Amendment No. 46 is consequential on amendment No. 47 and both may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 35.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 33, subsection (4)(b), line 17, to delete "subsection (5)" and substitute "regulations made by the Minister, on the advice of the Commission on the Status of Persons with Disabilities".
This section is concerned with financial and other exemptions for employers with regard to the provision of certain services to allow disabled people to take up employment. It was difficult to examine this section without the availability of the report of the Commission on the Status of Persons with Disabilities. The best way around it was to propose an amendment enabling the Minister to make regulations which could be based on the report.
I received a large volume of representations on the disability aspects of the Bill. I have noted that there is a strong body of opinion which wishes to see a more explicit reference in the Bill to the concept of "reasonable accommodation". I have also had an opportunity to discuss this matter at the international conference in Cork earlier this week. As a result, I have decided to have a revised provision prepared for Report Stage to give some recognition to the concept of "reasonable accommodation". This new provision will allay at least some of Deputy Keogh's concerns.
I am not keen to pursue these amendments as they assume an ongoing function for the Commission on the Status of Persons with Disabilities. The commission has now reported and we owe it a great deal of gratitude for the historical contribution it has made to enlightening us on the hidden potential of people with disabilities. I do not envisage, however, that the commission will continue to sit now that it has reported.
I take the Minister's point. I am glad to hear his comments on the concept of "reasonable accommodation", which was a cause of concern. I look forward to examining amendments he puts forward on Report Stage and will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 47 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 35 stand part of the Bill".
I welcome Minister's proposal to look at the requirement for "reasonable accommodation" on Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
The committee has sat for almost three hours. Is it the intention to have a sos?
Do you suggest we have a recess?
That would be sensible.
Sitting suspended at 5.20 p.m. and resumed at 5.50 p.m.
Section 36 agreed to.
SECTION 37.
Since I put down this amendment, I have received further advices in regard to this section from the Attorney-General. Having examined them. I am of the view that the issues raised by the section may require further consideration. I, therefore, do not propose to move this amendment and will return to this issue on Report Stage provided that consultations with the Attorney-General on all other aspects of the matter are satisfactorily resolved.
Amendment No. 50 is related to amendment No. 49 and both may be discussed together.
I suggest the Deputy might consider doing likewise so that I can revise my view of this section, rather than dealing with the same issue. However, that is a matter for the Deputy.
I am sure the Minister is aware that there are many concerns about this section. I will not speak to each of the amendments, but on foot of these concerns I want to know the Minister's thinking as he said he has to reconsider his amendment.
It would be premature to do so but work on amending the section is ongoing, in particular subsection (1). I am not in a position to go into it at present but I will return to the issue on Report Stage.
The Minister effectively wants more time and is not inclined to give a further outline of his concerns. On the first day this Bill was discussed, Deputy Lynch raised a serious issue. She said that Democratic Left was not satisfied that the Minister's proposed amendments addressed their concerns in regard to this section and that if they were not fully addressed in the interim, she would table amendments on Report Stage. One of the amendments would be to delete section 37(1) and to restrict section 16. Is this the issue being considered by the Minister?
The issue arises because the question was put. The Opposition is entitled to expect that when a Bill comes before the House, it is presented as one by the Government. Consequently we know that the Government supports the Bill. Democratic Left disagreed with the Minister and, presumably, with the Government on this issue. It is important that we know where we stand. If the issue had not been raised, I cannot understand that the Minister in a complex area might want to look at the amendments he proposed. His amendment was relatively simple. It was to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following: "(1) if a religious, educational or medical institution——
The Minister has not proposed an amendment. The amendment was not moved and is not before the committee for discussion. We have to proceed until an amendment is moved and then we come to the section. Perhaps, there can be a wide discussion on the section.
I am concerned about this section. I tabled amendments in order to accommodate various views. We are in something of a vacuum because the Minister said he will take further advice from the Attorney General and come back to the matter.
There is no vacuum. The Bill has the full and unanimous support of the members of the Government. I will not at this time move an amendment to section 37 but I will take further advice because it may require further consideration. I will return to the issue on Report Stage. However, there is no vacuum — section 37 is there as it was agreed by the Government.
Amendment No. 48 was not moved.
Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 are related and may be discussed with amendment No. 49.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 34, subsection (1)(b), lines 26 to 28, to delete "or is reasonable in order to avoid offending the religious sensitivities of its members or clients".
While the Minister wishes to reconsider his amendment, Deputy Lynch has indicated that Democratic Left is not satisfied with the Minister's proposed amendment. It is highly unusual for the Deputy to indicate that her party does not support a section of the Bill and suggest that a subsection be deleted. The Minister informed us that there was unanimous agreement on the Bill among the members of the Government and, presumably, they agreed to this section as drafted. However, out of the blue, the Minister informs us he is not prepared to move his amendment and wishes to re-examine the section with the Attorney General.
I presume the Attorney General participated when the Government came to its original decision. There would appear to be something rotten in the state of Denmark, so to speak. It is not as simple as the Minister wishing to give the matter further consideration because we know there has been an intervention from Democratic Left which has upset the Bill's progress.
The Minister wants us to allow him discuss the matter with the Attorney General and to come back to us on Report Stage with his conclusions. The Report Stage is limited from the point of view of discussion and we would not be able to discuss fully this important matter. It might be preferable to adjourn our discussion of the Bill at this point and return to it when the Minister is ready to deal with the matter on Committee Stage. If we do not deal with the issue on Committee Stage we cannot give it adequate time or consideration. A Member may only speak once on an amendment on Report Stage and that would limit the discussion. I am sure that is not the Minister's intention.
I have no wish to stifle debate on this difficult and complex issue. If I table an amendment on Report Stage I would have no objection to a recommittal of such amendment. I do not know if that is procedurally possible.
That can be done if the Dáil so decides.
We are on Committee Stage now. Would it have to go to the Dáil and come back to the committee?
On Report Stage in the Dáil it may be agreed to deal with the matter as in committee. It often happens that an item may be recommitted on Report Stage. I would agree to such a procedure in this case.
The Dáil must assent to that.
I would support that.
We would be better served to adjourn and allow the Minister to consider the matter. An amendment is before the committee on the matter. I regarded the Minister's approach on this issue as sensible and reasonable. However, he does not wish to move his amendment and wants to review the section.
There may be a better amendment.
On that basis we should adjourn and return to the matter when the Minister has reconsidered the matter.
There is no reason to do that. I am not moving an amendment to the section. People often table amendments they do not move. It is my right not to move the amendment. The section stands and I will not move any amendments to it. If Deputy Keogh wishes to move amendments and debate them, the committee can do that but we have allocated two hours to this and that time should be used.
This is a very contentious section of the Bill. It is not as if the Minister is withdrawing an amendment and we knew what was going to happen. There was some dissent from Deputy Lynch on behalf of Democratic Left during the last day of the committee. Deputy Lynch said she was putting forward Democratic Left policy yet the Minister says the Bill received unanimous backing from all Cabinet members. He is right but it leaves us in an invidious position. It is unreal to discuss amendments pertaining to the section where we are uncertain if the Minister will proceed with the type of amendment he had initially put forward, if it will be a more comprehensive one or if the whole section will be deleted, which is what Deputy Lynch explained Democratic Left's position as being.
We are in a quandary and I sympathise with Deputy Woods's view that it is better to debate these issues on Committee Stage. I appreciate the Minister does not wish to stymie debate on this but on Report Stage, even if we have recommital and it is treated as Committee Stage, we will not then have an opportunity to go on to further examination of amendments as we do on Committee Stage. The Minister does not want to curtail discussion but because it will be Report Stage it will necessarily be curtailed. It is unfair and unusual for a ministerial amendment not to be moved. Opposition amendments are sometimes not moved but that is fairly rare so this is unusual.
I support the Minister as it would be a waste of time to stop and not discuss the rest of the Bill now. It is in order to go on and discuss the amendments tabled. The section is not being altered apart from one amendment not being moved. I accept we live in changing times and that things are done differently but that is a sign of progress. We should never feel comfortable in the positions we hold. Deputies Keogh and Woods would think it rich of me to ask them to outline specifics of various statements they have made and which they consider their preserve. This is a Government Bill and the Government will present on either Committee or Report Stage what it sees fit as legislation within this Bill. The Minister has been more than generous in outlining that we can defer an amendment, such as to section 37, to Report Stage where it could be treated as if it were Committee Stage. One would imagine Deputy Woods had an amount of amendments on this section but he has tabled just one. The only shock he is getting is that he is not au fait with what is happening in the Government. That is as it should be.
