Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 26 Jun 2001

Vol. 167 No. 7

Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta Bill, 2000: Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister of State at the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands (Ms Coughlan)

Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta (NET) is the holding company for the State's 51% shareholding in Irish Fertilizer Industries Limited (IFI). The remaining 49% of IFI is owned by Imperial Chemical Industries plc (ICI).

The main purpose of this Bill is to provide for the transfer of liability for the historically accumulated State guaranteed debt of NET to the Minister for Finance and to enable the Minister for Finance to delegate responsibility for the repayment and/or management of this debt to the National Treasury Management Agency. An amendment to the First Schedule of the National Treasury Management Agency Act, 1990, is necessary in order to provide for the delegation of this function.

The Bill also provides for legislative changes which could be made by ministerial order in the event of the winding up of NET. These legislative changes include the repeal of all previous NET legislation and the removal of the applicability of the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) legislation to NET.

NET's State-guaranteed borrowings are currently in the region of £194 million. NET was established in 1961 as a State-sponsored company to manufacture nitrogenous fertilisers at Arklow. The company started in a relatively modest way but expanded to the stage where after the completion of the Marino Point plant in Cork in 1979, it was at that time one of our largest chemical manufacturing companies, employing over 1,500 employees.

By the early 1980s it was recognised that because of the construction cost overruns and operating losses in the early years of the Marino Point plant, a substantial part of the NET debt was a sunk cost which could not be expected to be recovered. The overall size of the debt and the costs of servicing it were such as to keep the future of NET's fertiliser business and that of its employees in constant jeopardy. In order to provide a more secure future for the business, a joint venture was formed with Imperial Chemical Industries plc. in 1987, whereby NET's fertiliser businesses at Cork and Arklow and ICI's Richardsons Fertilizer business at Belfast were transferred to the new joint venture company – Irish Fertilizer Industries Ltd. – which became the manufacturing company. Under the joint venture arrangements, NET took a 51% shareholding in the new company, with ICI taking the remaining 49%.

As part of the joint venture agreement, NET's old core capital debt, which was £164.6 million at September 1987 and most of which was guaranteed by the State, was retained by NET in its new role as a holding company for the State's 51% shareholding in IFI. Since 1987, NET itself no longer has a manufacturing role and its primary activity has been the management of its debt portfolio as well as managing a gas contract and monitoring IFI. The gas contract expired at the end of December 1999.

At the time of the joint venture agreement in 1987, NET entered into a long-term agreement with IFI for the supply of its gas feedstock requirements, with a contract termination date scheduled for the end of 1999. NET already had a long-term gas contract in place with Bord Gais Éireann under which NET purchased gas from BGE. The old accumulated NET debt of £164.6 million had remained with the holding company NET, with the intention that NET would service the borrowings from its income from profits on the sale of gas to IFI and also from dividends from that company.

However, the combined income accruing to NET from its profits on the sale of gas and from dividends from IFI has been insufficient to cover fully the interest payable on the retained debt. As a result, the shortfall in interest had to be converted into new State-guaranteed borrowings with the result that overall borrowings have continued to grow to their current level. Also, the gas agreement with IFI expired at the end of 1999 and NET, therefore, no longer had income from this source to service the debt. NET has carried out its debt management role in a most professional manner over the years and has always sought to obtain the best cost of funds available.

Both Imperial Chemical Industries plc (ICI) and the State have offered for sale their shareholdings in IFI. Following the decision by both shareholders to seek to sell 100% of IFI, two indicative offers were received in 1999. Howeve,r both the State and the other shareholder, ICI, were of the view that neither offer presented a sufficiently strong basis for proceeding further with the joint sale process. Subsequently, several other parties expressed a possible interest in the purchase of IFI but no further indicative offers were received. The company is still on offer for sale.

I will now turn to the various sections of the Bill. Section 1 provides for the standard interpretation and definitions. Section 2 provides for the transfer of liability in respect of NET's State-guaranteed debt to the Minister for Finance to enable the Minister for Finance to discharge the State's liabilities under the various outstanding loans. The current legislative limit on NET's State guaranteed debt is £200 million and this section of the Bill reflects that maximum amount. Section 3 provides for an amendment of the First Schedule to the National Treasury Management Agency Act, 1990, which will allow the Minister for Finance to transfer responsibility for the repayment and/or management of the NET debt to the National Treasury Management Agency.

