The next business is the question of communication between Dáil Eireann and Seanad Eireann.
ORDER No. 1.
DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - B.—STANDING ORDERS REGULATING COMMUNICATION BETWEEN DAIL EIREANN AND SEANAD EIREANN.
1.—MESSAGES.
Who is the Officer of Communications? Is he one person, or may any person be appointed for that purpose according to the decision of the Ceann Comhairle in one case and the Cathaoirleach in the other?
Colonel-Commandant Brennan is the Officer of Communications. This is the second time, I think, that I told you that, if I recollect correctly.
I am asking you, a Chinn Chomhairle, if that is the intention of this Order?
If what is the intention?
If this was the intention—to confirm the proposal put forward, the appointment that had been made by the President, so that we may know exactly if it is one person, or whether the Officer of Communications means that the Ceann Comhairle may appoint any officer for that purpose, or the Cathaoirleach in his case.
He shall be nominated by the President. It is quite plain.
Order No. 1 agreed.
Order No. 2 agreed.
ORDER No. 3.
I should explain that "at the first convenient opportunity" was put in there after some discussion, and it is taken to mean "after some particular item on the Order Paper." The second provision provides, "In case of special urgency any business in progress, on the receipt of such message, may be interrupted to hear the same."
I think the idea of the committee in framing this, in a double form, was, supposing we were debating a motion and the message that arrived did not appear to the Ceann Comhairle to be a very urgent one, that he, in the exercise of his discretion, would allow the debate on a motion to proceed, and when it had concluded he would communicate the message that had been delivered to him from the Seanad. If the message were one of considerable urgency he might then interrupt the speaker who was on his feet and wait until he took his seat, and then communicate the message he received. We would then decide whether we would interrupt the business of the Dáil and deal with it at once. The message would be first delivered to the Ceann Comhairle, he would read it, and form his own opinion whether it appeared sufficiently urgent to stop the business at the moment to communicaite his message, or whether he would wait until the motion before the Dáil was debated.
Order No. 3 agreed.
Order No. 4 is exactly of the same nature.
Order No. 4 agreed.
Order No. 5 concerns Article 38 of the Constitution.
Order No. 5 agreed.
Order No. 6 agreed.
Order No. 7 agreed.
ORDER No. 8.
The Chairman of a Joint Sitting of Seanad Eireann and Dáil Eireann shall be the Ceann Comhairle of Dáil Eireann. The proceedings of every such Joint Sitting shall be governed by the Standing Orders of Dáil Eireann, so far as they may be applicable to such Joint Sitting, and every question of the applicability of any Standing Order, or the adaptation thereof necessary or expedient for its application, shall be determined and ruled upon by the Chairman.
A question arises on that. It may have been considered by the Committee, and I think it was. I suggest that it might still be open to consideration. "The Chairman of the Joint Sitting shall be the Ceann Comhairle of Dáil Eireann." I think it would be an act of grace if it were so arranged that you would have four chairmen—the Ceann Comhairle, or, in his absence, I suggest An Cathaoirleach; and, in his absence the Deputy Chairman of the Dáil; and, in the absence of these three the Leas-Chathaoirleach of the Seanad. I think it would be an act of grace, and would not affect in any way the privileges of the Dáil. It has been put to me that it is a thing we ought to do here, not by anybody in touch with, or a member of the Seanad. We have 128 members, and the other House is composed of 60 members, and when an election takes place the membership of the Dáil will be 153, while the membership of the Seanad remains at 60, pending alteration of the Constitution, if such were ever contemplated. I think the number of possible orators from the Dáil would always be able to ambush any number of orators from the other House, so that this suggestion, I think, would be perfectly safe. It would perhaps be looked upon as a graceful act, and, under all the circumstances, I do not think we stand to lose anything by it.
Apart from the matter of grace, there is a more practical consideration which puts the balance in the other direction. The Constitution, and particularly the Articles of the Constitution moved by the President of the Executive Council, provide that the Seanad should make its own Standing Orders, and they may be very different from the Standing Orders of the Dáil. The practices in the Seanad are very different from the practices in the Dáil. The practices of the Chairman of the Seanad are very different from the practices of the Chairman of the Dáil, and inasmuch as some Standing Orders must be made for a joint sitting, and inasmuch as the place of meeting must necessarily be the place of meeting of the Dáil, the Committee thought the Standing Orders of the Dáil ought to apply.
