Amendments Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
Digital Hub Development Agency Bill, 2002: Report and Final Stages.
Government amendment No. 1:
In page 5, to delete lines 25 and 26 and substitute the following:
"‘digital content' means content stored–
(a) in a digital format, or
(b) electronically in a format which is not digital,
that can be created, manipulated and exchanged electronically;".
Amendment No. 1 deals with Senator Ryan's concerns about the term "digital content" while amendment No. 4 is in response to queries raised by Senator Quinn. I have provided for a definition of "publication" which includes publication by electronic means. This reflects expectations the agency will utilise modern means of communications in its dealings with the Government and the public.
I thank the Minister. I will not be moving amendments Nos. 2 and 3 because they are adequately covered by the Minister's amendment. I will leave it to Senator Quinn to decide about amendment No. 4, but I had expected it would be obligatory, rather than legally possible, to publish things electronically. The Minister's amendment does not make it clear that this is the case.
Like Senator Ryan, I have no problem with the actual wording of the electronic terms. The area of which I am not sure is that mentioned by Senator Ryan. My intention all along was to make sure that it would be possible to have any of these details electronically published, but also to compel publication under certain circumstances. This is not dealt with in this section or in amendments Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, and I would like the Minister's view on it at this stage. The reason I was a little late was that I was speaking at the Law Society offices at a very interesting conference on drafting legislation. The point I made was this: if we are to make sure legislation is not remote from citizens and that there is real democracy, legislation must be accessible. There is no better, easier, less costly or speedier way of making it accessible than through electronic media.
In the past when we asked that something be published, it could be published in Iris Oifigiúil or in a local or national newspaper. In certain circumstances we should insist that it be published electronically in order that someone who does not want to buy a newspaper or travel to inspect Iris Oifigiúil will find it accessible. We must compel, not just enable, publication in certain circumstances. Does the Minister accept that there must be a compulsion in the legislation for certain of the publications to be available in an electronic format? It is the modern way to do things, it is quicker, more open and accessible and costs much less.
Amendment No. 4 responds to the concerns raised by Senator Quinn. We maintained that electronic publication was not prohibited under the legislation as drafted. To avoid any doubt we extended the definition of "publication" to include the electronic mode of publication.
Compellability is a different issue. Legislation cannot be prescriptive in that sense as it could lead to circumstances that might cause huge difficulties, not only for this agency, but for all agencies. Given that its whole ethos is to move parameters in IT, the digital hub will use the most up-to-date means of getting the message out.
The amendment should take care of the Senator's main query about the inclusion of electronic means, but it will not act as a compunction to the authority because that would put a different slant on the work of all agencies. The amendment is suitable in the circumstances.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.
Government amendment No. 4:
In page 6, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
"‘publication' includes electronic modes of publication which are capable of being read in a legible form and cognate words shall be construed accordingly;".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 7 are related and will be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 5:
In page 6, line 44, to delete "extend the area of the digital hub to include land" and substitute, "extend or vary the area of the digital hub to include or exclude land".
These amendments allow for the variation of the area of the digital hub, as well as its extension, to allow for any future eventuality in the definition of the area of the digital hub. On foot of this amendment, the title of the section will now be changed to "extension or variation of the digital hub area" to provide for greater clarity.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
Government amendment No. 7:
In page 7, line 3, after "extended" to insert "or varied".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 8:
In page 7, to delete lines 27 and 28, and substitute the following:
"(b) to acquire, hold and dispose of land or an interest or part of an interest in land, by transfer, assignment, conveyance, grant of lease or licence or otherwise, with the consent of the Minister, and”.
As I signalled in the House on Committee Stage, this amendment spells out in greater detail the ways in which the agency may manage its property interests. While the existing provision was thought to be quite adequate, this amendment is being proposed in the interest of achieving maximum clarity in defining the commercial remit of the agency. This is as a result of us reconsidering the legislation in light of comments made by Senators on either side of the House.
Amendment agreed to.
On a point of order, is it in order for me to propose that the Bill be recommitted for the purpose of discussing amendment No. 9 which involves a fundamental change to the functions of the agency, including a number of issues that deserve to be discussed in detail? I do not want to make a major issue of this, but it would be much more satisfactory to deal with the amendment in committee in light of the fact that it involves changes to the functions of the agency.
Does the Acting Leader oppose the proposal?
No.
Is the House agreed that the Bill be recommitted in respect of amendment No. 9? Agreed. Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are related and will be discussed together.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 9.
Government amendment No. 9:
In page 7, to delete lines 31 to 40, in page 8, to delete lines 1 to 7, and substitute the following:
"(1) The functions of the Agency shall be to–
(a) procure, secure the provision of and to promote and facilitate the development, including the carrying out of construction or maintenance works, of the digital hub as a location for digital enterprises and related activities;
(b) formulate strategies to encourage individuals and enterprises engaged in digital content and related activities to locate in the digital hub;
(c) promote and facilitate the procurement of technical and communications infrastructure to attract digital enterprises to the digital hub;
(d) prepare a development plan in accordance with section 9;
(e) prepare estimates of the costs of implementation of the development plan and propose possible funding options;
(f) oversee and manage implementation of the development plan;
(g) consult with local community interests in or adjacent to the digital hub as part of the implementation of the development plan;
(h) enter into agreements with other persons in order to secure the development of the digital hub whether by means of a concession, joint venture, public private partnership or any other means;
(i) enter, where appropriate, into an agreement with a person who has arranged or provided funding for the carrying out of any part of the development of the digital hub.”.
I indicated on Committee Stage that I would table amendments to spell out in greater detail what is already explicit in the Bill regarding the agency's commercial remit. These amendments deal with the powers of the agency arising from its functions to exploit commercial opportunities arising from its functions to receive income and to make payments. This highlights the fact that, as a commercial body, the agency will be obliged to obtain revenue from its activities. The amendment to subsection (1)(a) reflects the fact that in some instances it would be more appropriate for the agency to take a direct role in procuring land or property for the digital hub and in carrying out construction and maintenance works as opposed to using PPPs.