I am grateful to Deputy Lynch because she has clarified the position very well. She is telling us clearly what will happen and how, though not quite why it will happen. Clearly there is a Democratic Left veto on this section and it is being applied, putting the Minister in an embarrassing position.
First, the Minister says the Attorney General will have to look at any amendments. We can surely assume the Attorney General's office and parliamentary draftsmen fully vetted this legislation. Many Ministers tell us how expert the Attorney General and his office are in drafting legislation and that the Opposition would be less capable of drafting it, though the Opposition have the benefit of the staff of the Oireachtas. That is nonsense but we are entitled to assume the Attorney General approved the amendment the Minister tabled and has now withdrawn. We can assume the Attorney General approved the amendment and the section. The Minister told us he will move another amendment.
I did not say that.
He may or may not move another amendment. We are at sea on this. That would be an issue in the normal course of a Bill if the Minister wanted more time because the matter was complicated but given the prepared statement given to the press and stated at the beginning of Committee Stage by Democratic Left — that they wanted this section deleted and that they would table amendments — we have a serious situation. It has constitutional implications because we can expect the Government to stand behind this Bill.
The Minister tells us the Government will stand behind the Bill but let us not go any further with this charade. Let us have the facts of the Government's position on this section set out clearly. We should know if the Government wants to maintain the ethos in our schools, hospitals and other areas. It is a crucial amendment and a crucial section of the Bill. It deserves and should receive full and frank consideration. I propose we adjourn to give the Minister the opportunity to confer with the Attorney General and his partners in Government if that is the case. Then he can come back to us with the proposals for this section, which are not now clear, for Committee Stage. Then we can proceed as normal on Committee Stage. Let us proceed in the normal way with Committee Stage. The Minister said the Bill could be recommitted but as Deputy Keogh rightly pointed out we would be doing that in the middle of Report Stage, so there would be no gap to consider what was done on Committee Stage. This is a major political issue which will require discussion and debate on Committee Stage and a gap before reconsidering and finalising it on Report Stage. That is the procedure of the House and I insist that it be followed. The Minister should have the opportunity to put the full facts before the select committee before Committee Stage is finished.
Deputy Woods is losing the run of himself on what is involved here. The Government approved this Bill which was published and discussed on Second Stage. I tabled an amendment to section 37 but I will not move that amendment now. The select committee deals with amendments which are moved and I ask that we get on with our business.
There is a motion before the committee, proposed by Deputy Woods: "That the meeting do now adjourn."
I second that motion.
Motion, "That the meeting do now adjourn", put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 9; Níl, 12.
|
Tá |
|
|
Brennan, Matt |
Hughes, Séamus |
|
Callely, Ivor |
Keogh, Helen |
|
Fitzgerald, Liam |
Martin, Mícheál |
|
Flood, Chris |
Walsh, Joe |
|
Woods, Michael J. |
|
Níl |
|
|
Bree, Declan |
Lynch, Kathleen |
|
Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny) |
McGinley, Dinny |
|
Crowley, Frank |
Nealon, Ted |
|
Fitzgerald, Frances |
Pattison, Séamus |
|
Flaherty, Mary |
Ring, Michael |
|
Hogan, Philip |
Taylor, Mervyn |
Question declared lost.
We were discussing amendments Nos. 49, 50 and 51 as they are related and may be discussed together.
This section raises the spectre of the Eileen Flynn case. It is extraordinary that there may be a Democratic Left veto on this section.
We are discussing the amendment, not the section.
Perhaps the Minister could tell me if his amendments have any bearing on this one. I do not want institutions to have permission to discriminate where reasonably necessary to "avoid offending the religious sensitivities of its members or clients". I would have preferred to delete this section but I thought the Minister was determined to tidy it up. I have extended the grounds in subsection (1)(c) on which religious discrimination is not permitted to include race and travellers. I am not aware of any religious group which openly proclaims that travellers are offensive. Amendment No. 51 seeks to insert a new subsection to consider if discrimination is essential to the maintenance of the religious ethos of the institution. In other words, public moneys should not be used to fund institutions which discriminate on religious grounds. That point has been made by many commentators and by Democratic Left in particular. Deputy Lynch referred to this issue at our last meeting. I wonder if Democratic Left will support these amendments.
