The Orders are in three schedules—one dealing with Financial Procedure; one dealing with the communication between Dáil Eireann and Seanad Eireann; and the other, proposed amendments to our existing Standing Orders. The Financial Procedure is put first, as it is understood it is urgent that we should have Standing Orders to deal with Financial Procedure.
DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - STANDING ORDERS—SCHEDULES. A.—FINANCIAL PROCEDURE.
Is it proposed to move these by schedules, and then that any matter that might arise on any particular schedule should be discussed under that schedule rather than on each separate Standing Order?
No, I think it would be better to take each individual Standing Order as moved.
My suggestion was that it should not be necessary formally for some Deputy to move each Standing Order and someone else to second, but that on each being put from the Chair such suggestions or alterations that might be made could be dealt with.
Yes.
Order No. 1 on Financial Procedure.
Agreed to.
ORDER No. 2.
I just wish to take advantage of the fact that an Order is proposed to suggest that we ought to have a statement from you, A Chinn Chomhairle, or from the Minister for Finance on what is, after all, a mere question of wording, but yet not unimportant. That is the question of nomenclature. I see the words estimates and also financial resolutions. I believe the word Budget was used here in the Dáil last night. I would like to have the statement, because I am not quite clear on the matter. One knows exactly the kind of nomenclature that is used in other Assemblies in regard to these matters. It is clear that our titles are not exactly coincident with theirs, or rather it seems so to me. I think it would serve a useful purpose if we were to have that point dealt with.
Taking Orders 1 and 2, what is the precise explanation asked for?
The question arises on Order No. 2, which deals with resolutions voting money for public services. Am I to regard that as being such a resolution as was introduced prior to the Criminal Injuries (Amendment) Bill; or is it definitely that a series of resolutions which, budgetted together, are generally to be referred to as the Budget?
That is what is meant by any resolution or series of resolutions here in this case.
Order No. 2 agreed to.
ORDER No. 3.
With reference to Order No. 3, I think some difficulty might arise in this particular year, when we will be presenting our first set of ordinary yearly Estimates. I understand it will not be possible to have them in the hands of Deputies 14 days before the 1st April, so that, if this particular Standing Order were adopted in the form in which it is here it would be necessary to have some agreement that the amount of time might be less in this particular year.
That point was considered very carefully by the Committee.
I was going to explain that, A Chinn Comhairle. It is not 14 days before the 1st April; it is 14 days before they are considered, and not later than the 1st April. They have not to be taken into consideration on the 1st April, but that is the latest date on which the Order provides they should be in the hands of Teachtai.
The point is not that they must be introduced 14 days before the 1st April, but that they must be introduced 14 days before they are considered, which need not be the 1st April.
I thought it would be necessary, for the purpose of providing finances for carrying on the public services, that the Estimates should be considered, and should be introduced, in fact, on the 1st April at least, and that certain resolutions should be passed. I do not know whether or not it will be necessary to have a Bill.
It would.
In actual practice, if this Order were to be adopted the Estimates would have to be in the hands of Deputies on the 17th, or so, of this month.
No. I think the Minister could get a Vote on Account without bringing in all the Estimates before the 1st April.
I am inclined to agree that the Minister's interpretation is the correct one. I have not a copy of the Constitution with me, but, as well as I recollect, his interpretation coincides with my memory on it, that the accounts must be presented to the Dáil, and not merely be in the hands of Deputies, before the 1st April.
Article 36 of the Constitution reads: "Dáil Eireann shall, as soon as possible after the commencement of each financial year, consider the Estimates of receipts and expenditure of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) for that year, and, save in so far as may be provided by specific enactment in each case, the legislation required to give effect to the Financial Resolutions of each year shall be enacted within that year."
That is the following year.
The year beginning on 1st April next.
Could a Vote on Account be given before the Estimates had been before the Dáil?
I think so. That happens constantly, because Estimates are being considered up to August, and a Vote on Account needs to be taken in March.
The question is, after they have been presented?
Yes.
As well as I recollect, there is some Article in the Constitution which states that they must be presented before the end of the financial year.
Articles 36 and 54.
Article 54 says: "The Executive Council shall prepare Estimates of the receipts and expenditure of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) for each financial year, and shall present them to Dáil Eireann before the close of the previous financial year." It is because of that Article that the Standing Order states that they must be presented not later than the 1st April. The purpose of the Standing Order is to fulfil that particular provision in the Constitution.
Then they must be presented to Dáil Eireann before the 1st April, and the Standing Order continues to say "be in the hands of members 14 days prior to their consideration."
No, not at all. The Committee considered these Standing Orders very carefully in connection with the Constitution, and if they were read as carefully as the Committee considered them I think they would be quite clear to everyone.