While I am satisfied that, as it stands, the Bill would confer all the necessary powers to the agency, it has been decided to include two further amendments to subsection (1), at paragraphs (h) and (i), which will outline in greater detail the powers of the agency to partner the private sector in order to fulfil its commercial remit. These deal specifically with the agency's powers to enter into agreements for the purpose of developing the hub, including agreements for funding. A further three amendments, which will add three new subsections to section (8), will outline what is already implicit in the Bill regarding the agency's commercial remit. The new subsections (5) and (6) will deal with the powers of the agency arising from its functions to exploit commercial opportunities and to receive income and make payments. This highlights the fact that the agency, as a commercial body, will be obliged to obtain its revenue from its own activities.
The new subsection (7) complements the provision at section 9(6) which gives retrospective sanction to any agreements entered into by the company prior to the enactment of the Bill. These new provisions will make the statutory underpinning for these aspects of the agency's functions as explicit as possible to take into account the perception of the project by potential commercial partners. It will strengthen the PPP process and the standing of the agency in the eyes of the market. The amendments are in line with current legislative precedents such as the State Authorities (Public Private Partnership Arrangements) Act and the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act.
I apologise for springing the proposal to recommit on the Cathaoirleach at such short notice. I simply did not have the opportunity, perhaps through my own fault, to read the section.
In future, the Chair would prefer notice of such matters.
I appreciate that and I will do my best. It was late in the afternoon before I had a chance to read the section.
I wish to inquire about subsection (1) of the new list of functions. It states the functions of the agency shall be to enter, where appropriate, into an agreement with a person who has arranged or provided funding for the carrying out of any part of the development of the digital hub. I would like this to be less formal. I am concerned because I do not understand how the Minister can be sure these will be commercial arrangements.
The agency is meant to be a commercial body. The Minister has told us that any agreement entered into should be a commercial arrangement, but there is a potential licence for favours to be done for those who make a small contribution for the carrying out of any part of the development. In return for this contribution they could get an agreement. Any agreement should be based on normal commercial relations rather than the implication of favours. I do not believe that is the intention, but there is a risk as the paragraph is written. The Minister should, at least, spell out that this is meant to be a commercial arrangement in which the agreement with the person who has arranged or provided the funding is of a commercial nature and is proportionate to the contribution made, not some sort of favour out of which enormous gains can be made.
That is my only concern. I could not figure out any mechanism for dealing with it on Report Stage. I would like to hear the Minister's view.
Senator Ryan and I do not always agree, but I appreciate his intention. I understand the Minister's worthy intention, which concerns a commercial arrangement. However, the point Senator Ryan makes is that unless the Bill mentions a commercial arrangement, the subsection could be abused. Will the Minister put our minds at rest in this regard?
The agency is one for which State funding will run out at the end of next year. After that, it will effectively be on its own with regard to availing of any possible revenue streams. From that point of view, the functions in the Bill give it a remit, in effect, to operate commercially. To make this even more explicit, subsections (5) and (6) of amendment No. 10 state that the agency may exploit commercial opportunities arising from its functions and may receive income arising from or make payments in respect of any of its functions referred to in subsection (1).
The Senator may parse and analyse paragraph (i) of amendment No. 9, but it is necessary to give the agency the authority and mandate to enter into commercial agreements. The Senator says favours might be done, but I cannot envisage that. A body like this must be given the opportunity to enter into agreements with private individuals who provide funding. This must be done with the aim of developing the digital hub or it would not be caught by the legislation. I do not have as jaundiced an eye as the Senator.
The Minister is around long enough to have one.
There has to be something in the legislation to allow individuals to enter into agreements with the authority. If the paragraph in question was not in the Bill, it might make this more difficult. I have endeavoured to make it more explicit and make the distinction clear as between the ending of State funding at the end of next year and the point when the agency will enter the commercial world without the sustenance of that funding.
I would hate to be misunderstood; I am not objecting to this body becoming a commercial agency. I am not naive enough to believe that, in the past, supposed commercial State agencies did not occasionally do favours for people. There is no one in the Ireland of today who would not be wary of an agency established by the State that has the capacity to either make, or not make, people rich.
The Minister has said State funding will cease at the end of next year. Will it be possible for the digital hub agency to seek funding from the State? What will happen if it loses money? Will it have a State guarantee if it loses money? Will it cease operations if it does not make money?
There will be no State guarantee for the digital hub agency once the legislation has been passed and implemented. I refer the Senator to 13(2) of the Bill, which reads:
The Agency or a subsidiary may, either by itself or with another person, with the consent of the Minister and the Minister for Finance, promote and take part in the formation or establishment of a company, enter into joint ventures or partnerships for the purpose of fulfilling any of its functions.
That is what is referred to in paragraph (i). It is only done with the consent of the Minister and the Minister for Finance.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
Government amendment No. 10:
In page 8, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
"(5) The Agency may exploit commercial opportunities arising from its functions.
(6) The Agency may receive income (including any amount, right, interest, benefit or profit) arising from or make payments (or otherwise provide consideration) in respect of any of its functions referred to insubsection (1).
(7) Where an agreement or arrangement was entered into by Digital Media Development Limited on a date before the establishment day and was entered into in good faith, then the agreement or arrangement, as the case may be, shall have effect and be taken to have had effect when the agreement or arrangement was entered into.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 8, line 29, after "projects" to insert "together with a strategy to ensure access to such educational provision by people suffering from physical or other disability or who are otherwise disadvantaged".
I second the amendment.
I raised this on Committee Stage and the Minister said he would provide a direction. Given that he seems to be prepared to reconsider the functions of the agency – given its location in this city – a specific function aimed at assisting people suffering from physical or other disabilities would make a statement with regard to addressing the digital divide. There is a problem in western societies, where, if one is below a certain threshold, one does not have access to the most extraordinary new method of communicating information since the invention of the printing press. If this agency is to fulfil some of its more visionary objectives, it should not focus on those that are already digitally engaged. It should have some function to look at those who are, or are likely to be, excluded from the digital age by physical or other disability.
