Before we commence I remind Senators that a Senator may speak only once on Report Stage, except the proposer of an amendment who may reply to the discussion on the amendment. On Report Stage each amendment must be seconded.
Containment of Nuclear Weapons Bill, 2000: Report and Final Stages.
Government amendment No. 1:
In page 4, to delete lines 15 to 17 and substitute the following:
"‘thing' includes any equipment, material or substance relevant to the information to be provided in Article 2 or Annex III of the Protocol or listed in Annex I or II.".
The purpose of this amendment is to rectify the definition of "thing" in section 2. Following a Committee Stage amendment to take account of activities in Annex III, "thing" is now defined to include any material, equipment or item referred to in Annex I, II or III. Annex III refers only to activities relating to the import and export of materials as listed in Annex I and II. As there are no materials etc. listed in Annex III this amendment will now clarify the definition.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:
"(2)Nothing in this Act shall compel the disclosure or production by any person of any information or document which he or she would, were the information or document required to be disclosed or produced by him or her in legal proceedings, be entitled to refuse to disclose or produce on the grounds of legal professional privilege.".
This amendment is self-explanatory and its purpose is to insert a new paragraph. The reason for it is quite serious, that the search powers con ferred on an officer under the legislation should not override the right to legal privilege which would be in line with normal law. On Committee Stage the Minister cited a precedent, specifically the Chemicals Weapons Act, 1997. Section 18 of the Irish Takeover Panel Act, 1997, is a better precedent. I hope the Minister of State will be able to take it on board.
I second the amendment.
Legal and professional privilege means legal advice or discussions between a lawyer and client. Such advice is confidential and cannot be discovered as a result of proceedings taken against a client. This amendment suggests that if a person is to be inspected under the Bill their lawyer or legal adviser can claim special privilege in respect of documents or discussions.
I do not agree with the proposed amendment because its introduction could be used as a device to hinder the enforcement of the Bill. Any challenge to a claim of legal privilege can be resolved if necessary by the courts.
Senator O'Meara has the right to reply.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I would have thought that rather than have the issues resolved by the courts it would be better to have it clear in the Bill. I accept what he says.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, are cognate. Amendments Nos. 3 to 6, inclusive, may be discussed together by agreement. These amendments have also been tabled by the Government.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 9, line 2, to delete "the Office of".
I note that the Government has accepted amendments Nos. 3 to 6, inclusive. These are technical amendments and there is no such thing in law as the Office of the Revenue Commissioners.
I second the amendment.
As Senator O'Meara has said, these are technical amendments. Amendments Nos. 3 to 6, inclusive, relate to the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. I indicated on Committee Stage that further amendments to the title of this office would be necessary to ensure continuity of reference throughout the Bill. These amendments fulfil that purpose.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 9, line 9, to delete "the Office of".
I second the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 9, line 15, to delete "the Office of".
I second the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 10, line 18, to delete "the Office of".
I second the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 7 is a Government amendment and amendment No. 8 is an alternative. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 may be discussed together by agreement.
Government amendment No. 7:
In page 11, to delete lines 34 to 36 and substitute the following:
"(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding £200,000, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years, or both.”.
Amendments No. 7 and 8 relate to the penalties on conviction of an offence under this Bill as outlined in section 14.
When section 14 was last discussed here on Committee Stage, Senators raised the possibility of increasing penalties for summary and indictable offences under the Bill. I have since examined this matter with the advice and assistance of the Attorney General.
The penalties for summary offences are the maximum allowed under the law so there is no discretion to increase these. As to indictable offences, I believe that we should set maximum penalties which are proportionate to the offences created by the legislation while recognising that the courts have the overriding role under the Constitution in determining the appropriate penalty if a jury finds a person guilty. Maximum penalties are a guideline. The courts could well impose lower penalties depending on the circumstances of a particular case.
The offences created under section 14 relate mainly to failure to obtain the necessary regulatory approval to carry on certain activities or a failure to provide prescribed information to the RPII or the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The offences have been created so that we can be sure that we have sufficient information to report on relevant activities to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
It would be excessive to set penalties at too high a level in such circumstances. I propose a doubling of the fines and the term of imprisonment in recognition of the points made by Senators on Committee Stage.
I welcome the Minister of State's approach. I acknowledge the fact that he has doubled the original fine and term of imprisonment from two to four years. Our approach was to go much higher than that.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.
Bill reported with amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank the Minister of State for initiating the Bill in the House and for the manner in which he handled it. I also thank Opposition Senators for their co-operation in passing this legislation.
I thank the Minister of State. We had a very good debate on the Bill during which a positive and constructive approach was adopted by both sides. The Minister of State took the comments of Senators on board and that is how a true democracy works.
I acknowledge the work done by the Minister of State and his officials on this important legislation. This Bill will not hit the headlines, particularly in the current climate, but it is very important and much hard work has been put into it. It was our pleasure to co-operate in the passing of the Bill.
I thank you, a Chathaoirligh, and those Senators who contributed to the debate for their co-operative and constructive input to this important legislation, particularly in the context of Ireland's and the Oireachtas's concentration on nuclear issues. The Bill sends out a message that we are complying in this area and I am grateful to Senators for their constructive input which enabled the Bill to be passed expeditiously and in an apt form.
Question put and agreed to.
The Seanad adjourned at 2.43 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 24 May 2000.