Section 4 is a standard provision to allow the Minister for Finance to make payments arising under this Bill from the Central Fund. Under the provisions of the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Acts, 1977 and 1988, four worker directors are elected to the NET board. Section 5 will enable the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to make an order which would have the effect of discontinuing the entitlement of the four worker directors to be elected to the board of NET. I should explain here that it is only intended to exercise this power in the event of the sale or disposal of NET's 51% shareholding in IFI. The four worker directors on the board of NET are actually employees of IFI. Therefore, if the State were to dispose of its shareholding in IFI, there would no longer be any rationale for IFI employees to be elected to the board of NET.

Section 6 provides for the repeal of all of the previous NET legislation, which comprises Acts stretching from the statutory establishment of NET in 1963 to the most recent Act in 1993. The section provides for the repeal of the NET Acts, 1963 to 1993, to be brought into operation by order of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. It is the intention to exercise this power only in the event of a sale of the State's shareholding in IFI and the subsequent winding up of NET. Section 7 is a standard provision enabling expenses incurred in the administration of the Act to be paid from moneys provided by the Oireachtas. Section 8 is also a standard provision giving the Short Title of the Act, which will be the Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta Act, 2001.

I am confident that this Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta Bill, 2000, will commend itself to the House and I recommend it for approval.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

I welcome the Minister to the House, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss this important legislation. The Minister has related the history of the company since1961and the more recent developments relating to the change in 1987 when possibly one of the first public private partnerships took place. The then NET became the 51% holding company in IFI and the remaining 49% was owned by ICI. The ICI-NET partnership which formed IFI was an interesting and necessary development at a time when the country experienced difficult financial circumstances from which this company and many others were not immune. Since then the company has progressed.

Between 1987 and the present day the debt was serviced but at no stage was it reduced. I would like an explanation on that specific issue. I would like to have a clearer picture of the two companies that formed IFI and the detail of the finances. It is extraordinary that the servicing of the debt has cost more than the actual debt. The banks have done extraordinarily well out of this at the expense of the taxpayer. There is a need for greater clarification in regard to what has happened between 1987 and 2001. I hope the Minister of State can provide such clarification in concluding Second Stage.

By virtue of the fact that this is a fertiliser company, the difficulties that arise are peculiar to farming. Given the boom in farming in the 1990s, I would have expected a corresponding boom in this company. That is the reason I seek clarification of finances.

The company produces fertiliser. Anyone who is involved with or has any association with farming will be aware it is a seasonal operation. The use of fertiliser can vary from year to year and according to weather conditions. In certain parts of the country it may be impossible to spread fertiliser until late in the year and there would not be a repeat of the operation. In some years there may be a greater supply of fertiliser than is required to meet the need. Because of fluctuations the company would be subjected to those difficulties.

As members of local authorities we are all familiar with directives from Europe on phosphates in water and nutrient control plans on farms. As we progress there will be more directives which will constrain farmers in regard to the amount of fertiliser that may be used and the amount of phosphates that may be permitted to drain into the main water courses. That matter will have to be taken into consideration because it will have an impact on the company. Given that there will also be companies from eastern Europe and elsewhere providing fertiliser there will be competition. These are fundamental issues which can affect the company adversely or otherwise and have to be taken into consideration.

Since 1997 the particular function of NET was to service the debt. The section of the Bill which deals with the 51% shareholding of IFI needs to be teased out. At one stage there were over 1,500 in employment in the company but now there are 680 or 690 in employment. The jobs of those people need to be protected and there is a need for discussions with the trade unions and the workers. The Bill proposes to withdraw the worker-partnership section of NET in relation to IFI. Undoubtedly that will affect workers down the road. The position of workers as well as their pension fund must be protected in any sale that may take place. Every option should be explored, including the possibility of a new bidder from outside or a consortium of interests from within the country who may purchase it or whether it is feasible to have a worker buy-out of the company. All these aspects need to be explored and examined and nothing should happen until that is done.

