It is the normal practice for the Government Party to provide a chairman. I understand that the Government Party wish to have Deputy Colley as Chairman. Accordingly, I propose him.

I second the proposition.

The first matter we have to deal with is the question of procedure. In general, the procedure in this Committee is substantially the same as the procedure in the Dáil on the Committee Stage of a Bill, but I understand that we have to make a decision, first of all, on who will be allowed to attend the meetings of this Committee. Are there any proposals on that ?

I presume that the Minister will be allowed to bring his advisers with him.

Certainly. Is that agreed ?

That is one of the main points for having this Committee, without being rude to the Minister.

Also on the question of procedure, I understand that there are precedents in Committees such as this both for and against allowing the Press to be present.

This is not a political Bill. Surely we do not want the Press ?

They may not come in without the special permission of the Committee.

The position is that we have to make a positive motion to admit them to a special Committee if we want them. Is that not so ?

It is agreed that we leave it at that.

Notice of Amendments; Next Meeting of the Committee.

The next matter we have to fix is the latest date for receiving amendments.

Before dealing with that matter, might I make this submission ? This is a long and technical Bill. I have no doubt that the Minister has already a certain number of amendments. It might save a great deal of time if the Minister was ready to circulate his amendments at once. We could go through the Bill section by section and then come back on it afterwards. We could have a break and then come back with any amendments the members wanted to introduce, otherwise, because of the Bill's technicality, there might be a certain number of amendments put down in a non-understanding of what exactly the section is. I suggest that we go through the Bill section by section and clear our minds as to what the provisions are, make certain suggestions, air them, so to speak, and then adjourn for a fortnight and bring in any amendments we feel like and then deal with them thereafter. It would save time in the long run.

Just to deal with the amendments ?

I am prepared to agree with that suggestion if it complies with the rules of procedure.

I am wondering about that.

Do the Committee Stage of the Bill and recommit in respect of the amendments only. I think that is the technical way.

When we were discussing the Second Stage of this Bill in the Dáil I suggested that the Minister might look into the possibility of making available here a couple of copies of what is known officially as the Ministerial brief for the Committee Stage. As the members know, this is an explanation of what the sections mean. It gives an explanation of what they do, what it is intended to achieve and the deficiencies it is intended to make good. I think that in connection with a technical Bill of this kind that would be of considerable help to a Deputy who wants to give the matter some detailed consideration. It would be helpful if a couple of copies were made available. What I seek should at least be made available in reference book form. It might take some time to compile in the Department but in the long run it would save a fair amount of time.

I have my amendments ready for circulation. I should like to comply with Deputy Norton's request but, as he knows, there may well be matters in the Ministerial brief that ought not to be widely circulated. In so far as I can comply with the request with a limited circulation of an explanatory note of the amendments I propose, I can do that.

I do not mean anything confidential. I just want the Committee helped by getting an explanation of a very complex Bill.

Can we take it that Deputy Sweetman's suggestion is agreed to ?

Could we take the sections plus the Ministerial amendments as the first run-over and then re-commit for any other amendments the Minister or any other member of the Committee might make ? Would the Minister agree to that ?

Yes, subject to fixing a final date for receiving amendments so that amendments will not be coming in interminably. I would have my amendments circulated by the 28th December.

That is quite satisfactory. The Minister will realise that some amendments will not arise until we have had a discussion on a section.

For example, in relation to an amendment under Section 300 there would be heaps of time to March.

It was my intention to propose that we fix the final dates for receiving amendments according to the part of the Bill.

Is the Minister thinking in terms of final dates as regards members of the Committee or dates in respect of outside bodies ?

I am thinking in terms of the latter.

Could we not agree that the Committee were going to proceed to the examination of the Bill by whatever date we fix, say 15th January for the purposes of an example, and that there would be an announcement to that effect outside so that all outside bodies would know if they wanted to be considered ? They would want to have their submissions in before that date.

That is a good suggestion.

