Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 24 Jul 1923

Vol. 4 No. 16

THE DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - PROPOSED NEW STANDING ORDERS.

Group A.—Number 1.—When all the returns to writs issued for a General Election to Dáil Eireann shall have come into the hands of the Clerk of the Dáil he shall issue notices to all Teachtai returned, notifying them that their attendance is required on a day (or days) to be named by him, which shall be prior to that mentioned in the Proclamation for the summoning of the Dáil, for the purpose of complying with the provisions of Article 17 of the Constitution. The Clerk shall make all necessary arrangements for the purpose of this Order.

Agreed.

Number 2.—On the first day of the meeting of the Dáil subsequent to a General Election, the proceedings shall be opened by the Clerk at the Table reading the Proclamation convening the Dáil.

Mr. FITZGIBBON

No. 2 says that the proceedings are to be opened by the Clerk at the Table reading the Proclamation convening the Dáil. I do not think there is any question about that.

Agreed.

Number 3.—The Clerk shall then make a Report stating the manner in which he has issued the writs for such Election. This Report shall enumerate the Returning Officers to whom, and the Constituencies in respect of which, such writs were issued, and it shall also state the date or dates of issue. He shall also announce the names of all Teachtai returned to serve in the Dáil, giving the Constituencies in each case.

Mr. FITZGIBBON

No. 3 states that the Clerk shall announce the names of all Teachtai returned and their constituencies. That is a mere formality.

Agreed.

Number 4—A copy of the writ of election of each Teachta and of the return endorsed thereon shall be laid upon the Table by the Clerk.

Mr. FITZGIBBON

No. 4, a copy of the writ of election is to be laid on the Table by the Clerk.

Agreed.

Number 5—Dáil Eireann shall thereupon proceed to the election of a Ceann Comhairle, and a motion may be made to that effect by any Teachta, who has taken his seat according to law. The Clerk shall receive all such motions, put the necessary questions, and declare the results. The Ceann Comhairle shall, immediately upon his election, take the chair.

Mr. FITZGIBBON

No. 5 is altered a little, and it is important. The first business of a new Dáil shall be the election of a Ceann Comhairle, and any Deputy may move that motion when he has taken his seat in the proper way. The Clerk will be at the Table to receive motions, put the question and declare the result.

Agreed.

Number 6—An election shall be held for a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and motions may be made to this effect after due notice, as prescribed by these Standing Orders.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

No. 6 makes a certain difference, compared with the old Report.

Mr. FITZGIBBON

Yes, it alters the old one. No. 6 provides that there shall be an election for a Leas-Cheann Comhairle and that motions may be made to that effect after due notice, as prescribed by the Standing Orders. The first business of the first meeting will be to elect the Ceann Comhairle. We will be able to proceed then. Notice of motions will be given for the election of a Leas-Cheann Comhairle and that will proceed in the ordinary way.

Mr. GOREY

Are we to understand that the Dáil will adjourn immediately after the election of a Ceann Comhairle and that no other business is to take place?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Oh, no, not necessarily.

Mr. GOREY

Why then the question of the adjournment of the appointment of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

There is no question of adjournment. The point is that a Ceann Comhairle must be elected before any business can be proceeded with. It is provided that the Ceann Comhairle takes the Chair. Other business may then be transacted and the election of a Leas-Cheann Comhairle must be provided for. What is provided for here is that he must be elected after motion made on notice. Otherwise some provision must be made for the election of a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and if No. 6 were left out it might be assumed that he would be elected immediately.

Mr. FITZGIBBON

I think I can explain to the Deputy. The reason that an alteration was made in dealing with the election of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is this. We all know that when we come here for the first day of meeting Ceann Comhairle has to be elected. He will be in the Chair and then people will be able to consider and turn over in their own minds who would be the best available Deputy as Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and notice of motion can be put down to elect a Deputy. It may be that more parties than one would like to nominate a Deputy and therefore due notice would have to be given, which will be the ordinary two days' notice provided for by the rules, I suppose. That will go out and if there is a contested appointment an election will be held at a later date, but it was not intended the moment the Dáil had elected the Ceann Comhairle that it should then aljourn and do nothing else. It would go on with whatever business it has been summoned to deal with, after appointing the Ceann Comhairle.

