I beg to move amendment number 1, to delete in Order number 1, the words "or Director of a Department."
THE DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - B.—PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING STANDING ORDERS.
Amendment put, and agreed to.
I beg to move amendment number 2, to delete in Order number 3, the sentence "In the case of the absence of the Ceann Comhairle and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle the Dáil may, on motion made without notice, appoint a Teachta to act as Ceann Comhairle for the time being."
Amendment put, and agreed to.
The next amendment is—In Standing Order No. 10 to delete the words—"but the Dáil shall not divide on any question after 8.30 p.m." The Standing Order provides that if there is a discussion on the motion for the adjournment of the Dáil it can last up to 9 o'clock but that no division can take place after 8.30.
There has been a recent incident which I think rather alters that. Under the existing Standing Orders notice must be given to raise a matter on the adjournment and it may be discussed for half an hour but the Dáil shall not divide on any question after 8.30 p.m. Another order prescribes that without notice a Motion may be moved before 6.30 that the Dáil sit later than 8.30 p.m., and I was asked recently, when a Motion of that kind was made, to declare under the Standing Orders whether a division could be taken later than 8.30. I ruled that it could, because if it is possible to make a Motion to sit later than 8.30, it ought to be possible to transact business after 8.30 and that might mean taking a division.
I think the question that a division should be taken after 8.30 ought not to be pressed. Of course the Dáil could suspend any or all the Standing Orders, but I put it to private members that when questions are raised on the adjournment—there may be a heated discussion or there may be an ordinary discussion—usually such questions are raised without much notice. Let us take it that there is a disturbance in a certain part of the country; Deputies say that the Executive or officers of the Executive or some persons employed by the Executive did not do their duty, and the question is raised. Now if you are to divide after 8.30 the question is whether or not you could beat the Ministry—it comes to that—and the Ministry regard it as that, and the man aggrieved regards it in the same way; whereas if there is to be no division the question is raised and persons can be reprimanded. The Executive may not perhaps give all the satisfaction the Deputy wishes, but the Deputy may say that at least he has impressed upon the Executive the necessity of dealing with the case and it will be dealt with. Now this Dáil is free from a good deal of the carping criticism that distinguishes other assemblies both in this country and in others, and to that extent there has not been any attempt to score. Now, if a Deputy raises a question which the Executive is not able to meet fully, and there is a division upon it, the Executive will naturally get a majority against that particular Deputy and then there is no reason for the Executive meeting it in any way, and I do not think that if questions are raised upon the adjournment and a possible vote taken, the private member will find himself in any better position than he is at present. I do not think it is wise to alter that particular Standing Order just at the moment because I regard it as a certain sort of safety valve.
I am not quite sure but I do not think that was intended.
This proposal was made some time ago to avoid tightening up too much the Ceann Comhairle. If a motion to take a vote occurred at 8.29 p.m., that is to say, supposing the discussion closed at 8.29 or was on the point of closing at 8.30, it was thought that no division could be taken owing to the Standing Order, and it was in view of the possibility of that, that the Committee decided that this provision that no vote should be taken after 8.30, should be deleted.
It was not our intention to provide that a division should be taken upon a motion brought forward on the adjournment. It was intended that when a motion for the adjournment of the Dáil was taken, any Teachta could raise a question of which he had given notice, but it was not intended to provide that a division could be taken upon that motion. The object of the Committee was exactly as stated by Deputy Johnson, that is, to enable a division to be taken just on the point of 8.30 or at 8.30.
As a matter of fact a discussion on the adjournment is not a motion and no vote could be taken upon it.
May I suggest to meet the President's point that the matter could be safeguarded by these words "that the Dáil shall not divide on any question after the motion for the adjournment had been made."
That is an excellent suggestion:—"that the Dáil shall not divide on any question after a motion for the adjournment has been made"; that would absolutely get over the case.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
I think that amendment No. 4 in Order No. 11, line 6, to substitute for the word "Ministry" the words "a member of the Executive Council" is simple and needs no discussion.
