I think I intimated at the beginning of business to-day that I objected to the News Agency Bill being taken to-day. You ruled that this was the time to raise it and, therefore, I raise it now. The amendments were circulated to Deputies only this morning.
Committee on Finance. - Irish News Agency Bill, 1949—From the Seanad.
There might be some substance in the objection if the amendments were substantial amendments. The first amendment was, I think, foreseen by Deputy Lemass.
It is the first amendment that I object most strongly to.
I think the Deputy foresaw the first amendment when the matter was discussed in the Dáil. He will recall that he said—I do not purport to quote the Deputy accurately —that the Seanad might have something to say to that and may want to be included.
What they did is that they excluded the Dáil.
No, no.
In part, yes.
As far as members of their own House are concerned.
On principle, I object most strongly to the amendment. My position is that I wish to exercise my right under the Standing Orders to move an amendment to the amendment inserted by the Seanad. I cannot do so, by reason of the fact that the amendments were circulated only this morning.
It was open to the Deputy to have taken steps to have an amendment to his liking suggested or adopted in the Seanad.
Under the Standing Orders of the Dáil, I could not even submit the amendment to-day. As the Minister is aware, the reports of the Seanad debates are circulated very late.
Unless the Deputy asks us to live in blinkers, surely he does not ask us to believe that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has no contact with his own Party in the other House?
We have no Party in the Seanad. It is not a Party House.
The position of the Chair is that the Chair has accepted the amendment for the Order Paper.
The first official intimation that the Dáil had that the Seanad had inserted amendments to this Bill was when it appeared on the Order Paper to-day. The first intimation we had of the nature of the amendments was when they were circulated to-day. When the Taoiseach announced to the Dáil that he proposed to ask the Dáil to take this Bill to-day I assumed that it was the normal procedure that was being followed. You are aware that the normal procedure is that, when the Seanad inserts amendments in a Bill, the Minister in charge of the Bill informs the Dáil of his attitude to the amendments—whether he proposes to ask the Dáil to accept or reject them —and he then fixes a day on which they can be discussed in the Dáil. A member of the Dáil, under Standing Orders, has a right to propose amendments to amendments passed in the Seanad. I submit, Sir, that a member of the Dáil cannot be deprived of his right to move an amendment to amendments inserted by the Seanad in this Bill.
The Chair is making no observation whatever, as the matter has happened, on Deputy Lemass's right. The Chair is simply making the statement that the Chair has accepted the amendments.
I do not see what the Chair has to do with the amendments. What has the Chair to do with them?
Mr. de Valera
Surely the time when the amendments are taken is a matter for the House? Under Standing Orders, the time in which amendments are taken is a matter for the House and this is clearly depriving members of their right.
I do not want the Leader of the Opposition to misunderstand the position. The Chair is not anxious to deprive any member of the House of a right. What the Chair says is that it has accepted the amendments. The Chair can accept an ad hoc amendment to the Seanad amendments if desired by the Deputy.
If there are amendments to a Bill, they cannot be accepted by the Dáil unless two days' notice is given, and the Chair has no right to override Standing Orders.
On a point of explanation on the matter, I have no desire to take any member of this House unawares. If the Leader of the Opposition or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition assert to this House that they have been taken unawares and that they would be prejudiced by going ahead with this Bill to-night, I am quite prepared to have it left over. I would make this appeal to them not to do that. This is an urgent measure. It is a necessary measure. I know that the Opposition have certain views against it and that they have opposed it the whole way, but I would ask them, at this stage, to make a generous gesture to give me the rest of the Bill and not to obstruct it further.
I should like to meet the Minister. The Minister is aware that we are opposed to the Bill and, therefore, cannot be moved by an appeal as to the urgency of the Bill. We do not think it is urgent. I have a very strong objection to the first amendment inserted by the Seanad. It will set up here, if adopted, a precedent which will be quoted on other occasions. I do not think that ever before there was a suggestion that the Seanad would have power to act on its own in a matter concerning the Dáil. We have had cases before where the nomination of members, or action of a similar character, required the consent of the Dáil and Seanad. I do not think there is any precedent for the suggestion that the nomination of a member of the Seanad concerned the Seanad only. The Dáil on this occasion insisted that the nomination of members of the Oireachtas on the board should be subject to its consent. We now are faced with the situation where, if we accept this amendment, a member of the Oireachtas can be nominated without the consent of the Dáil. It is not only a bad amendment, but a bad precedent, with which I cannot agree.
The Chair is anxious to make the position clear. The Chair will take amendments to the Seanad amendment, if offered now.
I am not in a position to propose it.
Surely, if the Deputy has an amendment——
So far as that is concerned, I could not draft an ad hoc amendment to this Bill right now.
An amendment of a simple nature? I will draft it while the Deputy is speaking, to give effect to his wording, to put words on the effect he wants.
The position would be that the wording of Section 8 (2) should be such that the nomination of a member of the Oireachtas to the board would require the sanction of both Houses.
That is what the Deputy wants?
I will accept that amendment, if the Deputy moves it after the Seanad amendment has been moved.
Provided I put it on the record that the right of a Deputy to move an amendment to amendments inserted in the Seanad is not subject to Ministerial convenience. I am standing here for something which represents more, in my opinion. It is a principle of greater importance than this Bill or the amendments proposed to the Bill. If the Seanad inserts an amendment to a Bill, this Dáil is entitled to consider that amendment at its leisure, and to decide whether or not it will accept it or accept it with amendments. We cannot be deprived of that right by the action of the Government in submitting the Bill and the amendments to the Dáil and asking for its adoption on the same day. It is quite clear that the Chair must rule that I am entitled to have this matter put back and, if I get that ruling, I will consent to facilitate the Government by letting it pass to-day.
The Chair cannot give that ruling. The Chair has accepted the amendment.
The Chair cannot accept the amendment. The Standing Orders of this Dáil determine the rulings of the Chair.
Mr. de Valera
It would be a most serious matter if the decision of the Chair was simply to override the Standing Orders at once.
Would someone quote the Standing Orders?
Mr. de Valera
Look at the position which would be created if, for instance, the Government has the ear of the Chair—I am putting it in that way because I want to see where we are going—if the Government has the ear of the Chair and decides, therefore, that on an occasion like this a Bill is going to go through, we might as well all go home.
There are many examples of amendments in the Seanad being amended again in the Dáil and being sent back to the Seanad.
The position of the Chair is that I have to accept. The Bill has been ordered.
No.
The Chair has an order? Is that the point?
No. If the Chair is telling me that this Bill has been ordered for to-day, it was done on a misunderstanding, because the Chair ruled, when I raised the matter, that the right time to raise the question was now.
