On Sections 2 and 3, I notice that there is to be a censorship of publications board consisting of five persons and an appeal board consisting of three members. There is no great principle involved here, I admit, but one does not like to see a position where there are only three members of an appeal board instead of five. What is the defence for that?
Committee On Finance. - Censorship of Publications Bill, 1945—Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Boland
I do not see whether there is any particular defence for it, but it would not be easy to get ten people voluntarily to serve; that is, five on each board. If we can possibly get a judge amongst the three on the appeal board we shall do so. I may not succeed in doing so, but I intend to ask a judge to serve, and if you had two competent people to serve with him, I think that should be sufficient. As I say, it would not be easy to get five.
Would it not be better to reverse the figures, and have three on the censorship board and five on the appeal board?
Mr. Boland
Well, there are five on the board already, and I did not like to disturb that. I thought it was better to leave it as it is at present, with five members.
Has the Minister any particular reason for that?
Mr. Boland
No, I have no particular reason. I found five there already and thought that that would be quite all right. I did not wish to disturb that, and I did not see any necessity to have an appeal board of more than three. As the Deputy says, there is no great principle involved there. I hope this will work. My original intention was not to have two boards at all.
Yes, but the Minister has them now.
Mr. Boland
Yes, I have, but I think three would be more likely to work satisfactorily than five.
Would it be possible for five censors to read all the books presented to them from time to time?
Mr. Boland
Well, I suppose it will be. All I can say is that I have not read them.
Sections 2, 3 and 4 put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."
According to Section 5, an officer of customs and excise may detain on importation any book which, in his opinion, ought to be examined by the censorship board under this Act. That seems to be an extraordinary position: to give to a very busy customs officer, who may meet an old lady coming in with a book that has, say, a suggestive cover, the job of satisfying himself, after a glance at the book, that it is a case for censorship. How can an officer satisfy himself that a book is censorable in these circumstances? Is it the intention of the Act to prevent individuals from bringing in any particular book with them? In practice, it would amount to the customs officer holding up everybody who happened to have a book under his arm.
Mr. Boland
If the book appears to him to be a book that ought to be prohibited, he is entitled to take it and send it on to the board. Of course, that power already exists. Under an Act of 1876 they have that power to detain books. It is only when they come across a book that appears to them to be a type of book for censorship that they are entitled to detain it and send it to the board.
Surely, it would be putting the powers of a customs officer very high to ask him to decide there and then whether a book is censorable or not. Of course, I can understand his exercising such powers in the case of pictures or postcards, and so on, but surely, in the case of a book, he could not come to a conclusion of that kind on the spot?
Mr. Boland
This was always done, and in case there would be any question of the legality of detaining these books we are putting this in here, but there will be no departure from the practice that has existed up to this.
Would the Minister say that these seizures would be regarded as ordinary customs seizures for purposes of reward?
Mr. Boland
No, they would not be.
There is no question of rewarding these officers for their officiousness in matters of this kind?
Mr. Boland
No. It simply means that if they think books are censorable, they detain them and send them to the censorship board. If the officer thinks a book ought to be examined, he has power to detain it and send it to the board for examination.
These customs officers are not supplied with any list of objectionable books?
Mr. Boland
They will get a list.
Are they supplied by the censorship board?
Mr. Boland
They will only get a list of those books already banned.
Yes, but are they entitled to use their own discretion in respect of any books which any passenger may have? If the officer thinks a book is objectionable, he can seize it?
Mr. Boland
Yes, detain it and send it for examination. This is mainly concerned with books coming through the post, but if the officers do happen to find an objectionable book in the possession of a passenger they will send it for examination.
What standard will guide the officer?
Mr. Boland
I am sure they will act with commonsense. At any rate, I have never got any complaints about the way they used this power, and I think they will be reasonable in exercising that power.
I can understand the officer stopping a book that has been banned, but how will this be carried out? How can the officer make up his mind, after a casual glance, and say that a book is indecent, or is not indecent? Whilst appreciating the fact that it is necessary to stop a banned book, I cannot understand how this will be worked. How will the officer make up his mind, in practice, as to whether or not a book should be detained? How does the Minister suggest to the House that this is going to work?
