Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 Jun 2001

Vol. 167 No. 9

Company Law Enforcement Bill, 2000: Committee and Remaining Stages.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Mr. Coghlan

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 8, subsection (1), between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following definition:

"‘fraud' means

(a) a person who dishonestly, with the intention of making a gain for himself or herself or any other person, or of causing loss to the company, induces the company to act or refrain from acting;

(b) intentional misrepresentation affecting financial statements of a company;

(c) a person who dishonestly, with the intention of making a gain for himself or herself or any other person, or of causing loss to the company:

(i) destroys, defaces, conceals or falsifies any account of any document made or required for any accounting purpose;

(ii) fails to make or complete any account or any such document; or

(iii) in furnishing information for any purpose produces or makes use of any account, or any such document, which to his or her knowledge is or may be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular;

(d) dishonestly appropriating property without the consent of the company; or

(e) the use of the company for any of the purposes referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d) above;”.

I await the Minister's response.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. T. Kitt)

The effect of this amendment would be to insert a definition of the term "fraud" into the Bill. The word "fraud" is not used in the Bill but related terms such as "defraud" and "fraudulent" are used. Due to the collective construction of the Bill with the Companies Acts, 1963 to 1999, the insertion in the Bill of a definition of fraud would have the effect of providing a definition of the term for all existing Companies Acts as well as for the Bill.

The amendment was proposed on Committee Stage in the Dáil by Deputy Naughten. At the time the Minister expressed reservations about including a definition of fraud in the Bill on the basis that the Companies Acts have operated and been interpreted effectively without a specific definition of the term. She pointed out that where no definition is provided for a word or phrase used in legislation, the word or phrase would have its ordinary meaning, subject to the context in which it is used. Definitions of specific terms are usually provided in legislation where these are necessary or helpful to a proper interpretation of particular provisions.

Despite the Minister's reservations, she agreed to consult the Attorney General and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on this matter. Neither is disposed to the provision of a definition of fraud in the Bill. They endorsed the view expressed on Committee Stage that the concept of fraud is clearly understood as involving something which is not only wrong or dishonest but which is done intentionally, knowing it is wrong and dishonest, especially where some material gain is obtained by unfair means. To define the term specifically would not serve to give any greater meaning to what is already understood but might serve to limit the application and interpretation unnecessarily.

In light of this advice and in the absence of a compelling need for the provision of a definition, I cannot accept the amendment. I hope the Senator will accept my explanation.

Mr. Coghlan

Given the unfortunate increase in the extent of fraud in the operation of companies in this country, I was inclined to agree with Deputy Naughten that a definition of fraud would, rather than might, be important. However, I thank the Minister for his explanation and I accept his remarks about the successful operation of the Companies Acts on the basis of the ordinary meaning of the word. Having heard the Attorney General's advice, I am happy to concur and withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 3 agreed to.

Sections 4 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 22.

Mr. Coghlan

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 15, paragraph (b), to delete lines 21 and 22, and substitute the following:

"where such a relationship is defined during the financial period in question by:

(a) one party having direct or indirect control of the other party;

(b) the parties being subject to common control from the same source;

(c) one party having influence over the financial and operating policies of the other party to an extent that the other party may be inhibited from pursuing at all times its own separate interests; or

(d) the parties, in entering a transaction, being subject to influence from the same source to such an extent that one of the parties to the transaction has subordinated its own separate interests.'.”.

Mr. T. Kitt

This amendment relates to section 22 of the Bill which amends section 9 of the Companies Act, 1990. It addresses the question of what is meant by a related company for the purposes of section 9. Section 9 permits court appointed inspectors to extend an investigation of a company to the affairs of a related company where this is necessary for the purposes of the investigation and where the court approves.

The point of the amendment of section 9, as provided for in section 22 of the Bill, is to get away from the concept that a company investigation should only be allowed to extend to the affairs of other companies that are either owned or controlled by the investigated company or that are in the same group of companies as the investigated company. Rather, it should be possible for such investigations to extend to the affairs of any other company whose affairs it is necessary to investigate to satisfactorily conclude the investigation of the primary target company.