Perhaps the Minister could clarify if the desire to retain the section as it stands in the Bill is related to agreements with the organisations involved or the religious institutions. I have received correspondence from the Catholic Primary School Managers' Association which states that if this section is amended, it would undermine agreements reached.
The Deputy is asking a question on the section, but we are discussing the amendments.
It is also relevant to the amendment.
We will discuss the section later when we have concluded our discussion on the amendments.
I am talking about the amendment which will change the section. I have received correspondence which stated that if this amendment is passed, it will dilute the section and undermine agreements reached with the Minister for Education. Is the opposition to amend this section based on the fact that agreements are already in existence between the Minister for Education and bodies such as the Catholic Primary School Managers' Association?
To which amendment is the Deputy referring?
I am referring to amendment No. 49. The Deputy is totally out of order. She should allow me the courtesy of contributing to the debate. It is important to know about any agreements reached with various religious bodies, particularly in the area of education. We have all received correspondence from groups on both sides of this argument, but particularly in relation to this amendment. It is important to know the full picture about any deals done or secret agreements reached.
I thank Deputy Keogh for proposing amendments to the religious ethos exclusion in section 37(1). The question of making a distinction in the exclusion on the basis of whether the institution is in receipt of public funding is an interesting and noteworthy one. I note too that the amendment would also allow consideration to be given to the purposes of the institutions seeking to avail of the exclusion. I sympathise with the Deputy's amendments on the deletion of text referring to religious sensitivities and the distinct treatment of age and disability grounds in subsection (1)(c). I assure the Deputy I will examine these concerns on Report Stage with a view to considering what adjustment, if any, may be appropriate. However, I cannot comment further on the issues raised in Deputy Keogh's proposals in advance of the finalisation of my deliberations in this area.
As regards the question raised by Deputy Martin, we are dealing with amendments to the Bill. If he wishes to raise questions about what agreements, if any, may have been entered into by parties other than myself, I can only advise him to raise them with the Minister he thinks may have entered into such agreements.
It was said to me.
I do not know about any agreements. The matter is not relevant to this Bill. If Deputy Martin thinks agreements are made by the Minister for Education he can ask a question about it. As far as I am concerned, this is the Employment Equality Bill and I am responding to amendments proposed by Deputy Keogh. I have indicated the Government's position on these issues. I have held extensive consultations with the institutions and bodies to which Deputy Martin referred. In addition, I have held extensive consultations with teachers' unions, a representative of the Catholic hierarchy and perhaps ten other organisations in connection with aspects of the Bill. I am also prepared to have ongoing consultations with these organisations.
I thank the Minister for his frankness. I posed the question because correspondence I received made a direct connection between agreements concluded with the Minister for Education and the Employment Equality Bill. There is consistency between this Bill and the proposed education boards Bill, which we cannot discuss now but which contains a similar provision, and, in the context of collective Cabinet responsibility, I wondered if this was something which had been decided by Government. There is a similar trend in the Universities Bill where, for example, section 3 of the 1908 Act has been deleted. Is there is a connecting thread which the Government decided on between these measures and is the background to that collective thread an agreement that has been made? The Minister answered in terms of his own responsibility and said he consults everybody. I am pointing out why I raised the question.
I understand.
This is a little unreal. I wonder if Democratic Left has taken the same view of the Bill as I have. Will the Minister accept my amendment as a means of placating his colleagues in Democratic Left? My concern is to make the Bill as effective as possible. However, the situation is unreal because the Minister has taken the unusual step of not proposing his own amendment. I will withdraw my amendment because we appear to be in "Never-Never Land" but I will be interested to see the Minister's proposal. If he proposes to put down a new amendment to the section we should receive it in advance so we will have time to deliberate on it. It has become the custom to release amendments on the morning of the debate.
I will give the maximum possible notice.
I appreciate that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 not moved.
Amendment No. 53 is related to amendment No. 52 so both amendments will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 35, subsection (6), lines 15 and 16, after "employment" to insert "other than civilian employment".