As stated on Committee Stage, I intend to issue a directive to the agency to address the issues of access and inclusion and to report to me on this matter. A great deal of work has already been undertaken by DMDL – the existing authority – to intervene in issues relating to educational projects. I have seen the efforts it has made in this area. There is an official whose specific job is to engage with local community groups. As a body, it will work with educational institutes, not only in the particular area concerned, but also outside it. The agency will look at opportunities outside Dublin to link up with universities and institutes in relation to the digital divide.
I do not like playing silly games. As the Minister has gone a good way towards what I want, I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
We now proceed to amendment No. 12. Amendments Nos. 13, 16, 27, 28, 33, 35, 40 and 45 are related. They may all be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 9, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:
"(a) publish the draft development plan by electronic means;”
I have already spoken on this issue and the Minister has given me his views. Approximately eight or nine amendments have been tabled. Similar amendments were accepted to other Bills. It seems a shame not to accept them to this Bill. The intention is not enabling, but compelling. There is no question or doubt about whether the body will deal with the power it has to publish. I want to ensure it publishes material by electronic means. The Minister has said it is not his intention to accept these amendments. That is a shame because those involved in the digital hub area and those who wish to make legislation more accessible and the system work better must have this information. If someone wants it, he or she must buy a newspaper or get it in other ways.
I hope the Minister will accept amendment No. 35 which reads: "published by electronic means by the Agency as soon as may be after the gift is accepted, and shall also be." The Minister has already said he foresees difficulties with publishing it by electronic means. We are living in the past if we do not recognise that it is easier, speedier and less costly to press a button and publish something which is already in a word processor. Of all the amendments tabled, the Minister should accept amendment No. 35 if only for the sake of recognising that this is a high priority area. We should recognise that the particulars about gifts which have been accepted will be published.
Publication by electronic means is the way of the future and the correct thing to do. We will amend such legislation in the future to include this because we do not know what type of publications will be available. We know that more citizens are using electronic means of gaining information. I urge the Minister to consider the amendments and insist that any new agency will publish particulars about gifts which have been accepted. I urge him to reconsider his views.
I second the amendment. If one needs to be persuaded that such amendments are necessary to focus minds, one only has to look at Iris Oifigiúil for a model of a publication which has more to do with the 19th century than with modern digital communication. Although it is the official publication in which enormous amounts of extremely important information are published, it is not sent to Members of the Oireachtas for some reason which has not been satisfactorily explained to me. It is only sent to the Oireachtas Library, although most publications are sent to every Member of the Oireachtas. It is also obscure and difficult to read.
I am not trying to pin the Minister down, but does he know if it is available electronically? I do not think it is and do not understand the reason such a fundamental document, in terms of the governance of the State, is not available electronically. I use that assumption to reinforce Senator Quinn's point that something as fundamental as Iris Oifigiúil, which may be published electronically, is apparently not published, presumably because of the reluctance of some people. I have visions of people in the scriptoria in the 1400s being threatened by a new invention called printing, becoming convinced it will not catch on and declining to be compelled to publish via it because the old ways are the best. We must remind people in our legislation that it is not that they may do it, but that they must do it like that.
This raises a huge environmental question. Electronic publication should result in less waste because only those who want the information will print it. Doing it the other way means that the information is printed and vast numbers of copies are made, many of which end up being pulped because one cannot forecast in advance how many people will want them. There is a strong case for requiring agencies, not only this one, to publish information electronically. It would be apposite that this agency should be compelled to do so.
I support the amendment tabled by Senator Quinn. This is related to our discussion on the digital hub and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology which was involved initially and is still involved. I wonder if it regards us as not being visionary when we reject such amendments. We got a briefing document about the digital hub. This project will generate excitement, but we will be a little behind the times if we do not accept such amendments.
I do not want the message to go out that the Government is against publication by electronic means. The amendments have been superseded by amendment No. 4 which states publication of any of the reports or documents specified in the legislation "includes electronic modes of publication which are capable of being read in a legible form and cognate words shall be construed accordingly." This means that part of the publication process of these reports will be by electronic means. That is mandatory. All other documents might be put out by the digital hub. Given the type of entity it is, it will publish by electronic means. The amendments are not necessary because it is already included in amendment No. 4. This should take care of the Senator's concerns. I am trying to be as helpful as I can.
I accept the Minister is trying to be as helpful as he can. Amendment No. 4 uses the word "includes". It does not stipulate that the agency must do that. "Includes" could refer to print, radio or many other things and it will not be possible to take a case against this body if it published in paper form rather than on the Internet in the hopes that it would be seen in that medium, but not otherwise. We have to compel and insist.
I accept the use of the word "publication" in amendment No. 4 in terms of what is included, which is everything. What the agency must do, however, is not specified. As Senator Ryan has said, this agency should lead the way because this is how communication will take place in the future. The younger generation does not buy Iris Oifigiúil because it does not seek information in that way. It communicates on the Internet which is a much simpler way. We should insist on online publication and using the words “publication shall include” enables that to happen rather than compels it.
If the Minister is not willing to accept the amendment in terms of those publications, he should accept amendment No. 35. It will be high profile because it relates to gifts. I seek to provide that instead of requiring the publishing of particulars of gifts accepted under this section in the annual report, page 20, line 30, after "shall be" should read "published by electronic means by the Agency as soon as may be after the gift is accepted, and shall also be published in the annual report." The annual report will not be published for three or four months after the end of the year and if a gift is given in January of the previous year it is essential that the knowledge be available then, not 15 to 17 months later. The onus should be placed on the agency to publish electronically at that point. The Minister is saying the agency can publish the information in the annual report.
I am making a case for amendment No. 35 rather than for the others and I accept reluctantly that the Minister is of the opinion that amendment No. 4 will cover all of those. If the Minister accepted amendment No. 35 we would recognise that his intention in this regard was copperfastened, not just placed with the others.
