Although the terms of reference to the Joint Committee have been altered by the Seanad, personally I have no objection to the Committee considering the wider terms of reference, and for my part I am prepared to accept the revised terms of reference suggested by the Seanad.
Message from the Seanad.
The following appeared on the Order Paper:—
Seanad Eireann has passed the following Resolution:—
"That the Seanad is unable to agree that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of the Dáil and the Seanad be set up to consider and report on the question of the amount of the allowance which should be paid to members of Seanad Eireann, but is of opinion that the time is opportune for the reconsideration by a Joint Committee of both Houses, consisting of seven members of each House, of the general question of the remuneration of Ministers and the allowances payable to members of the Dáil and Seanad; and the concurrence of the Dáil is desired to the setting up of such a Joint Committee."
Does the Deputy move to agree with the Seanad in their resolution?
I move:—
"That the Dáil agrees with the Seanad that the general question of the remuneration of Ministers and the allowances payable to members of the Dáil and of the Seanad should be referred for reconsideration to a Joint Committee of both Houses, on which each House shall be represented by seven of its members."
Would it be in order for this House to agree to the Seanad resolution, having regard to the fact that a Bill has been introduced dealing only with the allowances to the members of the Seanad. This is going outside the scope of the Bill before the House. Out of that Bill has arisen, the question of the appointment of a Joint Committee to deal with a specific matter. Now, we have a recommendation from the Seanad that we should go outside the scope of that Bill. I think it would be out of order to agree to the Seanad amendment without scrapping the Bill that has been introduced.
The Bill has been postponed to a definite date, and there may or may not be recommendations from this Committee beforehand, and those recommendations may or may not affect the principle of the Bill. I think it would be quite too early to withdraw the Bill at this stage, and, for my part, I propose simply to leave the Bill in the suspended condition in which it is, and take further action according to what may come from the Committee. The Committee will have a wider scope altogether, no doubt, but that is not contradictory to the principle of the Bill.
There is no question of order arising out of this message from the Seanad, which suggests the setting up of a Joint Committee to consider certain matters, to which the Dáil may agree if it chooses. There is no question of its being out of order to take the action suggested, if the Dáil chooses to take that course. The Seanad, of course, was not concerned with the Bill, to which there was no reference in the message. It merely had the request for a Joint Committee on the specific point.
All this matter arose out of the introduction of a Bill dealing with the question of allowances to Senators. All this thing hangs together. Let Deputy Thrift withdraw the Bill and let the whole matter go into the melting pot, as to what the allowances are to be to members of the Oireachtas. I think that is the proper course, rather than have a Bill dealing with one House, which will come up in the ordinary course in three months time, and also have a Joint Committee dealing with a different matter altogether. I think it would be more in order to withdraw the Bill and let this whole question of allowances to members of the Oireachtas be considered. It is admitted by the sponsor of the Bill that it was rather hurriedly drawn and very possibly he regrets that the Bill was introduced in that manner.
I do not admit any such thing. I do not want to tie my hands at present by withdrawing the Bill before the House.
Question put and agreed to.