I move amendment No. 12a:
In page 5, subsection (1), lines 21 to 23, to delete "preventing the transaction of the business of the meeting or to incite another person so to act" and substitute "provoking the commission of a criminal offence."
Chairman, with the agreement of the committee would it be in order to take amendments Nos. 12a and 12b together? They are the only amendments to the section.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am very concerned about this section of the Bill. I do not find too many people coming to me to complain about disorder at meetings. Having spent the last 12 months chairing meetings of 52 strong individual members of the community, the members of Dublin City Council, I never found occasion to have to resort to the law. I cannot imagine what sort of meeting would have to do that. I do not know why this section is in the Bill. In so far as it is there, I want to move these amendments to improve it. I would be happier if the section was not there at all unless there is a particular reason for it. It has serious implications for meetings of councils, shareholders, political parties, trade unions, conventions and for residents' association meetings. Again, I do not think there is anything there which will improve our armoury in dealing with the criminal.
Amendment No. 12a that I am moving reads:
In page 5, subsection (1), lines 21 to 23, to delete the words "preventing the transaction of the business of the meeting or to incite another person so to act" and substitute "provoking the commission of a criminal offence".
Amendment No. 12b seeks in subsection (4) to introduce the words "Nothing in this section shall be construed so as to interfere with the legitimate rights of members of the public to express their points of view at public meetings". If this sort of amendment is not inserted in the Bill I have very serious doubts about and difficulties with this section.
Is it agreed to meet tomorrow from 12 noon until 2 p.m.?
If we are going to meet, Chairman, why should we not meet for a longer period? What is the point in tying down members of this committee just for two hours if we are to meet again next week, as I understand, since we have covered only the few earlier sections of the Bill? Our directive from the Dáil is that this be completed by 6 October. If that is the case, do I understand that tomorrow is the only day we will meet?
That is a matter for the committee, when and how often we meet. It is quite true to say that we have to report to the Dáil on 6 October. It is also quite true to say we are at section 8 and there are 27 sections and 32 amendments. Again, that is a matter for the committee. If we get Second Stage speeches from people in the debate, that is a matter for the Members, and how they co-operate with the Chair. It was agreed we would meet today. I am now putting it to the committee that we meet tomorrow from 12 until 2 p.m.
I am in favour of meeting tomorrow but calling a meeting at 12 p.m. until 2 p.m. is over the lunch-time break and some of us have engagements at that time tomorrow. I have an engagement which I made three months ago. Could I suggest we meet at 10 a.m. or 10.30 a.m. until 12.30 p.m. or 1 p.m?. I would be happy with that as the other times would create a problem for me.
I have a difficulty with that. I did not receive any notice that the committee would meet tomorrow and I have a long standing appointment for 11.30 a.m. tomorrow. We should agree in advance when we are going to meet so that people can make arrangements. We are deciding today that we should meet tomorrow but it is impossible for me to be here tomorrow at 11.30 a.m. If I had known last week I could have made some arrangements but to be notified today that the Committee on Legislation and Security is meeting tomorrow is extremely difficult and most unsatisfactory.
As Deputies know, there are difficulties in relation to availability. The Dáil Chamber and Kildare House are not available. This is the only available Chamber. Other committees are meeting but we have an important piece of legislation before us and I want as wide a debate as possible. We must also correspond with the availability of the Minister who is anxious to take this Bill herself completely. It is in the context of those factors that I was suggesting that we would meet tomorow as the Seanad Chamber will be vacant in the morning. I did indicate to Deputy Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny)— and I am not passing the buck — that we would be meeting, if possible, on 14 September and 15 September. I am not saying that is an official notification. There were a number of factors involved. We can meet tomorrow morning if it is the wish of the committee.
I would assume that because of the importance of the Bill it would be the wish of the Opposition as well as the yes-men on the Government side of the House that we would have a further meeting of more than two hours duration to discuss the remaining sections. If my assumption is correct, I would assume that we will be meeting next week. It would be ludicrous against that background for us to propose to meet tomorrow for just two hours. Therefore, we should seek to cover as many of the remaining sections as possible. I propose we meet at 10 a.m. as Deputy Harney suggested.
