Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

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.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There has been a fierce outbreak of agreement.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

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 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.

Ossian Smyth (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

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.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State is saying the amendment was recommitted via the Seanad.

Ossian Smyth (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

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.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

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?

Ossian Smyth (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

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.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

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".

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment Nos. 42 and 43 are connected, so the Minister of State might address the two of them.

Ossian Smyth (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

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 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.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

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.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A Cheann Comhairle, is it possible to call a vote on the overall Bill as amended by the Seanad?

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Not that I am aware of.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

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.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am a little uncertain myself.

Ossian Smyth (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I suggest the Bill has already been passed by this House.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Not as currently constituted.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

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.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

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-----

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With respect, Deputy-----

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

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.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

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.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

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.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

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.