As a matter of fact, the Chair did not rule. What happened was, there was a discussion between the Taoiseach and Deputy Lemass.
It was to the Chair I addressed my remarks.
I did not intervene.
Is it not the position that the Chair rules whether an amendment is in order or not? The Chair has no power to overrule Standing Orders.
The Chair is not endeavouring to overrule Standing Orders. The Chair is bound the same as any other Deputy.
Is not the position this evening, that while the amendment is in order to be put on the Order Paper and in order to be discussed, if anybody raises the procedure according to Standing Orders, the Chair must so rule?
The Standing Orders quite specifically state that two days' notice must be given.
Are we not getting into an academic discussion?
Mr. de Valera
It is fundamental.
I have not interrupted anyone. There is an amendment from the Seanad here. I understand from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that he wishes to amend that amendment. I think he is justified, that he has a right to do that. The only point that then arises is whether or not he is prepared to move that amendment now or whether he is prepared to stand on his full rights and say: "I will not move it now. I want more time."
I am prepared to facilitate the Minister now, provided my right is recognised. I am not going to do it as a matter of courtesy from the Chair or the Minister. I have a right and that right I have to protect, not merely in my own interest, but in the interest of every private Deputy for 100 years to come. Perhaps the Minister himself may be glad at some stage that I asserted that right.
The Chair is not endeavouring to make it a matter of courtesy. The Deputy has a right to move an amendment to the amendment.
And the right to get due notice.
The Chair is admitting that as a right, not as a courtesy.
I have a right to get due notice of the amendment from the Seanad to give me an opportunity to prepare an amendment, at leisure, not ad hoc, on the floor of the House.
Could the Deputy tell us what the Standing Order is on that?
Certainly. Under one Standing Order, I have a right to move an amendment to an amendment by the Seanad and the second Standing Order is that I must give two days' notice of my amendment.
As far as the House is concerned, this is, as Deputy de Valera says, a fundamental matter. It is not a question of getting the work done. It is a question of doing the work right. Amendments come to-day from the Seanad, amendments that the Seanad is entitled to make in this Bill. Those amendments come before us. Each and every one of us—it is not a question of the Leader of the Opposition or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—has a right, if he so wishes, to put down an amendment to the amendments made by the Seanad. I understand that, under the Standing Orders of this House, a Deputy must give two days' notice——
Unless by agreement.
Unless there is agreement.
That is different from the Chair's ruling.
In my view, if we do not hurry, we will arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. The satisfactory conclusion is to assert the right of every Deputy. My only reason for standing up in regard to this matter is that we are inclined to take the view that it is a matter for the Leader of the Opposition or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I cannot subscribe to that, while I pay all the respect to which the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are entitled. I want to assert the right of the ordinary Deputy and, so long as that right is asserted and is clear, we can make progress.
There is no right peculiar to any Deputy that does not belong to every other Deputy. The Chair is making no difference. The objection came from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The practice has been for years, where there is no objection, where there is agreement, to take the amendments as they come from the Seanad.
No. May I intervene? The practice has been that on a Bill being returned to the Dáil by the Seanad with amendments the Minister in charge of the Bill informs the Dáil that he is proposing to the Dáil to accept or reject the amendments. Then he indicates the day on which he wishes to have them discussed. That is the practice and that practice has been followed even when amendments were non-contentious. It is entirely contrary to practice to ask the Dáil to deal with the amendments on the same day as they are circulated. The Chair, I think, will agree.
An Ceann Comhairle took the Chair.
Perhaps I should explain.
I think I understand the position.
I think we had reached a point where Deputy Lemass agreed that, provided it was not made a matter of right, he was prepared to go ahead.
Provided it was made a matter of right.
I am sorry.
Provided it was not granted as a concession.
He was prepared to go ahead with the amendments.
I heard the Leas-Cheann Comhairle state, quite correctly, that the practice has been for the Minister to state, when amendments come down, whether he proposes to accept them or not, and when he desires to take them. Amendments to these amendments, which would have to arise out of them and be relevant thereto, might be moved but Deputies might require time to frame them. That is the position but, if they are to be taken now, the Deputy has the right to move amendments to these amendments without notice.
Mr. de Valera
There is a danger, from the point of view of the rights of Deputies, in ad hoc amendments being considered here. When we get this Order Paper, we are able to see the amendments on it and to study them. Every member of the House knows about them. If an amendment is moved and accepted ad hoc, we have had no notice of it, and it is quite possible that a Deputy who, for some reason, is absent, would make a point of being in the House if he knew the amendment was coming on. There is a matter of principle there with regard to the acceptance of ad hoc amendments.
Deputies would have the right to ask for time. They could waive their right, if they liked.
Mr. de Valera
There are other people's rights involved.
I understand the point.
We had almost reached agreement.
I think the Deputy understands the position.
Yes. On that basis, I will agree to the amendments being discussed now, subject to my right to move an amendment to amendment No. 1.
What is the Minister's attitude to the amendments?
The Minister is accepting the amendments. I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:—
In page 3, Section 8, sub-section (2), line 40, "Dáil Éireann" deleted and "the House of which he is a member" inserted.
The Bill, as passed by this House, provided that the articles of association should provide that a member of either House of the Oireachtas shall not, except with the prior approval of Dáil Éireann, be appointed a director of the agency. It was, in other words, a proviso to preclude a member of the Oireachtas from being a director of the news agency. An amendment was introduced by Deputy Lemass and I think I asked him to leave the door slightly open so that, if a situation arose where there was obviously somebody who was a very desirable person, the Dáil would be able to pass a resolution. Deputy Lemass, with common-sense and owing to his experience, thought the Seanad might resent the exclusive right being left to the Dáil. The attitude of the Seanad was that they did not see why this House should have the right to discuss a member of the other House, and they thought the best solution was that each House should reserve the right to discuss its own members, that it was somewhat undignified that this House should discuss a Senator, or that the Seanad should discuss a member of the Dáil, as to whether or not he would be a suitable person for membership of the board of directors.
I felt that they had made a reasonable case in that respect. I felt, too, that the position was rather academic, because I could not visualise the possibility of my desiring to appoint a member of the Dáil or Seanad. I did feel, however, that a situation might arise in the future in which there might be an outstanding journalist who might become a Senator—the Seanad is a place where you might have an outstanding retired journalist, and possibly not even retired—who would be a person ideally suited for a position of this kind and upon whom every Party might be agreed, and that to a certain extent it was as well to leave a provision of that kind in the Bill. I also agreed with the view of the Seanad that it was a matter for each House to decide on its own member. It would lead to a good deal of conflict if both Houses were to discuss each other's members.