On a point of order, amendment No. 27, which is in that list, is a Government amendment and I have not heard it explained by the Minister.
It is not my amendment, it is one of the Senator's.
Acting Chairman
There is nothing I can do anything about. It is not a matter for the Chair. It was for the Minister to explain it if he wanted to.
Amendment No. 27 is a Government amendment.
Acting Chairman
We have to stick with amendment No. 12 for the moment. I will clarify the matter in regard to amendment No. 27.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 9, line 16, after "writing" to insert "or by electronic means".
I second the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Government amendment No. 14:
In page 9, line 35, to delete "Digital Media Development Limited" and substitute "the Agency".
This is a minor technical amendment to correct a drafting error.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 9, line 36, to delete "6 months" and substitute "3 months".
In my documentation amendment No. 15 does not have my name on it; it has an asterisk which suggests it is a Government amendment. I was going to congratulate the Minister on introducing it.
I second the amendment.
It is the Senator's amendment.
The asterisk suggests it is a Government amendment. My name is not mentioned and I congratulate the Minister on accepting the amendment. It is very worthy and a case I made on Committee Stage. I welcome his acceptance of it.
I am not accepting it. Despite the confusion, it is the Senator's amendment.
I understood it was the Minister's amendment and I prepared a lovely speech to congratulate him on accepting the point. I made the case on Committee Stage and I had hoped the Minister would accept it, but I will not push it any further.
In relation to amendment No. 15, there is a normal period of six months in which to furnish business plans in case consultation with outside interests is necessary. The Senator will recall that formal consultation with a multiplicity of stakeholders is a sine qua non for the agency and we must therefore afford it adequate time and space in which to conduct it. As I outlined on Committee Stage, by way of comparison the Communications Regulation Act, 2002, provides that the Commission for Communications Regulation, by chance established yesterday, shall adopt a strategy statement within six months of the establishment date. The commission replaces the ODTR. There is, of course, an ongoing system in place whereby my Department liaises with a company on business planning and reporting and this will not be interrupted by the transformation into an agency.
I am sorry the Minister does not accept the amendment, but he makes a valid case which I accept.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 9, line 44, after "Oireachtas" to add "and shall also at the same time publish any such plan by electronic means".
I second the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 18 is related to amendment No. 17 and they may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 10 between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:
"(4) The Minister shall, as soon as may be after making a directive under this section, publish it by electronic means.".
I second the amendment.
The Minister is probably tired of hearing me make the case for this amendment and I will not repeat myself. The case has been made and the Minister would be doing the correct thing if he accepted it. I will be disappointed if he does not.
While I do not propose to accept the amendment, I agree that where it is in order to publish a directive it should be published electronically on the relevant website. I would like to think that will happen. Amendment No. 4 relating to the interpretation of publication is of relevance in this instance.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 10, after line 50, to insert the following:
"(7) the Minister shall, as soon as may be after making a directive under this section, publish it by electronic means.".
I second the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 11, line 12, to delete "14 members" and substitute "12 members".
I second the amendment.
I made the case for this amendment on Committee Stage and I hoped the Minister would accept it. He made a valid reply and if he still feels the same way, I will not press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 12, after line 43, to insert the following:
"(6) The chairperson of the Agency shall not exercise the functions of the chief executive, except in exceptional circumstances on a temporary basis which shall not exceed a period of 3 months.".
I second the amendment.
I made the case for this on Committee Stage and I urge the Minister to accept it. However, to save time I will not repeat the case I made. I hope he accepts the amendment.
I cannot. There is no provision whereby a chairman would perform the functions of the chief executive. Therefore, the proposed amendment is not required. We had this debate at the last session.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 13, line 6, to delete "6" and substitute "5".
We have already discussed this matter. Given that, up to this morning, no Government amendments had been tabled, I decided to put forward these amendments. The Minister has made a valid case and, therefore, I will not press the issue.
I second the amendment.
At present, a quorum is lawfully one third of the membership. As stated on Committee Stage, that is the best arrangement possible. To expect that proportion of the board to be present at any one time is entirely reasonable.
As regards amendment No. 22, the existing provision would not preclude the holding of the meeting by means of teleconferencing provided that the various statutory conditions relating to the holding of meetings were satisfied. I acknowledge the spirit of the amendment, but it is not necessary. It is a useful practical consideration to minimise expense should board members be outside the country, which would be the case with the current board. It is not necessary to provide for it in the Bill as it is possible to do this under existing legislation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 22 not moved.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 24 is cognate on amendment No. 23 and the two may be discussed by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 15, line 27, after "Oireachtas" to insert "or of a local authority".
I made the case for this amendment on Committee Stage and many Members will have been surprised by the arguments I put forward. I did not expect to obtain support in the House, but I thought the case I made then would be considered. In light of the fact that the Minister has not tabled an amendment, I would welcome his views on the case I made on Committee Stage.
I second the amendment.
We debated this matter earlier. The precedent we were following emanates from the Dublin Docklands Development Authority Act, 1997, and also the Western Development Commission. These do not require that membership of a local authority precludes a person from becoming a member of the board. The Bill is similar in that it deals with the particular locality. It is important that local councillors, who would be well placed to make a contribution, should be given the opportunity to be on the authority or a sub-committee of the authority. From that point of view, I am not prepared to accept the amendments.
I am not sure I agree with the amendment, but I have put my name to it to facilitate Senator Quinn. Is there any requirement in the Bill for people to cease to be members of the agency if convicted of a criminal offence? I raise this issue because the usual disqualifications involve criminal convictions, bankruptcy or membership of the Oireachtas. I would have thought there would be disqualification for a criminal offence, but I may have missed it.
May I—
Acting Chairman
We are out of order.
That is fine.
Acting Chairman
I have to allow the Senator speak because I allowed Senator Ryan speak.
If I am out of order, I am out of order.
In tabling the amendment I did not consult Senator Ryan so I am not sure his heart was behind it. The Minister has made a strong case in regard to this area.
