is unsatisfactory to use two terms. What is the difference between "the United Kingdom" and "Great Britain and Northern Ireland"? Is it legal or geographical?
Was the advice of the Department of Foreign Affairs sought regarding the formal terminology to be used when describing our neighbour? What is the justification for using two formats in this consolidation legislation, the purpose of which is to avoid ambiguity and repetition?
I second the amendment.
These amendments are intended to achieve uniformity of expression by substituting the term "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" for "the United Kingdom" wherever it occurs in the Bill. The point has been made that the expression "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is used more widely in the Bill.
While I agree with the aim of these amendments, there may well be good reasons why the Oireachtas has used slightly different versions in the past to describe what, at first sight, might seem to be the same thing. We should, therefore, be careful in making changes in case we inadvertently make a substantive change to the underlying law.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 seek to amend the provisions of section 29 of the Bill which modify the charge to capital gains tax in the case of gains arising to resident or ordinarily resident individuals who are not domiciled in the State from the disposal of assets which are situated outside the State and the United Kingdom. I am informed that the parliamentary draftsman's office has advised that replacing the expression "the United Kingdom" with the expression "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" could, in certain circumstances, result in a slight change of the meaning of the underlying legislation. For example, what would be the status of the United Kingdom's areas of the continental shelf, or even the territorial seas of the United Kingdom? In this connection, I refer Senators to section 276 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act, 1992, which is the United Kingdom equivalent of our Capital Gains Tax Act, 1975, where the territorial sea of the United Kingdom is deemed, for all purposes of the taxation of chargeable gains, to be part of the United Kingdom.
In the light of this provision, it is arguable that using the expression "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" in Irish legislation instead of the term "United Kingdom" may, in some instances, have the effect of excluding such areas from the scope of the legislation, thereby changing the existing law. In view of the possibility of these amendments making a substantive change in the law, which is outside the remit of consolidation, I must oppose them.
I accept the Minister of State's statement that there may be slight changes in meaning between the two expressions. However, I have not received a satisfactory clarification as to why one is substantially different from the other. I would have thought that the continental shelf of the United Kingdom would imply the same as the continental shelf of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and that the totality of the United Kingdom would be expressed in whatever geographical description is referred to.
The purpose of the amendment is to resolve the degree of ambiguity in using the two terms. I always understood they were synonymous. However, I cannot argue against the advice received by the Minister of State that there may be a slight difference in the implications of whichever terminology is used.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are out of order.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 14, 17, 18 and 19 form a composite proposal and may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 264, line 45, to delete "country" and substitute "jurisdiction".
The purpose of this amendment is to remove ambiguity and inconsistency and to seek to achieve uniformity of expression. References to the relevant law of a foreign country are ambiguous because the tax law may be determined in a federal state——
On a point of order, should the amendment not be seconded?
Acting Chairman
Senator Costello is entitled to move the amendment.
Senator Finneran seems to have some objection to these amendments being moved.
I do not.
I am entitled to move the amendments.
I merely raised a point of order which has been clarified by the Chair.
Senator Finneran should remember that he is not at a meeting of Roscommon County Council.
Acting Chairman
Senator Costello to continue without interruption.
I thank the Chair for his protection. As already stated, the purpose of amendment No. 6 is to remove ambiguity and inconsistency. References to the law, particularly the tax law, relating to a country may be different in respect of individual sectors because tax often applies in a state, federal and regional capacity in the same country.
Amendment No. 6 was tabled because it is not correct to refer to the tax laws of a country where the country in question has a number of subordinate jurisdictions or territories. The original amendment proposed by the Minister on Committee Stage referred to a "territory" and he criticised that term, which is acceptable. Nevertheless, the amendment under discussion seems to be satisfactory in that it proposes the use of "jurisdiction" rather than "country" because the former term is more aptly applied to that to which we are referring. For example, a country such as Ireland may have a single tax system while another utilises the multiple system of state, federal and regional taxation to which I referred earlier. If one refers to a "jurisdiction" rather than a "country", one is being more accurate, unambiguous and consistent.
It appears that this country or jurisdiction — the two are synonymous when discussing Ireland — is moving towards ring-fencing or designating local authority funding in terms of motor taxation. Therefore, forthcoming legislation may contain reference to a sectoral type of tax which would not be applicable in the same fashion. In that context, it would be more appropriate to specify that we are referring to the jurisdiction in which tax is paid rather than to the country involved. As already stated, there can be internal divisions of tax within a country but the jurisdiction within which it applies is specific.