In the course of the discussion in the Seanad the whole question of whether or not members of the Oireachtas should be on State boards arose and was discussed, not conclusively, but the suggestion was made that it was a matter that should be examined either by a commission or by a joint committee of both Houses at some time in the future.
An excellent idea. The Dáil agreed to that at one time.
I think it is a matter that should be discussed. It is a matter which is going to arise rather acutely from another point of view. It is going to arise acutely in respect of employees of State companies. For instance, when transport becomes nationalised, the question will arise whether servants of the transport company are eligible for the Dáil or Seanad, and the whole of the position will require clarification.
Is there not a section in the Transport Bill which deals with that?
With employees, and not directors.
With everybody, so far as I know.
However, that is travelling beyond the scope of this measure. I feel that the amendment put forward by the Seanad in this respect, in this particular case and not as a matter of principle, is probably the wisest course, but I should not like to put it forward as a precedent for future legislation.
It is a bad precedent to establish. If the Dáil is to have any function in relation to the board of the news agency, that function should operate whether the member of the Oireachtas is a member of the Dáil or a member of the Seanad. The objection there is to members of the Dáil having remunerated posts in companies established by statute applies equally, in my view, to members of the Seanad. I move as an amendment to the Seanad amendment No. 1:—
To delete the words "the House of which he is a member" and to substitute therefor the words "each House of the Oireachtas."
The effect will be to ensure that if there is a proposal to appoint a member of the Oireachtas on the board of the agency, each House of the Oireachtas will be required to approve of the appointment.
Did I understand the Minister to say that he proposed to accept that amendment?
No; I am accepting the Seanad amendment.
I understood that the Minister was accepting the amendment moved by Deputy Lemass.
I must say that I understood that, too.
When this matter was being discussed earlier, I understood the Minister to indicate that he would be prepared to accept an amendment of the kind suggested by Deputy Lemass and that Deputy Lemass agreed to move his amendment, provided that his rights to two days' notice were not prejudiced by his so doing. I definitely understood that.
I understood the Minister was accepting it.
Your amendment?
Yes.
I am very sorry if I said anything that could possibly be construed as meaning that. I never meant that. I said that I was accepting the Seanad amendments.
The position is that the acceptance of amendment No. 1 has been moved by the Minister. To that, an amendment has been moved by Deputy Lemass and the amendment to the amendment will be put first.
It is open to discussion, I hope.
Yes, both of them.
I was asking whether the Minister was accepting the amendment moved by Deputy Lemass and was about to suggest that, if he was accepting it, there was no necessity for any discussion. But I definitely did understand the Minister to say that he was accepting Deputy Lemass's amendment.
So did I. I accepted the same view.
I should like to know what is the position now.
There has never been any question. I pointed out that I accepted the Seanad's amendment. I did offer to draft Deputy Lemass's amendment for him while he was proposing it. I thought it would save time.
We thought you were accepting it.
I am prepared to meet the Deputies opposite in any way they wish.
I was taking a particularly keen interest and I understood the Minister to accept the point of view of Deputy Lemass. Provided that the rights of private members were acknowledged Deputy Lemass would meet the Government's desire by handing in the amendment now. The Minister then asked the nature of the amendment and I understood him to say that he was willing to accept that and immediately instructed the officials to draft the amendment.
Certainly. I offered to draft the amendment for Deputy Lemass so as not to waste time. I knew exactly what he wanted to propose.
Are we to understand that the Minister would draft an amendment for a member of this House of which he is not in favour?
Deputy Lemass said he could not do it.
Deputy McQuillan should keep his ears more widely open.
I was awake but the Deputy was not.
Deputy Lemass has moved the amendment.
I should like to know what Deputy Lemass feels. Was he moving the amendment feeling that it would be accepted?
Certainly. I moved the amendment thinking it would be accepted.
If Deputy Lemass feels that he is under a disadvantage on that I am prepared to accept whatever suggestion he makes.
What does that mean?
If Deputy Lemass says that he is not prepared to go on— if the record is looked up, however, I do not think it will be found that I said anything which would lead to the impression that I was accepting Deputy Lemass's amendment. On the contrary, I spoke putting forward the Seanad amendment.
I understood that the Seanad amendment had to be put forward as a matter of form.
If the Deputy had listened he would have heard me explain why I thought the Seanad amendment should be accepted.
The Minister has moved to agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1 and there is an amendment to it.
We are on a very important point. The Minister stated that he would like to explain to the House why he accepted the amendment of the Seanad and he gave us a report of what took place there to show why it was reasonable to accept their point of view. That is what the Minister explained; it was not a formal moving. Three or four members on different sides of the House have come to take a meaning from the Minister's language and surely he does not think that they did that deliberately.
If there is to be a discussion about what I said or did not say get the record. Do not go by my memory or by Deputy Briscoe's memory.
If there has been a misunderstanding we can leave it at that. On consideration, I will not take advantage of the Minister's offer on the grounds of a misunderstanding to hold this matter further. I am however moving the amendment. I have already said a few words and I hope you will not rule me out of order if I repeat them. The position is as follows: When the Bill came to the Dáil an amendment was moved here to exclude from membership of the board of directors of the proposed news agency members of the Oireachtas. That amendment apparently received support in various quarters of the House and the Minister agreed to accept it in principle. He subsequently brought in an official amendment which was not quite the same as that which I had put forward in committee in so far as it accepted the possibility of members of the Oireachtas being appointed to the board of directors with the approval of the Dáil.
The Bill as it left the Dáil and went to the Seanad so provided: that members of the Oireachtas could not be appointed to the board of directors except with the consent of the Dáil. We are now faced with an amendment in the Bill by the Seanad, the effect of which is to deprive the Dáil of the power of approval if the member of the Oireachtas appointed to the board is a member of the Seanad. I have mentioned already that there are many Acts which require that things should not be done except with the approval of the Dáil and Seanad. It is, I think, without precedent that the Seanad should be given power of approval of Ministerial actions or appointments on its own. It is, I think, an undesirable power for the Seanad to have in so far as the Dáil thought fit in the case of this news agency to require that members of the Oireachtas should not be appointed to the board except with their approval. I do not think we should modify that decision now by adopting an amendment which would permit of members of the Oireachtas being appointed to the board of the news agency without the knowledge, much less the approval, of the Dáil and, therefore, I move the amendment.
The effect of the amendment is not to deprive the Seanad of the right of approval of the appointment of Senators to the board. It is to require that such approval, however, must also be given by the Dáil. That is in accordance with all precedents, to the best of my recollection and is, in any event, the course which common-sense dictates. I dislike the idea of members of the Oireachtas being appointed to these boards at all. Such action should only be taken in the most exceptional circumstances and those exceptional circumstances should be so clear that approval of the proposed appointment would be forthcoming from the Dáil and Seanad. I suppose it is necessary to submit the amendment to you in writing?