Section 15(11) provides that a person convicted on indictment will cease to be a member.
I thank the Minister. I apologise for having missed the provision.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 24 not moved.
Acting Chairman
Government amendment No. 25 and amendment No. 26 are related and may be discussed together with the agreement of the House. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 25:
In page 16, line 12, after "The Agency shall," to insert "as soon as may be,".
This amendment was tabled following the debate on Committee Stage. This is a standard provision to which Senators wished to add the requirement that the agency would agree a code of conduct with the employees within three months of the enactment of the Bill. I appreciate the intention of the proposal. To include such a level of detail to cater for particular circumstances of a State body would be at odds with the overarching nature of this type of governance provision. It is not suitable to be dealt with specifically in legislation. The drafting of the code of conduct requires detailed consultation with staff and possibly the examination of legal issues which may arise. A deadline such as that proposed in amendment No. 26 would put significant constraints on the process. On that basis, there is no precedent for a timeframe being specified in this type of provision. However, the parliamentary counsel has advised that the wording "as soon as may be" can be inserted into the section and I propose that this be done.
I thank the Minister for agreeing to include the words "as soon as may be", which I proposed on Committee Stage. I did not understand it, but the advice I received was to the effect that there is a difference between "as soon as may be" and the term "as soon as practical". I am happy to accept that. Is Senator Ryan satisfied that—
Yes.
—in some form or other it takes account of the urgency of the matter?
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 26 not moved.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 27 is not a Government amendment. The asterisk on the amendments sheet is a mistake.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 16, line 15, after "publish" to insert ", including by electronic means".
I second the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 16, to delete lines 34 to 39 and substitute the following:
"(a) The Agency shall publish continuously by electronic means a statement of all interests declared under subsection (1), updated as soon as may be after any additions or changes in them are declared, and a statement of all such interests shall be included in each report prepared in accordance with section 33.”.
I second the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Acting Chairman
Government amendment No. 29 and amendment No. 30 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 29:
In page 17, to delete lines 26 to 31 and substitute the following:
"(e) gifts of travel, holidays, transport or other benefits (in excess of €650), including benefits from any beneficial interest in or connected with any business related to the functions of the Agency, during the previous two years which were received by the person being appointed or by his or her spouse;”.
As a result of the debate on Committee Stage I have tabled amendment No. 29 which excludes any gifts of money which was a specific problem for Senators. It brings all the benefits receivable under the €650 threshold. This threshold is standard precedent in legislation for State bodies and is based on the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995. Therefore, I do not propose to accept amendment No. 30.
I thank the Minister for accepting the intention. His amendment covers the area about which we had concerns. The issue of money and the €650 was something about which we were all concerned. I thank the Minister for the new wording, which I am happy to accept.
I accept the amendment and will not delay the House. In my opinion, a clever lawyer could still go through paragraph (e) and have wonderful fun with it. Far be it from me to question the wisdom of the parliamentary counsel, but I still believe the provision could be better written. However, I will not argue about it.
Unfortunately, it will not stop the lawyers.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 30 not moved.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 are related and may be discussed together, by leave of the House. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 31:
In page 17, to delete lines 32 to 38 and to substitute the following:
"‘ownership' includes any proprietary interest in any business related to the functions of the Agency, whether that interest is freehold, leasehold or beneficial, and applies where the interest–
(a) is held solely by the person being appointed or shared with one or more persons, and
(b) at the time of his or her appointment, has a value of €5,000 or more.”.
Having listened to Senators' contributions on Committee Stage I propose amendment No. 31 to lower the threshold for the interest in a business from €20,000 to €5,000. In the context of this aspect of corporate governance of State bodies, a threshold of €5,000 for this agency would place it at the lowest end of the scale. However, we need to be able to appoint board members who have a significant track record and standing in the technology area. It would not serve any useful purpose to make the criteria for membership so difficult to satisfy that persons with a real contribution to make would be discouraged from doing so. Therefore, I do not propose to accept amendment No. 32.
I am sceptical about the argument. However, a figure of €5,000 is an honourable step in the direction of €1,000. I will not oppose the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 32 not moved.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 17, line 43, to delete "The register of interests shall" and substitute "The Agency shall publish continuously by electronic means the register of interests, which shall also".
I second the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Government amendment No. 34:
In page 20, line 9, to delete "or the Minister".
In response to Senator Ryan's earlier query regarding the inclusion of the word "Minister" in the context of who would have the power to define information as being confidential, it would be possible to delete the word. This means that the agency will have sole responsibility when it comes to defining information as confidential
I thank the Minister. We had an interesting discussion on the matter.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 20, line 30, after "shall be" to insert the following:
"published by electronic means by the Agency as soon as may be after the gift is accepted, and shall so be".
I second the amendment.
Amendment put.
Tá
|
Browne, Fergal.Burke, Paddy.Coonan, Noel.Finucane, Michael.Henry, Mary.McCarthy, Michael. |
O'Toole, Joe.Phelan, John.Quinn, Feargal.Ross, Shane.Ryan, Brendan. |
Níl
|
Bohan, Eddie.Brady, Cyprian.Brennan, Michael.Callanan, Peter. |
Daly, Brendan.Dardis, John.Dooley, Timmy. Glynn, Camillus. |
Níl–continued.
|
Kenneally, Brendan.Kitt, Michael P.MacSharry, Marc.Mansergh, Martin.Minihan, John.Mooney, Paschal C.Morrissey, Tom.Moylan, Pat. |
O'Brien, Francis.O'Rourke, Mary.Ormonde, Ann.Phelan, Kieran.Scanlon, Eamon.Walsh, Jim.Walsh, Kate.Wilson, Diarmuid. |
Tellers: Tá, Senators Quinn and Ryan; Níl, Senators Minihan and Moylan.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 21, line 40, to delete "as soon as practicable but not later than 3 months" and substitute "not later than 1 month".