It is important to note in this context that the extension of the examination of a company's affairs to the affairs of a related company is subject to a double test under section 9 of the 1990 Act. First, the inspectors must consider it necessary for the purposes of the primary investigation to extend their inquiries to the affairs of the related company and, second, the extension of the investigation must be approved by the High Court which appointed the inspectors in the first place. I am satisfied these provisions will ensure there is no unwarranted intrusion in the affairs of companies that have had a proper and above board commercial relationship with the target company.

I hope Senator Coghlan will be reassured by my comments on this proposal. I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Coghlan

I accept the Minister of State's assurances. I do not in any way wish to confine any company investigation and, as I understand it, based on the advice the Minister of State has offered, the effect of this amendment would be to do so. That was not the intention. Therefore, I accept what he said and withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 22 agreed to.

Sections 23 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 29.

Acting Chairman (Mr. J. Cregan)

Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 are related and maybe discussed together by agreement.

Mr. Coghlan

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 19, to delete lines 1 to 4, and substitute the following:

"or may give directions to an officer of any such body requiring the body, or in the alternative such officer, at such time and place as may be specified in the directions, to produce such books or documents as may be so specified or in the alternative fulfil obligations or an obligation arising under Part V of the Act of 1963 or under Parts III or IV of the Act of 1990.".

I will await the response of the Minister of State.

Mr. T. Kitt

These amendments relate to section 29 which provides for the repeal and replacement of section 19 of the Companies Act, 1990, relating to the examination of the books and documents of a company in certain specified circumstances. The power, under section 19 of the 1990 Act, to require production of books and documents is exerciseable in respect of the bodies listed in that section, essentially all companies registered or carrying on business in the State, as it is the books and documents of the bodies concerned which may be examined under the section.

There is no need to extend, as this amendment does, the power to require the production of a company's books by the officers of the company. Where a company has been required to produce books and documents under section 19, subsection (3) provides that any person who appears to be in possession of the books or documents may also be required to produce them. This would include an officer of the body.

The second aspect of amendment No. 3 is to extend the powers available under the section to include not only the production of books and documents but also a power to compel companies or their officers to fulfil obligations arising under Part V of the Companies Act, 1963, or Parts III or IV of the Companies Act, 1990. These Parts of the relevant Acts relate, respectively, to the management and administration of companies, transactions between companies and their directors, and disclosure of interest in shares. These Parts impose a range of obligations, both on companies and their officers, from their requirement to keep registers and accounts to the making of annual returns and the obligation to disclose interests in shares of publicly quoted companies.

This amendment would provide the director of corporate enforcement with a statutory power to compel companies and company officers to comply with particular obligations under these sections of the Companies Acts where the director considered that they had failed to do so. This would constitute a significant extension of the powers available to the director in the enforcement of the Companies Act. Such an extension is not considered appropriate as it would give to the director power to compel persons to take particular action based entirely on the director's own opinion as to the person's obligation to do so. Decisions of the director in that regard would not be subject to any judicial endorsement or approval as would be normal. The director will have a range of powers available to him or her in cases where a person appears not to have fulfilled an obligation under the Companies Act. The director may institute summary proceedings against the person or may choose to impose a fine pursuant to the provisions of section 109 of the Bill. In the latter instance, the person or company liable to pay the fine would also have to remedy the default in respect of which the fine is imposed.

In addition, under section 371 of the Companies Act, 1963, as amended by this Bill, the director may seek a court order to compel a person to comply with an obligation under the Companies Act. This is a more appropriate mechanism by which the director could seek to enforce compliance with the Act.

I hope I have explained to Senator Coghlan the Government's position on this matter and that he can be reassured by my clarification of why I cannot accept this amendment.