I have got it.
I should like to say, in the first place, that when the Minister was speaking, I interjected that in the Transport Bill there was such a provision for all employees. Clearly, that was wrong. It is simply a provision in relation to directors, or that is my recollection.
I think a matter of serious principle is involved in this whole matter. The Oireachtas, under the Constitution— from the legislative angle, anyway— consists of the Seanad and Dáil. The President has a particular function but we are not concerned with that now. A point of agreement has, apparently, been reached over a number of years that in those State boards—if one may call them so—members of the Oireachtas should not be directors. That seems to be gaining general acceptance and, when this matter was before this House, this House provided that no member of the Oireachtas could be appointed unless with the consent of each House. That was reasonable. Once we were forced into the position of admitting or agreeing that a member of the Oireachtas might be a member of this board, it was wise to have the precaution that each House should sanction it.
The amendment made by the Seanad is one of fundamental importance because what they say is this: Let Dáil Éireann deal with itself; we will deal with our own House. A situation may arise where some member or members of the Seanad may be appointed to this particular board and this House which, after all, is completely elected on a basis of direct representation, may be deprived and, in fact, would be deprived of its right to criticise or to prevent any such appointment being made. The issue involved here is so serious that it cannot be glossed over, nor can it be accepted in the framework in which the Minister has put his suggestion to Deputy Lemass—that he should agree to have this Bill disposed of and the Seanad amendments accepted this evening.
I take it that if the Minister had resisted this amendment in the Seanad it would not have been made. The Minister can have had no doubt whatsoever as to what the feeling of this House was in regard to this matter. I have had no opportunity of seeking the debate on this particular amendment in the Seanad and I do not know whether the Minister did tell the Seanad that from what he had expressed here it was unlikely that such an amendment, if made, would be accepted by this House. If the Minister did not convey that to the Seanad, he was leaving the Seanad under some misapprehension.
The essential fact is that the amendment is before the Dáil.
I know it is. The Minister understood what the viewpoint of this House was and he was in charge of the Bill in the Seanad. I take it that if he had resisted that amendment in the Seanad it would not have been made. I understand the Minister is very anxious to get the Bill through quickly. I take it that there would not be any trouble about getting it through this evening had this amendment of fundamental importance not been made in the Seanad. This House has, over a considerable period, dealt with this type of legislation, this type of restriction, and there had grown up a viewpoint that, if any such appointment was to be made from the Oireachtas, whether from the Dáil or the Seanad, it should have the approval of both Houses. The Seanad says that as far as a member of Dáil Éireann is concerned they are not interested whether he is appointed to this board or not and that, as far as they are concerned, they do not want Dáil Éireann to interfere with their discretion. That is what I consider the fundamental issue involved. Is that to be permitted or is it not to be permitted? Is Dáil Éireann to accept that position? If we do accept that position, we create a very bad precedent that will very likely be followed and we will be establishing a position in which Seanad Éireann may obtain powers gradually that it was never intended to have within the Constitution and that Dáil Éireann will allow itself to lose powers gradually which are clearly given to it within the Constitution.
This House is elected directly by the electorate and has a responsibility to the electorate and that responsibility will not be discharged if we allow legislation to pass through containing within it matters of this kind by which the House permits itself to hand over to another part of the Oireachtas powers which it ought to retain in its own interest and in the public interest. That is what I consider to be the fundamental aspect involved in this amendment. For that reason, I strongly urge on the House to accept the amendment proposed by Deputy Lemass so that this undesirable precedent will not be created.
It seems to me that Deputy Lemass and Deputy Cowan have sought to question, though perhaps that is not intended, the Seanad's right to introduce any amendment to this Bill.
Not at all.
In effect, anyway. Certainly if what Deputy Cowan has said were taken as being in favour of Deputy Lemass's amendment, the insult that he sees to this House is the fact that the Seanad exercised its constitutional right to propose and pass an amendment to this Bill. Let us leave that out of the discussion, because it is a matter that we should not discuss here and that I am sure nobody wishes to discuss. But, as I said, the position is that the Seanad felt itself entitled to this view—that with regard to its own members, as a House of the Legislature it should retain jurisdiction and control over them.
And deprive the Dáil of it. That is the effect of the amendment.
I shall come to that. In connection with their own members they felt that it was right that they should retain that power and control over them. Now, from that point of view, I can appreciate the arguments which would appeal to the Seanad in that connection. But, looking at it from the point of view of this House, I do see some difficulty in following the arguments of Deputy Lemass. As the Bill stood when it left this House, it was possible that the Seanad itself, contrary to the wishes of this House, could exercise control over a member of this House.
As the Bill was passed in the Dáil, the Seanad was not in it at all.
I understand that as the Bill passed in the Dáil a resolution had to be passed by both Houses.
That is what I am proposing now.
Under the amendment then, the position could be that the Seanad itself, contrary to the wishes of this House, could exercise control with regard to a member of this House. That I think involves a question of principle to which ordinary Deputies should be opposed. As members of Dáil Éireann, the major branch of the Oireachtas, we should insist that our wishes with regard to our members should not, by any act of the Oireachtas, be interfered with by any outside body. It is clear, if the amendment were accepted, that such a situation could arise: that we might decide—I do not suppose we would and it is hard to imagine circumstances where it would be possible —that a member of this House should be a member of the board under this Bill, and that the Seanad might think otherwise. In that situation our view and our opinion would be completely set at nought if the amendment were accepted.
In all fairness I do see sense and reason in the attitude of the Seanad. I think that unfortunately there has been too much of a tendency for members of this House, and for people generally, to curtail the activities of the Seanad in all directions. I think that is a bad tendency. Here, where they ask for a reasonable right merely in regard to the members of their own House, I do not see why we, in reason, should object to it. In contradistinction to the Seanad view, I cannot see a reason for bringing about a situation in which we should give to the Seanad powers which they have not now, powers almost equal to the powers of this House.
It is my recollection, certainly, that this very situation was foreseen by Deputy Lemass on the Committee Stage of this Bill. The Deputy will correct me if I am wrong, but it is my recollection that Deputy Lemass was slightly opposed to the Minister's amendment in this connection. He voiced his apprehension that, by reason of the wording of the Minister's amendment, he could see the Seanad having something to say about it and perhaps suggesting the very thing that was suggested here.
I thought the Seanad would insist on the amendment that I am now proposing.
I do not want to go into details of the possible reactions of the Seanad, but for the reasons I have given, first of all because I consider the attitude or the request of the Seanad a reasonable one, I think we should agree with it. Secondly, and I take a strong view on this, I think the amendment proposed by Deputy Lemass could deprive this House of control with regard to its own members.