Mr. BLYTHE

A difficulty might arise which I do not think is provided for if this rule goes through. It might happen that a certain person whom the Dáil would wish to be Ceann Comhairle might not be present, might be ill on that day. Of course, somebody might be appointed temporarily to take his place. If the Leas-Cheann Comhairle cannot be elected on that day a certain difficulty might arise. Of course, some body could be appointed temporarily but there is no provision actually in the Standing Orders for a temporary appointment, and some kind of a way out will have to be found. On the other hand if we did not require notice for the election of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle it would certainly be got over. It would not be so likely that both would be unable to be present to carry on the procedure.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

There is a Standing Order which says that in the case of the absence of the Ceann Comhairle and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle the Dáil may appoint a Deputy to act as Ceann Comhairle for the time being.

Mr. FITZGIBBON

There is a motion later on to delete that.

Mr. GOREY

My reason for raising the point was that when I saw this Clause here I thought it might apply to all the other officers of the Executive Council who could not be elected. It seems rather peculiar that you can elect the Executive Council and the Ceann Comhairle, but not the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. It seems inconsistent. I am not making any comments, but I wanted an explanation.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I think the difficulty raised by Deputy Gorey could be got over. I do not think there is anything in the Standing Orders as they stand that would prevent us proceeding with the business, but the difficulty of the Minister for Local Government is more real.

Mr. BLYTHE

It is, of course, a contingency that might not arise, but, on the other hand, it might, and on the first day before the Dáil is, as it were, properly constituted, and before it got to work is the time that it would be most awkward to be held up by any rigidity in the Standing Orders.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

The difficulty put forward by the Minister is a practical one, and it is tied up with a larger one still, as I conceive it. We do have cases now where we have An Ceann Comhairle and Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and neither one nor the other happens to be in the chair at the particular time, still we go on with the business, and they are still not acting as Chairman. Some other Deputy is taking the place of An Ceann Comhairle. If that is a practicable procedure now, it could still be a practicable procedure, but the larger difficulty I am indicating now is—I believe it is the case in other places by the precedents of which we need not necessarily be tied— that either the Speaker, as he would be called, or An Ceann Comhairle, as we entitle him, or Leas-Cheann Comhairle, either one or the other, must be in the Chair, and a third party can only take the presidency while in Committee.

Mr. JOHNSON

The point made by the Minister for Local Government seems to depend entirely on the last sentence of Order 5, that the Ceann Comhairle shall immediately on election take the Chair. If that is deleted, then the point does not arise, and its inclusion is not at all necessary. If a Deputy were elected, and the Dáil agreed that that Deputy, who may not be present, should be the Ceann Comhairle, there would be nothing to preclude his election, provided that the last sentence were deleted. If he were present, on that Standing Order, it would be the most obvious thing that he should take the Chair immediately. If not present, he would still be elected to be the Ceann Comhairle, and the Dáil for the time being, within the Standing Orders, could appoint a Chairman or Deputy-Chairman.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I think that would solve the difficulty.

Mr. BLYTHE

I take it the business would be that the Clerk would still remain at the Table, and take a motion for the appointment for a Deputy to the Chair temporarily.

Mr. FITZGIBBON

This will have to be altered to provide in the event of the Ceann Comhairle not being present to take the Chair, that the Clerk in accordance with the Rule as it already stands should put the motion for the election of Leas Ceann Comhairle.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I understand that Deputy Johnson's suggestion to delete the last sentence from Order 5 would meet the case.

Mr. FITZGIBBON

No, you would then have to omit the whole of Order 6.

Mr. JOHNSON

I think that Order 6 is desirable, because it is not a temporary Chairman, it is a permanent office or at least an office for the Session. What is required is a Standing Order which would allow of the election of a Chairman for that Session or that Sitting, and even without that Standing Order it seems to be so obvious a thing that the Dáil would elect a Chairman of the proceedings for its Sitting in the absence of its official Ceann Comhairle or Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Supposing we take Order 5 as it stands, and add at the end—"in the case of the absence of the Ceann Comhairle the Dáil may, on motion made without notice, appoint a Deputy to act as Ceann Comhairle for the time being, and the Clerk shall receive all such motions, and put the necessary questions, and declare the results." That is to leave Order 5 as it is without deleting the last sentence, and in that case to insert the addition I have read.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

In that case, seeing you have a positive assertion in the last sentence, as it reads here, followed by another positive assertion, that particular addition should be preceded by the word "provided."

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Yes, "provided that in the case, &c."