Certainly.
The President says certainly. The Chairman must be a person who is familiar with the Standing Orders of the Dáil and administer the rules governing the debate. A new chairman unfamiliar with the Standing Orders of the body over which he is to preside may make all kinds of blunders and cause a good deal of commotion in the conduct of debate, if there is not perfect harmony. That is a practical consideration. It seems to me to override the question of grace and courtesy.
It seems to me that the objections put up by the last speaker are very much in the nature of special pleading. The joint sessions will be held for the purpose of debating but not voting upon proposals of any Bill or amendment, so that the Standing Orders which the chairman will be called upon to apply will be such as to be in the competence of any Chairman of the Seanad. These joint sessions are something in the nature of conferences. They are merely for the purpose of discussing things and perhaps arriving at a way out of some impasse that may have occurred; that is, the Seanad may be inclined to hold up a Bill for the period during which it can hold it up, unless it can get some concession. On the other hand, the Dáil may be very desirous that the Bill should be passed through without delay. It may be inclined to make some concession. These joint sittings will be for the purpose of arriving at an amicable way out of the difficulty that has arisen, and I think, in view of the purpose, if they are to serve any purpose, it would be well that the question of the courtesies should be observed. It is not a very important matter, but certainly I think that, as regards any question of a joint sitting, it will not add to the possibility of it being fruitful, and other than a mere waste of time, if the Dáil is to insist on claiming everything in the way not only of privilege, but of dignity.
I think it is certainly desirable to make some provision in the rule, instead of leaving it to chance. I think the suggestion made by the President is as good as any other we are likely to come to. Certainly some decision ought to be come to, because, look at the position we are in to-day. Supposing a joint sitting were going on, and we were deprived of the services of our Ceann Comhairle. There is no official Deputy available, and we would have the unpleasant difficulty of asking the Seanad and ourselves to vote between my colleague, Deputy Nicholls, and myself, or some other member of this body. I think it is desirable that the matter be provided for by rule, and it is very improbable that all the people will not be available for a joint sitting. It also is not a very great concession, because it looks more on paper than it probably will be in practice. A joint sitting will occur so seldom, and will be so important, that I think we can take it for granted that it will not be fixed for a time or date on which our own presiding officer will not be available. Therefore, the Deputy Chairman will only be called upon to serve for the period of rest and refreshment during the joint sitting period, whenever that may be. I think the proposal of the President will smooth the difficulty, and certainly make provision for a case that actually exists to-day if we happened to be holding a joint sitting and there were no available official Deputy in the Dáil.
There is another aspect that has been lost sight of. We cannot say that the Chairman of the joint sitting shall be a member of the Seanad. These are the Standing Orders of the Dáil, and we have been precluded from meeting the Seanad Committee for consideration of such matters as this. Therefore, we would be going outside our authority if we put into the Standing Orders a provision which said that the Chairman of the joint sitting of the Seanad and Dáil should be someone outside the control of the Dáil. We should have to leave it in that case to the decision of the joint sitting. In the absence of the Chairman of the Dáil we should have to leave it to the joint sitting to decide who would be chairman of that sitting. We cannot put into the Standing Orders a provision that an officer of another House shall be at the disposal of the Dáil.
I think that argument could be carried further, and we could say that we, as one body, cannot decide who will be chairman at all at the joint sitting. If there were to be any agreement on the matter, and if we were to take up the point of view that we must have our own way, and have nobody else, the Seanad would be entitled to say the same, and the matter, if it is to be provided for at all, should be provided for, not by Standing Orders, but by legislation.
It is they who demand a joint sitting.