This amendment corresponds with the case made a number of times on Committee Stage for speed, urgency and avoiding unnecessary delays. A period of one month is common practice in the commercial sector. The Minister should accept the amendment.
I second the amendment.
On Committee Stage of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Bill, 2001, which is similar to this Bill, I stated three months was the normal period. I regard that timescale as reasonable. Senator Kenneally, who is an accountant by profession, made the same point on Committee Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 22, to delete lines 7 to 10.
I urge the Minister to give serious consideration to this amendment. The wording contained in the section 32(2) smacks of a previous era and seems to envisage different rules for different committees. The subsection states that the chief executive, if required to give evidence under subsection (1) – which refers to giving evidence to a committee of Dáil Éireann established under the Standing Orders of Dáil Éireann to examine and report to Dáil Éireann on the appropriation accounts and the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General –"shall not question or express an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government or a Minister of the Government or on the merits of the objectives of such a policy." It is incredible that this wording should appear in legislation. Wording of this nature has no place in modern legislation. To the best of my knowledge, such wording appeared on only one previous occasion and was withdrawn by the Minister concerned in response to a strong case made by Senator O'Toole and others.
The provision that the chief executive "shall not question or express an opinion" is extraordinary and refers only to one particular committee, namely, the Committee of Public Accounts. It is clear from the next section that there is no such restriction in relation to other committees. It is possible for the chief executive to appear before any other committee and express an opinion on the merits of Government policy. I cannot accept that the proposed restriction in relation to the Committee of Public Accounts has any place in good governance, legislation or the rules or standards for this nation. I am amazed that it should appear here. I do not know from where it came. Perhaps, having been buried in the archives, it has appeared by mistake. Is it a word processing error? Following the withdrawal of a similar wording on the previous occasion to which I referred, I did not expect to see it reappear. I hope it is, in fact, a mistake and I urge the Minister to confirm that it is inappropriate, in a modern democracy, to prescribe that a chief executive shall not question the merits of Government policy. The Minister should say mea culpa and remove that provision from the Bill.
I second the amendment. The difficulty of "cutting and pasting" legislation is illustrated by the subsection Senator Quinn wishes to delete. The Committee of Public Accounts, the committee referred to in the section, is precluded from giving opinions on Government policy. Perhaps that was understandable under an older regime, when the committee's function was to consider only Government Departments and the accounting officer of a Department came to give evidence in relation to a Department's use of the funds allocated to it under the relevant Estimate. Under that regime, the civil servant had no independent existence but was, effectively, an extension of the Minister. In that context, it would be understandable that a civil servant, being, in a sense, the embodiment of the Minister, could not have an opinion which differed from that of the Minister on matters of public policy. That is not how a civil service should operate, though the Department of Finance is capable of making its views clear on many matters despite any supposed constraint. Others in the House may be better informed than I in that regard.
The provision we are discussing is appropriate to the role of a civil servant in a Government Department when representing his or her Minister in relation to a review of expenditure, as voted in the Dáil. In that scenario, the civil servant is simply doing the Minister's bidding. However, it is a travesty of the role of the chief executive of a State agency, particularly an agency which must operate in the commercial sector. For example, the chief executive would be precluded from speaking about Government plans for the roll-out of broadband in Dublin, even to the extent of expressing approval. The subsection does not merely preclude criticism, it actually prevents any expression of opinion on the merits of any policy or the objectives of such policy. If, for example, the Government decided to abandon the use of fibre optic cable in the national broadband roll-out and use something less useful—
It will not.
The Department of Finance is reported to be doing its best to persuade the Government to do so. If it did – it is capable of doing anything, given its recent behaviour—
The Senator is being outlandish.
If the Minister wishes to take me on, I will not lack enjoyment in that exercise. However, let us not go down that route. For the sake of illustrating the point, let us suppose the Government made such a decision and the chief executive of the national digital hub agency appeared before the Committee of Public Accounts. He would not be allowed to tell the committee that the decision was a bad one. I presume he would be free to express that view in any other forum outside the Committee of Public Accounts, including, incongruously, any other Oireachtas committee. Due to the fact that there was a provision in relation to the Committee of Public Accounts at a time when it had a narrowly limited function concerning Government Departments, it has now been inappropriately inserted into the Bill quite and, for some unknown reason, an otherwise reasonable Minister has decided to retain it. I support the amendment.
I strongly support the amendment and I urge the Minister to give it due consideration. I have no doubt about the origin of the provision in section 32 (2) of the Bill. I believe it did not come from the Minister, the Department, the industry or the consumer but, rather, from the parliamentary counsel. Unless the Minister can prove me wrong, that is my firm conviction in the matter. I cannot visualise the Minister or any official of his Department wishing to put such a provision in the Bill. I am prepared to bet that it was not included in the draft Bill which originated in the Department.
As a member of the compellability committee of these Houses, which is responsible for the rules under which witnesses may be called before committees – a serious responsibility that has led to the High Court on occasion – I am certain the provision we are discussing cannot be implemented. In the event of a person appearing before a committee of the House and being questioned on the merits of a certain policy, it would not be acceptable to that committee – or, on appeal, to the High Court – for that person to say he or she was precluded from answering that question because of a legislative provision against discussing such matters with a committee of the Oireachtas. I am convinced that the author of that provision did not consider its meaning in real terms.
The Minister has taken a progressive approach to policy issues in many areas. However, this provision is regressive and there is no question that it is not in the spirit of democracy. I do not accept that it is undemocratic, because a democracy can decide to put restraints on people. However, it is certainly not in the spirit of democratic movement. We like to have leadership in politics, trade unions, churches and Government Departments. The last thing we need is a passive and accepting leadership. The yardstick of leadership is that it should be courageous, challenging and questioning at all times. Those in authority should lead on these principles, but this provision gives lie to and undermines them in a way that is not acceptable.