Mr. Coghlan

I accept the explanation of the Minister of State. I was concerned about the production of books and documents. We have seen all sorts of cases, which unfortunately have been referred from the tribunals to the High Court and elsewhere. We read of an unfortunate case where one company director stated not, as far as I recall, that he had burned papers but that he had kept no documents or records of correspondence with his lawyers, which one would assume would have been a sine qua non in running a business. The Minister of State understands my concern but I accept what he said and appreciate it. On the basis of his advice, I feel no need to press the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Coghlan

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 20, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:

"(j) the body is frustrating, impeding or avoiding the conduct of litigation, arbitration or investigation;

(k) the body is frustrating, impeding or avoiding the enforcement of an award, order, direction, penalty or declaration of a court, arbitrator, tribunal, inspector or a Committee of the Oireachtas;

(l) a present or past employee of the body requires the directions to be fulfilled in order to exercise a right of action, a pension right or a right to payment of earnings; or

(m) a person wishes to exercise a property right involving or connected to the body.”.

I will await the response of the Minister of State.

Mr. T. Kitt

The effect of this amendment would be to extend the grounds for the exercise of the powers available under section 19 of the Companies Act, 1990, relating to the examination of books and documents of companies and other bodies. This would involve extending the list of reasons in subsection (2) of section 19, for which the director of corporate enforcement would be permitted to exercise those powers.

The amendment proposes that this list be extended to include a range of matters such as a company impeding litigation, arbitration investigation or the enforcement of court orders or that an employee of the company requires to exercise a right of action against a company. These matters are not related to suspected wrongdoings on the part of a company in relation to its obligations under the Companies Acts. It is not appropriate for the director of corporate enforcement to be given power to have a company's books and documents examined on the basis of these actions by the company.

What Senator Coghlan wants to achieve is already available under the law in civil matters. If there is a civil case to be dealt with, for example, under property law or employment law, the concerns of the Senator in these situations can be met under other legislation.

Mr. Coghlan

If the Minister of State tells me, as he has done, that it can be dealt with in other ways I am happy to accept his word but I was concerned about litigation, arbitration or investigation. At the risk of repeating myself, we have seen so many instances recently of people trying to frustrate the work, for instance, of the tribunals set up by both Houses of the Oireachtas. However, I accept the Minister of State's explanation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Coghlan

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 23, between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following:

"(3) An officer of a body in this section includes those persons whose names on the date of the giving of the direction are recorded as being a Director or Secretary of that body in a public register.

(4) An obligation arising under Part V of the Act of 1963, or Parts III or IV of the Act of 1990 means an obligation which in the opinion of the Director has not been fulfilled or does not appear to have been fulfilled.".

I do not wish to press the amendment but if the Minister wishes to make a remark, I would appreciate it. Perhaps he has covered it already.

Mr. T. Kitt

Amendment No. 5 provides for the insertion of a definition of the terms "officer" and "obligation" for the purpose of section 19 of the 1990 Act. The term officer is already defined for the purpose of the Companies Act in section 2 of the Companies Act, 1963.

The proposed definition in amendment No. 5 adds nothing to the existing definition in the Acts. It may, in fact, limit the definition to cover only those persons who are currently listed as directors or secretaries of companies, whereas section 19 applies to past and present officers. On the definition of an obligation, the need for this would only arise if amendment No. 3 was accepted, and it was not accepted. I hope that clarifies the position.

Acting Chairman

Is the amendment being pressed?

Mr. Coghlan

No. I accept what the Minister of State has said. There was no intention on this side to limit it in any way.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 29 agreed to.

Sections 30 to 46, inclusive, agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Coghlan

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 33, before section 47, to insert the following new section:

"47.–Section 266(3) of the Act of 1963 is amended by the deletion of paragraph (a) and the substitution of the following:

‘(a) cause a full statement of the position of the company's affairs, together with a list of the creditors of the company and the estimated amount of their claims to be–

(i)laid before the meeting of the creditors to be held as aforesaid; and

(ii)lodged with the Companies Registration Office; and'.".

I will await the response of the Minister of State.

