I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gallagher, and his officials.
Containment of Nuclear Weapons Bill 2000 [Seanad]: Committee Stage.
I am pleased to be here to help the Bill through Committee Stage. It was passed by the Seanad in May 2000. Its purpose is to provide the legislative basis to allow Ireland to ratify and implement the provisions of the protocol to the International Nuclear Safeguards Agreement 1977, between the 13 non-nuclear weapons states of the European Atomic Energy Community. The protocol is aimed at strengthening the existing nuclear safeguards regime by embodying new and more powerful measures to help the agency to verify the compliance of states with nuclear safeguards and undertakings.
The delay in getting the Bill to the committee was due to problems identified in certain aspects of the proposed implementation process regarding the respective roles under the Bill of the national authority - the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland - the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Revenue Commissioners. Due to pressure of work in my Department, arising principally from our legal actions against Britain and emergency planning issues following the events of 11 September 2001, the resolution of these problems was delayed. The Bill is now ready to resume its progress through the Oireachtas.
On a point of information, I had a number of amendments which were e-mailed but, apparently, the Bills Office did not receive them. As we go through the Bill, I will indicate areas where I proposed amendments in order that I may bring them forward on Report Stage, if required. I do not know if there is a problem with the e-mail system in the Houses. My amendments were e-mailed at 10.10 a.m. yesterday but, apparently, the Bills Office does not have a record indicating that it received them.
SECTION 1.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, subsection (2), line 21, to delete "shall come" and substitute "comes".
This amendment is proposed in order to make use of the active voice which in its report on legislative drafting the Law Reform Commission said should be utilised. It is important that the style of our legislation represents best practice and that it is made more readable for the public.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, subsection (1), to delete line 24.
I have concerns that the definition in subsection (1), line 24, is too broad and unprecedented. To purport to raise a regulation to the status of an Act made by the Oireachtas is bad in principle. For example, I see the definition giving rise to concerns in section 14 which I will address in a later amendment. Regarding section 14, my concern is that an offence under the regulations should not be of the same gravity as an offence under the Bill.
On the basis of the legal advice received, we cannot accept the amendment. Our legal advice is that the existing text is clearer and should be retained.
I will raise the amendment again on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 3, subsection (1), line 33, to delete "Public Enterprise" and substitute "the Environment, Heritage and Local Government".
This amendment is necessary to change the name of Minister for Public Enterprise to Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in view of the change in responsibility for nuclear safety matters in the period since the Seanad passed the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 4, subsection (1), line 2, to delete "prescribed" and substitute "designated by regulations made under section 13”.
There is inconsistency in the terminology used in the section as against the terminology used in section 13 (2)(a). The word “prescribed” is used as against the word “designated”. The terms ought to be identical. That is the purpose of the amendment.
Our legal advice is that the use of the word "designated" rather than "prescribed" would be correct and in line with its use in other sections of the Bill referred to by the Deputy.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 4, subsection (1), line 5, after "land" to insert ", including land covered by water".
The Interpretation Act 2003 contains a definition of "land". However, it does not commence until January 2004. Therefore, the definition of "place" in the Bill should be as comprehensive as possible and, as such, include the words proposed in my amendment.
My invisible amendment would have been listed here. There needs to be a more comprehensive reference to buildings and structures as well as land. The words "on or below land" also have to be taken into account, as do the words "on or below the sea" with reference to vessels. The definition may also need to include the air in order to cover aircraft. It might be worth looking at this matter on Report Stage to ensure all locations are specified.
I am prepared to accept the amendment which covers one element of Deputy Sargent's amendments. We will look at his amendment when he tables it on Report Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
As amendments Nos. 7, 25 and 26 are related, they may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 4, subsection (1), lines 13 and 14, to delete "is set out" and substitute the following:
", for convenience of reference is set out in the English language,".
In Bills of this nature, where an agreement or treaty is being adopted, it is most helpful to see the text included in a Schedule to the Bill. However, the text set out is usually only that of those parts of the agreement or treaty in the English language. When one turns to the Schedule to the Bill, one finds paragraph after paragraph of foreign language text. This to me is not only unreadable but also unnecessary. I have heard of incomprehensible legislation but this is going too far. As a general principle, it is bad practice to include in the Statute Book words, the meaning of which is not understood. The amendment would facilitate the deletion of the multilingual aspects from the Schedule, which amendments Nos. 25 and 26 would specifically address. My earlier amendment to the definition of "protocol" in the section would clarify that the Schedule only sets out those aspects of the protocol that are in English. It is bad practice for the Statute Book to contain words that do not have a clear meaning or relevance in this jurisdiction.
