I will now call the meeting to order. We have a quorum present. The first item on the agenda is the election of a chairman. I will take nominations for chairman.
Election of Chairman
Election of Chairman.
Acting Chairman (Clerk to the Committee)
I would like to propose Deputy Madeline Taylor-Quinn.
I second that.
I would like to propose the Minister for Justice, Deputy Collins.
I second that.
Acting Chairman
We have two nominations before us.
Perhaps we could adjourn for five or ten minutes so that we could talk?
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed?
Agreed.
The meeting resumed at 4.15 p.m.
Acting Chairman
We have two nominations for Chairman. Deputy Taylor-Quinn, proposed by Deputy Barrett and seconded by Deputy Shatter and Deputy Collins, Minister for Justice, proposed by Deputy M. Kitt and seconded by Deputy M. Ahern.
I formally withdraw my nomination.
Acting Chairman
Is it agreed that Deputy Taylor-Quinn be Chairman of the Committee?
Agreed.
Deputy Taylor-Quinn took the Chair.
Is there any Vice-Chairman position?
Chairman
As far as I am aware Deputy, no. The procedure that is adopted here is exactly the same procedure as is adopted in the Dáil Chamber and what happens here is governed by the same Standing Orders and Rules and will be conducted as if it were in the Chamber. We are just talking of a change of location.
I would like to thank the Members for unanimously electing me as Chairman of this very important Committee to examine the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Bill. I hope we will have full co-operation of all the Members to ensure that this becomes effective legislation as soon as possible. I have every confidence, knowing all the Members here, that work will be done in a very constructive way and I would ask that that would be the case.
Procedure.
Chairman
We come to the second item on the agenda, which is, procedure generally. As I have just said, the procedure generally is the same as that in the Dáil. The Standing Orders provides that rules as to procedure in the Dáil shall apply to procedure in special committees except that as in committee of the whole Dáil a Member may speak more than once on the same subject. Divisions shall be taken by the Clerk of the committee calling the names of the Members and in the event of there being equality of votes the question shall be decided in the negative. The Chairman shall have only one vote and shall not have a casting vote. There is provision for substitutes. In the event of a Member being unable to attend: he or she can nominate a substitute to attend and that substitute will have the same voting rights as a Member here today. In relation to the Press and visitors — meetings of the committee, are held in public, unless the committee decides otherwise. Private meetings may be held for discussion purposes. That is a matter for the committee to decide. That is the procedure. Are there any matters arising from that?
As the proposer of the Bill, I congratulate you on being elected to the Chair. Could I just say that from our side of the House we are looking forward to a constructive Committee Stage in which we will tease out the provisions of this Bill. This Bill is seen as a piece of legislation by many people outside this House in different walks of life as providing a major reform of our family and matrimonial laws. This committee is looked to to do its work in a constructive way but also, while examining the Bill in the detail required, to get on with the work in a speedy way. In the context generally of procedure, it would be my proposal that is be agreed that this committee meet normally on a Wednesday and that we meet every second week. Bearing in mind the Minister's commitments, one has to accept that meetings every week would not be appropriate to the Minister. It would be my proposal that in the context of meetings that we normally meet from 3 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. every second Wednesday, that our next such meeting should be this day fortnight and that by this day fortnight whatever initial amendments to the Bill any Members of the committee wish to propose be circulated so that the substantive work on the Bill can commence this day two weeks.
Chairman
Thank you, Deputy Shatter. Deputy Shatter has proposed that we meet every second Wednesday from 3 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. and that the next meeting be held today fortnight. Minister, I assume you have a number of amendments. Are you in agreement with that? Does that suit you?
First, with regard to Deputy Shatter's suggestion that we meet every second Wednesday, presumably when the Dáil is in session, this is OK. I have a number of amendments, yes. I have a number of amendments to clear and get ready — quite a number of them. I think I would have something in the region of 36 amendments. I understand that because of the need to get the committee underway as soon as possible, I do not have to clear all 36 as and from day one. We can clear some and move along as best we can. I am still waiting advice from the Attorney General on one or two of them. That, again, in a sense does not have to slow us down or impede progress of the committee. I would expect to be ready with some of the amendments at the next meeting.