In the interests of Irish agriculture it is important to have a fertiliser production facility here. As the only island member nation of the EU, it would put the farming community in a dependent position in the event of having to import fertiliser. Transportation costs can increase depending on the price of oil. There is a huge energy cost in the production of fertiliser which can vary according to the price of oil. It is interesting to note that the debt was serviced until 1999 by the sale of gas from NET to IFI. The actual source of the servicing of the debt has evaporated, hence the difficulty that arises. All of these issues are up for discussion.

The Minister of State has set out clearly the position of the company. Before anything further is done there is a need to put on the record the position regarding the £164 million which was owed in 1987 and which has risen to £195 million or £197 million. In regard to the interest paid to the bank for servicing the debt, did ICI make a profit at any stage? What was the position in regard to the ICI-NET relationship? It is important to explore those issues to ensure that everything is above board. I have no doubt that is what the Minister of State would want. In the public interest perhaps she would state the position when replying. Priority should be given to the position of workers and their pension fund should be protected. Also the future of farming in Ireland should be taken into consideration in respect of the continuation of a fertiliser production facility. Such a facility has existed here since 1959. It would be a retrograde step if Ireland did not maintain that production facility.

Mr. Mooney

It is a pleasure to welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Coughlan, to the House albeit in a different role from that in which she made her Seanad debut. It proves a point we have all known in the north west that the Minister of State, when given the brief, can rise to the occasion irrespective of the topic.

I endorse much that Senator Taylor-Quinn has said. The debate in the other House was taken by the Minister of State at the Department of Public Enterprise, Deputy Jacob. I acknowledge his contribution to building up the resources of NET and Irish Fertilizers. He was employed in that company for many decades and was responsible for creating the distribution network that enabled farmers throughout the country to speedily access their fertiliser needs through the rail network. It is appropriate that we acknowledge the contribution made by Deputy Jacob in another life in that regard. He also expressed some serious concerns about the future of the plant during his Second Stage speech in the other House.

Looking through the documentation relating to the plant in Arklow and to IFI as well as the background as outlined by Senator Taylor-Quinn, I quickly came to the conclusion that at least on the face of it, the Government sees this as being a social policy to ensure that 600 jobs are maintained in Arklow rather than being based on sound economic principles. When the ICI private public partnership concept was established in 1987, there was a debt overhang of well in excess of £150 million. Although NET was charged with managing the debt for the subsequent years, it has now reached an accumulated figure of £180 million so it has been rising despite the best efforts in that regard.

There have been some good points as well. For example, the rationalisation and restructuring of the company and the creation of new plant and of a leaner and fitter IFI in Arklow is to be welcomed and makes it attractive to a potential buyer. However, that also seems to be an intractable problem. Despite the fact that the Minister set up a consultative working group and involved the trade unions and other interested parties 12 to 18 months ago, no potential buyer has emerged. Obviously the trade union movement is acutely aware of the implications for the sale of the plant in Arklow and what the future will be. Notwithstanding the guarantees given by the Minister on job security, all of us will have to accept that if it goes into private hands, bearing in mind the carryover of the debt, some down-sizing or rationalisation is inevitable, although I hope this is not the case.

I hate describing this in American terminology when what we are talking about is bread and butter and putting food on the table for some individual who is working. They are real people, they are not just statistics and I think the Government is acutely aware of its responsibility in that regard. Why else would it effectively be introducing enabling legislation where one of its sections refers to permitting "Auntie May" as it is called, the National Treasury Management Agency, to take over the debt management of the company. Although it is enabling legislation, it seems inevitable that that is the way it will go. NTMA will take over the role of management of the debt that was handled by NET since 1987.

On the face of it, the Government seems to have found itself in a very difficult position. On the one hand it wants to ensure, as Senator Taylor-Quinn has correctly said, that the continuous supply of fertiliser product to Irish farmers would remain in Irish hands. As an island nation we have to be very aware of that. On the other hand, now that the Government has spent money on improving the plant and as we are guaranteeing this enormous debt, there is a very real possibility that some big player on the European mainland may decide to move in, take over and start rationalising, which might ultimately lead to them supplying fertiliser and phosphate from Europe rather than from this country. The Government is on the horns of a dilemma, but in the circumstances I do not see what else it can do other than bring in this legislation to ensure that the debt is managed and continues to be underwritten.