The various languages are included because they are official languages of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency. I am seeking the Irish version. If the agency formed part of the European Union, Irish would be considered an official language. The amendment is sensible and I will accept it with amendments Nos. 25 and 26.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Amendments Nos. 8 to 10, inclusive, are related to amendment No. 7a and all may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 7a:
In page 4, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
3.-(1) Except as authorised by regulations made under section 13, a person shall not——
(a) engage in an activity listed in or relevant to the information to be provided in Article 2 of the Protocol or Annex 1, or
(b) produce, use, acquire, transfer or process any equipment or material listed in Annex I or II.
(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and is liable-
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding €3,000, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or both, or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding €500,000, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years, or both.”.
The amendment is an alternative to amendment No. 10.
It amounts to its acceptance.
Amendment agreed to.
The intent of amendment No. 8 has been dealt with in amendment No. 7a.
I agree the use of the term "or pursuant to" is superfluous and unnecessary.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.
Amendment No. 9 reads:
In page 4, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:
"(a) engage in activity which would result in nuclear weapons becoming available contrary to the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 or the Agreement of 1973,".
Engaging in activity that will result in nuclear weapons becoming available is contrary to the non-proliferation treaty of 1968 and the agreement of 1973. The legislation implements the 1998 protocol of the 1973 European agreement which, in turn, implements the 1968 non-proliferation treaty. However, it is confined to giving legal effect to the latest protocol only, not the two basic agreements. It is important to transpose all of the relevant agreements into law.
On the basis of legal advice, the amendment cannot be accepted as it would go beyond the scope of the Bill. However, I take the Deputy's point. The legislation only deals with Ireland's obligations under the protocol, not the non-proliferation treaty of 1968 or the nuclear safeguards agreement of 1973. The objective of the protocol is to strengthen and improve the effectiveness of the nuclear safeguards regime enshrined in the 1968 treaty and the 1973 agreement.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.
I would like to make a point of clarification. The legal advice I have received is that the activities relating to Annex III of the protocol which relates to the import or export of the equipment or materials listed in Annex II should not come within the scope of the summary conviction fine or indictment conviction fine provided for in the agreement. Following legal advice, I tabled amendment No. 7a, which provides for a new section 3. The amendment deletes the reference to Annex III in section 3(a) of the Bill as it stands. It also deletes the existing section 3(c) which relates to the import into the State from another Community state, as well as the export from the State to another Community state of the equipment and materials listed in Annex II. This, in effect, deletes the Annex II provisions from section 3.
Section 3 deleted.
SECTION 4.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are cognate and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 5, subsection (1), lines 3 to 5, to delete all words from and including ", or" in line 3 down to and including "Institute," in line 5.
The amendment proposes the deletion of the words "or such other body as may from time to time be prescribed as the National Authority in place of that Institute" in section 4(1) while amendment No. 12 proposes the deletion of the same words in section 4(2). I have proposed their deletion because they are utterly unnecessary, confusing and, most importantly, superfluous. As the definition of "National Authority" in section 2(1) already deals with the prescriptions of another body, there is no need for the matter to be expressed again in section 4.
I will accept the amendments. The deletion of the words "or such other body as may from time to time be prescribed as the National Authority in place of that Institute" is acceptable, given that this text is already included in the definition of "National Authority" in section 2(1).
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 5, subsection (2), lines 8 to 10, to delete all words from and including ", or" in line 8 down to and including "Institute," in line 10.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
Do the previous amendments affect the use of the term "national authority" in section 5? Will the Minister of State bring forward an amendment in this regard on Report Stage? Is a change envisaged if the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland continues to be the relevant body? Given that the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will be involved, is a change envisaged to the reference to the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment? Will dual departmental responsibility continue to be provided for in the Bill?
The "national authority" has been designated as the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, or any other authority prescribed by the national authority. The Deputy's query is catered for in the Bill.
I also asked about the Departments involved. Will the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment continue to hold responsibilities above and beyond those of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in this regard?
The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment also has responsibilities. We will consult the Department about the regulations which we will discuss on another day. We will consult the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Revenue Commissioners at all times.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 7, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) Information compelled by virtue of subsection (1)(k) shall not be admissible in criminal proceedings against the person from whom such information is compelled or that person’s employer.”.
The amendment proposes that information compelled by virtue of section (7)(1)(k) which deals with the right of the authorised officer to access information shall not be admissible in criminal proceedings against the person from whom it is compelled or that person’s employer. If we provide the power to compel people to provide information that might incriminate them, it is important that such information should be not be used to convict them.
The legal advice I have received indicates that the amendment should not be accepted. While a person would not be obliged to incriminate himself or herself, he or she would be obliged to provide information reasonably required. The general rules of law apply in such circumstances. A person would not necessarily be asked to incriminate himself or herself but he or she would be obliged to provide information reasonably required.
I will have to leave shortly as I am due to speak in the Dáil on another matter. Before I do, I compliment the Minister ofState as this is the first time I have seen amendments being accepted on Committee Stage. I compliment all involved, including those who tabled the amendments in question. It is a departure for me to see amendments being accepted. Since I was elected over 12 months ago, I have thought that it is daft that some apparently very good amendments are not accepted.