Chairman
Very good. Thank you, Minister. Any other matters arising on that?
To take up what the Minister said with regard to meeting times when the Dáil is sitting, it is envisaged that the committee will sit even when the Dáil is not sitting, because of the urgency of the business?
Chairman
That will arise now in relation to the Easter recess.
My suggestion is based on the initial meetings, it may be that after the first two or three meetings, depending on what progress we are making we may re-examine that. We may want to have one or two full day sessions to get matters completed or it may be seen to be appropriate that we have one or two sessions when the Dáil is in adjournment if the Minister is available on such occasions. We can review our progress in about four to six weeks and if at that stage we have completed a major portion of the Bill it may not be necessary to change our approach. If we are making very slow progress we may need to review the matter and consider having additional weekly meetings.
In relation to that, and in view of the indications we are getting from the Minister in regard to the scale of the amendments, one of the factors we should consider at an early stage is setting a deadline for the work of this committee, allowing for reasonable debate obviously on each and all of the amendments that would come from all sides of the House. Nonetheless, within our own parties, as a committee we should consider a deadline so that at some stage we can know the scale of time to which we are going to work, to see that it will not be a never ending process. I am not suggesting that the scale of amendments would be taken to be a delaying factor but I think it is expected and hoped that we would make speedy progress with this committee work and that the Bill can progress to the Seanad and into law.
Chairman
Thank you.
In reply to Deputy Monica Barnes, we are now coming up to the end of this particular session. We have a very long Dáil session coming up to the summer vacation. I was really only talking about that session. If the committee decides, as Deputy Shatter suggests, at a later stage to review its procedures as far as meetings are concerned I am not objecting to that in any way. With regard to time limits being suggested by Deputy McCartan, I do not think we would be wise at this stage to talk about putting a time limit on it. We all have the same interest in the processing of the legislation as speedily as possible but bearing in mind what we are doing, that is, processing legislation, we should approach it rather carefully and cautiously and do what we have to do without having anybody at the end of the day saying you must finish this section by this particular time. I do not think it would in itself lead to good legislation. If there is goodwill all round, which I accept that there is, we will have the matter properly teased out.
The Deputy should know that his own attitude to time restrictions or time limit is well known in the House when we are in there debating, even on Second Stages, after a half an hour's or an hour's contribution from the same Deputy. If we approach it in a sensible way we will make progress.
Just in relation to the time of the meeting, 3 o'clock on a Wednesday afternoon is probably the busiest time for most Deputies. I am a Member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies and normally we meet on a Wednesday or a Tuesday and there may be some clash in relation to that. I am just wondering is there any other time on a Wednesday that we could meet?
I think the problem about trying to get a time that will suit us all makes it all the more impossible. There is provision made for substitutes if you are not able to be here on a particular day. We have got agreement for Wednesday afternoon, so I think we should stick with it.
People with difficulties with regard to time should try to sort it out.
We have Parliamentary Party meetings also.
I would agree with the Minister that we should not put any time limit on this, certainly not at this stage. This is important legislation. We waited a long time in this country for this updating legislation and it is important that we get it right, as Deputy Shatter said, tease it out very carefully and thoroughly. I would be against any idea of a final curtain coming down and in particular a fixed date. I would like to inquire what the position will be regarding a time scale for putting in amendments. Does it mean that once the Bill gets under way we can no longer put in amendments, or is there a final date?
Chairman
I was about to come to that.
The point I wanted to make was in relation to the timing. I will be happy enough with Wednesday afternoon. The only suggestion I would make is that some Deputies like to be present for Question Time. I would suggest that we defer it from 3 o'clock to 4 o'clock so that those Deputies who wanted to be or had to be in at Question Time, could be present.
The Minister obviously would be one person who is tied up at Question Time and 3 o'clock would not be very suitable if he has to be there.
I would be excused, I understand.
In relation to that, the suggestion of time was made bearing in mind the Minister's commitments and if it does arise that there is Department of Justice question time on a Wednesday there is no reason why it could not then be agreed that we start at 4 o'clock and go to 6.30 p.m. on that day instead of starting at 3 o'clock and finishing at 5.30 p.m.