Mr. JOHNSON

I propose the amendment suggested by An Ceann Comhairle.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I second.

Order, as amended, agreed.

Group B.—Motion to Proceed to the Next Business.

1. At any stage of a debate, other than a debate on any Stage of a Bill, a Teachta may rise and claim to move: "That the Dáil proceed to the next business," and this motion shall take precedence of all amendments to the original question: Provided that this motion be not made more than once during the discussion on any question.

2. This motion cannot be made where the original question is one relating to the ordering of public business, or the meeting of the Dáil, or in Committee.

3. If the Dáil resolves this motion in the affirmative the original question is thereby disposed of, and the Dáil shall proceed to the next business on the Order Paper.

Mr. FITZGIBBON

This is a group of three Standing Orders dealing with what is usually known as "the previous question." The object of this is to enable the Dáil when a discussion is going on, and the view of the majority of the whole Dáil is that it would be better not at the moment to come to a definite decision on it one way or the other, to shelve the matter for the time being. It is usually described as moving the previous question. The form in which we propose it should be dealt with here is if "At any stage of a debate, other than a debate on any Stage of a Bill, a Teachta may rise and claim to move: `that the Dáil proceed to the next business,' and this motion shall take precedence of all amendments to the original question: Provided that this motion be not made more than once during the discussion on any Question." The object of that is to prevent its being used for mere obstruction. The effect of that would be, that if in the Dáil there are two sides which are extreme one way or the other who want to get a decision on a point, and the moderate majority think it should be left alone for the present, it would enable them to say: "we do not want this matter decided here and now, let it wait for a better opportunity," and they would be able then to go on with the next business on the paper.

The Second Order provides that this motion cannot be made where the original motion is one relating to the ordering of public business, or the meeting of the Dáil or in Committee. The effect of that would be to interfere with the carrying on of public work or with the meeting of the Dáil. The reason that it cannot be made in Committee is that if you go on to the next business while in Committee on the Bill, all that would be wiped out altogether for the time being. In the consideration of the Committee on Procedure, it would be improper and might be used for the purposes of mere obstruction. The third order is that if the Dáil resolves this motion in the affirmative and the original question is thereby disposed of, the Dáil shall proceed to the next business on the Order Paper. I beg to move those three; they are so connected that they form one.

Orders agreed to.

GROUP C.—1. It shall be an instruction to all Committees to which Bills may be committed, that they have power to make such amendments therein as they shall think fit, provided such amendments be revelant to the subject matter of the Bill; but that, if any such amendments shall not be within the title of the Bill, they amend the title accordingly, and report the same specially to the Dáil.

Mr. FITZGIBBON

The next is merely a formal Standing Order dealing with the amendment of Title of Bills. When a Bill is in Committee at present no amendment can be brought in which goes beyond the Title of the Bill. This is intended to give Committees a little more freedom in dealing with matters of that kind. Theoretically when we are in Committee we are naturally a Committee considering a Bill referred to us; therefore the Dáil is not supposed to know what a Committee does until the Committee makes it report. If a Committee is instructed by the Dáil to deal with a particular Bill, and it introduces an amendment in that particular Bill which goes beyond the provisions of the Bill as it came to them from the Dáil, they shall report the fact to the Dáil and the Title of the Bill shall be amended so that there will be a record of what the Committee has done.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I do not want to be pernickity inany criticism, but I feel there is a certain difficulty resident in this; perhaps I had better call it a contradiction rather than a difficulty. It says that in Committee the amendments must be relevant to the subject matter of the Bill. If the amendments are not relevant, obviously they cannot be considered under this Standing Order. If such amendments, having been adopted, go outside the title of the Bill, the Title of the Bill has to be revised so as to cover them, by which it appears that the subject matter of the whole Bill and the title are not coincident in terms. I had always conceived they would be. If an amendment is outside the subject matter of the Bill would it still remain within the title of the Bill?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I think the point is that an amendment might be relevant to the subject matter and yet not be included in the Title.