Even though Senator Ross might not share my enthusiasm, I have long admired the NTMA. It has contributed greatly to improving the finances of this country, although Senator Ross has made the point on more than one occasion that we have nothing to compare it with. It is effectively a monopoly and does not operate to any specific efficiency ratio. We accept what it is doing is right because there is no other management agency in the country that one can use as a benchmark. Notwithstanding that, I believe it has done a good job and it is appropriate that this enabling legislation be included in the Bill.

I do not want to reopen a debate on this. However, because IFI relied and continues to rely to a great extent on its distribution network, there was great concern at the unofficial dispute by the ILDA last year. There is a leading trade unionist in the House in the person of Senator O'Toole. I know he does not have responsibility for the ILDA's actions given that it is outside congress, however, its decision to prevent haulage to and from the Arklow plant to further its own agenda was irresponsible, bordering on national sabotage.

I know that there are rights involved and I do not wish to suggest that the members of the ILDA, as it then was, did not have a passion, commitment and conviction about what it was attempting to do. The vast majority of trade unionists recognise that there is a higher agenda, the national interest. However, the national interest was not served by the unilateral decision to prevent trains from going in and out of the Arklow plant last year. I still have vivid memories of seeing on the television news workers coming out of the plant, very concerned and visibly upset by what they saw as yet another barb being sent in their direction. When one knows the background to the difficulties that NET and the IFI had since 1967 and even before, one can readily understand that that action is not one that would have been accepted by the workforce there. I hope it will not be repeated. There comes a time in industrial disputes when the national interest should take over, but that is not always the case.

Deputy Naughten and Senator Taylor-Quinn referred to another important aspect of this debate, that is the use of phosphates by farmers and the illegal seepage of phosphates into our waterways. I have a file that is getting larger by the month relating to the pollution of the upper Shannon. Sadly, a significant amount of this is as a result of phosphate leakage into the waterway system. Fish are dying along a stretch from Longford through Roosky and into Lough Allen where a significant number of people have spent considerable sums of their own money and devoted much of their time and resources over the past ten years to build up bed and breakfast accommodation, restaurants etc. They rely almost exclusively on coarse fishing, but that business is dwindling because increasingly our friends from across the Irish Sea, who were traditionally the support structure for coarse fishing and the development of tourism in my area right down to Athlone, find in recent years that when they come to fish in waters that traditionally had fish in them there is none.

I know that Senator O'Toole is very familiar with the upper Shannon – he boats on it regularly. I am not sure if he fishes on it, but he certainly would be aware of the great concern, bordering on despair, among bed and breakfast owners and those involved in tourism at what they see as the desecration of our waterway. The fish are disappearing at an alarming rate, in many cases as a result of phosphate poisoning, and the evidence is there. I know that it is outside the Minister's brief and outside the brief of this Bill, but because it relates to phosphate, I again call on the Department of the Environment and Local Government and the Shannon Regional Fisheries Board at least to try to put in the resources necessary to police and monitor this. I also call on local authorities along the route to be more proactive and not be afraid to take prosecutions. I am not aware of prosecutions of any great significance against those who are perpetrating this national sabotage. While it may not relate directly to this Bill, it is an opportunity to issue that plea on behalf of those who wish to continue to make their living from tourism or who have no other choice.

I hope there will be a sale and that it will be to an Irish purchaser. There are indications that some entrepreneurs or groups are watching this development – and the passage of this legislation – very closely. Could the Minister of State give some indication of the current state of play or is that commercially sensitive information? Is there a real chance, now that this legislation is about to be enacted, the debt guaranteed and an increase in the limit, that this will satisfy those who might be considering investing? Is this now a viable company or is it simply another indication of the Government's commitment to ensuring that jobs are maintained for the sake of jobs?

I have no difficulty with that but I recall the early 1980s when people in Leitrim, Sligo and north Roscommon were fighting very hard for the retention of the Connacht coalfields. The seams were running out, there was a very high ash content and the cost of continuing was not seen as economically or commercially viable. There were plans afoot to create a second mining facility in Arigna which would use the then contemporary technology to extract coal. However, it never came to anything due to lack of money. In this situation, £180 million is being effectively written off by the Government to ensure that 630 jobs are kept in Arklow. I have absolutely no problem with that and, if it was in my part of the country, I would argue passionately for it, as no doubt any of us would because it is about jobs. I hope there will be some relief from the uncertainty which the workers in Arklow are obviously facing. They must feel very uncertain about their future, despite the guarantees given by the Tánaiste. Perhaps the Minister can offer them some succour in that regard about the future of the plant. In general, like my colleagues, I commend this Bill.

