Before we proceed with public business to-day, I would like to draw your attention to a motion which is down on the Order Paper for Thursday next in the name of the President. I would like to make a submission with regard to that particular motion. It is that the motion and the manner in which it is framed are out of order, and I think it ought not to be accepted for discussion. It raises a very serious issue. It assumes that this House will take a certain course regarding a certain proposal which is now before us. Making that assumption, I think it casts a reflection upon this House in so far as it implies, at any rate, on the part of the President, a belief that all the procedure for making laws in this House is a mere matter of form, and that the Standing Orders, of which I think there are almost twenty which govern the progress of Bills through various stages in this House, are of no importance whatsoever—that they partake more or less of the nature of Article 47 of the Constitution, that simply they have been devised to fool the public into the belief that the Dáil has any control whatsoever over the making of laws. I submit that a motion like that ought not to be anticipating in its terms the decision of the Dáil in regard to any particular piece of legislation. As I said, that motion makes light of the Dáil. It casts a reflection upon this House. In fact, it states that this House is not the real governing authority in this country; that matters of very great importance to the people are already pre-decided before they come to this House, that they are prejudged before they come to this House, and that consequently the only thing that remains for any legislative proposal to go through when it comes to this House is to go through a series of stages as a matter of routine.
DECLARATION UNDER ARTICLE 47 OF THE CONSTITUTION—NOTICE OF MOTION.
I should like to emphasise the point made by Deputy MacEntee.
I have had no notice of the point of order. Do I understand the point of order to be that the motion in the name of the President for the 28th June should not appear on the Order Paper on the grounds that the Bill to which it refers has not passed through all its stages?
May I submit that it is rather stronger than that, that it suggests that——
There is the question of the point of order. Matters of debate are one thing, and the question of order is another. Do I understand that Deputy MacEntee's point of order is that the motion should not appear on the Order Paper on the grounds that the Bill to which it refers has not yet passed through all its stages?
That is one of the objections.
There may be objections to the motion, but that is the point of order, I take it. On that point I am prepared now to give a decision. What is Deputy Flinn's point?
The President's motion says here "which has this day been passed by the Dáil..." Now, that notice was written five days before the Dáil could have passed the Bill. I submit it is an attempt to get over the Standing Orders, which says that four days' notice shall be given for the motion. They assume something which was, on the face of it, untrue at the moment that this notice was written. There is nothing in the motion itself to conclude that the date is Thursday, 28th June. That is the date for which this motion was given in. The motion that has been put in must be read as at the time it was put in, and it sets out that "the Constitution (Amendment No. 10) Bill, 1928, which has this day been passed by Dáil Eireann." That notice was written at least five days before it was possible for the Bill to have been passed, even assuming, as this motion does assume it, that the Bill will be passed that day, and that the President will be enabled to get the closure from the Chair in order to put the Bill through within that time.
There is no such assumption in the motion.
The assumption is in this way—the assumption is there by anticipation in this way, that the Bill "has this day been passed by Dáil Eireann," and it is perfectly obvious that the Bill has not this day been passed by Dáil Eireann. That notice was put in five days before the Bill could have been passed by Dáil Eireann. I suggest that it is simply a method of trying to get over the Standing Orders of this House which, in the interests of the liberty of its members, decides that four days' clear notice must be given before the motion can be discussed.
The point is that notice of this motion should not be allowed to appear on the Order Paper because it refers to the Constitution (Amendment No. 10) Bill, which has not yet passed through all its Stages in this House.
It says that it has been passed.
It says at the date on which the motion has been handed in that this Bill has "this day been passed by Dáil Eireann," that is, five days before the Bill can be passed by Dáil Eireann, and I submit that to the knowledge both of the putter in of the motion and of the person who received it, and everybody else in this House the statement is untrue; the statement is an untrue anticipation of the fact for the purpose of getting over the specific Standing Orders by which it is necessary that before a matter of this kind can be discussed on a motion in this House four clear days' notice must be given.