Professor MAGENNIS

Could not that be met by altering the Preamble and leaving the title as it stood?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

This is a problem which arose several times recently and this is the British Standing Order on the matter. I think our own experience proves it is a very practical one. It gives the Chairman of Committees more liberty than he would have if all amendments offered would have to be within the Title of the Bill. It would be quite possible that a Committee when considering the Bill would find that a certain amendment might meet with the approval of the majority, or even with the general approval, and that the amendment would be a little outside the Title but that it would be relevant to the subject matter of the Bill; that is to say to the Bill considered as a whole. In that case under this Order the Chairman could accept the amendment, could put it to the Committee, and if the amendment were passed the Title could be altered accordingly and then a special report made. In view of our experiences of this kind of thing, and we had two or three cases recently, the Committee on procedure thought that this Order would be suitable and it is an Order which has been found practicable in another place and the wording is the same.

Mr. FITZGIBBON

We had a case this very day in Section 27 of the Dáil Courts Winding Up Order. If that clause had been altered by way of amendment and while the Bill was in Committee I should have thought you would have no hesitation whatever in deciding the amendment was out of order because it went beyond the Title of the Bill. This very Standing Order which we now propose would enable the Chairman of that Committee to improve the Title of the Bill by adding "and for the purpose of winding up the Courts aforesaid and for extending the time for taking proceedings herein." It is equally clear such an amendment would be relevant to the subject matter although it might be outside the Title. To-day's instance seems to be the most perfect type of case that would be covered by our proposed Standing Order.

Order agreed to.

GROUP D.—1. In the discussion of supplementary Estimates the debate shall be confined to the items constituting the same, and no discussion may be raised on the original Estimate, save in so far as it may be necessary to explain or illustrate the particular Items under discussion.

Mr. FITZGIBBON

The object of the financial orders is that in a discussion on supplementary estimates the debate should be confined to items in that Estimate.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

This Standing Order also arises out of our experience.

Order agreed to.

2. It shall be in order, before entering on the discussion of the Items in a Vote, to move that the Estimate in question be referred back to the Minister in charge of the Department for reconsideration, with or without a specific recommendation.

Mr. FITZGIBBON

The second financial order enables the Dáil in Committee on Estimates, if it considers the whole estimate is unsatisfactory, to send it back to the Ministry which prepared it in order that they may bring it forward again, having considered any recommendation that the Dáil thinks fit to attach. It enables the Dáil to try and get the Ministry to revise the Estimate by reducing it or increasing it or making provision for something not already in it.

Professor THRIFT

I would like to ask whether the words "before entering on the discussion of the items " are exclusive and imply that a motion to refer the estimate back cannot be made after beginning the discussion of the items. Because it occurs to me that often it would only be during the discussion of the items that there would be a wish to refer the matter back. It might be only when the Dáil came to consider an item that what was involved in it would be discovered, and that then only the possibility of its being desirable to refer the Vote back would arise. If the inclusion of these words would preclude this, I think a change should be made.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The difficulty is that if you are in Committee on a particular Vote you might have an amendment moved to reduce sub-head (a). There would be a discussion and the amendment put and carried or defeated. Another amendment to sub-head (b) or (c) or (d) would be put and then it would be considered that it would not be proper to have a motion to refer back the whole Vote in consideration of the fact that the Committee would have already spent time in discussing particular items and actually perhaps have taken divisions. It was therefore considered that before we went into a discussion on the items on the Vote we would have a general discussion and that a Deputy who desired to have the whole thing referred back should have his mind made up in the beginning before the Committee went into discussion on items.

Professor THRIFT

You have not quite answered my point. My notion was this:—We might be quite prepared to accept the Estimate as a whole at first with the information before us, but our views might alter altogether during the discussion of the items, and it might be desirable to have the whole matter re-considered by the Minister responsible for the Vote. I do not want to press the matter, if the deliberate opinion of the Committee is against me, but I think a case might easily arise when the Dáil would wish these words were not in the Standing Orders.

Mr. JOHNSON

I think the point should be made clear that, in practice, in the British Parliament the method has been, if you want to refer back for consideration an estimate, to vote for a reduction of the salary of the Minister, or if you want to increase the Estimate, you cannot do so simply because you are precluded from adding to the expenses except by a motion of the Minister. The procedure of trying to get reconsideration of Departmental policy by moving to reduce the salary of the Minister is not thought by the Committee on Procedure to be the proper way of doing it.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Constitution precludes it.