I would prefer if you were all here and I was there.
I realise that. We would not want you to miss any of it though.
Chairman
Have we got agreement?
First of all, I would like to congratulate you on your election to the Chair of this Committee. As one of the four people on this committee who served with me on the Joint Committee on Marriage Breakdown you are eminently suitable to chair this committee and I would like to wish you well in the task. Like other Deputies, I would not agree today to setting time limits but I hope we will be able to have this Bill well under way by the end of this year. I sat on the Joint Committee on Marriage Breakdown. We intended to finish our work in one year and I think our failure to set time limits meant that it went on for two years. Sometimes some Members felt that it was necessary to unnecesarily delay some of the proceedings and I hope that will not happen on this committee. We could review it at a later stage. Can I ask the Chairman to clarify the position in relation to amendments? I know we are going on to that next but it would be better if parties in particular were to get copies of amendments perhaps in advance of those amendments being circulated or being discussed at the committee. It would help to expedite the proceedings if that were done.
Chairman
Have we got general agreement that this committee shall meet every Wednesday between 3 p.m. and 5.30 p.m.?
My suggestion was 4 p.m.
I cannot see what objection there is to getting up early in the morning.
Chairman
The problem is that there are Parliamentary Party meetings starting at 11 a.m. and the Order of Business is at 10.30 a.m.
I do not mind starting at 7 a.m. in the morning if it means we make progress. The reality is that on Wednesday mornings everyone has Parliamentary Party meetings. This is going to create tremendous problems. There is no point in starting at 10 a.m. because by 11 a.m. people will be going to their Parliamentary Party meetings. If people want to suggest a 7 a.m. start on Wednesday morning and finish by 11 a.m. I am happy with that.
Maybe we could compromise on what Deputy Taylor is suggesting and say 4 p.m. to 6 a.m.
We are losing half an hour: say 4 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.
I think 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. is reasonable. That facilitates a lot of people.
Chairman
Is that agreed, 4 to 6 p.m.?
Agreed, subject to review.
Notice of Amendments.
Chairman
Yes, 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. every second Wednesday subject to review is agreed. The next thing we must consider is the latest date for receipt of amendments. It is important that we put a limit on that and that the amendments be circulated to all members and to the parties. Could we fix the latest date for receipt of amendments?
Could I make a practical suggestion? I know the Minister is talking about tabling 34 or 36 amendments. I am not going to comment until we see what is in them. I appreciate that he may not be in a position to table them all, going all the way through the Bill. I do not think it would be unreasonable if it was agreed that in so far as people have amendments to table to the first five sections of the Bill they be tabled within the next ten days. In other words, people would see what is in any amendments to be tabled to the first five sections two or three days before the Committee Stage starts, thus giving an opportunity for those amendments to be considered. That might facilitate everyone on the committee in the tabling of amendments.
Chairman
Has anybody else any comments on the tabling of amendments?
I think Deputy Shatter means that we would have three or four days to consider them. Is that right?
Yes.
I shall try and improve on that if I can. I understand that if you have amendments, whatever chance you have of getting them accepted you have no chance at all if they are not out in time, if people have not time to study them and see what is involved.
Let's be practical. I actually think that ten days is too soon, but, however——
I have a big problem there as the more important ones are on the earlier sections.
——ten days from now we are going to be involved in the Easter recess. Could we say up to the end of March for amendments?
We will be here on 23 March.
We are starting the Committee Stage on 23 March, during which time if we cannot take the first one, two or three sections we are not going to do any work at all. It is essential that we have amendments to the first five sections. I think that is perfectly reasonable.
In an effort to be helpful to Deputy Harney, as far as I am concerned — I am sure Deputy Harney has to consider amendments as well as the other party spokespersons here — I will prepare what I can, as early as I can, and have them circulated.
There is no problem about that. I am not sure that is Deputy Harneys' point. The problem might be as regards the preparation of amendments by the Progressive Democrats, the Labour Party and perhaps The Workers' Party. We prefer to have our own amendments.