Mr. O'Toole

Senator Mooney has ranged far and wide. I am not sure of the relationship between his speech and Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta but at least it was very interesting. He raised some provocative issues which I cannot ignore. We should recognise that, while the ILDA were walking up and down with their banners, members of the NBRU and SIPTU walked past them and went to work. That took a lot of courage. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions publicly opposed the ILDA action on every occasion. That is something which political parties could learn from in terms of dealing with miscreants who step out of line now and then. If a little internal discipline is required, the trade union movement will not be found wanting.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

The Senator should be specific. Come on.

Mr. Mooney

I share the Senator's view on that.

Acting Chairman

Senator O'Toole, without interruption.

Mr. O'Toole

I am possibly the person who has spoken longest and most often on the Shannon waterways since I was elected to this House, although I acknowledge that all three Senators present have contributed to that debate on every occasion. I am happy to read some good news into the record of the House in relation to the Shannon. During the last two months, anglers have been catching brown trout in Lough Derg – old fashioned brown trout, not rainbow trout. I saw five one-and-a-half pound brown trout landed in Mountshannon in May. Many fishermen stayed on the Shannon this year instead of going to the west for the mayfly because the fishing was so good there. That is some recognition of the improvements in waste water management at various towns along the river, including Portumna at the top of the lake.

Mr. Mooney

But not fully up the river.

Mr. O'Toole

No, but it shows what can be done if action is taken. Senator Mooney quite rightly referred – and perhaps this is the connection with the Bill – to the problems created by nitrates and phosphates getting into waters and causing endless damage. The most recent survey showed that, although there are significant problems arising from bad management of waste water and domestic sewage from towns along the way, by far the biggest problem comes from farming sources. That is the reality and there is a huge cost involved.

This Bill is essential and has to be passed. One can read it with some poignancy and sadness, reflecting on our situation in 1979 and 1980. I recall those times very clearly, especially the impact on the trade union movement of the possibility of NET collapsing. At that time, there were 1,500 jobs involved, the loss of which, in 1980, would be a crushing blow by any standards. Unlike now, there was no job creation and unemployment was on the way up. I believe the Government made a wise decision.

Senator Taylor-Quinn asked an important question. The debt has gone from £164 million to about £195 million in the meantime. That does not sound like great management, although I say that without having all the facts. Perhaps there are very good reasons. I find it impossible to comprehend the situation. The only function of the company since 1987 was to manage the debt and the income. Was the income from the gas contract never enough to meet the expenses of the debt? That appears to be the case. If that is so, we should have been looking much sooner at the kind of measure now being taken.

I fully support the transfer of the debt, through the Minister, to the NTMA for management. Senator Ross is completely and utterly wrong in his frequently repeated statements on this matter. There are benchmarks for measurement purposes. I use a very simple comparison, based on the savings arising from the NTMA operations. The cost of managing the £30 billion or so of national debt has always been somewhat less than 10%. That was not bad at all. I am referring to figures for two years ago – I have not seen last year's figures. In terms of investments, fund management and use of the money market, the operation has been extraordinarily successful.

What we are talking of, in the present context, is writing off the debt. There is really no management of the debt. It will just go into the NTMA and appear in the books. It would be cleaner to write it off, suffer the loss in year one and forget it. I think I know the answer to my question on whether the gas contract paid for the cost of the debt – it obviously did not.

I have another question which, perhaps, I should have researched before this debate. As the company stands, is it now making money? What is IFI getting out of it? Is NET getting anything at all out of it since the new company was established? What is the situation in that regard? IFI seems to be trading reasonably satisfactorily without increasing debt, but is it generating a profit and, if so, where is that profit going?

On a third question, what is the current estimated value of IFI? In other words, if the State finds a buyer, what is the asking price? That figure would allow us to make some judgment as to the overall net outcome. Taking it that we are down £195 million, what are the best and worst case scenarios for our 51% share in IFI?