I am looking at the question apart entirely from personal consideration, apart from your own very capable administration of the office you hold as Ceann Comhairle, and apart from taking into consideration how the duties of the office are discharged in the other House. I am looking at it from the point of view of Article 38 of the Constitution, which says that a Bill having been sent up from this House, and not being passed by the other House, a joint sitting shall take place. Now, a joint sitting must obviously take place in a majority of cases on the initiative of the Seanad. It is they who ask for it. It is they who really wish to discuss, and to point out here what their objections to a particular measure may be. Is it not reasonable, and is it not right, that if there should be any misgiving on their part regarding the putting of their case that there should be some provision on their side at some stage of the proceedings for their own Cathaoirleach presiding over the proceedings? I have come across in my time, as well as many others, difficult propositions as a chairman, and they did not terrorise me. Generally, I manage to get through the ordinary business. There might be cases where the Chairman of the Seanad might not act impartially. I do not think it is at all likely in an assembly composed of the two most important bodies of the nation that any individual, no matter how strong-minded he might be, would attempt to abuse his office to such an extent as to prejudice the putting of cases by members of the Dáil. The Standing Orders must be the subject of consideration of any person who is likely to occupy the position of president over a joint sitting of the two Houses. It will be really a debate which does not involve all the intricacies of the ordinary duties of a chairman of the Dáil, and, as such, I would have no fear whatever. I do not believe that the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad would abuse his office, and, even if he were to, I would have no fear for eventualities.
The President would not think of referring these Standing Orders to a Joint Committee?
I think they ought to come from us; it ought to be our place to deal with them. We brought the Constitution into being, we brought the Seanad into being, and we ought to have done all this at the commencement; but one cannot do more than twenty-four hours' work in a day, and it had to be left over.
When the Committee was discussing this matter it was indicated that we had no right to interfere in any way with what the Seanad might or might not do, and that we could not make any rules or regulations governing any member of the Seanad. The obvious thing for us to do was to make rules for our own House. If the Seanad asked us to make rules for their House, we would gladly have done so; but since we cannot bind them down in any way, the only thing we could do was to make our own rules and to stand by them. We tried to get around this in various ways, but were always confronted with the statement that we could not interfere.
I am afraid that is not facing the question at all. If we are entitled to say the Seanad shall obey the Standing Orders of the Dáil when it comes to a joint sitting, we are equally entitled to say the Chairman of the Seanad shall occupy the Chair under certain circumstances. These Orders are not binding on the Seanad unless the members of the Seanad care to accept them, and care, so far as they are concerned, to apply them to their own use. So far as it concerns the Seanad, anything we may do here is simply permissive and in the nature of giving an authority. Nothing that we can do, as far as I can see, can possibly be binding, and certainly we have no authority, apart from the concurrence of the Seanad, to draw up Orders for a joint sitting. We are drawing them up in order to bind ourselves in the case of a joint sitting.
The conclusion one would draw from that argument is that we should not make any order relating to a joint sitting. Is that the intention?
No. The suggestion is that we should put up what we think are reasonable Standing Orders for a joint sitting, on the assumption that the Seanad in their Standing Orders will do the same, and the difficulty that now arises may, perhaps, be got over. We should not use the argument that we have no authority over the members of the Seanad, to prevent ourselves from doing anything that we might think it reasonable to do. What we should have in mind in the present circumstances is what is a reasonable thing to do.
If the Dáil draws up Standing Orders which, as the Minister suggests, are to be binding only on members of the Dáil at a joint sitting, and the Seanad draws up Standing Orders which may not be the same as those of the Dáil, and which will be binding, presumably, only on members of the Seanad, what is to happen at the joint sitting?
You would have a delightful time.
To my mind we have the matter in our hands in this way; if we have no power to make rules for a joint sitting, it is perfectly certain the Seanad has no power to make rules for a joint sitting. Then it comes to this, that the joint sitting must make its own Standing Orders. I think we have a clear vote of two to one in a joint sitting. Therefore, it is clear that if we can agree here upon what we think are proper Standing Orders, we can carry them wherever the matter may be raised.
The matter is a very simple one, or should have been so from the outset; it has only become complex through special causes. Is it not the normal procedure that decisions in matters of this kind should be taken by a committee representative of both Houses? I think the best thing to be done in this matter would be that, to preclude the difficulties to which the Minister for Local Government has referred, which have been indicated by Deputy Shannon, that each House might draw up its own Standing Orders respecting joint sessions, and the members of each House obeying its own Standing Orders would lead to a state of chaos, the best thing would be to refer this to a joint committee of both Houses, of which one half would be appointed now, and then an agreed conclusion could be brought to each House from such Joint Committee.
Do you move that as an amendment?
I will. I move that this whole schedule, (b) 2, be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses.
I second that.
