Amendment Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, 7, 8, 11 to 20, inclusive, 22 to 26, inclusive, 28 to 30, inclusive, 33 and 35 to 41, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
Communications Regulation and Digital Hub Development Agency (Amendment) Bill 2022: From the Seanad
The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad.
Seanad amendment No. 1:
Title: In page 9, line 17, after “by” to insert “certain”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 2:
Title: In page 9, lines 17 and 18, to delete “considered high-risk”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 3:
Section 2: In page 11, to delete line 4.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 4:
Section 2: In page 11, line 18, to delete “high-risk” and substitute “relevant”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 5:
Section 2: In page 11, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
“ “relevant vendor measure” has the meaning given to it by section 25;”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 6:
Section 7: In page 14, line 25, after “or” where it firstly occurs to insert “she”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 7:
Section 19: In page 21, to delete lines 21 and 22.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 8:
Section 19: In page 21, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:
“ “relevant vendor” means a vendor, in respect of which the Minister has made an assessment under section 22;”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 9:
Section 20: In page 22, line 6, to delete “public order,” and substitute “or”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 10:
Section 25: In page 23, line 18, to delete “or public order”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 11:
Section 25: In page 23, line 19, to delete “high-risk” and substitute “relevant”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 12:
Section 25: In page 23, line 20, to delete “high-risk” and substitute “relevant”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 13:
Section 25: In page 23, line 22, to delete “high-risk” and substitute “relevant”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 14:
Section 25: In page 23, line 24, to delete “high-risk” and substitute “relevant”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 15:
Section 25: In page 23, line 26, to delete “high-risk” and substitute “relevant”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 16:
Section 25: In page 23, line 28, to delete “high-risk” and substitute “relevant”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
There has been a fierce outbreak of agreement.
Seanad amendment No. 17:
Section 25: In page 23, line 30, to delete “high-risk” and substitute “relevant”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 18:
Section 25: In page 23, line 33, to delete “high-risk” and substitute “relevant”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 19:
Section 25: In page 23, line 35, to delete “high-risk” and substitute “relevant”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 20:
Section 25: In page 23, line 38, to delete “high-risk” and substitute “relevant”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 21:
Section 25: In page 24, line 11, to delete “or public order”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 22:
Section 25: In page 24, line 12, to delete “high-risk” and substitute “relevant”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 23:
Section 25: In page 24, line 14, to delete “high-risk” and substitute “relevant”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 24:
Section 25: In page 24, line 18, to delete “high-risk” and substitute “relevant”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 25:
Section 25: In page 24, line 20, to delete “high-risk” and substitute “relevant”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 26:
Section 25: In page 24, line 21, to delete “high-risk” and substitute “relevant”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 27:
Section 25: In page 24, line 22, to delete “or public order”.
It is not agreed. I would like clarification from the Minister of State, Deputy Smyth, as to what exactly is sought to be achieved. He will recall that when this matter was discussed in this House, I had several amendments in regarding public order. My very clear recollection was that they were accepted by the Minister of State and that all references to "public order" would be removed. What I wish to know, from either the Minister of State or indeed the Ceann Comhairle, is how amendments agreed in the Dáil proceeded to not be recorded as such. You cannot amend something twice. You cannot take out "public order" if it has already been taken out, so I am wondering how that came about.
I think there was some confusion in the Dáil. The amendment was not accepted and then later on I said it was accepted and I think whatever I had said first was taken. We had to amend it in the Seanad to put it back to the way it was and back to the format it is in. I can understand why that would seem strange.
The Minister of State is saying the amendment was recommitted via the Seanad.
Exactly. There were a number of references to public order in the Dáil that had to be corrected in the Seanad because they were not correctly amended when we were in the Dáil.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 28:
Section 25: In page 24, line 23, to delete “high-risk” and substitute “relevant”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 29:
Section 26: In page 24, line 31, to delete “high-risk” and substitute “relevant”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 30:
Section 26: In page 24, line 32, to delete “high-risk” and substitute “relevant”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 31:
Section 26: In page 24, line 35, to delete “or public order”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 32:
Section 27: In page 25, line 4, to delete “Minister” and substitute “Minister,”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 33:
Section 27: In page 25, line 7, to delete “high-risk” and substitute “relevant”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 34:
Section 27: In page 25, lines 10 and 11, to delete “and the Minister shall certify the reasons for dispensing with the requirement in subsection (1)”.
It is not agreed. I call on the Minister of State to explain the effect of the amendment, which I expect he introduced in the Seanad. What is the reasoning behind it? It is an amendment that was not previously discussed by this Dáil. What is its purpose?
I am making this deletion because it was accepted in error. Section 25 of Part 3 which serves the same purpose by a high-risk vendor notice to specify the Minister considers it necessary to take the measures contained in the order to control risks to the security of electronic communications networks or electronic communications services which may affect national security and where the Minister considers that consultation would be contrary to the interests of national security the reasons why this is so.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 35:
Section 28: In page 25, line 13, to delete “high-risk” and substitute “relevant”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 36:
Section 28: In page 25, line 18, to delete “high-risk” and substitute “relevant”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 37:
Section 29: In page 26, line 33, to delete “high-risk” and substitute “relevant”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 38:
Section 30: In page 28, line 3, to delete “high-risk” and substitute “relevant”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 39:
Section 33: In page 28, line 26, to delete “high-risk” and substitute “relevant”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 40:
Section 33: In page 28, line 30, to delete “high-risk” and substitute “relevant”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 41:
Section 33: In page 28, line 32, to delete “high-risk” and substitute “relevant”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 42:
Section 38: In page 32, line 20, to delete “may” and substitute “shall”.