Mr. Boland
It has worked since the Act was passed, anyway.
It has not worked. Nothing of the kind. It never did work. The Act that the Minister refers to was a British Act and applied to England, with a population of 40,000,000 people, and had to do with all kinds of books coming from abroad. It is a different matter here altogether. I do not know what sort of a mess this is going to be. There is no option for the customs officers, in practice, except to seize every book that comes in.
Mr. Boland
If he had no intelligence, I suppose he might do that. This has been in operation since the Act came into force, and as far as I am informed, it has worked reasonably well. The officers do not go out of their way to seize books, but if they happen to see books coming through the ports or through the post—this is mainly concerned with the post—that they think ought to be detained, they will do so and forward them to the board.
We may take it then that the only function of the officer has been to take the book and pass it on?
Mr. Boland
That is all.
Then he does not exercise the power or function imposed upon him by this section, but simply passes the book on and does not look through it?
Mr. Boland
That is all he has ever done. He will send the book on to the board.
Then this function has not been discharged by the officer at all?
Mr. Boland
It has been discharged, I think, as well as it could reasonably be expected to be discharged.
I think it is absolutely essential that this power should be in the hands of customs officers, if the Act is to work at all. They are the people into whose hands objectionable books are most likely to come, because in dealing with the mails or with passengers' luggage, they may frequently find such books, and would send them to the censorship board. If we were to deprive customs officers of this power, the Act, to a large extent, would be unworkable. Otherwise, it would rest with ordinary citizens to bring such books to the notice of the board. These State officials deal with mails, luggage, and with practically everything that comes in, and they could very properly bring such books to the notice of the board. It would be ridiculous to deprive them of this power.
I think the last Deputy missed the point. We are not concerned with books that are banned, of which there will be thousands, but a person may come in with a book and the customs officer may have a doubt after a glance at it, and may form the opinion that it is a book that should be censored. I cannot see how that can be done.
Mr. Boland
The officers are already doing that.
May we take it then that there is no intention on the part of the Department to give general instructions to revenue officers in relation to books?
Mr. Boland
This is to make sure that what has been done was legally justifiable. The officers have been doing this work, but there was a question whether they were acting legally. This section makes the point clear, if there are any cases in doubt. I am not saying that they were not right, but there was a doubt. Officers have been doing this duty since the 1929 Act was passed.
Undoubtedly there must be some authority to look after books coming into the country. We know that objectionable books have been brought in by travellers. All customs officers are not students of literature and cannot know whether books are objectionable or not. I am looking at this matter from the point of view of a person who brings in a book and finds himself in an embarrassing position when it is seized. My only anxiety is to see that this authority is exercised with care and with discretion by customs officers. It is quite possible, now that the war is over, that books will be coming in in greater numbers, and that abuses may arise because of seizures on an indiscriminate scale from travellers. On the other hand, I am not in a position to suggest any alternative method of dealing with the matter. This section throws on customs officers the duty of judging what is contraband in literature, what is good and bad.
Mr. Boland
That was done under the old Act. Under the British they could do that when books were known to be obscene. Since the other Act was passed, I am told that almost half the books that were censored came from that source.
Can the Minister say how many books were seized in the past by the customs authorities?
Mr. Boland
Hundreds.
I was not referring to banned books. I hold that the censorship board cannot act unless books are brought to their notice and the customs authorities are the proper people to do that. It would also be the duty of any Deputy who knows of an objectionable book to bring it to the notice of the board. That should be the special function of customs people.
Mr. Boland
I am afraid I would not be able to give the exact number of books seized.
A former member of the judiciary of this country was held up on one occasion by customs officers because he was supposed to have a banned book in his possession. The title of the book bore some resemblance to a book that was already banned, and in going through the luggage the customs officer noticed the title of what he thought was the banned book. Subsequent inquiry showed that the book in question was not banned, and that it had no relation to a book that was banned. Discretion will have to be exercised by those on the spot to ban books.
Mr. Boland
I believe that books have been held up and then sent back. Discretion has been used. You cannot do anything else. Everybody knows that the ordinary policeman has to exercise discretion and so must customs officers. You cannot lay down a hard and fast rule. The officer must use his discretion. If a mistake is made and mistakes have been made occasionally, I do not see any remedy except to apologise and to return such books.