Mr. JOHNSON

You might have a most perfect Minister—as perfect as the Minister for Local Government—and you might not want to dispense with him or reduce his salary, but you may want him to change his policy, especially when you are dealing with Ministers who are appointed by the Dáil, responsible directly to the Dáil. The Dáil may say that the policy of the Department should be revised, and may, by virtue of their more perfect control of that Minister, influence the Minister for Finance. The procedure is, I think, much better than the other, and I do not think the point that the Deputy raises is a very valid one, because Deputies are supposed to have read through the items before they deal with the main question. It may be quite true that in the course of a discussion respecting an item in a Vote information might be divulged, but it is still competent to move for a reduction of that item or the amendment of that item may be taken without asking for a reconsideration of the whole Vote. I think the proposed Order as it stands covers the whole ground of those questions raised by Deputy Thrift.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

There is one other matter that occurred to me and I waited to hear other Deputies before raising it. It seemed to me that it would be possible for an Ceann Comhairle to rule on this Order that a general discussion on the whole Vote may not arise except upon such a motion to refer back the Vote, and that it has been our procedure in the past to permit such a discussion before entering into the details of the items. The procedure that way has been very useful and valuable, and we ought to preserve it. It would appear from these words: "It shall be in order, before entering on the discussion of the Items in a Vote, to move that the Item in question be referred back to the Minister in charge of the Department for reconsideration, with or without a specific recommendation," that my interpretation is giving the only way in which the whole thing could arise before entering upon the items.

Mr. FITZGIBBON

I think that is covered by the original Standing Orders. When this new Standing Order is read in with the existing Standing Orders it will appear quite clear what is the meaning of the discussion which refers to the Second Stage of the deliberations in Committee.

Mr. BLYTHE

I do not know really whether there is any necessity for this Standing Order at all. The passage of such a motion would be in the case of a member of the Executive Council. The dismissal of the Executive Council, or a member of it, if such a motion were passed, would ensue. In the case of an outside Minister, I do not know whether it would mean the dismissal of the outside Minister or the dismissal of the Executive Council, or both. That would be the only effect of passing such a motion. The Executive Council could not remain in office if a Vote on one of those Estimates were referred back. Whether there is any necessity for this rule is doubtful, because, if the Dáil desired to have a change of Executive Council, that change could be produced by refusing or reducing the Vote. By moving a motion it is possible, say, to move to have the total Vote reduced, and you get absolutely the same result as you would get from this, and you will get it probably in a clearer way. I do not see the necessity for it at all.

Mr. FITZGIBBON

I think the last Member of the Executive Council who should object to this Order would be the Minister for Local Government. He has on many occasions changed his mind and acceded to applications from various Deputies. Cannot you conceive the possibility of a suggestion submitted by a Member of the Executive Council being subjected to criticism here so much that the very parent of it would have thought it not unworthy of reconsideration? That would not put the Dáil to the very objectionable course of defeating a Minister upon his own Estimate. The object in this Order is to enable the Executive Council to yield gracefully, and without doing any harm to themselves or the country, or the Government, to the criticisms which have fallen—well-founded criticisms—and it would be open to the Minister or Government to move that the Estimates be referred back. I conceive that, in the future, we would have amendments of that description accepted by the Executive and reconsidered, instead of saying "This is what we choose, and if you do not accept that, put us out."

Mr. BLYTHE

Deputy FitzGibbon's statement, of course, makes this rule one to be discussed more carefully than we would have been inclined to discuss it. It seems to me to give grounds for actually refusing to pass it without further consideration, because it is very doubtful whether anything should be done that would weaken the responsibility of an Executive Council in regard to matters of finance. It is certainly not contemplated in the Constitution that matters of finance shall be in the same position and shall be dealt with in the same way in the Dáil as ordinary matters of legislation. There is nothing in the ordinary way of legislation to prevent any Deputy under the Standing Orders bringing in any sort of measure. There is an express provision to prevent a Private Deputy of the Dáil bringing in a motion for the expenditure of money. There is special responsibility and special care and stewardship cast upon the Executive Council, both by the Standing Orders and the Constitution. Now, anything that would weaken that responsibility and make it possible for a play of forces in the Dáil, on the principle of mutual concessions and mutual support, to play with the finances of the country without responsibility, seems to me to be very undesirable. While I had really no feeling against the Order before Deputy FitzGibbon spoke I feel now that it is one that certainly ought not to be adopted without very serious consideration indeed.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I think I am interpretating the feelings of the Committee correctly when I say that what the Committee wanted was to find some alternative for the method in England of moving that the Minister's salary be reduced. Under the Constitution here you cannot move that a Minister's salary be reduced, and I think if the Minister for Local Government would suggest an alternative which would be in accordance with the Constitution and which would enable the Committee on Finance to discuss the general policy of a Department on some definite motion or amendment, that it would meet the views of all parties. It was exactly because it was not possible to follow the procedure of moving to reduce the salary of a Minister that the Committee cast round for some such form as this. If any form were suggested which would accomplish the end of enabling Deputies in Committee to challenge by a motion the whole policy of a Department I think that would solve the difficulty. That is all that was in it at the Committee.