I have a marginal disagreement with Senator Ryan with regard to the interpretation of the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924, to which he referred. It has been the mark of good secretaries general or Department secretaries, as they were then called, since the foundation of the State that they were always able to make their position clear publicly. Mr. Whitaker was a master of this. I listened to John Bowman's Saturday morning programme three weeks ago. Liam Ó Broin, a former Secretary of the Department of Post and Telegraphs, indicated exactly how he made public his views, which were contrary to the views of ten Ministers, on the founding of RTE.
The Minister and I know that this provision does not reflect the approach he has taken on particular issues in the past. As a lawyer, would the Minister, if he was a member of an Oireachtas committee, find it acceptable if a witness who appeared under the rules of the House and the provisions of the 1998 legislation governing the attendance of witnesses was asked an honest and reasonable question on the merits or demerits of a point of policy and offered no reply or stated that he had a view but was precluded from voicing it to a properly constituted committee of the Oireachtas? It would be no more acceptable to him than it is to us. The Minister should accept our argument on the subsection and withdraw it. I ask him to give this matter his deepest consideration. Such a provision was withdrawn in the past.
I support arguments put forward by previous speakers. As a former Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, I am aware that one sometimes had to bite one's lip when querying the exactness of statements made by secretaries general who appeared before the committee. Constraints are often placed on a line of questioning at meetings of the Committee of Public Accounts and I understand the need for these in the case of the secretaries general of particular Government Departments.
As the Minister stated, the Digital Hub Development Agency will be expected, from the end of the year, to have a commercial mandate with no State subvention. The agency needed a State subvention during its gestation period to allow it to commence operations. However, the Minster now expects it to behave, to be commercially responsible and to try make progress in terms of funding its operations.
The chief executive may attend the committee to which he is answerable. He might find that the barriers and impediments which prevent him from making the company a commercial entity are retained because of policy or directives. In the context of a digital hub, which the preliminary literature claims will be exciting, this is a throw-back to a previous era when Big Brother was watching. I do not believe this provision is compatible with what we are trying to create in terms of the digital hub. It is extremely regressive in nature and should be removed from the legislation.
I assure Senators that I have considered this matter carefully since Committee Stage. The section as drafted allows, indeed instructs, the chief executive to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts to give evidence on all matters pertaining to the expenditure of the agency. It also contains a proviso regarding the expression of an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government or a Minister or on the objectives of such a policy. While Senators have suggested that similar provisions have been deleted from previous legislation, I assure them that I have no doubt that said legislation passed through the Seanad as required. The Human Rights Commission Act, 2000, the Ordnance Survey Act, 2001, and the Family Support Agency Act, which I promoted and brought through both Houses, contained provisions concerning the expression of an opinion before the Committee of Public Accounts and other committees. It is a relatively standard provision.
The Senators are correct that the chief executive officer is not allowed to express an opinion under this subsection. However, it only relates to dealings with the Committee of Public Accounts and policy in this section specifically means financial policy, rather than Government policy as a whole. No such constraint applies to appearances before other committees. The intention behind this provision is to ensure that the chief executive officer, when accounting for the financial performance of the agency to the Committee of Public Accounts, will not speculate on what might have been achieved had the allocation been higher. The aim of including such a provision is to avoid the undermining of the Estimates process, which would result from such speculation. It does not mean that the chief executive officer would be unable to take issue with regard to funding, but that it would not take place within the context of the Committee of Public Accounts, the remit of which is to concentrate on actual financial outcomes and performances.
This provision is not an effort to muzzle the chief executive officer because – this was acknowledged by Senators – he can appear before other committees of the Oireachtas or talk publicly. The provision is to ensure that chief executive officers do not use the Committee of Public Accounts to undermine the Estimates process, which is between the relevant Minister and the Minister for Finance and his Department. Something that the chief executive officer would say at a critical time during the course of a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts might have an impact on the Estimates process which, under the Constitution, is primarily between the responsible Minister and the Minster for Finance.
I gave specific consideration to this matter because Senators put forward a strong case in respect of it on Committee Stage. In case anyone suggests that this is an effort to muzzle the chief executive officer, I emphasise that it is not. The chief executive officer is entitled to express an opinion on Government policy at any other committee. It is simply that the Committee of Public Accounts deals with the financial outcomes of various agencies and must deal with the actual, rather than a speculative, situation.
I listened carefully to what the Minster said. It seems that the provision is totally against the spirit of the legislation. Surely a chief executive appearing before the Committee of Public Accounts can be asked about the merits of a policy. The wording says that "the chief executive required to give evidence shall not question or express an opinion on the merits of any policy". As Senator Ryan said, he may not even offer congratulations on the merits. I am aware of the Minister's objective, but he is not achieving it with this wording.
The Minister talked about certain aspects such as appropriation accounts, but the reference in section 32(1) is to "all matters pertaining to the expenditure of the agency." The chief executive is not allowed to give an express opinion on the merits of Government policy or the objectives of such a policy. It sounds like Stalinist Russia rather than what the Minister is trying to achieve. Senator O'Toole, who, like Senator Ryan, made an impressive contribution, has said he is confident that the Minister knows what he is doing in this area of law. This section of the Bill does not cover what it was intended to cover; it is too strong and goes too far. The chief executive is able to comment on these areas at other committees, but cannot do so at meetings of the Committee of Public Accounts. If he thinks this matter through, the Minister will realise that he is wrong. He will understand the point I am making and agree to this amendment.