Mr. T. Kitt

This amendment proposes the insertion of a new section in the Bill amending section 266 of the Companies Act, 1963. Subsection (3) of that section requires the directors of a company to lay a statement of the affairs of the company, including a list of the company's creditors, before a meeting of the creditors where the company is being wound up through a creditors' voluntary liquidation. The amendment proposed here would require that the statement of the company's affairs prepared by its directors should also be lodged in the companies registration office in addition to being provided to the creditors at their meeting.

It is an offence for the directors of a company not to provide a statement of the company's affairs to the creditors in a creditors' voluntary liquidation and this should be sufficient to ensure that the directors meet their obligations or, if they do not, that there is an adequate sanction available. I see no compelling reason to require that the statement of the affairs of a company in voluntary liquidation be placed on the public record in the Companies Office. The information in question is only of immediate relevance to the creditors and I do not consider that wider disclosure of this is warranted. Accordingly, I am obliged to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Coghlan

On the basis of the Minister of State's assurance that an adequate sanction is available I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 47 agreed to.

Sections 48 to 59, inclusive, agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Coghlan

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 40, before section 60, to insert the following new section:

"60.–Section 127 of the Act of 1963 is amended by the insertion of the following after subsection (1):

‘(1A) The date of the annual general meeting shall be forwarded to the registrar of companies not later than 30 days prior to the annual general meeting.'.".

Mr. T. Kitt

This amendment relates to section 60, which provides for the repeal and replacement of section 127 of the Companies Act, 1963. Specifically, section 60 provides for the introduction of an annual return date for determining the date in each year on which a company is required to file its annual return with the Registrar of Companies. The amendment proposes that in place of the introduction of an annual return date a company should simply be required to notify the Registrar of Companies of the date on which it proposes to hold its annual general meeting and that the existing link between the holding of the AGM and the preparation of the annual return be retained. This would not achieve a solution to the existing difficulties with the policing of the annual return filing requirement, which section 60 aims to address. These difficulties stem from the fact that the Registrar of Companies does not know if or when a company holds its AGM and is, therefore, not alerted to the fact that the company has defaulted on its annual return filing obligation.

While the proposal that companies be obliged to inform the Registrar of Companies of the date on which they hold their AGM might, on the face of it, appear to address this problem, there are a number of practical difficulties that must be considered. First, this proposal would not address the existing difficulty whereby the registrar cannot be proactive in the enforcement of the annual return filing requirement but can only react to apparent omissions in that regard. Where a company fails to inform the registrar of its intention to hold an AGM, it would still be up to the registrar to prove that a company had defaulted and it would be equally difficult to prove precisely when that default occurred as it currently is to prove when a company defaults in the filing of its annual return.

The advantage of the annual return date system proposed under the Bill is that it will allow the registrar to monitor companies' compliance with their filing requirement on an ongoing basis as the register will know precisely when a given company is due to file its annual return. I hope this clarifies the position.

Mr. Coghlan

As my amendment would not improve the overall situation I bow to the superior advice available to the Minister of State.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 60 agreed to.

Sections 61 to 83, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 84.

Mr. Coghlan

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 52, between lines 26 and 27 to insert the following:

"(b) by the insertion of the following definition:

"‘creditor' includes a person or body to whom a debt is payable, an employee seeking to enforce a right or a person seeking to enforce a property right;,".

Mr. T. Kitt

This amendment relates to section 84, which amends section 2 of the Companies Act, 1963, relating to the definition of certain terms used in that Act. The proposed amendment is for the inclusion of the definition of the term "creditor" for the purpose of the Companies Act. There is currently no definition of that term in the Acts. The implications of providing that employees or other persons seeking to enforce rights against a company should be defined as creditors for the purpose of the Companies Act would require careful consideration. Creditors may, for example, apply to have a company wound up or to have a receiver or examiner appointed. I do not consider it to be necessary or appropriate to provide a definition of the term "creditor" for the purpose of the Companies Act. The term can be clearly interpreted by its commonly understood meaning as a person to whom a debt is owed. Therefore, the amendment is not accepted.