Mr. BLYTHE

Two totally different interpretations of this Order have been put before us. It seems to me that if you leave out anything about recommendation there is less possibility of it being used in such a way as to defeat the provisions of the Constitution or to get round them.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

What are the two interpretations?

Mr. BLYTHE

There is the interpretation that it is for the purpose really of having finance dealt with by the Dáil in precisely the same way, or very nearly the same way, as ordinary legislation, and there is the other interpretation, that it is simply to take the place of a motion to reduce a Minister's salary.

Mr. JOHNSON

It seems to me, if this Order were passed we should be in this position. If there were a definite opposition challenge to the Ministry the motion would be to reduce the estimate. That would be the means of challenging the Ministry, of deciding that the Ministry had not the confidence of the Dáil in that particular respect. But if there was no desire to challenge the Ministry in that emphatic sense, but only to criticise and suggest changes—such changes being possibly accepted, possibly resisted; if resisted the Ministry could take it as a vote of no confidence—surely it is possible that the Ministry may be effected by the sense of the Dáil in regard to the financial provisions for the succeeding year, that a larger sum might be desirable. They might include that in those estimates rather than bring forward a supplementary estimate. If they were influenced by the arguments of the Dáil to reconsider the Vote it would preclude any possibility of feeling that it is a Vote of no confidence and enable them, as Deputy FitzGibbon says, to accept a criticism of the Dáil in regard to a particular Department, or one section of a particular Department's work. The proposition here "with or without a specific recommendation," does allow Deputies who want to raise a point to raise it in respect of a specific part of the work of a Department. I think that is desirable because it helps to confine the debate to that part of the Department's work. If there is no specific recommendation in the motion for referring back, then the whole of the Department's work may be discussed under the Vote. There are two propositions: to discuss the whole of the Department's work without a motion to reduce and to discuss a specific portion of the Department's work, thereby confining the discussion to that portion. I think that the method adopted here does rather favour the position that the Minister for Local Government has taken up in favour of fixing the Ministerial responsibility, because if there was a desire to vote no confidence in the financial policy of a Department the motion would be to reduce the estimate. This is of a different character and, therefore, simply enables the Dáil to express itself in a general way without any attempt to condemn the Department's work.

Mr. FITZGIBBON

We have had instances of almost every one of these things within the last few days, particularly because we are in a different position here on account of the peculiar sanctity attached to the Executive Council. They of course, stand or fall as a whole, but then there are the outside Ministers who have more or less control of their own Departments. When we were dealing with the Ministry of Fisheries, which I think is one of the Departments that is not attached to the Executive, Deputy McBride on the estimates raised a question as to the inadequate provision of protection for the fishermen on the Western Coast. If we had this Standing Order it would be open to refer back the estimate with the recommendation to the Minister that he should endeavour to provide protection for the fisheries on the Western Coast. He would then go back and would return here with the estimate in two or three days and he would say one thing or the other: either that he had got provision in his new estimate or that the Minister for Finance refused to provide the necessary money. Then you would have the issue knit at once as to whether there would be a vote of no confidence in the Government or not, because you would then get to a question of finance, and the Government would say "this is money we cannot produce." On that estimate you would get a decision as to whether the policy of the Executive was or was not to prevail. They would have the full support of all members of the Dáil who desired to maintain the Government as a whole in office and the question of the recommendation would be withdrawn. If it was intended to go on and defeat the Ministry and put them out as a whole, you could come to an issue on that, and they would be put out. It does seem to me that while we have a division of Ministries into two classes—those who are on the Executive Council with collective responsibility and those not on the Executive Council but who are responsible for their own Departments—it is desirable that some form of recommendation should be available in the case of those Ministers who do not stand or fall with the Executive, and who run their own Departments, and that the will of the Dáil should be capable of being manifested in some such form as this Standing Order suggests.