The amendments relating to sections 200, 487, 826 and 828 are being discussed together and their purpose is to achieve uniformity of expression in the Bill by substituting the expression "jurisdiction" for references to "state" or "country". Amendments of a similar nature were discussed in detail by the Joint Standing Committee and on Report Stage in the Lower House. On those occasions, the amendments proposed to substitute the expression "territory" for references to "country" and "state".
As Senator Costello pointed out, it is always desirable to achieve uniformity of expression in legislation. However, sections 200, 487, 826 and 828 of the Taxes Consolidation Bill faithfully replicate the underlying legislation. Hence, in some cases the word "country" is used while in others the word "state" is used. Senators Costello, Gallagher, O'Meara and Seán Ryan now propose that the word "jurisdiction" be substituted for the words "country" and "state".
The word "country" can mean a geographic area of a nation or state with its own government while the word "state" can mean a nation, commonwealth or organised political community under one government or such a community forming part of a federal republic. On the other hand, the term "jurisdiction" can be construed as having a much wider meaning than those of "state", "country" or "territory". For example, it can mean any legal or other authority. There is ample precedence for reference in legislation to the term "state" when referring to other countries such as in Article 29.3 of the Constitution which contains the phrase "in its relations with other states". Moreover, if we take the amendments proposed to lines 16 and 17 of page 1132 of the Bill which deal with the negotiation of double taxation treaties with foreign states, I am of the firm view that the existing references to "state" and "foreign state" should remain. A "head of state" in the context of the head of a foreign state and the negotiation of international treaties has an international currency. The alternative phrase "head of a foreign jurisdiction" would at best be a somewhat awkward construction and at worst open to question.
Regardless of how desirable it may be to achieve consistency in the Bill, to accept the amendments could run the real risk of making a substantive change to the underlying law. As the House is aware, we cannot make new law in the context of the Taxes Consolidation Bill. Therefore, we cannot take the risk of accepting amendments which could undermine the status of the Bill as a consolidation measure. Changes of the nature being sought by Senators Costello, Gallagher, O'Meara and Seán Ryan would be best pursued by way of substantive alteration of the law through the vehicle of the annual Finance Bill. In other words, the Senators are free to table similar amendments to future Finance Bills. However, in the context of this Bill, I must oppose the amendments for the reasons I have stated.
The Minister of State provided definitions of "country" as a geographic area, "state" as a nation under government and "jurisdiction" as a wider legal entity. However, I am of the opinion that the definition of the term "jurisdiction" is narrower because it is defined by law whereas the term "country" defines a geographic area and is not a legal definition. The expression "state" is a legal definition in terms of it being an area under government. I am not sure how the term "jurisdiction" is taken as having wider implications because I believe it is more specific.
With regard to future Finance Bills and the suggestion that new law might be created by using such terminology as "jurisdiction", the full repercussions and implications of which may not be understood if it were not used in the past in the context of the tax laws, that is a moot point which I will take on board.
I appreciate the Senator's response. I am aware that the definitions are quite complicated but I have no doubt that there are differences involved. The term "jurisdiction" is very broad and contains wider implications than the words "country" or "state". For example, a jurisdiction can extend to mean any authority such as a county council or a controlling body such as the medical council. There are many additional possibilities contained under the definition of "jurisdiction". We communicated with the Revenue Commissioners on this issue and their strong view is that the words "country" and "state" should not be changed because "state" has an international currency in treaty negotiations while "jurisdiction" does not. This confirms that it would be unwise to proceed with the amendments.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 8 to 13, inclusive, are out of order.
Amendments Nos. 8 to 13, inclusive, not moved.
Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 16 is out of order.
Amendment No. 16 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 17 to 21, inclusive, not moved.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 are out of order.
Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 1346, line 20, to delete "a felony or misdemeanour" and substitute "an offence".
The purpose of this amendment is to remove ambiguity and inconsistency and to achieve uniformity of expression. As the Minister outlined, that is the criteria for these amendments.
Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act, 1997 which abolished the offences of felony and misdemeanour, was enacted on 22 April 1997 and came into effect on 22 July 1997 so references to felony or misdemeanour in existing law should appropriately be to an offence. The amendment, therefore, reflects existing law. In any case it would be wrong to refer in a Bill to categories of offences which have been abolished, as in this case. No change in the intended scope of the section is involved.
The distinction between felony and misdemeanour was abolished in the 1997 Act other than in cases where, with reference to Article 50 of the Constitution, a Member of this or the other House might be arrested for a felony or misdemeanour on his or her way to the House — the offences of treason, felony or misdemeanour were the only exceptions. Now that most recent amending legislation has become law, I do not see why the Taxes Consolidation Bill should still refer to these two offences, felony or misdemeanour.
Section 1070 states that the Tax Acts shall not affect any criminal proceedings for a felony or misdemeanour. Why not replace that with "any criminal proceedings for an offence" and bring it into line with this year's legislative development?