I take it that the customs officers are left to act on their own discretion, and that they are not given any particular instructions as to what banned books consist of?
Mr. Boland
As I stated, books were banned as a result of being held up by the customs authorities. That is how they came before the board. There was a very large number of them. I will not be able to give the exact number as we have not got a list of them.
Will any steps be taken to make the travelling public aware that customs officials have this power in order to avoid contention and disputes?
Mr. Boland
Unless there is publicity of what is being done here. It is hard to make the public aware of these things.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Mr. Boland
I move amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (4), page 5, to insert after the word "or" in line 34 the words "the joint application of" and to delete the words "acting jointly" in line 35.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
An appeal may be made by the author, the publisher or any five persons, each of whom is a member of the Dáil or Seanad. I can visualise a situation arising in which members of this House are going to be pestered by this provision. Personally I do not like it. I cannot see how members of the Oireachtas are going to function as an appeal committee in matters of this kind, because to do the job conscientiously they would require to go through a particular book. A situation might arise in which skilful authors or publishers would wangle an appeal through members of the Oireachtas, perhaps, to evade the payment of the five-pound fee. I can see this matter becoming a nuisance to public representatives and I suggest that it be reconsidered. An amendment could be put down for the Report Stage. I should prefer to see some particular class of representative citizens specified to seeing members of the Oireachtas given this power.
Mr. Boland
Where would you get more representative citizens than members of the Oireachtas?
I do not think that members of the Oireachtas are sufficiently versed in literary matters or sufficiently interested in books of this kind to discharge this task. In any event, it might become a nuisance to them and we should seriously consider whether or not the provision should stand.
Mr. Boland
This provision was inserted as an extra safeguard. We had, at least, one motion in the Seanad objecting to something done by the Minister under the present Act. Up to the present, the Minister has had to take responsibility for censorship and I thought that a question of public interest might arise under the new conditions and that public representatives might be interested to see that certain books should not be banned. The five members of the Oireachtas might never act in this connection but, if they felt that a certain book should not be banned, I thought that it was only right they should be given power to lodge an appeal. I am prepared to hear any case against the provision, which was inserted to ensure that the Act would be worked in accordance with the public interest. I cannot see anything wrong with the provision. It is a new idea and it was introduced because Deputies came to me from time to time and stated that they thought certain books should not have been banned. When we were considering this Bill, it struck me as a good idea that Deputies should be given this power inasmuch as I shall be out of the picture in future so far as the banning of books is concerned. I think that the provision is an improvement.
When I saw this section, I wondered if the Minister was serious in inserting it. This is a duty which should be allotted to a body of experts. It involves questions of theology, ethics and morality, and it would be a delicate matter on which to ask laymen to pass judgment. I should not like to take the duty upon myself.
Mr. Boland
The Deputy is not compelled to do so.
Why fix upon Deputies and Senators? What qualifications have they for this task? Would the Minister name five members of the House who have a sufficiently competent knowledge of theology, ethics and moral teaching to decide whether a paragraph in a book should be deemed indecent or obscene? I do not think that there are five men in the House who are competent to pronounce such a judgment. They may know the subjects I have mentioned in an elementary way but they have not sufficient knowledge of them to pronounce judgment in the manner suggested here. Such a question is one for teachers of ethics.
This is a novel proposal and I do not know what the Minister had in mind when he introduced it. Was he trying to release himself from a certain responsibility and to throw that responsibility on to Deputies? Deputies are responsible for passing legislation and for arranging to have that legislation enforced but it is rather unusual to ask them to decide how legislation is to be interpreted.
Mr. Boland
That is not the case.
That is what the Minister is actually doing. They are to act as judges as to whether a publication should be banned or not banned.
Mr. Boland
No. They are being given the right only to lodge an appeal.
This provision introduces a novel principle and I do not think that the Minister would be wise in pressing it. If the Minister wants to set up such a body, he should go outside the House.
Mr. Boland
This provision merely gives the right to members of the Oireachtas to lodge an appeal. They will not be acting as judges.
