The first matter we have to deal with is the question of procedure. Generally speaking, the procedure in this Committee is substantially the same as the procedure in Committee of the whole Dáil, but I understand that we have to make a decision, first of all, on who will be allowed to attend meetings. Standing Order 75 states:

No person other than Members shall, except by leave of a select or special committee, be present during any of the proceedings of such select or special committee.

I presume there is no objection to the Minister having his advisers with him?

Agreed accordingly.

The question of the admission of the public and the Press is also one for the members to decide.

I would have no objection to either the public or the Press being present, but I do not think they would be very interested in what we are trying to do here. They will be interested in the end result, but I do not think they would want to sit here for hours.

I would agree with Deputy Tully. I do not think the public or the Press would be very interested, but, on the other hand, this is such a technical Bill that probably we would hope that it would be a workmanlike session, and, with due respect to Deputies of all parties, I think there is a tendency to be a little less workmanlike when we are in the presence of the Press and the public. For that reason, I would favour not having the Press or the public at sessions of the Committee. Of course, when the Bill is completed it will go back to the House, where the public and the Press can be present.

This is so, and there is a verbatim report being taken of everything that is said at the Committee's meetings and this will be published.

I think it is an advantage from the point of view of greater informality to have a private session. This may help us.

I take it that is the consensus of opinion.

Before we come to a decision, could I inquire what has been the procedure on previous Bills?

The Press were not present.

Agreed accordingly.

There is one thing I should like to clear up before we start, that is, how long we intend to sit this afternoon. What time do we expect to finish?

The understanding was that we would sit until 7 o'clock and that before we finished we would fix our further meetings. Perhaps it would be better to consider that when we see how we have got on today.

I think it would be advisable to fix a finishing time; otherwise we could be here until very late. We must take into consideration not only ourselves but also the staff.

There is one point I wish to raise. When I submitted amendments several weeks ago I made the point that I should probably have other amendments, because this is a complex Bill and it has taken me a good while both to begin to understand it and to get some assistance and advice in regard to it. I have amendments which will come up under section 9 onwards. When we get as far as section 9, would there be any objection to my raising amendments on the spot at that stage?

Yes. I think we will have to get due notice but we can defer the section and come back to it again.

All right. It may not arise. We may not get that far.

The Deputy can put them down but we will not take them today. Deputy FitzGerald's amendments are not ready yet and we will not discuss them today. We will discuss what is before us.

If we go slowly it will not happen.

Let us not have a vested interest in that. I think the procedure as suggested by the Chairman should be acceptable. I think it is acceptable to Deputy FitzGerald.

Yes.

It would also want to be acceptable to the rest of us because though it might suit one Deputy I would not like to see something introduced which would have us here for the rest of the day discussing a particular amendment which was not before us at the start of the meeting.

It is agreed that that will not happen.

Provided we know what it is.

You will not know them today. We will not discuss anything not before us now. Is that the position?

We will get notice of it and have it before us at the next meeting.

Deputy Tully's point probably is that while this may be all right now, where a Deputy knows what amendments he wants to put in, he does not want to see it happening every day.

If it happened every day we could be here for the next five years. That would not annoy me if it kept the VAT from coming into operation.

I have nearly completed this and I will have completed it within a few days so any amendments I would have would be available for next week.

I would suggest that we could agree now that amendments might be tabled by any Member, which would be available for a meeting next week, even if they have not been tabled before now, but that, thereafter, no further amendments could be tabled.

I would accept that.

Would that mean the last meeting next week?

I had in mind the first meeting of next week. Does that present a problem to you?

I would accept that.

(Dublin Central): Does that mean we will be going back over sections we have finalised today?

No.

I think that would be only in relation to amendments which would be put in in the way we have described and thereafter it would not apply.

And it would only arise from section 9 onwards.

I am sorry, I was not here last week. Was there a White Paper issued with the new Finance Bill?

No.

The Minister does know his amendments, I hope, but it leaves the rest of us in a rather disagreeable position because I thought I knew the Bill as it was then but I am quite sure I do not know it now. I am not sure I did know it but I thought I did.

I will endeavour to be as helpful as I can.

We cannot have an amendment to any section that is finished with today.

They can be introduced, it is assumed, on Report Stage in the normal way in the House?

Yes.

I am in a little difficulty here. It depends on the progress we make but, if we get to section 9 this evening, what you have just ruled would preclude Deputy FitzGerald from putting down amendments later this week in respect of section 9.

I understood the idea was that we were going to do sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 and if I had amendments to sections 9 or 10, if we came to them, that I would mention this and we would, therefore, not technically finish with those sections.

If that is the understanding that is all right but I understood what the Chairman said to mean something different.

If it is a technicality that is worrying us perhaps the simplest way is to sit until 7 o'clock or until we reach section 9, whichever comes first.

I would rather stick to 7 o'clock.

My intention was that if we reach section 9 we postpone that section and go on with the next one that we can go on with.

That is acceptable to me.

It is a cleaner system.

That could cause complications too because section 9 may be governing something in the next amendment.

I do not like to delay the meeting further but can this Committee not decide its own procedure?

Not altogether, I think.

The Committee of Public Accounts does set its own procedure.

We are, I suppose, bound to some extent by Standing Orders in relation to amendments and so on but to avoid the difficulty that appears to me to be looming up I would prefer if the Committee was in a position to take whatever decisions seemed appropriate to the Committee to deal with the problem rather than to be bound in such a way that we could not do that.

I am in the hands of the Members but up to now I have been going on Standing Orders and precedent.

I would agree with the Minister that we are a Special Committee and we should make our own rules and be governed by them and report back to the House in due course that X, Y and Z has been agreed. Apart from making a statement to the House this should finish the matter.

As I said earlier, this may be an unreal discussion because the problem might never crop up. If it crops up perhaps we would be at liberty to consider the problem again as to what procedure we should adopt.

I agree. I think I should read the rule which says :

The rules as to procedure in the Dáil shall apply to procedure in Committee of the whole Dáil, and in Select or Special Committees, except that—

(i) a motion or amendment need not be seconded;

(ii) a motion to proceed to the next business cannot be moved;

(iii) a member may speak more than once on the same question.

That is the Standing Order and we will, I am afraid, have to get around that.

I always understood that the Dáil could itself, if it agreed, change its procedure. Maybe it is an imaginary problem and I suggest we should leave it and if it crops up we could talk about it.

Would it be any help if I submitted my amendments to sections 9, 10, 11 and 12 and have them copied so that they would be available to us or would the Minister prefer not to discuss them until he had a chance of looking at them?

I think Deputy FitzGerald's amendments might get greater consideration if I had more time to think about them.

I felt that would be the position.

All right, we will agree to leave them.

Do we have to agree on a quorum?

The quorum is agreed to by the Dáil. It is five. We will now proceed to section 1.

I understood we were to take sections 1 to 4 as having been completed.

I must put them.