Amendment No. 5, which is, in Order No. 12, last line, to substitute the word "made" for the word "discussed" is also a simple matter.
Amendments agreed to.
Amendments No. 6 in Order No. 33, line 4, to delete the word "the" and the words "of Dáil Eireann."
No. 7.—In Order No. 40 (1), in line 10, to add the words "or amendments" after the word "amendment."
No. 8, to delete Order No. 48 as it is provided for elsewhere.
No. 9, to delete Order No. 60 as it is provided for in the last sentence of Order 65.
No. 10, Order No. 63, to delete the words "or other officers."
No. 11, Order No. 70, to be put into section dealing with Committees, were agreed to.
I beg to move amendment No. 12, Order No. 72, to read:
"In considering a Bill a Special Committee may, at any time, adjourn, and the Dáil sitting in Committee may at any time, report progress, provided that a motion to this effect has been carried. Any such motion which is deemed by the Chairman to be dilatory or obstructive shall not be accepted. The consideration of the..................have been considered."
That point arose recently on a question to report progress. This amendment really amounts to leaving it to the discretion of the Chair as to when he will accept a motion to report Progress and how often. During the all night sitting we had one such motion at 12 o'clock and another one was refused about 3 a.m. and one was accepted at 6 by the Chair.
Amendment agreed.
I move amendment 13—Order No. 76, to insert after the word "moved" the words "after notice given."
The procedure heretofore has been that no notice has been required for the Fifth Stage of a Bill. This Standing Order prescribes notice. While no notice was required and no suspension of Standing Orders, what has always been required is a general consent to move the two Stages of the Bill at the one time. So this change makes no difference.
May I ask you to come back to Amendment 12 and see how this Order No. 72 will read. The original Section reads "the consideration of the Preamble to a Bill in Committee may be deferred until the clauses have been considered." I think the intention was that the consideration of the Preamble and Title of a Bill in Committee would be deferred until the clauses had been considered. What is the final decision?
I do not know exactly what this blank means. I think it should be "the consideration of the Preamble and Title of a Bill in Committee shall be deferred until the clauses have been considered."
If it is I am satisfied.
I think it is.
Seventy-three of the Old Orders was intended to be included I think.
Seventy-three actually provides for dealing with the Preamble.
That I think is the form we were dealing with.
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 14, Order No. 82, to read "These Standing Orders may be amended at any time on Motion made after notice." The existing Order 82 was rather long and more cumberous; it provided that after a motion was moved it would be subject to the conditions of Standing Orders 20, 12 and 54.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 15, Order No. 5, after the word "Eireann" on line 5 of the Order and before the word "fix" on line 6 to insert the words "and after consultation with the Cathaoirleach of Seanad Eireann."
Under the Old Order the Ceann Comhairle was to fix the time for a joint sitting. The new Order prescribes that it shall be after consultation with the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad. It was agreed to by a joint Committee, our Committee on Procedure and the Seanad Standing Orders Committee.
It is obviously desirable that the Presiding Officers of the two Houses should consult together because otherwise one might fix an hour without consulting the other which would be absolutely inconvenient or indeed impossible. This merely provides for settling it amongst themselves and then appointing an hour which is agreeable.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 16:—Order No. 8, to add after the first sentence of the Order the sentence: "The quorum for a Joint Sitting shall be thirty-two, but of this number neither House may be represented by less than ten members." The Order to continue: "The proceedings of every such Joint Sitting shall, save as otherwise provided in these Standing Orders, be governed...."
That is to say in totting up the quorum there must be at least ten from each House.
That was a very difficult question, the question of fixing a quorum for a joint sitting. This was a compromise between having twenty members of the Dáil and twelve members of the Seanad which are the respective quorums.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 17, Order No. 12, line 10, to add after the word "consider" the words "and report on."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 18: Where the context is suitable, to make use of the terms, "the Dáil" in reference to Dáil Eireann, "the Seanad" in reference to Seanad Eireann, and "Dáil Eireann sitting in Committee" in reference to Committee of the whole Dáil.
Amendment agreed to.