I ask the Deputy not to judge me on that basis, as there will be another day and it might not be as good as today.
We will complain about the Minister of State then.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 14 is out of order.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
Amendment No. 16, an alternative to amendment No. 15, cannot be moved if amendment No. 15 is agreed to. Amendments Nos. 17, 17a, 18 and 19 are related. Amendments Nos. 17a, 18 and 19 are alternatives to amendment No. 17. Therefore, amendments Nos. 15, 16, 17, 17a, 18 and 19 may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 8, subsection (9), lines 21 to 23, to delete all words from and including "and" in line 21 down to and including "both" in line 23.
Amendment No. 17a is the late Government amendment. It is very similar to my amendment No. 17.
Can we discuss amendments Nos. 15 and 16 first, as they are related?
Yes.
Amendment No. 15 provides for the deletion of the text in section 7(9) relating to the fine for the offence dealt with in the subsection. My advice is that I can accept the amendment. Its acceptance means that amendment No. 16, which relates to the conversion of the fine into euro, can be withdrawn. The omission of the fine and a term of imprisonment for breach of section 7(9) needs to be accommodated in the Bill. Therefore, I have tabled a counter amendment, amendment No. 17a, which is, essentially, the same as amendment No. 17, except that it includes section 7(9).
Amendment No. 17 proposes that subsection (1) be deleted and substituted with the following:
A person who contravenes section 9, 10, 11 or 12 or a regulation made under section 13 is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €3,000, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or both.
In my earlier amendment to section 3, I expressed the view that that section contained the only provision of sufficient gravity to merit an indictable offence. Amendment No. 17 proposes that a breach of specified provisions of the Bill and regulations made under it would give rise only to summary conviction. Are the Minister of State and I saying the same thing?
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 16 not moved.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 8 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.
I move amendment No. 17a:
In page 11, lines 27 to 36, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following:
"14.-(1) A person who contravenes section 7(9), 9, 10, 11 or 12 or a regulation made under section 13 is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €3,000, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or both.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are alternatives to amendment No. 20. They may all be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 11, lines 37 to 42, to delete subsection (2).
This subsection which provides for continuing offences is unnecessary. By their very nature, the offences provided for in the Bill are committed on a once-off basis. I do not see any offences which could be construed as having a continuing dimension. We need to make sure every word in legislation carries a distinct meaning and effect. This provision is of no effect. That is the reason I am proposing its deletion.
My advice is that we can accept this amendment. As a consequence, amendments Nos. 21 and 22, which relate to fines mentioned in subsection 14(2), are now redundant.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 12, subsection (4), line 21, after "district" where it secondly occurs to insert "the owner or person who has a right to possession resides or carries on business, or if that person is not within the jurisdiction of the State or cannot, after reasonable inquiry, be found, to a judge of the District Court in whose district court district".
The general rule is that jurisdiction mustfavour the defendant or respondent to the application. As the Bill stands, if something is seized from someone in County Kerry, for example, and taken to Dublin, the authority can sue in Dublin to confiscate it and the owner is required to travel from County Kerry. This places the person from whom the thing is confiscated at a disadvantage. The amendment would ensure proceedings would take place in the district where the seizure took place so as not to place the person concerned at a disadvantage.
On the basis of legal advice, I am prepared to accept both of these related amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 12, subsection (5), line 24, to delete "district".
This amendment is slightly different from amendment No. 23. It corrects what may merely be a drafting error. Is that correct?
Correct.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 16 and 17 agreed to.
SCHEDULE.
Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 have been already discussed with amendment No. 7.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 25, to delete lines 11 to 36.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 25, to delete lines 43 to 54, in page 26, to delete lines 1 to 55, in page 27, to delete lines 1 to 53, in page 28, to delete lines 1 to 53 and in page 29, to delete lines 1 to 28.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
TITLE.
Amendments Nos. 27 to 29, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 3, line 7, after "PROTOCOL" to insert ", DONE AT VIENNA ON THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1998,".
The purpose of these amendments is to insert the dates of the protocol to the agreement and the original non-proliferation treaty.
I accept the amendment and the related amendments Nos. 28 and 29.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 3, line 8, after "AGREEMENT" to insert ", DONE AT BRUSSELS ON THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 1973,".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 3, line 14, after "WEAPONS," to insert "WHICH SAID TREATY WAS DONE AT LONDON, MOSCOW AND WASHINGTON ON THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 1968".
Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
I thank the Minister of State and his officials for attending today's session.
I thank the Chairman for his efficiency and the Opposition spokespersons for their co-operation. I hope the Chairman can use his influence - I will use mine with the Chief Whip - to have Report and Final Stages taken as soon as possible. It is important that we should do so before we assume the Presidency. There would then be only one country left of the 13 to sign off, namely, Italy. When I am in that country next week, I will have a word with my counterpart.