I have just read them again, and I think the difficulty I anticipated does not arise.
Order No. 3 agreed.
ORDER No. 4.
I should, perhaps, say that Standing Orders 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are concerned with procedure in Committee on the Estimates—called Committee of Supply sometimes. We already had an experience of them in the Dáil, and these Standing Orders are the Orders which the Committee considered would suit our circumstances.
Order No. 4 agreed to.
ORDER No. 5.
This is really a question of a General Order, but it is put here specifically as well.
Order agreed to.
ORDER No. 6.
(1) When it is intended to move more than one reduction in any Vote or Item of a Vote, the question shall first be proposed from the Chair on the largest reduction.
(2) When several motions are offered they shall be taken in the order in which the Items to which they relate appear in the printed Estimates.
Do you agree to No. 6?
I do not know whether the word "offered" in 6 (2), first line, is the best word that could be used. I do not think one uses the expression "to offer a motion."
It is an Americanism which has got in.
I suggest it should be framed to read "when more than one motion has been put down."
"When several motions are proposed" might suit.
That is another difficulty—you can only propose one motion at a time. Several motions have not been proposed. "When it is intended to propose more than one motion" would be more in accordance with accuracy.
If we worded 6 (2) in the same way as 6 (1) and say "when it is intended to move several motions," would that meet the case?
That was in my mind. "When it is intended to move more than one motion they shall be taken in the order in which the items," and so on.
Would this do? "When it is intended to move more than one reduction they shall be taken in the order in which the items to which they relate appear on the printed Estimates."
Yes; I think that would meet the point.
What does "they" refer to?
To more than one motion.
Better substitute "such motions."
It reads now: "When it is proposed to move several reductions they shall be taken in the order in which the items to which they relate appear in the printed Estimates." Would that suffice?
Agreed.
ORDER No. 7.
After a question for omitting or reducing any Item of a Vote has been put from the Chair and voted upon, no motion or debate shall be allowed upon any preceding Item.
That appears redundant. If a motion were put from the Chair the words "and voted upon" do not seem to be necessary. If a motion were put from the Chair surely you would not allow a debate on the preceding item?
The Committee considered the form of the Estimates, and they rather thought that the words "and voted upon" should be left in. If you had items for, say, the National Museum, the National Library and the School of Art, all appearing under one Vote, and somebody moved to reduce the third item, the School of Art, it would be impossible to go back once that had been voted upon. The Chair might allow someone to go back before the vote had been taken if it seemed reasonable.
You will find that provided for elsewhere here.
It might be necessary to move to reduce Item No. 1 after having moved about No. 3. The insertion of the words "voted upon" leaves considerable liberty to Deputies. It leaves to the discretion of the Chair to allow a motion on the previous item. That is what it amounts to exactly.
Yes, I agree with the idea.
Agreed.
ORDER No. 8.
That follows as a matter of course.
Agreed.
ORDER No. 9.
There shall be appointed at the beginning of each financial year a special Committee to be designated "The Committee of Public Accounts" to examine and report to Dáil Eireann upon the accounts showing the appropriation of the sums granted by Dáil Eireann to meet the public expenditure, and to suggest alterations and improvements in the form of the Estimates submitted to Dáil Eireann. The Committee shall consist of nine Teachtai, none of whom shall be a Minister, and five of whom shall constitute a quorum. The Committee shall be otherwise constituted according to the provisions of Standing Order No. 46.
That is largely a question for the Dáil then sitting. I think it is all right.
Standing Order 46 is the Standing Order which prescribes how Committees shall be appointed and so on.
Standing Order 46, as it is, would leave anything in the nature of putting the Committee on a proportional basis to some sort of private arrangement. Because if you take 46 literally it would mean that the Committee would be appointed in the ordinary way by a majority vote. Perhaps the Committee on Standing Orders considered this. It simply says: "The Dáil may appoint special Committees upon Motions appearing on the Agenda. Such motions shall, save as otherwise provided in these Standing Orders, specifically state the terms of reference to the Committee, define the powers devolved upon them, nominate the members to act upon them, state the quorum in each case, and, if necessary, fix a date upon which they shall report back to the Dáil."
Read the next one.
"The Committee shall, as far as possible, be representative of all parties of opinion in the Dáil." That is a very loose thing.
The only amendment you need under Order 9 is that the Committee shall be constituted according to Standing Orders 46 and 47.
The Minister considers the word "representative" not sufficiently explicit.
It may not have been quite sufficiently considered by the Committee. It might be, in a case of an important Committee like this, desirable to make specific provision for appointing it on a proportional basis.
The Committee were really considering it in the light of our own experience. I think every Committee appointed heretofore has been appointed by proportional representation or on a basis that gave an agreed amount of representation to every party in the Dáil. The Committee had that in their mind more than anything else when drawing up that Standing Order. But that experience might be put into words and made binding.