Mr. Coghlan

Is the Minister of State saying that employees with such grievances as are incorporated in the amendment have alternative recourse?

Mr. T. Kitt

Yes. Under section 285 of the Companies Act, 1963, in the event of a company being wound up, wages, salaries and holiday pay must be paid in priority to other debts of the company. It is not the case, therefore, that employees would be disadvantaged vis-à-vis other creditors of a company in liquidation in the absence of a definition such as that proposed by the amendment.

Mr. Coghlan

Point taken.

Ms Cox

The issue of contract and temporary workers needs to be reviewed in future legislation. Where companies employ temporary workers through recruitment agencies the agencies are responsible for the payment of the employees, including the collection of PAYE and the payment of PRSI. The bills are then invoiced to the relevant companies. In the case of a liquidation the agency bill for the payroll part of the service provided is not deemed to be included as a high priority payment. This means that agencies can be open to grave exposure.

Mr. T. Kitt

I thank Senator Cox for her comments. In reviewing the employment agency legislation, which is under my remit, I will take account of the points she has made.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 84 agreed to

Sections 85 to 114, inclusive, agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Coghlan

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 64, before the Schedule, to insert the following new section:

"115.–(1)A member or officer of a company which has been struck off the register pursuant to section 12 of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1982, as amended, shall have joint and several responsibility and liability for:

(a) any judgment, order, direction or award of a court in the State obtained prior to dissolution whether stayed or appealed, and

(b) acts or omissions relating to the property, employees or agents of the company arising during the period of dissolution,

until one month after the restoration of the company to the register maintained by the registrar of companies.

(2) Such officers as are held jointly or severally liable pursuant to subsection (1) of this section shall be entitled to an indemnity from the company provided such indemnity does not contravene or conflict with section 200 of the Act of 1963 or the memorandum and articles of the company.

(3) Subject to the provisions of the Companies Acts, 1963 to 2001, such acts and deeds which have been purportedly carried out by the company during the period of dissolution may be validated by the members of the company after the date of restoration provided always that such Acts are lawful and fully in accordance with the memorandum and articles of association of the company.”.

Mr. T. Kitt

This amendment proposes the insertion into the Bill of new section related to section 12 of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1982. That section provides that the Registrar of Companies may strike the companies from the register if it fails to file the annual return required of every company under the Companies Act. This is known as the involuntary strike-off regime. This amendment is prompted by the perception of abuse of the involuntary strike-off regime by directors or members of companies who allow a company to be struck of in order, for example, to avoid debts or other liabilities of the company.

When a company is struck off the register, it ceases to exist as a legal entity. It is difficult, therefore, for creditors and other persons to seek to enforce claims against the company. The amendment would make members and officers of a company personally liable in respect of debts outstanding or for acts and omissions of the company.

On foot of the company law review group's consideration of this issue, measures to address this matter have been included in the Bill. Section 42 provides that the directors of a company that is struck off the register for failure to file an annual return may be disqualified by the court on the application of the director of corporate enforcement under section 160 of the Companies Act, 1990. This should constitute a real and significant deterrent to the abuse of the strike off regime by company directors for the purpose of avoiding debts or other responsibilities of a company as persons disqualified cannot, for the period of the court order, be involved in the formation of the company or act as an officer of a company.

It should also be noted that the strike off campaign by the Companies Registration Office in respect of the non-filing of annual returns, which has been running since September 1998, is almost at an end. A trawl of the entire register is almost complete. As substantially fewer companies will be struck off pursuant to section 12 in future years, significantly fewer creditors will be affected by section 12 strike offs.

The issue of creditor protection is still under review by the company law review group and it would be most appropriate to await the outcome of the group's considerations before making any further changes in this difficult area. I appreciate Senator Coghlan's motivation in tabling the amendment, but efforts are being made to deal with this aspect in section 42. The company law review group is still reviewing issues relating to this matter.

Mr. Coghlan

I am delighted the company law review group is still reviewing matters in this regard. I accept the Minister's assurance that the trawl of the entire register is almost complete and I am happy to await the outcome of the group's considerations.