I am not proposing to deprive the House of any power.
Under his amendment we could have a situation which, by reason of a veto exercised by the Seanad contrary to the wishes of this House, a member of this House could not act on the board set up by this Bill. In these circumstances we are giving to the Seanad a right which they have not at present, the right to veto action of ours and to dictate to us concerning members of this House. That is a situation which, as members of this House, and as the properly elected members of the people, we should not tolerate. I commend that view particularly to Deputy Cowan.
Mr. de Valera
I think that some members of the House are arguing this on a completely wrong basis. This is not a matter of the privileges of members of either. House which each House might be anxious to protect. This is a matter of the public interest. The suggestion is that a person should not be appointed to a board of this sort if he is a member of the Oireachtas, unless in exceptional cases. That is in the public interest, and this House is the primary House concerned with the public interest. If this House is to be deprived of that position I would rather by far not have the question of veto brought in at all. If we, here, consider that it is in the public interest that a member of the Oireachtas should not be appointed a member of some board, then we should have the right to say "no". If the Seanad is to come in, as it insists on coming in, then the only way it can come in is by having the co-ordinate right to say "no". If I were drawing up an amendment, I would prefer restricting their right to a member of their own House, but, again, that might appear that it was a question of privilege and not a question fundamental to the public interest.
I would ask the Minister very sincerely not to accept the amendment of the Seanad and not to use the majority which it is possible for him to get by putting on the Government whips to get the amendment accepted. I do not know whether the Minister has consulted his colleagues about this. I think it is a matter of very grave importance as far as the rights of this House are concerned—that is, its position in the safeguarding of the public interest. We either do regard this as a matter affecting the public interest, or we do not. If the public interest is involved, then we should not surrender our rights. What Deputy O'Higgins has said is true to a certain extent, viz., if the Seanad have the power of veto and that we are prepared to say "yes" and they say "no", then you have the same situation as happens in the case of certain Bills, but in the case of Bills there is a way of resolving the dispute. If there is a difference between the Dáil and the Seanad about Bills there is a way of resolving it, but in this I do not see any way of resolving it if we say "yes" and they say "no". They will have a definite veto. If however it is in the public interest that a person who is a member of the Oireachtas should not be appointed to the board in question, unless in an exceptional case their veto is, I think, going in the right direction if they say "no". The public interest is going to be served by saying "no".
I strongly appeal to the Minister not to accept the amendment from the Seanad. They have approached this from quite the wrong point of view. It is not merely a question of privileges or of the rights of members of the House, it is a question of the public interest and we should not surrender our rights to pronounce upon it. We are elected as the primary House, and it is on this House that the main burden of safeguarding the public interest is laid.
At the outset I should like to set the thing right. I am sure Deputy Lemass did not intend to mislead the House in any way. I stated what was my recollection of what happened on the last occasion that we discussed this in this House. May I refer to Volume 118, No. 8, column 1065 of the Dáil Debates in relation to that amendment? I said:—
"Might I shorten the discussion by asking if the Deputy would be prepared to alter amendment No. 15 slightly by providing at the end of the amendment that ‘...no member of the Oireachtas shall be eligible to be appointed a director of the agency without a resolution of the Dáil'? I have no case in mind, but I could visualise circumstances in the somewhat distant future where you might deprive yourself of an extremely good man."
Deputy Lemass then said:—
"I accept that. Let me say, however, that Deputies of this House know my views on this subject."
I think the amendment that I put forward to the House complied exactly with what I have suggested. I mention that because I gathered the Deputy was under the impression that I had put forward a slightly different amendment.
I think this whole matter is getting somewhat out of focus. There have been a great many State corporations and companies formed, and different attitudes have been adopted in relation to them. In some cases there was no provision, in the Acts creating them, precluding members of the Oireachtas from being members; in other cases there were provisions which precluded members of the Oireachtas from being members. I think, in most cases, there was either a complete embargo or an embargo subject to a resolution in both Houses.
On the whole, I think it is unwise that members of the Oireachtas should be on the board of any company which derives its funds from the Oireachtas itself. I agree with Deputy Lemass in that. On the other hand, I feel that you should not deprive yourself of the possibility, in an exceptional case, of availing of the services of a member of the Oireachtas. But it would be only in an exceptional case, only where it is an outstanding case—a case where you would feel justified to the extent of coming before the House and saying: "I ask leave of the House to put soand-so on because, obviously, he is an outstanding man." I feel that no responsible Minister would take that step unless he felt absolutely justified and was assured of a certain degree of co-operation from the other side.
I felt that the one purpose to be achieved by the amendment which was put in was to have some check, some brake on any tendency a Government might have to make a member of the Oireachtas a member of the board of directors. That was the purpose of the amendment which was put forward when the Bill left this House. The Seanad took the justifiable viewpoint that they felt it was wrong that one of their members should be discussed in this House. There is a certain amount to be said for that. I think you will get a reflection of the same differences in the Seanad as you will here.
Mr. de Valera
If it is an appointment in the public interest, surely not? It is not the man who would be discussed.
Deputy de Valera has in his time introduced many Bills in this House setting up State companies, and they contained no provision at all. You can introduce a Bill with no provision, leaving it open to any member of the Oireachtas to be a director, as was done by the Opposition during their term of office. In that case the public interest was determined by the Government that made the appointment, not by this House nor by the Seanad. In this case the public interest will be determined by the Government that makes the appointment, but, as a check on that, as a brake on the tendency that the Government might have to create a post or give a post to a political friend, we are providing in this Bill that that can only be done with the consent either of the Dáil or the Seanad, depending upon whether the proposed appointee is a member of the Dáil or Seanad.
There is no question of principle involved. If there were a question of principle involved in this, then Deputy de Valera and his Party have broken that principle years ago, have ignored it completely. It is purely a question of common sense, and there has been no set policy pursued. I think there would be a question of principle actually involved in so far as this House is concerned if Deputy Lemass's amendment were passed, because it is in effect giving to the Seanad a right of veto on an appointment made by the Government and sanctioned by the Dáil, giving a right of veto to a body that, according to Deputy de Valera, is incapable of determining the public interest. Therefore, it would be doing the very mischief that Deputy de Valera is worried about.
Deputy Lemass mentioned that the Dáil was depriving itself of powers. It is not, as I am sure the Deputy fully realises. The Dáil has power at all times to put down a motion to call for the dismissal or resignation of the whole board of directors. In any case, the Dáil has already done so on many other occasions, because it has passed Bills without any provision, so I do not think there is much substance in that. The aim is to put some brake on the tendency of this or any other Government to make a political appointment that would be unjustifiable. I feel that purpose is being achieved by compelling the Government concerned, should they ever be tempted to appoint a member of the Oireachtas, to seek the sanction of the particular House of the Oireachtas to which that person belongs.