Section 37 (6) states:
(6) In relation to discrimination on the age ground or the disability ground, nothing in this Part or Part II applies to employment—
(a) in the Defence Forces; or
(b) in the Garda Síochána; or
(c) in the prison service.
Civilians will be employed in these areas and the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that civilian members of staff will not be discriminated against. Amendment No. 53 proposes:
In page 35, subsection (6), between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:
"where such discrimination is essential having regard to the particular job in question.".
This amendment seeks to limit the opportunities for discrimination to areas in which it is necessary and particular to the job in question.
The amendment proposed by Deputy Woods is not necessary. The exception provided in the subsection clearly applies only to employment in the Defence Forces, the Garda Síochána and in the prison service. There is a clear statutory basis for delimiting those who are employed in the Defence Forces and the Garda Síochána. Civilians employed by the Defence Forces or the Garda are outside of this statutory delimitation. The exclusion of civilian employment proposed in the amendment would not be appropriate with regard to the prison service since all members of that service are civilian employees. The text of the Bill already achieves the purpose sought by the Deputy's amendment. However, I will further examine the provision and revert to the question on Report Stage if necessary.
Deputy Keogh is attempting to narrow the exclusion in respect of age and disability provided for the security services. I am not, however, in a position to agree to her amendment. The Government agreed to these exclusions based on the concerns of the security services that the essential functions of these occupations require that they be undertaken by able-bodied personnel of an age group which is commensurate with the various demands which arise in a security context. In the Defence Forces every soldier must possess the physical and psychological attributes necessary for combat. The Garda Síochána must be similarly equipped to deal with aggression and criminal activity so as to maintain the internal security of the State. Similar considerations apply in the prison service.
I am concerned to ensure through the exclusions in section 37(6) that the requirements of this Bill will not diminish the capability and function of the security forces. It is on the basis of these requirements that I have agreed to the present exclusion in the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 53 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 37 stand part of the Bill".
I am not happy with what has happened. We have been placed in an unsatisfactory situation in relation to this section. The Minister put an amendment before the Committee and has now withdrawn it. He wishes to consider the section further with the Attorney General. That could have arisen as a result of this debate but it did not. It arose at the very start and echoed what happened here on Committee Stage on 21 November when Deputy Lynch said "This is important legislation but our party feels that the Bill is before us prematurely". In other words, she said the Bill should not be here at this stage and that it is premature. We have now seen a whole situation of premature consideration of this section. The Minister told us that our consideration of his amendment and his consideration of this section is premature and that he will have to reintroduce it on Report Stage.
Given this statement, we begin to wonder what we are doing here and whether somebody outside the House is really dictating what happens. Deputy Lynch continued:
We have areas of concern ["we" being the Democratic Left Party] which should be ironed out at this stage. I am making this statement on behalf of my party. I want to make the position of the Democratic Left on this Bill absolutely clear. In particular, I want to put on record that I fully endorse the remarks made by Deputy Eric Byrne on Second Stage on 21 October 1996 in Dáil Éireann to the effect that while the Bill is welcome there are serious concerns on a number of sections. Because these concerns have yet to be dealt with fully I wish to give notice that on Report Stage I intend to table a number of amendments. . . I know this is unusual but we feel that we do not have an option unless the issues are dealt with in the interim.
Deputy Lynch told us all this at the beginning and the Minister is, in effect, telling us again now. He says he is not in a position to go ahead and must consult further. We are in the interim, yet the Government has insisted that we go through this section and go on to complete Committee Stage, hopefully to return to it on Report Stage, admittedly with a recommital. Deputy Keogh has pointed to the difficulties that arise in that situation.
Deputy Lynch further stated:
I hope that by the time Report Stage comes it will not be necessary to propose these amendments and that the Minister will have taken our concerns fully on board. But I feel it is necessary to give notice at this time to show the depth of our concern about certain aspects of the Bill. Within my own party and based on correspondence received from individuals and organisations there are particular reservations about sections 16 and 37 of the Bill as drafted. We are not satisfied that the Minister's proposed amendments fully address these concerns. [The Democratic Left Party is saying it is not satisfied. It gave us notice that we could come to this kind of situation in on Committee Stage]. Should these concerns not be fully addressed in the interim I will be tabling amendments to the Bill on Report Stage along the following lines: a new section 16(1)(c) combined with complete deletion of section 37(1) and the amending of 16(4) to refer only to unlawful sexual behaviour".