Mr. BLYTHE

It is really clear to me that this matter is deserving of a good deal more consideration than it has got. and Deputy FitzGibbon has convinced me that the Order should not be adopted. If it works out in any way such as he suggests, it would give people, other than Ministers, the means of proposing a Money Vote. It would work out virtually in that way. Take the case of the Minister for Fisheries. His estimate is sent back with a recommendation that more money be provided for some particular object. That is an indirect way of forcing the hands of the Executive Council. It is all very well for the Executive Council to say that money can be or cannot be afforded for a certain thing before the Dáil has expressed its opinion, but when the Dáil has expressed its opinion that such money should be found, the position of the Executive Council is very greatly prejudiced in saying that it cannot be found. I think that would be a most undesirable procedure. Either, it would mean that the Executive Council would have to make it a case of confidence in the first instance and resist any reference back of such an estimate with a recommendation, or else they would have simply to resign the immediate and direct responsibility they have over finance and that it was felt necessary when framing the Constitution to give them over finance. I do not know if something might not be drafted to meet what some people feel to be necessary to take the place of a motion to reduce a Minister's salary. I think it ought to be further considered.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

We were promised in the Committee the Government view on this point.

Mr. FITZGIBBON

If it would be any assistance to delete the last words "with or without a specific recommendation" as far as I know the mind of the Committee they are quite prepared to accept that. Their main object was to get some means to discuss estimates, without being deprived of the means of reducing a Minister's salary.

Mr. JOHNSON

I agree that if there is any strong opposition to the last sentence, and if it is felt that it raises Constitutional questions, we might delete it for the time being and see what a year might do. In my opinion the Minister for Local Government is a year too late. He should have raised that question when we were dealing with External Ministers. His opposition to paragraph 2 is really opposition to the idea of the External Ministers. It is opposition to the idea of the Dáil having control of the Ministers. It is practically an assertion that the whole of the Ministry, whether Executive or not, must stand or fall together. It is a denial of the Clause in the Constitution which appoints External Ministers. It is, Deputy Figgis will be proud to know, a really of the Minister for Local Government to his banner.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Deputy Johnson means that Deputy Figgis's prophecies have proved correct?

Mr. JOHNSON

I did not mean that at all. I mean that the proposition in this Order is consistent with the Constitution and is a means of carrying out the Constitution within the Dáil. The opposition to it from the Minister for Local Government is opposition to this Clause in the Constitution. I do not think the last few words will make any very material difference. I think the Section is better with them but I have no objection to delete them.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Minister for Local Government might be eased by the last Order in our Standing Orders:—"These Standing Orders may be amended on the motion of any Teachtai." If we adopt Number 2 in its present form or in an amended form the Minister can propose an amendment subsequently after he has had time to consider the wording.

The PRESIDENT

I think there must be, at least, some opportunity for the Dáil to express its views on an estimate and I think that is more or less reasonable. A point I would like to understand about this matter is: is it a recommendation for further information, or is it to be looked upon as a vote of want of confidence? I take it that it is not a vote of want of confidence.

Mr. FITZGIBBON

The Committee never dreant of that.

Mr. JOHNSON

To avoid it.

The PRESIDENT

I take it that we will have to have something in the nature of a motion of want of confidence, and it might be that some of these Standing Orders might be so interpreted. I see no objection to it, if it be simply to put back an estimate for further information or for further consideration. If the Dáil does not approve of the policy of a Minister I think it is reasonable, and that there is no great danger in it. What I do see dangerous is this: if the Minister for Fisheries put up an estimate for x£ and it came before the Dáil, and that the Dáil was of opinion that a sum of x cubed pounds should be spent, and that in the particular year in which the Dáil made that recommendation the cost of that service would disturb the balance between receipts and expenditure, then it would be a bad recommendation. It would unbalance the receipts and expenditure. To that extent, I think there would be weakness. I am half inclined to think that the Minister's interpretation of it was that it would be a vote of want of confidence rather than what the Committee's intention was, to get more information or to influence to some extent the Minister's policy. Personally I prefer a little flexibility with regard to recommendations, so that when Minister's recommendations come forward they would not be the last word and might be rejected if the Dáil did not agree with them. As long as it is clear that a motion should come forward for a vote of want of confidence, and that this does not mean that, I see no objection.