It is a proposal which may place Deputies in a very embarrassing position. Deputies are susceptible to influences to which other members of the public are not susceptible. Influence will be brought to bear on Deputies which would not be brought to bear on other members of the public. I did not think that it is advisable that Deputies should act in the capacity proposed by the Minister. In the interest of the censorship itself I think that it would be better if the Minister went outside the House and provided for the exercise of this right by five responsible individuals who are not members of the Oireachtas.
Give limited powers to the authors or publishers—
Mr. Boland
They have such powers.
And delete this provision about Senators and Deputies.
Mr. Boland
I am not disposed to press the provision upon the House. Deputy Roddy suggested that five prominent persons be specified in this connection and that was what I had in mind when I introduced this provision. I do not see how you could get more representative persons than members of this House. There will be no compulsion on any Deputy to object to the banning of a book. He is merely given the right, with other Deputies, to lodge an appeal against the banning of a book. The onus of appealing is, therefore, not being placed upon members of the Oireachtas. Under the present Act, the responsibility of banning books was placed upon me. I acted on the advice of a board but I had to take the responsibility of imposing the ban. All the members of the board who advised me, with one exception, were laymen.
But they were a board of experts.
Mr. Boland
To decide whether a book is indecent or not does not require any great theological or ethical learning. A knowledge of the Ten Commandments and a sense of what is fitting are all that is needed. I would not at all agree with Deputy McMenamin that there are not five members of this House who would be competent to decide this question. The vast majority of the members would be quite competent to do so. I do not see how you could get more representative persons than members of this House but, if members do not desire to have the right proposed in the Bill, I shall not press the matter. As regards the question of pressure, Deputies should be able to stand up to that sort of pressure.
I appeal to the Minister seriously to consider the views put forward by Deputy Roddy. I do not agree that a change should be made for the reasons put forward by Deputy McMenamin but there is a great deal in what Deputy Roddy says, that Deputies and Senators will be placed in a very invidious position if they are given power to act in this way. We must have regard to the fact that there is a small body of opinion outside which regards censorship as antiquated and behind the times. I think that citizens with special qualifications should be selected for this purpose. In my opinion, there is need for this censorship. There is great need to prevent the sale of books, periodicals and papers which contain matter which is not only indecent but vulgarly indecent. Representatives of the people in the Dáil and Seanad, who might be put on a board which would be appealed to in this way would however find it very difficult to exercise an independent judgment without thought of the political reactions to themselves personally.
I would suggest to the Minister that he should give the case put forward by Deputy Roddy serious consideration. I am prepared to say that I agree with the point of view put forward by Deputy Roddy but not for the reason that has been expressed by Deputy McMenamin. I think the average member of the Dáil or Seanad, if he were not a member of either body, would be a suitable and capable member of a board such as is suggested and would be able and willing to carry out the duties of that particular office. It is because of the position of members of both Houses that I think that the point of view which Deputy Roddy has put forward should have some consideration from the Minister.
Mr. Boland
I had better reconsider the section, then, though I do not know what Senators will say when I go to the Seanad.
I do not want to press the Minister unduly, but perhaps he would consider the matter between now and Report Stage and give us another opportunity of discussing it?
Mr. Boland
That is, if the Deputy wants to bring in an amendment on Report Stage—shall we put it that way?
That the Minister will consider it on Report Stage.
It is open to the Deputy to table an amendment for the Report Stage.
I shall consider it.
Section 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 9.
Mr. Boland
I move amendment No. 2:—
To delete sub-section (2) and substitute the following sub-section:—
(2) A prohibition Order under this section in respect of a periodical publication, in respect of which a prohibition Order or an Order under Section 10 of the Act of 1929 has not previously been made, shall, unless previously revoked under this Act, be in force for, and expire at the end of, whichever of the following periods is appropriate, that is to say:—
(a) in the case of a periodical publication which, immediately before the making of the prohibition Order, was being published at intervals ordinarily exceeding one month, the period of 12 months from the date on which the prohibition Order comes into operation.
(b) in the case of a periodical publication which, immediately before the making of the prohibition Order, was being published at intervals ordinarily exceeding one week but not ordinarily exceeding one month, the period of six months from such date.
