I have a statement to make on a question of Order. Since the Dáil adjourned on Friday, I have given careful consideration, in consultation with the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, to the proceedings on the motion regarding Agricultural Credit Societies, made by Deputy Baxter on the 18th instant and on the amendments since proposed to the motion, and, with the permission of the House, I would now like to state my views and conclusions regarding certain points of procedure and order arising out of those proceedings.
Firstly, I am of opinion that notice should have been given of the amendment moved by Deputy Tierney, put forward as it obviously was after due consideration and consultation. Deputy Baxter's motion first appeared on the Order Paper of the 12th November, and as the motion was not moved until six days later, sufficient time was given to have an amendment drafted, and inserted on the Order Paper, before the Debate took place. The fact, however, is, that the amendment was only handed to me, while in the Chair, after Deputy Baxter's motion had been proposed and seconded, and after another Deputy had spoken to the motion. I have come to the conclusion that the practice of putting in, without notice, amendments to motions of which due notice has been given, is unfair to the Chair and to the Dáil, that it debars adequate consideration of the terms of such amendments from the point of view of order and procedure, and that it ought to cease—without prejudice to the power of the Chair to accept motions or amendments on grounds of urgency.
Secondly, when Deputy Tierney's amendment had been carried on the 20th instant, and had been proposed from the Chair as a substantive motion, Deputy Johnson proposed a further amendment without notice. In the circumstances I have no objection to Deputy Johnson's amendment on the score of notice, but I have come to the conclusion that the amendment is out of order. It proposes to delete from the amended motion words that the Dáil had already decided should be therein inserted.
The amended motion is:—
"That the Dáil is of opinion that the establishment of Agricultural Credit Societies affords a reasonable method of relieving farmers who have lost stock through fluke, and also considers that the development of these societies will provide a credit system particularly suitable to the permanent needs of small farmers."
Deputy Johnson's amendment is:—
"to delete the words ‘affords a reasonable method of relieving farmers who have lost stock through fluke, and also considers that the development of these societies'"
That is to say, when Deputy Tierney's amendment had been fully considered, and when the words contained in that amendment had been substituted for certain words in the original motion, Deputy Johnson proceeds to delete the words which had been inserted; in other words, to reverse a decision already arrived at. When the House has agreed to insert certain words in a question, it is irregular to propose any amendment to those words, as the decision of the House has already been pronounced in their favour. The only amendment that Deputy Johnson could have moved would have been an amendment proposing to add words not inconsistent with the previous decision of the Dáil.
If Deputy Johnson had wished to delete certain words from Deputy Tierney's amendment, the proper course for him to have adopted was to have proposed his amendment to Deputy Tierney's amendment before a decision on the latter had been obtained. Having come to the conclusion that the amendment is out of order, I have decided that when the proceedings on the amended motion are resumed I shall not put the question on Deputy Johnson's amendment. That amendment will accordingly lapse.
Thirdly, I am of opinion that the motion, made by Deputy Connor Hogan at 3.50 p.m. on Friday, for the adjournment of the debate, should not then have been accepted. The debate would, under the Order of the Dáil, have been adjourned automatically at 4 p.m., and if no Deputy offered to continue the debate after 3.50 p.m. on that day, the question on the amendment should have been put. The decision of the House, as shown by the division, was that the debate should not be adjourned—a decision in conflict with the Order which made the adjournment of the debate, and of the Dáil, obligatory. One interpretation of the division that suggests itself is, that the House did not desire to continue the debate and that the proceedings on the amended motion should be regarded as having lapsed. Any such interpretation might be held to conflict with Standing Order 75, which gives certain rights to private Deputies' motions. This point does not now fall for decision, but I would suggest to the Dáil that to get over the impasse, and remove any doubt as to the effect of the division on Friday, a formal order, if so desired, should be made to-day in the following terms:—
"That the proceedings on the amendment proposed to the amended motion relative to Agricultural Credit Societies be resumed on (a given date)."
When the proceedings are resumed, I shall, if they are resumed, as I have already stated, rule Deputy Johnson's amendment out of order, and the amended motion will be before the Dáil for decision.