The first business of the Committee is to elect its chairman.

Deputy Seán Flanagan is a member of this Committee. I think a lawyer should be in the Chair, and I propose that Deputy Flanagan be Chairman of this Committee. As he is unavoidably absent, I suppose we could arrange to carry on until he arrives.

May I propose that Deputy McGilligan should take the Chair at this meeting until the arrival of Deputy Flanagan.

We will now proceed with the next item on the agenda. Can the Clerk inform us about any special points on procedure ?

The Committee should know that in accordance with Standing Order No. 64 the rules as to procedure here are the same as the rules as to procedure in Committee of the whole Dáil, but certain exceptions are mentioned in that Standing Order.

I see a reporter present. May I ask the Clerk whether everything that is said at this Committee will be reported verbatim ?

Yes, Sir.

On that point, I know that the Dáil can go into secret session. Can this Committee not do the same ? In this type of Committee it seems that everything said is reported verbatim as is the case in a Committee of the whole Dáil. Is there any way of changing that ?

The Ceann Comhairle, in the case of a previous Special Committee, following a request for a ruling on the matter from the Chairman of that Committee, ruled that, in reporting to the House, the Special Committee must present a verbatim report of its proceedings.

I feel that the Committee is of opinion that we should endeavour to have Standing Orders suspended so that the proceedings need not be reported verbatim.

Notice of Amendments.

We now come to the question of amendments. This is the Committee Stage of the Bill and amendments have to be circulated.

Can the Clerk tell us if notice of amendments must be given ?

Notice of amendments must be given in the same way as notice of amendments to a Bill in Committee of the whole Dáil. The amendments will be circulated in the same way as they are circulated in the case of a Dáil Bill.

This is a very important Bill and one that we should try to get through as quickly as we possibly can. It is a very technical Bill and if we could make the time for the submission of amendments as short as possible then we could push on with consideration of the Bill.

This Bill is very badly wanted. Great injustices have been done over the years through lack of it.

May I suggest that everybody would go home and study the Bill and then come back with amendments to the next meeting ?

Outside the question of amendments, is there anything else under the question of procedure that we would wish to discuss ?

If there is an amendment which the Committee feels should be inserted in the Bill the Minister should have time to consider it.

Will the passage of this Bill tend to increase insurance premiums ?

It should not.

I believe it will.

This Bill very largely in ease of the insurance companies or of the people representing them.

We do not accept any representations from any outside bodies on this matter. We discuss it purely on our own ?

Can we work on representations from outside bodies made to us individually or will we allow representatives of outside bodies to come here ?

There is a precedent for that in the Moneylenders Bill. There was a Committee set up to deal with it and the Committee did allow representatives of organisations to make representations.

That was probably a Select Committee empowered to send for persons, papers and records. This is a Special Committee which has not those powers.

I was informed that representations could not be made orally here, but that we could deal with representations made to us individually or representations sent to the Committee. If we were to allow people to come here the work of the Committee would go on for years.

People would not be allowed in here any more than they would be into Dáil Éireann, but they can make representations to the members of the Committee or to the Minister. I understand that a lot of representations have already been made.

Deputy T. F. O'Higgins was anxious that we get more memoranda.

We want the views of the Incorporated Law Society and of the Bar Council but, beyond that, we do not want anything.

I know that the Bill has been sent to the Judges, the Incorporated Law Society, the Bar Council and the Universities, but I do not know if any of them have submitted any suggestions. In any event, only members of this Committee may be present at its meetings. About amendments, I do not know if there are many Government amendments to be considered. Generally speaking, there are a lot of amendments to this type of Bill but, as the Bill has been taken almost entirely from Dr. Williams's book, I take it that there will not be many Government amendments. I take it that the amendments should come first from the Minister's side and that other members of the Committee would require a week or so to consider tabling their own amendments. The best thing to do would be to let the Ministerial and other amendments be put in separately.

If we are going to make this procedure as informal as was suggested the only thing to do, if amendments come in from outside, is to ignore them because we could not possibly deal with them.

I suggest that we should have the Minister's amendments first and then pass on to any other amendments. Then we would know where we stand.

Any date that we fix for receiving amendments must be some time later than the date of the next meeting.

We will have to meet pretty consistently. An hour at a time is not much good.

We should try to get through as early as possible next month.

It would be better if we kept at it as much as possible.

There is the matter of saving expenses, travelling expenses, for instance.

There is the question of travelling expenses and also the question of people who are occupied professionally up to 4 o'clock each day.

We could meet from 7.30 p.m. to 10 p.m.

Or even from 8 o'clock to 10.30 p.m.

We can meet again on Tuesday, 30th May, at about 4.30 p.m. What I envisage on this Bill is that before any amendments are framed we will have a discussion on the various sections and what they mean. Arising out of that, we might then have to ask the Minister to consider certain amendments.

I think that the suggestion that we meet next Tuesday without any question of discussing amendments, have a general examination of the Bill and then fix a further meeting for a week later to start on amendments is a good one. Would that be agreeable, that we meet on Tuesday, 30th May, at 4.30 p.m. ? The Clerk can warn the Chairman and the Minister that the question of amendments need not necessarily apply on that date.

If the Minister had any amendments ready for that date he might send them around.

Next Tuesday we can decide the latest date for receiving amendments.

The point on the agenda is the latest date for receiving amendments.

The Clerk might inform Deputy Flanagan and the Minister that the suggestion has been made here that at the meeting on the 30th inst. we might possibly have Ministerial amendments, but that it is not essential to have them. If the Minister had his amendments ready before then it would facilitate the Committee.

It would be necessary to read the sections through and try to get the meaning of them. Only then would it dawn on us what amendments we might require to put down.

That is the point I make.

There are one or two other things that I would like to have put to the Minister. On the Second Stage of the Bill I raised some points. I urged that an effort should be made to get rid of two defences now operating. One is in the defence of State authority, that there cannot be an action against a State authority. That defence has now been abolished in England for a long time past. Another is the defence that highway authorities are not liable for nonfeasance where they do not keep their roads and bridges in proper order. I gather that in England that defence has been abolished within the last month. I do not know whether the Department has any views on those two matters.

I asked a Parliamentary Question about that matter recently and the Minister for Local Government said that he was considering it.

This Bill, in section 45, does away with certain defences. That would be an appropriate place to add a few more defences which should be abolished.

I also raised the point of the lodgment of money in Court in a case where an infant is a plaintiff. That should be considered.

There are precedents to be found in English legislation about the two points I have mentioned. A change has recently been made in respect of the nonfeasance of highway authorities. We could get the House of Commons reports on that. It was a Private Members' Bill going through Committee. I want the Minister to take note of these two points, also the one raised by Deputy Costello with regard to the lodgment of money in Court where an infant is a plaintiff.

I also mentioned another matter about the right of an unborn child who was injured in a motor accident.

Deputy Seán Flanagan took the Chair.

We have agreed to meet next Tuesday at 4.30 p.m. That does not mean that amendments will have to be in by then. Our real purpose will be to have a run over the Bill. We are also going to ask through you, Mr. Chairman, that the Ceann Comhairle be consulted to see whether we must have everything which is said at the Committee reported. If necessary, we would like to have the order appointing the Committee amended so as to free us from the necessity of having the proceedings of the Committee reported verbatim.

The Committee adjourned at 5.20 p.m. until 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday next.