I would be happy to meet every day next week. As a Deputy who has remained in the Chamber for all of this debate, I am happy to spend as much time as possible on it. It is not only unsatisfactory, it is improper that a parliamentary committee, without notice, should decide to sit tomorrow without asking about the availability of members. That is not a proper way to conduct the business of a Parliament. In trying to reach an accommodation with the Minister, who happens to be available tomorrow, I would be breaking my neck to get back here for 12 o'clock and I am happy to try to do that. I should be accommodated as well specifically since I have not received any notice. I resent the implications of the sort of political nonsense introduced by Deputy Liam Fitzgerald. We have had a very satisfactory debate here today and we should try to keep it on an even keel.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): We certainly will co-operate and have been co-operating as best we can, but in fairness, two of our Members postponed meetings from today until tomorrow. There is nothing definite here. We must have a more definite system where the convener should know what is happening well in advance, that we notify our Members what is happening well in advance. It is unfair to expect people to make changes in their arrangements. As a compromise, we agreed to meet at 12 p.m. tomorrow. Now we are being more or less blackmailed because we are not meeting at 10 a.m. It is not even convenient for me to be here at 12 p.m. tomorrow.
As a number of people have suggested that the Minister should be suited in whatever way possible I wish to say that I was informed that the committee planned to meet today. I was originally informed that the committee was going to meet until 7 p.m. this evening and I cleared my diary for that purpose. I was also told that the committee planned to meet tomorrow until about 2.30 p.m. or 3 p.m. and I cleared my diary for that purpose. I was told that the committee would be starting at 10 a.m. It is not my fault if other Members of the committee were not given the same information. I am very appreciative today, as the Minister responsible, that so many—and I do not mean this as an insult to Dublin Deputies —rural Members of this House travelled long distances to be here. My understanding from those Deputies to whom I spoke was that they were coming on the understanding that they would be here for two days. It is more difficult for those Members to be here than it is, with every respect, for Dublin Deputies. I do not mean that in any patronising way.
I agree with Deputy Harney that convening a meeting between 12 p.m. and 2 p.m. interferes in some instances with arrangements that other Deputies may have made because it is over the lunchtime period. People often make appointments because they believe business will stop for an hour during that period. I strongly support the suggestion by Deputy Harney and Deputy Liam Fitzgerald that if at all possible we should make arrangements to meet in the morning at 10 a.m. The committee has a facility where people who cannot be here can send a representative or a Deputy on their behalf. Perhaps that is an avenue we could look at more closely.
I have just moved an amendment to section 8 of the Bill. I have hardly got wind in my sails on the amendment. It is grossly unsatisfactory. I speak in this House for the main Opposition party. The least courtesy which I should receive is notice in advance of when the commmittee is sitting. I received notice that today's meeting would take place at a different time from when it actually took place and then I received a letter saying that the time had been brought forward to 11 a.m. I will be prepared to sit every day next week and I am prepared to sit long hours looking at this Bill but I expect notice. This is not satisfactory. The Minister may think it is smart to behave like this now but there will be retaliation for this action——
No, I do not, I am not being smart.
Using intimidatory language.
——and there will be another day when they will be seeking co-operation. It is a total disregard for my position as spokesman for Fine Gael on this issue that the Minister should say because she is available tomorrow at those hours we should go ahead at 10 a.m. There is no notice of such a meeting. If meetings of this committee are to take place there should be advance notice of them. I suspect under Standing Orders that Members are entitled to written notice of when committees and the House sit.
It is a matter for the conveners to decide on the meetings. It is not a matter for me or the Minister. It is the conveners' responsibility. I pointed out that there have been particular problems on this occasion because of the lack of facilities. We did not know whether the Chamber would be available. It became available. I am putting it to the committee that if they do not wish to meet tomorrow we cannot make them. I am putting it to the committee that we meet tomorrow at 10 a.m., 10.30 a.m., 12 p.m. or as a compromise could we meet at 11 a.m. tomorrow for three hours?
