Vol. 6 No. 28
Before we go into Committee on this Bill, I would like to indicate that the procedure adopted has been that a Bill was introduced, and read a second time, containing provisions for the amendment of Section 6 of the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act. Now in Committee, it is proposed to amend Section 13 and Section 16.
I consider that these amendments are outside the scope of the Bill which was read a second time, and that they are therefore out of order.
I beg to move that the Dáil go into Committee to consider the Third Stage of the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill. I am aware of the facts, as stated by you, A Chinn Chomhairle, but I think it is only a very technical matter, as the same Bill is being amended, and the amendment that I have put down to the title of the Bill, covers both these amendments, although these are perhaps outside the scope of the Bill as read a second time. I would ask Deputies, seeing that we have come to that point, to be a little liberal in construing the matter, because with their consent we would be able to take these two amendments on the Third Stage.
If the amendments are out of order, Deputies cannot take them. This is much more than a technical point, as the Minister would discover if he brought in the Bill himself and somebody else brought in the amendments. It is a very important point. We had, for example, the Damage to Property Act, which contained a particular date after which no person could receive compensation under the Act, but in response to pressure from various quarters, the President, when Minister for Finance, brought in an amending Bill extending the date. I think very grave objection would have been taken if, in Committee on the Bill to amend the date, various other amendments had been introduced. That would clearly have been outside the scope of the Bill as read a second time. The procedure adopted in reference to these amendments is wholly wrong, but as there is a certain amount of urgency we may be able to arrive at some settlement of it. The procedure adopted is clearly wrong. If the Minister for Local Government were bringing in a Bill to amend the Electoral Act, for example, in regard to the machinery for conducting elections in University constituencies, I am sure he would make a good point of order against an amendment which was of much greater scope than anything concerning the machinery of, and elections for, University constituencies. That is the real issue, and it is a quite important one.
Would it be possible to take an amendment without prejudice?
If there is no objection?
I think it would be far better that the Minister should bring in a new Bill if he wants these two new Sections embodied. I believe it is very desirable that we should keep something like order in these matters and learn that the passing of Acts of Parliament are serious matters. I object to taking these new Sections on this Bill. It was passed on the Second Reading on the assurances of the Minister that it was quite a formality, and we accepted that. As a matter of fact, as far as I am concerned, I did not even go to the trouble of looking to see what the effect of the Bill was. That is a confession I make which I ought not to make. I certainly did not take an interest in the two new Sections, because I do not think it is reasonable that new Sections, in such circumstances, should be introduced on Committee, and I would suggest to the Minister that if these two new Sections are important he had better bring in another Local Government (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill, and call it Number 2.
I am in full agreement with Deputy Johnson in principle. I think it is only right that we should be very deliberate in these matters, and accordingly I shall introduce a second Bill later on.
Does the Minister mean that he will withdraw this Bill and re-introduce it afresh, or introduce an entirely new Bill?
The intention is to withdraw this Bill and to introduce a new Bill.
Can the Minister say when introducing this new Bill——
The Deputy is going away now on another point. He can make his speech on the Second Reading of the new Bill. Would it convenience the Minister if I ask the Dáil to allow him to take a First Reading of his new Bill now?
Yes.
What I desired to ask the Minister was if he would agree to delete Section 14 of the principal Act.
I will not.