It is not agreed. I again call on the Minister of State to explain what the rationale is for the deletion of "may" and the substitution of "shall".
Amendment Nos. 42 and 43 are connected, so the Minister of State might address the two of them.
I will. I thank the Deputy for the question. This is an amendment that was proposed by Senator Higgins in the Seanad. It is one of a number of amendments I accepted. It strengthens the customer charter provisions in the Bill. It ensures each provider must measure its performance against the standards set out in its customer charter and then it must report to the Commission for Communications Regulation, ComReg, on such performance in such form and manner as ComReg specifies. This amendment will lead to a better result for consumers and thank Senator Higgins for proposing it.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 43:
Section 39: In page 33, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:
“(10) Where a provider prepares a compensation scheme it shall ensure that end-users are informed, in a clear and comprehensible way, that the compensation scheme does not prejudice their right to pursue compensation in respect of a specified failure by other legal means or proceedings.”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 44:
Section 136: In page 98, line 34, after “Expenditure” to insert “, National Development Plan Delivery”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 45:
Section 136: In page 99, line 7, after “Expenditure” to insert “, National Development Plan Delivery”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendment No. 46:
Section 136: In page 99, line 16, after “Expenditure” to insert “, National Development Plan Delivery”.
Seanad amendment agreed to.
Seanad amendments reported.
A message will be sent to Seanad Éireann acquainting it that Dáil Éireann has agreed to amendments Nos. 1 to 46, inclusive, made by Seanad Éireann to the Communications Regulation and Digital Hub Development Agency (Amendment) Bill 2022.
A Cheann Comhairle, is it possible to call a vote on the overall Bill as amended by the Seanad?
Not that I am aware of.
Substantial amendments have been made and I do not understand how it is not possible to call a vote on the Bill now that it is passing, or that it is proposed it doth pass from this House and therefore become law. I would have thought it in order to call a vote.
I am a little uncertain myself.
I suggest the Bill has already been passed by this House.
Not as currently constituted.
That is a valid enough point but we are dealing with amendments from the Seanad and the policy and tradition has been that the Bill, if all the amendments are agreed, is therefore taken to be agreed also.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not taking there to be, as I understand it, problems with the Bill, especially with respect to the justice provisions in it, the administration of justice, recourse to the courts and the Rubicon that is being crossed here. Under the Bill an appellant can appeal to the courts.
The Minister will put whatever information he or she deems fit before the court. The court will then determine which elements of that information can be provided to the appellant and then, potentially, proceed to hear the case. It is a new departure in Irish law where one party to a dispute will have information and the court will have that information before it, but one person seeking recourse to the courts will not have access to the information. This is novel. I accept it does not apply to citizens, but the right to fair procedures in Irish law goes beyond a right that applies to citizens. It is right for all litigants, including legal and natural persons and citizens and non-citizens. From my perspective, it is a problematic provision. In and of itself, it is about what were going to be called "high-risk vendors", which I note, notwithstanding the Minister of State's insistence before this House, are now called "relevant vendors". This is, however, a Rubicon and it is one the Dáil is passing with little debate and understanding. The Minister introduced these and he has never provided an explanatory memorandum as to what the import of it will be-----
With respect, Deputy-----
No, he brought forward these amendments on Committee Stage the night before they were to be debated to, in effect, ensure nobody had an opportunity to propose amendments to the amendments. They were sort of being pushed through. This is not the way to make law, especially on something as novel as this approach. On this basis, I wish to call a vote on this Bill.
The Deputy cannot do so. I agree with him that the best legislation is a product of a proper consultative process where everybody has time to consider a debate. I would have thought that as this legislation has gone through the various Stages, the opportunity would have arisen for those wishing to contribute to do so. At this point, there is no provision in Standing Orders, or anywhere else, to call a vote on the Bill. We had the opportunity while considering the 44 amendments to amend the amendments but not to reject the Bill at this Stage.
Indeed, but some of the amendments I put forward were accepted, or at least I was told on the floor of the House that they were accepted, only to find out that this legislation was actually transmitted to the Seanad without these amendments. I am, though, in the hands of the Ceann Comhairle. This Bill is deeply flawed and problematic. I do not have a problem with much of what the Minister seeks to achieve in this Bill and some of what he seeks to achieve in the Part to which I take particular issue, that which was introduced, as I said, the night before the committee's consideration of it. I can, however, do nothing further than to have this registered on the record of the Dáil and I thank the Ceann Comhairle for his patience.
I thank the Deputy. His protest is recorded, and it is only open to us to report to the Seanad that the amendments to the legislation made in that House have been agreed to. I thank all the Deputies for their co-operation on this matter.