We dealt with a point like this on another amendment. The practice is to send notice of the meeting, and any other documents necessary to the proper carrying out of the meeting, to the shareholders in the same envelope. I think it would be no advantage to the company, or the company's officials, to require that notice of the general meeting should be sent 21 days beforehand, and to give them 14 days' grace to send the accounts. I doubt if any company would avail of any concession of that nature. I would not raise this point if the amendment were generally acceptable, but the subsection to which Deputy Costello has put down the amendment is subsection (3) and the obligation to send out the accounts 21 days before the date of the meeting is provided for in subsection (1); the mention of 21 days in subsection (3) is only ancillary. But that comment is only by the way. On its merits apart from the convenience of the companies, I would suggest that a member of a company would require 21 days to examine the accounts. Very many members of companies are not professional accountants, and have not the services of professional accountants, and they might require a period longer than seven days in which to examine the documents, or to have an examination carried out by someone else on their behalf. I think there is not a good case for the amendment, but if Deputy Cosgrave would like to argue further I am prepared to listen.