Mr. de Valera
I think the Minister's argument is altogether on a specious plane. It is true that the previous Government did make appointments on boards of members of the Oireachtas, but we gradually came to the view that that was not a wise procedure, for two or three reasons. One reason was that the Minister was, in this House, responsible for the conduct of some particular board—had some responsibility to the House in connection with it. Suppose there was a member of the House also on that board. If he was going to use his rights as a member, he would speak here, perhaps with a more immediate knowledge than the Minister. The result would be that you would have two different voices about the same matter. We came to the conclusion that it was better, in the public interest, that appointments of members of the Oireachtas should not be made to these companies. It was argued here that there might be a very exceptional case. What we are now trying to safeguard is that, if the exceptional case does occur, this House shall have a say in the matter. The present amendment of the Seanad deprives the Dáil of any voice in the matter. The Minister could make an appointment from the Seanad and this House, to which the Minister is primarily responsible, would have no say in that appointment. I would regard it as a better procedure to have no check at all rather than to have what I consider to be the wrong type of check. The Seanad amendment proposes to give the Seanad power in a case of this kind, a power which will put them in the position of taking the place of the Dáil, so to speak, in determining a matter which is fundamentally one of public interest. I am quite prepared to accept the amendment put forward by Deputy Lemass which stipulates "each House of the Oireachtas" because that means, in effect, that such an appointment would have to pass the check, not of one House, but of both Houses. If the Seanad are safeguarding their privileges, I think that is a quite sufficient safeguard. The Minister is introducing a very bad principle in permitting one House, the Seanad, to act by itself as the guardian, so to speak, of the public interest because, if it is not on the grounds of public interest, there is no reason at all for it.
Deputy de Valera has done both. In his time he introduced some measures of this kind in which there was no safeguard at all. He introduced others in which he left the veto on a question of public interest in the hands of the Seanad. I am taking the middle course. I am trying to benefit by the two diametrically opposite views and the two diametrically opposite policies pursued by Deputy de Valera in his time. I am trying to take an in-between course.
Mr. de Valera
When did we leave the Seanad the veto of an appointment?
Both Houses—that is, in effect giving a veto to the Seanad.
The Minister is right in one respect. That is that the views of the Dáil, and particularly the views of Deputies at this side of the House at present, on the matter of the appointment of members of the Oireachtas to boards of statutory companies have changed. At the beginning there did not appear to be any ostensible objection. I think there was a member of the House appointed to the first Electricity Supply Board by the Cumann na nGaedheal Government. On the first Turf Board there were members of the Oireachtas. There were members of the Oireachtas on some other boards. It was experience gained over a number of years which showed the unwisdom of that course. It was not a matter of suggestion that the Government might buy political support in either House by giving remunerated posts to Independent Deputies. It was because it impeded the proper functioning of the bodies themselves. It was because it complicated the position in the House and created unnecessary difficulties for the Government and because it generally proved to be an undesirable system.
That change of outlook occurred over a number of years. Subsequently boards, like the Turf Board, which was set up without any restriction upon the appointment of members, were made by subsequent legislation subject to this power upon the appointment of members of the Oireachtas. Towards the end, in 1946-47, the matter was once more discussed here. It was our idea at that time, an idea which was clearly indicated to the Dáil, that there should be an overriding rule adopted in the Dáil and Seanad and implemented by legislation which would determine the circumstances under which Deputies or Senators could be appointed to any remunerative post in statutory companies, if at all; and it was contemplated that that overriding rule would follow from the recommendation of a committee of both Houses, which was to have been set up following the adoption of a resolution by both Houses. Because of circumstances into which it is not necessary to go now that committee never functioned.
It would be a very good thing if such a committee was set up.
Possibly we may get agreement on its functioning now which we could not get heretofore. In so far, therefore, as the Minister can point to the fact, that the practice was not uniform under various previous enactments, it is merely a debating point because the idea was that there should be some overriding rule, either a rule of the House or a rule of law, which would settle the matter and settle it, if our views were adopted, by the method of precluding members of either House of the Oireachtas from appointment to these posts except, perhaps, in very, very unusual or exceptional circumstances. Now that is what the Minister has in mind in this Bill—the possibility of an appointment being made in unusual or exceptional circumstances.
I think it is undesirable that the Dáil should not be consulted if these unusual or exceptional circumstances affect a member of the Seanad. The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that if there is, in the view of the Government, a good and sound reason why a member of the Seanad should be appointed to a remunerative post on these boards, then the Dáil shall have an opportunity of expressing its views on the matter. If I follow the Minister aright, his argument is that a member of the Dáil shall not be appointed without the consent of the Dáil and a member of the Seanad shall not be appointed without the consent of the Seanad. I shall not try my hand at drafting another amendment ad hoc now. I submit that the one I am proposing comes nearest to achieving that and is, in any event, in accordance with precedent. May I suggest to the Minister that if he has in mind any idea that acceptance of an amendment to the Seanad amendment may delay his Bill, I do not think the position is as serious as he believes it to be? We are now approaching Christmas. I assume nothing will be done to implement the Bill before Christmas. The Seanad must meet early in January to implement legislation from this House. The delay would not be more than a matter of a few days and I am sure that if the Seanad learns the Dáil insists on having it in this particular form, they will not insist on having their amendment in its original form.
I have a feeling that this matter is not nearly as important as Deputy de Valera and some others believe. I am sure they are sincere in their belief. I think this is a question of very much ado about very little. I do not think it matters a whole lot which of the amendments are adopted. I favour the attitude taken up by the Minister because I do not think it would be right, and Deputy de Valera has stated that this would be one of the effects of adopting the suggestion put forward by Deputy Lemass, to give an indefeasible right of veto to the Seanad. That is what the result of Deputy Lemass's amendment would be. That is what would result from the adoption of the proposition that the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas is necessary. Deputy Lemass indicated that the views of the members of his Party in relation to this question have changed over the years as a result of experience. He said the important thing was to get some overriding rule. I think he indicated that in his view and in the view of his Party that overriding rule should be a general rule prohibiting members of the Oireachtas from appointment to these boards. The Minister and most Deputies who spoke from these benches indicated that they agreed that members of the Oireachtas should not be appointed to these boards as a general rule. The Minister also indicated that exceptional circumstances might arise. Deputy Lemass, in referring to the principle of an overriding rule, also limited that by saying that there might be unusual or exceptional cases where the general rule would have to be departed from. It seems to me there is a large measure of agreement between all sections of the House on the subject. The only matter in question is the type of machinery which should be set up to carry into effect the clearly expressed and defined views of the House. The Minister has pointed out that there are different types of enactments which have been used in the past and which could be used again. The first is that you might leave out any reference to this question at all. That view would not find favour now with any section of the House because of what both Deputy de Valera and Deputy Lemass have stated, that they and their Party have, over the years, changed their view in that regard.