(c) in any other case, the period of three months from such date.
This amendment deals with the period for which periodicals may be prohibited. Under Section 9 (2) as it stands, the first prohibition Order made in respect of any periodical will remain in force for only three months. That is exactly the period provided for also in Section 7 of the 1929 Act but since the Bill was circulated it has been suggested to me that this period is too short for monthly and quarterly periodicals. I agree with that view and it is therefore proposed by the amendment that in the case of a publication published at intervals exceeding one month the prohibition Order should have effect for a period of 12 months from the date on which it comes into operation and that in the case of periodicals published at intervals exceeding one week but not exceeding one month, the prohibition Order should last for six months. The 12 months ban would apply to quarterly magazines so that during the period of 12 months four issues would be banned. There is no point in having a ban of only three months in the case of such periodicals. Then in the case of monthly publications, the ban would last for six months. In the case of all other publications, dailies or weeklies, the ban will last three months. I should add that when a periodical is prohibited for a second time, the Order will remain in force indefinitely unless it is revoked. That was the position hitherto.
What is the change from the previous legislation?
Mr. Boland
Under the previous legislation there was a ban of only three months in respect of all periodicals.
That 12 months ban will apply only to quarterly periodicals?
Mr. Boland
Yes, to all publications published at intervals exceeding one month. In the case of monthlies, the prohibition Order will remain in force for six months and in the case of weeklies or dailies for three months whereas before the period for all publications was three months.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That Section 10 stand part of the Bill."
Will the Minister take an amendment to this section on the lines suggested by Deputy Roddy on Section 8?
Mr. Boland
For the Report Stage?
Yes.
Mr. Boland
Very well.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 11 to 16 inclusive agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Question proposed: "That Section 17 stand part of the Bill."
Is Section 17 taken from the previous Act?
Mr. Boland
Yes, from Section 12 of the 1929 Act. There is a misprint in this section to which Deputy Coogan drew attention. The word "member" should read "members." That is a typographical error which will be rectified.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 18.
Question proposed: "That Section 18 stand part of the Bill."
This, in my opinion, is the really objectionable section of the Bill and really nullifies the whole effect of the Bill. The section says:—
"No person shall, except under and in accordance with a permit, import any prohibited book or any prohibited periodical publication.
Where a person is charged under Section 186 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, with the importation of a prohibited book or a prohibited periodical publication, it shall be a good defence for him to prove that the book or periodical publication was imported otherwise than for sale or distribution."
That is to say that people in this country can import books for themselves and if they are prosecuted for having imported or having in their possession indecent books, they can put up the defence that it is for their own use that they got them. In my opinion that kills the whole effect of the Bill. I do not think it can be defended and I would ask the Minister to strike out sub-section (2) of the section because I must resist it.
Mr. Boland
The provisions of this section are in accordance with the practice hitherto observed. A person might bring in a prohibited book without being aware that it was prohibited. The practice has been simply to confiscate that book if it was found and the person concerned was not prosecuted. The book might be the personal property of the person concerned; he might be coming from some place abroad where the circulation of the book was not prohibited and he might not be aware that it was banned here. The practice has been, as I say, to seize such a book and that was the end of it. I do not see anything wrong in that. There was never a prosecution and all we are providing now is to make it clear that it would be a good defence for a person charged under the section to prove that the book or periodical was imported otherwise than for sale or distribution.
Why is the word "permit" brought into the first section?
Mr. Boland
That merely provides that the Minister for Justice may permit the importation of a prohibited periodical or book.
An objectionable book?
Mr. Boland
Yes for medical purposes or some other reason of that kind. There are people who have a right to have such books and if they ask for a permit the Minister has power to grant the permit for the importation of the book.
I am not agreeing to the section in its present form.
Mr. Boland
Surely Deputy McMenamin is not suggesting that if a person innocently brings in a book that has been prohibited he should be prosecuted? That would be unjust and unfair.
It is not a question of suggesting.
Mr. Boland
It has been the practice not to do it and I would not stand for doing it. I am not going to do it, no matter what the Deputy thinks.