Except we were to put in a clause saying the Committee was to be elected on a single transferable vote, which is perhaps too precise at the moment, I do not think it is necessary.
It is not necessary perhaps for our own particular experience in this Dáil, but it might be necessary for the future.
That is what I was going to point out—that we are laying down rules now for the future, and, while we might not specify the exact form or precise method in which the election of such a Committee should take place, it would be advisable to indicate now that such a Committee ought to be representative of the different sections of the Dáil. We think that would be met by referring to Standing Order 46——
Standing Order 47
47 covers 46. We accept the principle that the Committee ought to represent the whole Dáil. I do not think there is any danger that any other opinion would prevail in any other Dáil, but it is just possible that a majority of the Dáil supporting a Government might possibly, for its own protection, appoint a Committee almost entirely representative of its own party. That is not the intention here. With regard to the Committee that is to examine the accounts, that Committee ought certainly to be drawn from all sections.
I would suggest that you might with advantage add "according to the provisions of Standing Orders 46 and 47." A small point arises on this, but on examination it may not prove to be so trifling. I would suggest that instead of saying "The Committees shall, as far as possible, be representative," which is hardly what is intended, that you might with advantage say "Committees shall be, as far as possible, representative." There is a real difference between the two, and I think there should be a little amendment of the punctuation. As it appears there it might be read that it was not desirable that a Committee should be representative because it was not possible, whereas by the slight change I suggest it would make it clear that it should be representative as far as possible.
With a multiplicity of independent Members I foresee that there might be a complaint that a Committee was not representative of all parties in the Dáil. I think that is fairly obvious. Standing Order 47 would, I think, be better than 46.
Would you take Article 55 of the Constitution and add from it the words "so as to be impartially representative of Dáil Eireann"?
Your suggestion is to insert in this new Order No. 9 words taken from Article 55 of the Constitution?
Simply my suggestion is to adopt the words from Article 55 of the Constitution: "so as to be impartially representative of Dáil Eireann."
Would it meet the view of the Dáil to amend Article 9 in the following manner: "There shall be appointed at the beginning of each financial year a special Committee impartially representative of Dáil Eireann," and so on?
It would do to insert the additional words at the end.
In that event it would be amended in this manner "... The Committee shall be otherwise constituted according to the provisions of Standing Order 46, and so as to be impartially representative of Dáil Eireann."
We would want to have defined the meaning of the word "representative." It may be supposed to mean one from this side and one from that side and one from the other side. In my opinion, that would not be right at all. It would not be representative of the Dáil. One man from each party would be able to explain the views of that party, but he would not be representing them. My idea of representation is that the parties ought to be represented on the Committees according to their power here, and according to the strength of the numbers that sent them here. You can read two meanings into the word "representative." The real interpretation is, that the members of the Committee should be representative of the different parties, according to their strength. Otherwise the Committee would not be representative of the Dáil.
A difficulty arises if one wants to appoint a Committee ahead. The work of this Committee, although it may be appointed at the beginning of the Parliamentary year, will really not commence for a long time afterwards. You might appoint a Committee, and the personnel might not be available in six months' time when the work begins. Therefore it is necessary that the matter should be left a little loose, and that Committees should not be appointed on what I might call a P.R. Election. If they were to be appointed on the P.R. system at the beginning of the year, and there were a chance vacancy later, we would have a difficulty.
I have suggested the words "impartially representative of Dáil Eireann." I think that should cover it, and that the word "impartial" would meet the point Deputy Gorey raises.
As Mr. Johnson says, a new election may change the strength of the parties. If it does, the Committee ought to be changed.
This is a Committee that will be dealing with special matters, and it may happen that a particular party may be entitled to one representative, and may actually have within its ranks two persons eminently suitable to act. If we tie ourselves up too much we might not be able to appoint them.
That might be a representative Committee, but not a suitable one.
Are we to add these words, "So as to be impartially representative of Dáil Eireann"? Is that agreed?
Agreed.
Question put: "That Order 9, as amended, stand part of the Schedule."
Agreed.
ORDERS 10, 11, AND 12.
Orders 10, 11, and 12 refer to Article 35 of the Constitution, and to the duties imposed on the Ceann Comhairle by that Article. The Constitution does not define who shall convene the Committee of Privileges and who shall ask the senior Judge of the Supreme Court to act. The Committee places that duty upon the President.
Is that my duty sir?
There is nobody else. It is a duty which the Ceann Comhairle could not perform, because it is his decision which would be impugned, and somebody else must perform that duty. The Committee think that the President is the only person to do it.
Very good.
Orders 10, 11, and 12 agreed.
That disposes of these financial orders.