The second type of machinery would be the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas. That carries with it, as Deputy de Valera stated, the granting of an indefeasible right of veto in the Seanad over the actions and wishes of this House in the matter. The third is the proposition made by the Seanad and accepted by the Minister that the decision should be with the House of the Oireachtas from whom it is proposed to appoint the member. It seems to me that course has some very practical advantages. The whole argument made for providing any such machinery at all is that you may, in the course of time, come across a case of exceptional merit and, because of the exceptional merit of the individual in question, it is felt that that individual should be appointed to the board.
One practical consideration which occurs to me is this: I am now a member of this House for nearly two years. I think I can say that I know, by appearance and by name, all the Deputies of this House. I have formed my own opinion and come to my own conclusions with regard to the merits and to the competency and to the capabilities of the various Deputies in the House. But I do not know, personally, or by appearance even, I think, one-third of the members of the Seanad. I think I would be completely incapable of, and incompetent to, pass judgment on a member of the Seanad as to whether or not he was a member of exceptional merit—of such exceptional merit as would warrant his being appointed to this board. I think that is a practical matter which should be taken into consideration.
I should imagine that very many members of the Seanad do not know me or do not know more than one-third of the Deputies of this House and that they might feel exactly the same way and feel the same degree of embarrassment, if you like, if they were asked to discuss the merits of individual members of this House. I think Deputy de Valera seemed to brush this aside, but I think it is essential to bear in mind that should an appointment of a member of the Oireachtas come up for discussion in either House of the Oireachtas it is going to be a very personal discussion. The only case that could be made for the appointment relates to the personality, to the competency and to general merit of the individual. It does not relate to any general question of public policy or of public interest.
Mr. de Valera
But it is not as a Senator that he would be discussed.
No, it is as an individual and because of his individual merit. My example was that I, as, I think, an average new Deputy in this. House, could not claim to know anything about more than, roughly, one-third of the members of the Seanad. I think, therefore, that it would be most unfair to ask me to adjudicate on their merits.
Deputy Lemass objected to the proposal which is made now by the Minister because he considers that the Dáil should have the opportunity of giving their views on the matter. I think the Minister, in his opening statement, gave the answer to that. At all times, in relation to this bit of legislation or any other legislation, the Dáil, and every Deputy in the Dáil, will have an opportunity, should he so desire, of giving his views on an appointment, even if the appointee is a member of the Oireachtas and the consent of the Dáil is not necessary. He can do that by motion. He can do that on the Minister's Estimate. He can do that by means of a parliamentary question addressed to the Minister. If necessary, as Deputy Lemass knows, he can raise the matter on the Adjournment.
If he gets first in the queue.
At any rate, if he is not first, he might be able to take his place in the queue and it would come along eventually.
I do not think there is anything very important about this whole matter. I think the suggestion put forward by the Minister at the behest of the Seanad is a very reasonable one. Generally speaking, I think it is a better one than the suggestion put forward by the Minister himself in response to Deputy Lemass and to which Deputy Lemass agreed in the Dáil—that the Dáil should have the say, and only the Dáil should have the say, no matter out of which House of the Oireachtas the appointee was coming. I think that there is really nothing of exceptional importance about the difference between the systems adopted. I suggest to the Deputies opposite that they should let it go through.
May I put the Deputy right on one point anyway? It is quite true that we changed our mind over the years on the question of the desirability of appointing members of the Oireachtas to these boards. In that connection I would point out to him that my amendment to this Bill was to impose a flat prohibition on such appointments. I accepted the Minister's suggestion that an appointment could be made with the concurrence of the Dáil because it was the farthest I thought we could get him to go, though I think the best provision is a flat prohibition on such appointments.
We have never changed our view as to the desirability of retaining in the Dáil full control over every matter which, in the opinion of the Dáil, is of public interest. May I remind the House that on one occasion when that became an issue between the Dáil and the Seanad we enacted the necessary legislation—followed by a general election—which resulted in the dissolution of the Seanad? We felt that was an issue on which the Dáil should not budge and we feel similarly now.
This question which is before us may appear to be a comparatively minor question but the principle behind it is important. Are we going to say that in the matter of the appointment of a member of the Oireachtas to a board of this kind the Dáil is to have no voice? That is the question. Deputy O'Higgins assumes that we debate here the individual merits only of the person proposed. If there were a suggestion to appoint a member of the Seanad on the board of this company the first question we would discuss would be whether it was desirable that there should be a member of the Oireachtas on the board of the company. If there were a claim of outstanding individual merit we would have to consider whether that individual merit was so outstanding as to outweigh the objections to the appointment of a member of the Oireachtas. In that event, I think the question should come here. If, as would appear to be, there is objection to the amendment I am proposing here I am prepared to change that amendment, in the form I suggested, to provide that a member of the Dáil shall not be appointed except with the consent of the Dáil, nor a member of the Seanad without the consent of the Dáil and Seanad. That meets the theoretical point that we are giving, by this amendment, the Seanad the power to veto an appointment of which the Dáil is prepared to approve. I think it is far better to give that power of veto, if you may so call it, to the Seanad rather than that we should deprive ourselves of the power to have any voice in the appointment of a member of the Seanad to the board.
Deputy Lemass set out to correct me with regard to my interpretation.
I said it is true we changed our mind on the question of the appointment of members of the Oireachtas to statutory boards but that we have never changed our mind on the importance of keeping under Dáil control all matters of public interest.
It seems to me that the easiest way to take that matter outside the control of the Dáil would be to adopt the method which was frequently adopted by the Deputy and members of his Administration, that is, not to put in any protective section at all and to leave it merely to the Government or to the Minister——
That is sensible. I would even prefer that to what is proposed here.
Mr. de Valera
Personally I would prefer that to this.
Surely that is completely inconsistent.
No. As I told the Deputy, we were prepared to contemplate, and are still prepared to contemplate, a general rule of the House or a rule of law which would determine, in relation to statutory companies, the question whether members of the Oireachtas should be eligible for appointment to the Board.
The point I want to make is this. The method adopted by the Deputy and his Party was a method which took the control completely out of the hands of this House and vested it in the Minister or the Government as the case might be. Deputy de Valera says that that was all very well, that he preferred that to this because no check is better than a wrong check. I think that was the actual phrase used by him. I do not want to become controversial about this at all, but it seems to me that, in fact, the attitude adopted opposite is that any check which is proposed by the Minister is a bad check. I venture to suggest that it took Deputies opposite 16 years to have a change of viewpoint in relation to the major question of whether such appointments should be made or not. I think if they wait another 16 years they may change their mind on this, too.