I am prepared to facilitate Deputy Harney.
The resources we have are limited in this regard.
Nonetheless we need to make progress. The suggestion by Deputy Shatter is a very reasonable one. We are now being given ten days from today to consider the first five sections and have our amendments in.
Could I make a suggestion that we take the first six sections, Part I?
Chairman
Is it agreed that those who have amendments to table to the first six sections of the Bill will have those amendments tabled ten days from now for consideration two weeks from now?
We will try to do that but in an effort to meet the problems referred to by Deputies Harney and Taylor, in the event of amendments coming through other than mine for consideration, I do not think they should be denied the chance of discussing them if they cannot meet the deadline of eight or 10 days.
Chairman
I am asking the representatives of the parties concerned if they will be in a position to have the amendments ready for circulation ten days from now and for consideration two weeks from now. Do you think that this is possible.
I am a realist. Anything is possible if you want to do it but for a small group of people to do this, it will be difficult. The Social Welfare Bill and a number of other things are coming up in the next two weeks.
I would prefer another week or so.
I will try to be ready. I believe I will have some amendments ready. I do not mind if you want to take an extra week. The success of this legislation will depend on how we can organise our input into it.
Could I make a point? I am very anxious to accommodate everyone and be reasonable and I think the Minister is anxious to accommodate people. The Bill was published in December last. The first six sections in Part I are relatively straightforward and simple. By the time we will hold our meeting in two weeks time there will have been three months to consider them. If we are serious about getting on with the work of this committee I do not think it is unreasonable that this committee should start its substantive work in two weeks time. That does mean that there has to be some time limit on this. If people have amendments to table to the first six sections I would suggest that they do have them in within the ten day period. One never knows on Committee Stage how long it will take to go through individual sections. Although we are saying the first six sections, it may well be at Committee Stage, when we first meet that we may get no further than section 2 on the first day, in which case if Deputies are still concerned to table amendments to sections 4, 5 and 6 they would have further time to do so. I feel concerned that Deputies who have expressed anxiety that this committee make progress should now seek to delay the start of the committee because of difficulties in dealing with amendments. The first six sections are relatively straightforward and there will be considerable time to consider what further amendments may need to be tabled to other sections. I would like us to get on with the work this day two weeks. If we cannot agree that amendments be submitted within a particualar time we cannot commence the work of this committee proper.
We should accept the proposal of ten days for the first six sections, subject to this: that if any party or representative comes in and says to us that they have now considered the matter in view of the discussion, or in view of consultation and wish to circulate amendments, I do not think we are in the business of obstructing work. The reason I mention that proviso is that in the Second Stage discussion in the Dáil on the Bill, the primary and major debate centered on section 2 and the whole concept of irretrievable breakdown as a phenomenon. I certainly anticipate that we will be here a good many hours discussing that section and those amendments. That debate, if anything, will help us to crystallise our ideas with regard to the Bill generally and we will all have ample opportunity to consider amendments and to seek permission of the committee to circulate them. But, certainly, if for nothing more than to apply our minds with a bit of discipline and to get a bit of concrete work done, I would ask that we would have agreement on the ten day rule with regard to the first six sections, so that we would get moving at least and get the work of the committee started.
Chairman
Thank you, Deputy. Has anybody else anything to say on that?
With regard to the ten day rule, I have no objection to that. I would go along with what Deputy Shatter has said. In the event of somebody not being ready with an amendment I think the committee would have to be more than flexible in dealing with any fresh amendment that might arise. I think that would meet everybody's wishes.
Chairman
Is the ten days, subject to flexibility in the event of a fresh amendment being made, agreed?
There is always ultimately the Report Stage of the Bill. If people had been teasing out some amendment and it was debated through on Committee Stage, they can always come back to the House on Report Stage and deal with it.
Date of Next Meeting.
Chairman
Very well. The next item on the agenda is date of next meeting. That has been pretty well decided — this day two weeks. Thank you very much for your co-operation and assistance. We look forward to meeting you again in two weeks for consideration of amendments to the first six sections.
The committee adjourned at 4.50 p.m. until 4 p.m. on 23 March 1988.