I am here in substitution for Deputy Collins. I was advised of this meeting last week. I was also asked to be present tomorrow on his behalf because he is otherwise engaged. I am surprised at Deputy Gay Mitchell's statement. I will be here tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. as I am booked to be here.
Is it too much to ask that we get notice of meetings in writing? How could anybody be surprised at that? Is it too much to expect we conduct our business in such a way that we get notice in writing of when meetings of this committee are to take place? How could anybody object to that? There are Deputies making that point who will not be at this committee tomorrow.
It is a simple matter. Is the committee meeting at 10 a.m. or 12 p.m. tomorrow?
It is up to the committee——
Whatever decision is made by this committee I intend to raise the matter with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I do not believe this is the way to conduct the business of a parliamentary committee.
I propose that we meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The convener for the Government side did not know what was happening. I got a telephone call on Friday asking would it be possible for our Members to meet today. I said at that stage I could not say without meeting them. We have to work at least one week in advance. There is no way one can ask people to change dates of meetings. I would ask the Minister to accept 12 p.m. tomorrow. That is the best we can do. It does not suit some of our Members. We have to get substitutes for them because they have meetings arranged for tomorrow.
May I just say that tomorrow did not suit me at all? I cleared my diary intentionally so that we could be here tomorrow. It is not a question of suiting me.
Who arranged it? Who talked about that?
The decision is a very clear one.
Somebody spoke to the Minister about it but nobody spoke to us about it. We have a role in this House as well.
It is not my job.
It is somebody's job. Somebody is getting paid for this job.
Could we have some order, please. Can the committee come to a decision about the time for sitting tomorrow?
As a Member who travelled a long distance to be present for the debate today may I suggest a compromise time of 11 o'clock tomorrow?
Is that proposal agreed?
Agreed.
On a point of order, because the Minister has a majority she cannot just say "agreed" and walk out. I will not agree.
I am not going anywhere.
I will have my say at this committee tomorrow if the Minister walks out now. She should not worry about it; there will be another day. If we must depart from 12 o'clock then we should commence at 10 a.m. I will bring this matter to the attention of the Ceann Comhairle and the Clerk of the Dáil, and I will have this matter raised at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. This is an improper way to conduct the business of a parliamentary committee. Neither the Minister nor anyone else can stop the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and the Ceann Comhairle from looking into this matter. I will raise the matter again when the House meets. This is not the way to conduct the business of a parliamentary committee.
That is democracy.
Is the Deputy suggesting that I have influence with the Ceann Comhairle? My goodness, Deputy Mitchell——
You can see how the Minister walks over people with the legislation.
Can I have order, please? Could we have a bit of respect for the Chair please? Could the Minister and all sides refrain from interrupting? This committee has very important business to debate. It is important that we have co-operation from all sides of the House. We have had that in our committee meetings up to now. I am now proposing that we meet tomorrow at 11 a.m. as a compromise to get over the problem we have. Is that agreed?
It is not agreed.
If Deputy Mitchell says that is not acceptable, then I propose 10 a.m. because it is better to commit ourselves to four hours than three hours to deal with a number of sections of the Bill.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): If the Fine Gael spokesperson on Justice cannot be present tomorrow and it is not his fault it is foolish to insist on meeting at 10 a.m.
I can be here. All I am saying is that I have other engagements and have not received any notice about a sitting tomorrow. I protest that it is an improper way to conduct the business of this committee. It is not taking a parliamentary committee seriously because somebody said something to the Minister and she cleared her diary. That is nothing to do with me, nobody mentioned it to us.
It is in order for the committee to decide whether it wants to meet tomorrow or any other day.
We will challenge that.
I propose that we meet tomorrow at 10 a.m.
Is that agreed?
It is not agreed. I want it put to a vote. I want this on the record.
I am putting the question, "That the committee meets tomorrow at 10 a.m."
I am taking this issue to the Ceann Comhairle.
The Select Committee adjourned at 5.45 p.m. until 10 a.m. on 15 September 1993.
