I move amendment No. 5:

In page 4, subsection (2), lines 36 and 37, after " programme ", to insert " both as submitted by the Commission to the Government and ".

In general I think this is the same point that we have already discussed. The suggestion is that both the draft programme submitted by the commission and the draft programme approved should be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Why not, may I ask?

I think the object sought to be attained will in fact be attained. If the Government do not accept the proposed programme, it will be known. It is rather cumbersome to have two documents printed.

I have already given the reasons and I shall not delay the Committee. I think the cumbersome printing is hardly a valid reason for not accepting the amendment.

It will be in the report. The annual report will cover it.

But will the programme be in the report?

Yes.

I will accept the attitude of the mover of the amendment.

If the Attorney General reads section 6 it appears that it does not follow at all that what I might call disagreements on priority between the commission and the Government would appear in the report. The whole lot as set out in section 6 should appear. That is important.

What I am saying is that the commission will be free to report——

But it would curb its activities.

Activities under subsections (1) and (2) of section 4. The amendment we made a few minutes ago is under subsection (3) and therefore that sort of topic would not be covered by what has to be put into the report, under section 6.

I think it would be because the activities under subsections (1) and (2) are concerned with the preparation of the programme. This happened in England and it is very likely to happen here.

To make sure of that could I suggest we delete in section 6 the words " subsection (1) and subsection (2) of " and let it read " activities during that year under section 4 ".

That seems to be reasonable.

On the basis of that I agree to withdraw amendment No. 5.