Would the Minister say whether he has yet consulted outside bodies or, if not, whether he proposes to do so ? If they suggest amendments, will he consider them or reject them ? Will such amendments as he accepts be funnelled in here through the Minister ?

These outside bodies gave evidence before the committee set up to examine the companies' legislation. Since then I have suggested that these outside bodies ought to make their views known to me. Some of these views have been conveyed and considered. Some of them may well be embodied in some of the amendments I propose. The other part of the Deputy's question I did not catch.

They will at least have access to the Minister about amendments ?

Yes.

And if the Minister agrees with them he will accept them ?

Yes.

Similarly, they might get in touch with members of the Committee in which case the members of the Committee would sponsor the amendment ?

I am quite satisfied. I take it that we ought to, as Deputy Sweetman suggested, intimate the date on which the Committee will proceed to consider amendments so that the outside bodies will have their suggestions communicated either to me or to the other members of the Committee ?

Is that principle agreed to ?

Would it be well not to fix that date until we see the Minister's amendments ?

If you have a right to put in amendments by a latest date that carries with it a right to put down an amendment to Section 1. What is the future programme of sittings ?

I suggest that we accept the principle. The next thing we should fix is the date of the first meeting and we can relate the date for amendments from outside bodies to that date. Is the principle accepted ?

Do you mean fixing the latest date for the submission of amendments to the Minister ?

Or members of the Committee.

Is it proposed to publish an advertisement to that effect ?

It would be in order to have a statement issued to that effect.

The next item on the agenda is to fix the date of our next meeting.

If the Minister's amendments are going to be circulated by the end of December, would we be in a position——

Is anybody going to come back for the meetings of this body before the Dáil re-assembles ?

It was my hope that we would have a few meetings before the Dáil re-assembles.

The Recess is much shorter than we thought.

These hopes have been dashed in the case of other committees.

I know.

Would Wednesday, 9th January, be too soon ?

Certainly not for me.

On the basis that we have agreed what we will do at our first meeting will not exclude our own right to put down amendments ourselves. Would we then not be in a position to start our first run-over on the 9th ?

Will it clash with the meetings of the Committee on the Health Services ?

Do you know whether the Committee on the Health Services have fixed a date for after Christmas ?

I do not think they have arranged for a meeting on 9th. I think it is the week after.

I am informed that there is a meeting of the Committee on the Health Services, today at 4.30 p.m. I take it that some members of this Committee are also members of the Committee on the Health Services. Therefore, I take it also that regard will be had to our fixing of the 9th January as the date of our next meeting.

We did fix some particular day for the hearing of evidence but I cannot remember whether it was the 9th or not.

What are the times of the sittings—from 4 to 6 ?

We will have to discuss that. If we agree on the 9th of January, the next thing is to fix the date by which these outside amendments should be dealt with.

If we meet on the 9th January to consider the Bill, they must have them in before that.

We may have to let up a bit on the last ones.

What about the time of the meeting ?

Apart from the Deputies here, there are some from the country.

Might I suggest that if we could meet for a rather longer period each time we might make better progress ? Meeting for one and a half hours does lengthen the proceedings very much.

I would support that. We might even get in two sessions—11 a.m. to 1 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. or without any effective limit on the time of finishing. I put these forward as suggestions.

I think that is all right to aim at as a target but we have to test it out in the reality of attendance. You will not get members at 11 o'clock on a Tuesday or after the meeting of the Dáil on a Thursday.

I am only suggesting the two sessions for the meeting of 9th January.

That is all right.

We could take the Minister's suggestion in relation to 9th January, see how it works and decide that day what we will do there after.

It is decided then to meet at 11 a.m. on Wednesday, 9th January, 1963, and, if necessary, also at 2.30 p.m.

Definitely it will be necessary.

Somebody asked what the quorum was.

The quorum is five.

The Committee adjourned at 4.25 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Wednesday, 9th January, 1963.