I would like to suggest that this is the kind of Bill which might be more effectively dealt with by a Special Committee. I heard a good deal of discussion outside the House, and I know that there are points that Senators want to raise in most of the sections. I believe it is exactly the kind of Bill which might be dealt with in that manner. There is no Party interest in the Bill at all. That can only be done by consent of the House. I would like to suggest that the Order of the 31st May, referring the Fisheries Bill, 1938, to a Committee of the whole Seanad, be discharged, and that the Bill be committed to a Special Committee of the Seanad consisting of nine Senators to be appointed by the Committee of Selection. I take it that if that proposal met with general approval, the Committee of Selection could meet almost immediately and the Special Committee could be appointed. I take it also that Senators who have amendments down would be placed on the committee more or less by consent.

I suggest that we used to do this in the old Seanad rather effectively in connection with Bills in which there was no Party interest at all, and where it was a question of getting down to the details and trying to get the best possible Bill. I think this is exactly the kind of Bill where the Special Committee procedure would be useful. For that reason, I make the suggestion. I know it should have been made immediately last week, but I think, if the House agrees, there would be no objection to rescinding that Order and making a new Order.

I would like to express my entire agreement with Senator Douglas. I believe that this is just the type of Bill, where it is really not a contentious matter, where things could be arranged by consultation and where agreement could be reached on certain points which possibly the Minister in open debate would resist. I hope the House will agree with the proposal.

I am in agreement with the proposal put forward. I think it would be a good thing if this matter could be dealt with in a non-controversial spirit, and I think a committee set up by this. House would deal with it in that way.

I do not like to say I am objecting to the proposal, but I really do not see very much point in it. I did not have time to discuss it in detail with anybody, but I think many people are under a misapprehension about various sections. One man suggested to me that one of the reasons why we should do this was because the people did not know anything about fisheries. If they do not, I think it is an admirable chance for them to learn something about it in the discussion here.

Let them go and fish.

I have no idea about the thing, one way or another, but I would like to see it going through if I could.

The committee's report would come back and would be open to discussion again on the Report Stage. Is the Senator objecting to this Special Committee?

No; I do not want to be taken as objecting definitely. I am merely putting a point of view.

Has the Minister any reference to make to this proposal?

No; it is a matter for the Seanad to decide. I was asked by some of the Senators outside if there was any urgency, and at that time I did not realise that there was some urgency in regard to Part III of the Bill. However, the Senators said no undue delay would be caused by referring it to a Special Committee.

It used to be the practice that the Selection Committee decided upon the names of the Special Committee so that it could be called at once.

It is agreed to discharge the Order and commit the Bill to a Special Committee.

Would the Minister say if he is prepared to amend the Bill to any extent as a result of this committee's activities?

I am always open to conviction.

We know that, but the case arises—as mentioned by Senator The McGillycuddy last week—where there may be an injustice to the working fisherman, and that may be overcome by giving this Bill to the committee; by providing under the Bill that the employer or the owner of the fishery has the right to have arbitration if he is not satisfied with the price. That right is not given to the workman.

I think the Senator ought not to discuss the Bill on this motion.

What is the definition of a working fisherman?

A man who has to work his own fishery.

I take it, it is agreed that the Order be discharged and that the Bill is referred to a Special Committee, consisting of nine Senators, to be appointed by the Committee of Selection. The Committee of Selection will meet this afternoon, to make its nominations.