We are all concerned about abuses, but there is probably not much the Minister can do about one deal companies. It has been discovered recently that many directors used offshore companies for such deals and that is outside the Minister's control. However, perhaps the Minister and the Department could consider placing a prohibition on such company directors in regard to such abuses.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Ms Cox

I thank the Minister and his officials. There was a general welcome for the Bill on Second Stage. The message was that corruption has no place in society. Some of the matters that are emerging would upset anybody who has a sense of decency. Some of the stories that are coming out on a daily basis from various places are shameful. Undoubtedly, when the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment receives the reports of the ongoing inquiries, there will be other matters of which we will not be proud.

As I said on Second Stage, it is important not to lose the spirit of risk taking that is vital to any economy. People should not be tied up by legislation; the focus should not be on paper pushing and administration. There is a need for entrepreneurs who are prepared to put their livelihoods and investments at risk in an effort to create a company, such as Bill Gates and Microsoft. Entrepreneurship is vital to the continued success of the economy and the Government, the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, are committed to that aspect.

I thank the officials and particularly the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment who listened to the views expressed in the Lower House and took on board a number of amendments. The legislation was much better as a result of the work done in the other House which it meant little had to be done to it here.

Mr. Coghlan

I thank the Minister and his officials for all their work on the Bill. I welcome its focus on the enforcement of company law. I am pleased with the work of the working group on company law compliance and enforcement, which is ably chaired by the Attorney General, Mr. Michael McDowell. The report on auditing by the group stated that compliance with statutory provisions is the responsibility of a company's management and, ultimately, the board of directors. However delineated, the auditor's role cannot take the place of directors of entities who have primary responsibility in law for the direction of the entity's activities and their compliance with the law.

This is an important guiding statement. I do not wish to defend auditors, many of whom have encountered difficulties in respect of the way they audited, advised and practised in companies, but the board of directors has a primary role within companies. In practice, although ignorance of the law is no excuse for any citizen, many directors of companies are ignorant of the law. Following the creation of a director of corporate enforcement under the Bill, I hope there will be other worthwhile crackdowns. A person is not entitled to be a director of a company unless he or she takes on board all the responsibilities enshrined in company law.

I thank the Minister and his officials. I also thank Senator Manning for taking Second Stage for me when I could not be present. I read his contribution and I agree with it. I also thank the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment for her overview of the Bill.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. T. Kitt)

I thank the Members of the Seanad, the staff of the House and my officials for their assistance and support regarding the Bill. I also wish to convey the thanks of the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment who, unfortunately, could not be present. I was asked to step in for her at short notice and I am pleased to be in the House because I have worked with Senators on a number of Bills recently. Much legislation is dealt with at this time of year.

We are fully aware of the need to ensure that the provisions of the Companies Acts are enforced so that those who do business with or through corporate entities can feel secure in the knowledge that the rules are obeyed, if not by all, then by at least the vast majority of companies. Heretofore, sadly, it has been the case that insufficient resources were deployed to enforce the provisions of the Companies Act. I hope and expect that once the office of the director of corporate enforcement is up and running, there will be a much greater willingness by those involved in corporate activity to abide by the provisions of the Companies Act and that eventually enforcement by prosecution will be necessary only in a very small number of cases.

In drafting the Bill, we sought to be pragmatic and to put in place an office with adequate, but not excessive, powers. I accept Senator Cox's remarks in that regard. It is likely that, as the office functions over time, refinements to the enabling provisions will be identified. However, following the acceptance of a number of amendments in the other House and having listened carefully to the views of Members of the House, I believe the Bill represents an excellent starting point for the work of the director.

Senator Coghlan made a number of suggestions near the end of the debate. I assure Senators that the company law review group will consider the many suggestions which have been made in this House and the other House. I thank all who took part in the discussions for their co-operation. The director designate has been appointed and he and his team will hit the ground running. I thank Senators for their co-operation and for the speedy passage of the Bill through the House.

Question put and agreed to.