I note the proposal to repeal the provision for worker representation on the board. There is no point in having worker representation on the board when there is no board and nothing to manage. Therefore, I have no difficulty with that provision. However, in a time of partnership, it brings to mind the fact there are not enough companies moving in this direction, and it is worrying to see the reaction, particularly in the UK, to the recent directive from the EU insisting on more consultation with the workforce before taking significant decisions.

Members in this and the other House know more than others what happens when a company closes in their area. There is absolute anger which in the first place is directed towards Government and elected politicians. Very often there is no consultation with the workers, and the first they hear about it is on the news or five minutes before it is reported on the news when they are called together by senior management. In IFI and NET we saw total worker commitment to restructuring and improving the product and to running the company as efficiently as possible. It is a sad episode. Perhaps it is one of those industries which is no longer fully viable in this country.

I support the Bill and suggest in the interests of efficiency of business that we take all Stages tonight. I do not see Members coming forward with amendments, and we have much business this week and next week. There can be no valid objection to disposing of the Bill tonight.

Minister of State at the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands (Ms Coughlan)

Gabhaim buíochas do na Seanadóirí uilig as ucht na tacaíochta, thart ar an iomlán, mar gheall ar an mBille. Enacting this Bill will enable NET to transfer its State guaranteed debt to the Minister for Finance, and he may delegate responsibility for the debt management and repayment to the NTMA. The outcome will be that NET will be relieved of its historically accumulated debt, which it has retained since 1987 when the restructuring took place.

I wish to address a number of the questions and comments raised by Senators. Senator Taylor-Quinn referred to the history of the debt. The majority of the State guaranteed debt was built up in the 1970s, mainly as a result of a large cost overrun during the construction of the Marino Point plant in Cork. At the time of the joint venture in 1987 NET, in its new capacity as a holding company for the State shareholding, retained an historically accumulated debt of £164.4 million. Therefore, the debt belonged to the holding company and not the new company. Prior to that NET was a manufacturing company.

Since 1987 it is estimated that approximately £200 million has been paid on the debt. NET has always managed the debt to the best extent possible by obtaining the best cost of funds available. A substantial amount of the interest payments made by NET were funded by income generated from the commercial arrangements between NET and IFI. The contract for the sale of gas concluded in 1999 which has had a cumulative effect and has increased the debt as a consequence.

Since 1988 IFI has made a total profit of £63 million. Some £30 million was invested some time ago in upgrading the Belfast plant to a proper standard. During the same period NET lost £157 million with the interest payments to service the debt over the years. Last year IFI lost £11.58 million, but the previous year it made a profit of £3.8 million. It is a very difficult market which is quite volatile.

As I indicated in my speech, a decision was made to discuss the future sale of IFI. The Government is committed to seeking a purchaser who must be committed to retaining and developing the company as a manufacturing facility with the intention of securing, in so far as possible, the future jobs of the company. That is the main criterion being set down by the Government. Prior to any sale all employment issues will be fully explored with employees through the consultative committees which would be formed at the time. Because of the volatility of the industry and the commitments expected by the Government there are not too many potentially interested at present in the purchase of IFI.

Regarding speculation as to how much it is worth, I will leave that to somebody else. Perhaps Senator O'Toole might rise to the occasion and give a guesstimate. I am not in a position to do that as it would depend on the market and whether people are interested in purchasing the plant.

Other issues were raised which are certainly not within my brief or within the remit of the Bill, though those issues have very important implications. Senator Taylor-Quinn raised the issue of EU directives and their consequences for such an industry and similar industries which may not currently be seen as politically correct in an EU context. Companies will have to work within the confines of those directives. However, I agree that fertiliser is not necessarily the main pollutant, and people from the Shannon basin would certainly be aware of this. It is a very difficult issue and one of which we must be cognisant in terms of the protection of our waterways from a fishing perspective and as a source of our drinking water. I am sure the company is fully aware of any prospective new legislation which may have implications for it and that it will work within those confines.

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Mr. Mooney

With the agreement of the Whips and the very kind gesture of Senator O'Toole, I understand there is broad agreement on all sides to proceed to take all Stages now. On behalf of the Government side we are extremely grateful to our colleagues on the other side of the House for facilitating passage of the Bill.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.

Acting Chairman

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Mooney

At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.