For the purposes of clarification, the amendments which were ruled out of order were not ruled out of order by me or the Department but by the Chair.
The point the Senator raises in amendment No. 24 and his other amendments are interesting and they are a valuable contribution to the debate. I hope my explanations are clear.
The amendment proposes to replace the references to a felony or misdemeanour in section 1070 with a reference to "an offence". The amendment is prompted by section 3 of the Criminal Law Act, 1997. Section 3(1) of that Act provides for the abolition of all distinctions between felony and misdemeanour. While section 3(2) establishes that in all matters on which a distinction had previously been made between felony and misdemeanour, the law in practice in relation to all offences will be the law in practice applicable at the commencement of the Act in relation to misdemeanour.
I am opposing this amendment for a number of reasons. First, the amendment is inappropriate in that the Criminal Law Act, 1997 did not come into operation until 22 July 1997 while the provisions of the Taxes Consolidation Bill will commence with effect from 6 April 1997. The amendment would, therefore, operate, if accepted, on a retrospective basis for a period in which there would have been a distinction between felony and misdemeanour. As such, the amendment proposes to make a substantive change to the underlying law.
Second, the Criminal Law Act, 1997 did not abolish the concept of felony and misdemeanour per se; it abolished all distinctions between the two concepts. It further provided that where there was previously a distinction made between felony and misdemeanour, including the mode of trial, the law and practice in relation to all offences will be that appropriate to a misdemeanour.
In the light of the actual wording of the Criminal Law Act, 1997, it is too simplistic to take the line that felonies and misdemeanours have been abolished. As I have just outlined, this amendment could have the intended result of changing the current law. As such, the amendment, if accepted, could impact adversely on current efforts to bring criminal proceedings in the area of tax evasion by obscuring and casting doubt on what is the correct legal position.
When the other House debated the Criminal Law Act, 1997, my understanding was that the intention was to abolish the two separate categories of offence, felony and misdemeanour, and incorporate them in the term "offence", that it was not just the distinction but the use of the terminology which was being abolished for all future criminal law cases and Acts. What the Minister had to say in that regard is unclear to me.
On the point that the Criminal Law Act, 1997 comes into operation on 22 July 1997 whereas the Taxes Consolidation Act will apply from 6 April 1997, if it is true that there might be a period where we could run foul of the new Act and there would be distinctive offences of felony or misdemeanour, I will take the Minister's word for it if the unintended result of changing the law would be to allow somebody to escape because we did not have an exact definition which applied at the appropriate time.
I seek further clarification on whether the concepts of felony and misdemeanour have been integrated into a single offence or whether we have simply abolished the distinction. Are we still operating with the terms "felony" and "misdemeanour"? I had thought that we were abolishing the words "felony" and "misdemeanour" as legal terms.
I appreciate the point the Senator has made and I want to be clear on it. We have actually only abolished the distinction between them. The concept of each term exists in its own right but the abolition of the distinction between them was the only impact of the Act to which I referred earlier. I hope that clarifies the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 25 is out of order.
Amendment No. 25 not moved.
Bill received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I congratulate the Minister on a job well done. This is a fantastic piece of work. There was a thorough discussion of the Bill in the Joint Committee but as I am not a Member of that committee I was not in a position to attend the meetings. I welcome the Bill and pay tribute to my colleague, Deputy Ferris, who is proud of having had 97 amendments accepted. He is pleased that the Minister was generous enough to accept those amendments and hopes he will be included in the Guinness Book of Records for his achievement. It is also historic that the Department and the Minister showed such openness in allowing discussion and accepting amendments when they add to the Bill. The same openness was shown today.
This Bill will be the first legislation to be signed by our new President. The legislation is, therefore, doubly historic in that it is the largest single Bill ever enacted. It is a positive and purposeful Bill which gets rid of the dead wood of old Acts and combines them. I wish the legislation well and hope it will be useful to the business and legal communities as well as ourselves.
I concur with the Senator's remarks. In my opening remarks I conveyed my heartfelt thanks to everyone who contributed to putting together this highly important legislation within a short time frame and in such a cost effective way. It was a remarkable achievement. I thank Senators, especially Senator Costello, for their commitment to and interest in the Bill. That approach was taken on all sides of both Houses. The Bill will be of great benefit to us as legislators, to the professional bodies and to small businesses which we want to assist as much as possible by removing much of the difficult language and red tape which are barriers to the speedy making of decisions. We did not intend that President McAleese should have to sign such a formidable Bill following her inauguration yesterday but it does show the interest of both Houses in bringing forward valuable legislation. I wish her success in what will be a lengthy task, because she has to sign each individual page of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.