My proposal was that after the words "Dáil Eireann' that you put "In his absence the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad; in the absence of both, Leas-Cheann-Comhairle; and in the absence of the three, the Leas-Chathaoirleach." That would be making provision for four.
I wonder would the suggestion be adopted that the President, with his well-known knowledge of order, should preside at the joint sessions, and solve the whole question? We are now discussing Standing Order No. 8, and the President has moved his amendment.
Is that amendment before the Dáil and is it discussable?
Yes, sir.
We have here distinctly got a very important case that does affect rulings that will be of considerable effect hereafter. We have stated that the Standing Orders for Dáil Eireann shall be the Standing Orders of that joint session, and although it is perfectly true that no vote will be taken, and the matter be confined merely to debate, it is perfectly clear to anyone who has attended the meetings of the Seanad that they have developed on different lines of procedure there to what we have developed, and I think it is extremely likely that the tangent will be developed still more markedly by the continuance of each separate practice. I fail to see how the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad will be able to interpret and apply, or, if necessary, adopt the Standing Orders of Dáil Eireann, employing the procedure and practice of Dáil Eireann under these Standing Orders, if he is wholly unfamiliar with the Orders and with the practices and with the procedure. The Committee, I imagine must have given very careful consideration to this on those lines, and, I think, it is perfectly clear that Standing Orders can only be interpreted by those to whom they are familiar, and those are the persons who have been in the habit of adjudicating upon them. I do not see why such a course should in any way be considered tactless or discourteous to the Seanad. There is no question of tactlessness or discourtesy implied in the matter at all. It is simply a question if the Chairman of the Seanad should in a particular case give a ruling that every member of the Dáil knew to be contrary to the practice of the Dáil, and if a member of the Dáil were to arrive and state that such were the case, with the consent of his colleagues, in spite of the fact that the Chairman's ruling would be final, that the Chairman himself would be put in a very delicate and awkward position.
I think a lot of these objections to the President's amendment are based on the supposition that the Chairman of the Seanad will be a very ignorant individual. It does not require a man of very great intelligence to understand our Standing Orders. I think a man of ordinary intelligence ought to be able to understand them and rule accordingly. Of course, if the Deputy assumes that the Chairman is likely to be an ignorant individual, of course, he is right. I think you seem to strike a note of no confidence in yourselves, and that you are subordinate to the Seanad or somebody else. If you make your orders, and these people come here, they have got to obey them. I do not think there is any ground for discriminating here at all. I think when you passed so many Standing Orders that you can also pass this one. I do not see why you should strain at this at all. There is no reason why you should. I think it would be an act of courtesy more or less. No doubt they are a lesser body in every way—in numbers, influence——
A DEPUTY:
And ability.
And legislative power— and even ability. If it pleases the Deputies on the different sides, I will say that.
The only thing I am puzzled about is as to what Deputy Figgis is at. I have looked through the rules of debate, and I do not find in any way that any person presiding over a meeting of the two Houses sitting together would be in a position to act unfairly towards anyone. I do see here that the Chairman, in the event of a member misconducting himself, is under instructions to have the offending member removed. I do not know if the Deputy has that in mind, that he would object to be removed on the order of the Chairman of the Seanad in the event of his misconducting himself; but there is nothing else in it. It is not a question of resolutions, motions, and so on; it is only a question of relevancy to the subject under discussion, and it has nothing to do with the business; there is no finality about it. It simply exhausts the subject which the Seanad, in its wisdom, thinks has not been sufficiently exhausted in the treatment before the Dáil when the Bill has been under consideration, or that the Dáil has not considered in the correct perspective whatever views the Seanad may have had on that particular Bill. I do not know any way in which the Chairman could, without gravely abusing the Standing Orders, infringe on any member's liberty. I do not know how, if it were likely that he should do such a thing, that with the knowledge that we have of the rules it would not be possible to bring it to his knowledge; and as, however, I expect there are more sensible men in the world than there are fools, like a sensible man the person occupying the Chair at that time can see at once the force of these remarks.