Deputy Lynch went on to mention some other points but they are not relevant to the unusual situation in which we now find ourselves. In effect, we are being forced to go through this section now and defer consideration on it until Report Stage because the Government has not made up its mind, to put it at its kindest. On reading what has been stated in the House and on seeing what is before us, it is quite clear that Democratic Left has exercised a veto on the Government and put the Minister in this situation.
We have no option at this stage. I feel the best approach from the democratic point of view, so that we will not continue in ignorance, is to know the Minister's intentions. This is supposedly the age — God bless the mark — of openness, transparency and accountability. The Minister has provided a device to get back to that position later, having voted down the proposed adjournment until he can consider the matter and the Government makes up its mind on what to do. Since the Minister represents the Government here, we are being told the Government has not made up its mind about this section. It does not know what it will do and we do not have the Government's agreed proposals before us. In that event we have no alternative because we have been voted down.
The Government used its majority to force the issue through to comply with the points made by Deputy Lynch earlier in this debate. Why did somebody not tell us earlier that this would be a non-event because Democratic Left ensured it would be and that we would be faced with such a situation? That is what we are faced with and we have no alternative but to go along with it because the Government is using the weight of its majority to force the position. I have agreed to the passage of this section and we can look at it on Report Stage as the Minister suggested with a recommital to consider whatever amendments the Government may come up with.
I do not like the procedure and I have never been involved in this kind of situation before. It is a sinister and disturbing development in terms of how the Government conducts its business. The Government has put the Minister in an invidious position. The Opposition has no alternative but to go ahead with the section as it is. We will come back to it later.
On another topic relating to the section, I want to put a question to the Minister in relation to correspondence I have received. Perhaps other Members have received it also. It is from Pavee Point, the travellers' centre, in which they draw attention to section 37(1)(c) and indicate that "it is particularly worrying as it will permit religious, educational or medical institutions to discriminate on six of the nine grounds, including membership of the traveller community in order to maintain their religious ethos". This is an important item for me as my party's spokesperson on the travelling community.
Something similar came in from the Irish Travellers' Movement which represents many travellers' groups around the country. It draws attention to the fact the section 37(1)(c) is worrying because it will allow those institutions to discriminate on six of the nine grounds, including membership of the travelling community, in order to maintain their religious ethos. I do not wish to discuss religious ethos. However, I seek assurance — and given his commitment to the travelling community in the past I am sure the Minister will provide it — that there is no possibility for discrimination against people by virtue of the fact that they belong to the travelling community.
I thank Deputy Flood for raising that point. His concern for the travelling community, in this context, is entirely consistent with the strong and courageous stand he has always taken on behalf of that community. I assure him I will carefully consider the section before we return to it on Report Stage.
The Minister stated he would consider my amendments favourably. Those amendments seek to include grounds relating to race, disability and the travelling community in subsection (1)(c).
I have only served as a Member of the House for a short period and I wonder if we have set a precedent today? I do not have as much experience in dealing with legislation as other Members but I am concerned that we have set a precedent. Despite the fact that the Minister is assured of the Government's support, it appears that he was placed in an extraordinary position last week by Democratic Left. We are left in an invidious position with regard to this section and the Minister does not know what amendment he may be able to put. Unfortunately, this seems to be dependent on Democratic Left. As stated earlier, a most unusual step was when a Deputy, who is a member of one of the parties in Government, read a prepared script which stated that her party would not accept certain sections of the Bill. That is unbelievable and I am sure that everyone, including the Minister, was stunned.
The committee is engaged in debating complex legislation and it is extraordinary that we should be placed in this position. There was ample opportunity for Democratic Left to discuss these issues before final agreement was reached on the Bill. It is extremely difficult for Opposition spokespersons to table amendments to a section of a Bill which may be vetoed by one of the parties in Government. As a result, the amendment tabled by the Minister, which Members may consider favourably, is being held in abeyance. I have never come across a situation of this kind during my short time in the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 38 and 39 agreed to.