I am disappointed by this section of the Bill, but the House has removed similar clauses in the past and should do so again. The Minister has said it has slipped through, which is a reflection on those of us who have failed to notice such clauses in our examination of other Bills. It seems a complete travesty to include this provision in legislation at a time when we are talking about facilitating transparency. Given that the Government claims that the aim of the Bill is to create commercial success stories, it seems a shame that it intends to include a provision that will muzzle a chief executive who may wish to comment favourably on the merits of a policy. I urge the Minister to reconsider this section of the Bill.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
Tá
|
Bohan, Eddie.Brady, Cyprian.Brennan, Michael.Callanan, Peter.Daly, Brendan.Dardis, John.Dooley, Timmy.Fitzgerald, Liam.Glynn, Camillus.Hanafin, John.Kenneally, Brendan.Kett, Tony.Kitt, Michael P.MacSharry, Marc. |
Mansergh, Martin.Minihan, John.Mooney, Paschal C.Morrissey, Tom.Moylan, Pat.O'Brien, Francis.O'Rourke, Mary.Ormonde, Ann.Phelan, Kieran.Scanlon, Eamon.Walsh, Jim.Walsh, Kate.Wilson, Diarmuid. |
Níl
|
Browne, Fergal.Burke, Paddy.Coghlan, Paul.Coonan, Noel.Cummins, Maurice.Finucane, Michael.Hayes, Brian. |
Henry, Mary.McCarthy, Michael.O'Toole, Joe.Phelan, John.Quinn, Feargal.Ross, Shane.Ryan, Brendan. |
Tellers: Tá, Senators Minihan and Moylan; Níl, Senators Quinn and Ryan.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 23, line 1, to delete "30 June" and substitute "31 March".
I made the case for this amendment on Second Stage and do not intend to delay the Minister. It is important that we make it clear that we recognise the importance of speed in business matters. The two dates I have included are quite acceptable and should be approved. The reason I mention this is that it is possible for quite large bodies to publish accounts and results much more quickly than has traditionally been the case. For example, I checked today whether the RTE annual report for 2001 – last year – had been published. It has not. We must do something to speed up the general process of making information available. I urge the Minister to consider this.
I second the amendment.
Senator Quinn, in referring to RTE, has picked the semi-State authority which is probably in the greatest financial difficulty. I appreciate the sentiments he has expressed both today and on Committee Stage, but there is no precedent for what he is suggesting. It is always presumed that a body will present its report as early as practically possible. That is the reason we are specifying 30 June as the latest possible date for submission. From that point of view, what we have included is reasonable.
There are two points and both were covered on Second Stage – publishing the accounts and ensuring the Minister publishes them when they are handed over. I made the case on Committee Stage and I understand the Minister's view but I will continue to raise this issue. Hopefully in the future a Minister will give way and provide for a publication date of 31 March rather than 30 June.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 39 not moved.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 23, line 6, after "Oireachtas" to add "and shall at the same time cause the report to be published by electronic means".
I second the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 42 is consequential on amendment No. 41 and they will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 23, line 20, before "The Agency" to insert "(1)".
This is the same point we made on Second Stage. On occasions the job given to a semi-State body is handed over to someone else and we want to ensure this does not happen. The Minister has explained that this is too strong an amendment and therefore I will not pursue the matter but I would like to hear the Minister's views.
I second the amendment.
We do not want the situation to arise where the chairman, in the event of a chief executive not being available, steps into the chief executive's shoes. The legislation provides that a member of staff would replace the chief executive but there may be circumstances where a member of staff would not have the required skills or expertise. In that event it would be necessary to take on an adviser or consultant for the period during which the chief executive was not available. From that point of view, I do not accept the amendments. The Senator accepted that point on Committee Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 42 not moved.
Government amendment No. 43:
In page 24, to delete lines 7 to 9, and substitute the following:
"(d) a member of the staff of the Agency, and
(e) a member of the committee.”.
As the section stood, consultants and advisers employed by the agency would be covered by the same indemnity as members and staff. After consideration of the issues raised on Committee Stage, it is proposed that the reference to consultants and advisers be deleted on grounds that they would be expected to have in place their own arrangements for professional indemnity. We are removing that from the legislation.
I thank the Minister for that sensible decision.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 44:
In page 24, line 33, after "the digital hub," to insert "other than rights and property held in respect of Media Lab Europe Limited,".
This amendment clarifies that of the property held by the Office of Public Works in the area of the digital hub, only that property which is to be used by the agency for the hub itself will be transferred to the agency. Property held by the Office of Public Works on behalf of MediaLab Europe Limited will remain vested in the Office of Public Works. The title of this section will now be changed to "Transfer to Agency of assets and liabilities of former company and Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 45 not moved.
Government amendment No. 46:
In page 26, line 26, to delete "and".
This is a minor technical amendment to cover a drafting error in section 45(d)(ii) of the Bill. It will correct the reference to the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983. Section 45 was inserted into the Bill by the way of a Seanad amendment on Committee Stage. It provides for minor amendments to the Communications Regulation Act, 2002.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank the Minister for being reasonably responsive. He is fitting into the middle of the spectrum of helpful Ministers. He is mostly on the positive side. Whether he agreed or not, he responded to the issues put to him and he did not hide behind advice.
We have the capacity to reproduce good quality images. The schedule of the Bill is a verbal description of a map and that should become a thing of the past. Our capacity to process images is as good as our capacity to process words. Using convoluted language to describe a map is anachronistic and we should move on. We should be able to envisage legislation that incorporates a map of the territory involved.
I congratulate the Minister on the passing of the Bill. The Minister listened and, although he did not accept all the amendments, he explained his reasoning. I congratulate him. If we are to make legislation accessible to the public, however, we must make sure we use modern methods of communication. The Minister is incorrect when he says that including publication by electronic means is compelling enough to ensure others do this. This agency will do it but in other cases the Minister will hear arguments being made. I hope he will respond in a manner that will copperfasten what we are trying to achieve here.
I concur with the sentiments of the Senators.
I congratulate the Minister on the passing of the Bill and thank him for spending such a considerable time with us this afternoon on this important issue.
I thank all Senators for their participation and their comments on how accommodating I am. I do my best to listen to the arguments and I do not believe Senators are here to rubber stamp legislation. Senators had some valid arguments but, when I subsequently discussed the issues with my officials, it was clear why positions were adopted.
This is an important Bill and I hope it will be passed in Dáil Éireann as soon as possible. I thank all Senators, particularly those on the opposite side of the House, for their comments and input. I thank my officials for their sterling work on the legislation and the officials of the Seanad for the work they have done in allowing this Bill a smooth passage.
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 5.10 p.m. and resumed at 6 p.m.