The President has misunderstood, in my opinion, the powers of the Seanad in respect of joint sittings. Their power is not so slight. It is not merely to come and meet and discuss and affirm a single resolution. The Constitution provides that for "a Bill other than a Money Bill a joint sitting of the members of both Houses may, on a resolution passed by Seanad Eireann, be convened for the purpose of debating, but not of voting upon, the proposals of the Bill or any amendment of the same." Now, they may begin at Clause 1 and go right through. That joint sitting might continue for twenty-one days unless the Standing Orders of the Dáil are made operative. The Standing Orders of the Dáil make provision for meeting members who are overstepping the bounds of order, for motions and amendments, and if the Chairman is not familiar with those Standing Orders, members who are inclined to be obstructive or to strain the Standing Orders to the utmost can make havoc with the business. If it were simply a joint meeting to discuss a formal resolution it would be an entirely different matter; but here we have the phrase, "for the purpose of debating the proposals of the Bill or any amendment of the same." They may make it into a very big proposition and a long-continued one. It all depends upon the Chairman if the Seanad decide that they are not going to agree with the Dáil, that they are going to challenge a vote on every amendment that we wish to bring forward. That is the motion that the President moved, and I am sure he must have had in mind the possibility that any question on any Bill might be brought forward, unless it is a Money Bill.
Well, if I have learned one lesson in my life, it is that debates similar to those on the Treaty will never take place again in this country. I think that they exhausted all the oratory in the country, and that nobody wants to see a repetition of them. So much so, I think, that one man wrote in one of the Dublin papers that he went to confession and confessed that he had stolen a goat and the penance he got was to read the Dáil speeches on the Treaty debate seven times. That, I think, is our safeguard with regard to any prolongation of debate over these matters. The Seanad, as I have seen it, is a body which does not want prolonged debates. It does its business rather quickly, I think, and it did so any time I was there, and this Dáil is of much the same character. I have no fear of a prolongation of a debate of that sort, particularly in view of the experiences we have had.
I think it must be quite clear to the Dáil that there is no substance at all in the points put forward by Deputy Johnson. The object of a joint session would be to allow to members of the Seanad an opportunity of convincing members of the Dáil and converting them to their point of view on some particular business. They will not do that by making long and unnecessary speeches. As to having the thing continued from day to day, that is utterly impossible. The Dáil will, in response to a request from the Seanad, arrange for a joint sitting. It will set apart a particular day, say a Tuesday, for the joint sitting, and there will be no meeting of the Dáil on that day. The meetings of the Dáil will continue on the Wednesday, and the Seanad cannot possibly occupy this House without the consent of the Dáil. The joint session cannot continue when the Dáil meets, so that the whole thing is pure nonsense.
Amendment put and carried.
Question put: "That Order No. 8, as amended, stand part of the Schedule."
Agreed.
The debate having been concluded upon this very grave subject, I might now be allowed to say that, though my name is signed to this Report, and though I presided at all the meetings, I think, of the Committee, and as I am very much concerned myself in this particular Order, I want to make it clear that the form in which it is presented to the Dáil is not a form suggested by me. It has been suggested to me, as we have been so jocose, that we might have an excellent debate now as to who should be clerk to the joint sittings of the Dáil and the Seanad. That, however, I am afraid, will be out of order.
I suggest it should be discussed eventually by a joint Committee of both Houses.
Why not make it a new office?
Orders Nos. 9 and 10 were agreed to.
ORDER No. 11.
This procedure has already been adopted by the Seanad dealing with Bills coming from Dáil Eireann. They are assumed to have passed the first stage.
On the first stage of a Bill nobody knows what is in it. Our first stage is for leave to introduce, and the Deputy responsible states generally what its provisions are, and then, when leave is given to introduce the Bill, it is printed. In the case of a Bill that comes down to us from the Seanad, it will obviously be in print already, and it was for that reason that the Committee introduced this new Standing Order, in order to avoid going through the formality of asking leave to introduce and print a Bill which was already printed.
I presume it is understood that a Bill shall be circulated to members of the Dáil.
That is in the Standing Orders.
Yes; the Standing Orders already provide that when a Bill passes its first stage it shall be circulated forthwith, so that when Bills come down from the Seanad they must be circulated under the Standing Orders.
Order No. 11 agreed to.
ORDER No. 12.
This Order provides that amendments or recommendations coming from the Seanad in the case of Bills shall be considered by the Dáil in Committee without motion made under the Standing Orders. That is the procedure we have already adopted in the case of the few Bills.
Order No. 12 agreed to.