Mr. FITZGIBBON

Our whole object was to avoid the use of words which could be considered as meaning a want of confidence. If you want a vote of want of confidence you must do it in a specific way. If the word "recommendation" is wrong, and if any other word can be suggested that is less strong I think the Committee will be anxious to put it in. It was not our desire that the Committee when dealing with an estimate should dictate in any way to the Minister in charge of it. It was rather that they should seek for information and put forward suggestions. If the word "suggestion" is preferred to "recommendation" I think it would meet the views of the Committee.

Mr. JOHNSON

Perhaps an instance might be given. Last week there was a discussion on the Education estimates. The form it took was to refer back for reconsideration and the subject matter discussed on that proposition was the position of Secondary teachers. The matter was discussed and the Minister did not make it as he might have done a vote of confidence. As a matter of fact he made a statement which led to the withdrawal of the motion. It was satisfactory. The alternative proposal would be, if something like this did not appear, to move the rejection of the Vote. That would be taken as a vote of no confidence.

But supposing the case arose that the Minister for Local Government, or the President makes : that an External Minister proposes an Estimate, and Deputies specially interested in that Department propose a reference back with a recommendation, it is within the province of the Minister for Finance, or of a member of the Executive Council, to say that this matter immediately raises a matter of Executive policy, and the vote in these circumstances immediately becomes a vote of no confidence. Then the whole issue is changed. But, without any such motion, the desire to refer back is wholly and solely intended to avoid the necessity for that vote of no confidence. It is something which is very much in the category of "the previous question" that we discussed. We do not want the motion to be construed into a vote of no confidence, or to raise the issue that the Executive would stand or fall by it. It is put forward in this manner by way of having a general discussion, and of allowing an opportunity to the Dáil to express an opinion on the general question or the question of the administration of the Department. It is, as a matter of fact, our desire to meet the points that have been raised. We do not want to have occasions periodically through a Session when there may have to be changes in the Ministry every year because the Ministry was going to stand or fall by a particular vote, or that the Dáil must not express any view upon a particular item because it may mean the fall of the Government. The whole intention is that we want to make it possible for the Government to continue in office, and to be responsive to the wishes of the Dáil.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Perhaps it would be possible to adopt it in some other form. If the form is not the one desired an amendment can be moved before the Standing Orders are finally adopted.

Mr. BLYTHE

The referring back of the recommendation at any rate avoids the Dáil being committed to increased expenditure. The referring back in the case of an External Minister is a different question to a recommendation for an increase, because that can only be dealt with, either as a vote of no confidence, or else the Executive must yield. It has a particular responsibility of knowing the Dáil's view in advance.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

It is agreed to delete all the words after "re-consideration."

Mr. JOHNSON

I am agreeable.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Standing Order will then read as follows:—"It shall be in order before entering on the discussion of the items in a Vote to move that the Estimates in question be referred back to the Minister in charge of the Department for reconsideration."

Question put, and agreed to.

GROUP (E): ISSUE OF WRITS FOR CASUAL VACANCIES.

1. A motion may be made, after notice, directing the Ceann Comhairle to direct the issue of a writ for the election of a Teachta to fill any vacancy that may occur from time to time. Such a motion shall be made after Questions and before taking up the consideration of any other business on the Order Paper.

2. The Clerk of the Dáil shall make a Report on the issue of every such writ, giving the name of the Returning Officer to whom, and the Constituency in respect of which, such writ was issued, and stating the date of issue.

3. On the receipt of the return to the writ the Clerk shall announce the name of the Teachta elected. A copy of the writ with the return endorsed thereon shall be laid upon the Table by the Clerk.

Mr. FITZGIBBON

I move the adoption of these new Standing Orders.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

With regard to Number 1, I take it that this motion must be carried by a majority of the Dáil, or does it mean that a motion automatically made to the Ceann Comhairle is accepted and acted upon by him?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The word "motion" has the meaning of the word "motion" throughout the Standing Orders.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Therefore, if a majority of this Dáil, or of any subsequent Dáil, wishes to keep back a certain election, it has the power to do so, if it so wishes. It might in conceivable circumstances at some future time wish to take action that would practically mean the disfranchising of a constituency. Is it desirable, under the Constitution, for Parliament to have that right in a particular case, or should it not be the case that the procedure should be automatic for the filling of a vacancy.?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

This is the procedure under the Electoral Act, and we cannot alter that.

The PRESIDENT

Even the Constitution is at the mercy of majorities.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

So we have discovered.

Question put and agreed to.