I am prepared to give the Minister power to issue a licence to import a prohibited book if he thinks it should be done but this sub-section, as it is drafted, will permit anybody and everybody to take in a banned book. I must oppose that and I intend to oppose it. While the Minister says that it refers, perhaps, to the case of a foreigner having a book that he does not know is banned, and which is taken from him, that is not what the sub-section says—"Where a person is charged, under Section 186 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, with the importation of a prohibited book or a prohibited periodical publication it shall be a good defence for him to prove that the book or periodical publication was imported otherwise than for sale or distribution"—in other words, that it was for his own personal use. It can be imported through the post or otherwise because there is no prohibition as to the method in which it can be imported. There is no use in passing this Censorship Bill if that is going to be permitted. It is all right for the Minister to say that it applies only to strangers coming into this country who do not know anything about the law but this section does not limit it in that way. The Minister has power to issue a licence for the importation of a banned book. There may be cases where that would be necessary because the book might be of scientific value or something like that. I am prepared to give the Minister that power but I certainly object to this sub-section and I shall oppose it.
Mr. Boland
Very well.
I did not catch the Minister's explanation in regard to this section. The Minister in sub-section (1) says that nobody can import except under and in accordance with a permit. Then in the following sub-section, apparently, it is a good and valid defence for the individual to say that the book is for his personal use. Does not sub-section (2) seem to be in conflict with sub-section (1)?
Mr. Boland
No. Of course, a person may evade the customs, but if he is caught trying to bring in a book that is prohibited it shall be a good defence for him to say that it was not for sale, that it was his personal property. In the case where the Minister gives a permit, the book or periodical can come through the post or in any other way. Once the permit is there there is no prohibition. In the case of a person who brings in an obscene book, if he can satisfy the customs that it is not for sale, it is a good defence, if he is prosecuted under the 1876 Act, to say that it was his personal property and only for his own use. That has been the practice up to this and I do not see any reason to alter it. I think it would lead to a lot of unnecessary prosecutions. I do not agree with Deputy McMenamin that everybody will go over to England and bring in prohibited books. This sub-section is simply to bring the law into line with what the practice has been.
Is it not leaving the door dangerously open for people who are inclined to traffic in that sort of business merely to say that they are covered by a section?
Mr. Boland
Of course, the Deputy realises the book would be seized? It is only when they are charged with the offence that this sub-section applies. The book would be seized in any case and confiscated.
Yes, but why should he be covered if he is engaged in contravention of the Act?
Mr. Boland
I do not know. He might not know about the law. As I said, the person might come from a place where that sort of thing is quite common. I do not know if many countries have censorship of this kind. The individual might be bringing the book from a country where there is no such law.
He will lose the book.
Mr. Boland
The book will be seized, and it is only if he is prosecuted that it would be a good defence to say that the book or periodical publication was imported otherwise than for sale or distribution. It has been the practice not to prosecute in such circumstances up to this.
The sub-section as drafted permits every citizen of this State to import such a book for his own use.
Mr. Boland
It does no such thing.
The sub-section permits it.
Mr. Boland
It does not. The book is seized. All the sub-section says is that it shall be a good defence if he is prosecuted for bringing it. The book is not imported. It is seized by the customs official and confiscated. All that the sub-section provides is that if the individual is charged under the 1876 Act, it shall be a good defence for him to say it was for his own personal use, his own property, and was not for sale. That is quite a different thing from importing. The book will not be allowed in. It will be seized and the Deputy had better get that right. He will not be allowed to import the book but, if he is prosecuted, it will be a good defence to say it was his own property and was not for sale or circulation.
Yes. Does not that mean that everybody can import a book and may be prosecuted but will have a good defence by saying it is for himself? If everybody in this country can have a copy of this book, why have censorship?
Mr. Boland
I cannot make it any more clear to the Deputy. The book will be seized. I do not see how that is importing it.
He may attempt to import it.
Mr. Boland
He may attempt and if he gets away with it, it is all right, but he is not allowed to do it.
Question agreed to, Deputy McMenamin recorded as dissenting.
SECTION 19.
Question proposed: "That Section 19 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Boland
This section gives the Minister power to grant permits and corresponds to Section 10 of the 1929 Act.
Question agreed to.
Sections 20 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule and Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 31st October.