The notice on the Order Paper is a notice of motion. That is to say, the motion cannot be moved before next Thursday and if, on next Thursday, the Constitution (Amendment No. 10) Bill, 1928, has not then been passed by Dáil Eireann, the motion will not be moved. There is no doubt about that. The motion is not being moved to-day, could not be moved to-day, and it cannot be moved on Thursday if the statement in the motion, that the Bill has been that day passed by Dáil Eireann, is not then true. The point is whether this notice of motion should be allowed to appear before the Bill to which it refers has passed through all its Stages. The notice of motion appears to be properly on the Order Paper. It cannot be moved until the Bill to which it refers has passed through all its Stages. When the Bill has passed through all its Stages the motion will, of course, be in order. It is, in fact, common practice to put down a notice of motion which anticipates a particular decision of the House. On the Order Paper at the present time there are two notices of motion. One is in the name of Deputy Thrift and it was put down before an amendment of Deputy Thrift's to a particular motion had been debated and decided upon. The other is in the name of Deputy Tomás O Conaill and it is as follows: "That a Select Committee consisting of eleven Deputies to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, be appointed to consider and report upon the working of the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926: that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records." That is a notice of motion contingent, presumably, upon the House adopting an amendment by Deputy O'Connell to the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Bill, 1928. It is properly on the Order Paper. It could, of course, be moved quite independently of the fate of that particular amendment.
In any event, the notice of motion in the name of the President is in order as a notice of motion. If the Deputy has a point of order to raise about that motion when it comes up for decision, that point of order can then be received and decided upon. That the notice of motion should appear now on the Order Paper is quite proper and quite ordinary. The contrary proposition would appear to be that the Bill must pass through its Stages and then a notice would be given in respect of a motion such as this which would be considered four days later. The procedure that has been adopted seems to be quite in order and has, in fact, precedents.
May I submit, for the reasons you have given——
I think not. I have been asked to decide on a particular matter and I have decided that the notice of motion is properly on the Order Paper.
May I suggest that the proper procedure in a case like this would be that the motion could not be introduced until after the House has made its decision upon this Bill? Then the Chair could exercise its power under the Standing Orders by suspending the Standing Order relating to the four days' notice. That would be the way in which the difficulty should be overcome properly, if there is any regard to be had for the procedure and the dignity of the House.
I do not think there is any infringement of the dignity of the House in having the notice of motion placed upon the Order Paper to-day. That motion will be moved in the ordinary way in the event of the House making its decision upon the Bill. It is exactly the kind of motion in connection with which the Chair would be loth, indeed, to exercise discretion in taking it without the notice that is prescribed by the Standing Orders. I am not at all adopting Deputy MacEntee's view that the motion is one which could be accepted by the Chair without notice, or even with one day's notice. It is much better that there should be the prescribed four days' notice. The Bill may not have passed the Fifth Stage on Thursday. If so, this motion cannot then be taken.
You now rule that this motion can be discussed and passed on the day on which this Constitution (Amendment No. 10) Bill comes to be passed. Do you rule that if, say, the Bill is passed on this day week, it would then be in order to discuss and decide this motion?
The Deputy said discuss and decide. The Dáil could discuss, but not necessarily decide it, that day. The House can enter on the discussion of the motion immediately on the passing of the Constitution (Amendment No. 10) Bill, if that day be a day not earlier than next Thursday.
It could not be discussed on any other day except the day on which the Fifth Stage of this Bill is actually passed?
That is another point which could be decided later.
It says here "which has this day been passed." That is set down for next Thursday. I am submitting, as a point of order, that the only day on which it could possibly be discussed would be the day on which the Bill was passed, that day being Thursday.
I will take these points of order when they arise. Just now, I am taking Deputy MacEntee's point of order in regard to the motion on the Order Paper and I have decided that it is in order on the Order Paper. I cannot take the other points as points of order in advance.