It is a useful capacity to have.
I feel the Minister ought to have accepted the gesture made by Deputy Lemass to him, that is, the gesture of accepting the amendment, going to the Seanad at the earliest opportunity and getting the Bill through. I think that was a reasonable suggestion which might have been accepted. However, it is entirely a matter for the Minister. I do know of my own knowledge that this matter of the appointment of members of the Dáil or Seanad to State companies or State boards has been under consideration for a number of years and, strangely enough, the greatest objection to it arose in the Seanad. It was really in the Seanad that the objection to the appointment of members of the Oireachtas to those State companies and boards developed. In the different debates, that point was stressed very strongly by Senators, particularly by Senator Luke Duffy, who was exceptionally keen on this particular matter. Having stressed this over a number of years, the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, who had to do with a number of these companies, did come to the conclusion, so far as I recollect, that it was undesirable that any member of the Dáil or Seanad should be a member of those boards. That was the changed opinion that has been mentioned here to-night by Deputy Lemass. It was a change brought about by experience and also by criticism over a period. We had what you might call that mental development in regard to that. When the Minister introduced this News Agency Bill, he based it, as he told us, on the precedent of Bills that were introduced by the Fianna Fáil Administration. He has defended this amendment this evening on the basis of the precedent created by Fianna Fáil.
Oh, no, at no stage. The Deputy must not have followed me.
I followed it completely.
There were two different lines followed by the last Administration. This is a third one.
This is a fourth.
The Minister said we had two examples in precedent and that they have taken, as it were, the middle of the road but the middle of the road has been taken on precedents that have been created in the past, precedents that have been found to be unsatisfactory from a Parliamentary point of view. Deputy Michael O'Higgins said that his view is that this is much ado about nothing.
About very little.
Much ado about very little but it is strange that it is small things—and this may appear to be a small thing—that determine in the long run bigger things. If this House surrenders some of its rights or yields some of its duties in regard to a matter that may appear to be small, next week we shall be asked to surrender these rights or duties on something that may be only a little bigger. Gradually we can surrender our rights and give up our duties on very many important things in that way. I take it that if a Senator or a Deputy is appointed by the Minister it is not absolutely necessary that one should know that individual personally. I do not think that comes into it at all but one can at least know his political line-up. I think that can be understood.
It is very difficult in some cases.
One can know that.
Can one?
Yes, he can.
Past, present and future.
You can know something about them apart entirely from that. It is really on this issue that the matter will come forward for criticism or review.
Surely it is completely wrong that it should be because of his political line-up?
Unfortunately that is how it happens. It is very seldom that a person in opposition to the Administration is selected for an appointment of that kind.
It has happened.
Very seldom. Even in the construction of the Seanad itself, where there is a certain power vested in the Taoiseach for the time being——
It does not arise here.
It does not arise but it does fortify the particular point I am making, that you do not go and select your political opponents for these positions.
It has been done.
It has been done by the last Government and this.
I know there have been some appointments of that kind but that is the position that arises generally. I should like to see this possible power of appointment of any member of this House or of the Seanad abolished as far as this Bill is concerned. After all, no member of this House or of the Seanad can be a member of the Civil Service and remain a member of this House or of the Seanad. He cannot be a member of the judiciary or of the Army. There are quite a number of other appointments that a member of the Seanad or of the Dáil may not hold and remain a member of these bodies. Deputy O'Higgins has said—and I think the Minister himself puts it—that in the future there may be some exceptional person in the Dáil or Seanad who should be appointed to this board. I gathered from the Minister that he does not see the possibility of making any immediate appointment, but that at some time in the future there may be this extraordinary person who should be appointed. I would ask him not to bother so much about the distant future in regard to this particular Bill or in regard to any of the organisations that may be set up. The view has been expressed, and I do not believe that this Bill will have a tremendously long life. It is for that reason that I think it is unwise to be making provision for something that may happen in five, ten or 20 years' time.
As far as the present set-up in the Dáil or Seanad is concerned, the Minister seems to take the view that there is no person of outstanding merit who could be appointed. I gathered from him that the power he is seeking, to appoint a member of the Oireachtas, is not one that is going to be exercised immediately. If that is so, and if this is only something that may arise in the future, then I think he should take the sense of this House and the very strongly expressed view of the House in regard to it. As I said at the beginning, if he had accepted the approach made to him by Deputy Lemass and had agreed to this particular amendment, there would clearly be no difficulty whatever about having it accepted in the Seanad and the Bill would be in operation as soon as it was possible for him to have the articles of association prepared.
I would make a further appeal to him to accept the suggestion that has been put forward. It is a reasonable one but, however, that is a matter for the Minister. If he will not accept it, we will only have to try to convince him by argument that he is wrong in the line to which he is holding.
I rise to appeal to the Minister, to Deputy Cowan and to the House to agree to the compromise suggested by Deputy Lemass. Having heard the matter thrashed out for the last hour or more, I think the last suggestion of Deputy Lemass would fit the bill, that is, to provide that in the case of a member of the Dáil you leave the approval to the Dáil, and in the case of a member of the Seanad, you leave the approval to the Dáil and Seanad. It could be easily fitted in and a few words would do it.
The position is that the Seanad has strong views on this question. They do not believe it would be proper for one of their members to be discussed here. The whole question is largely academic. I do not visualise any likelihood that the Government would want to appoint as a director on this board any member of the Oireachtas. I do not visualise that any person would be worth appointing on a board of this kind who would be prepared in present circumstances to submit himself to the kind of discussion that would take place about him.
There is a lot of nonsense talked about the public interest. The public interest in matters of that kind is, and has been, usually left in the hands of the Government; but the Government is in this case including provisions which give a right of veto to one or other House of the Oireachtas, depending on the House to which the possible appointee would belong. The public interest remains in the hands of the Oireachtas.
This Bill has been discussed ad nauseam in this House and in the Seanad. I do not think that anything more could be said. This represents the views of the Seanad. Two different courses have been adopted so far and I have taken the middle course. I agree entirely with Deputy Lemass— and I hope that something may be done about it in the future—that there should be an examination by a Committee of the House of the over-all position, not merely of the rights of members of the Dáil or Seanad on the directorates of companies, but also as to their supporting position in State-sponsored companies. I am in complete agreement with Deputy Lemass in his view that it is desirable that members of the Oireachtas should not be members of State companies.
On the amendment to the amendment, I am putting the question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the amendment."
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 69; Níl, 52.
Tá
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, John.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Brennan, Joseph P.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Collins, Seán.
- Commons, Bernard.
- Connolly, Roderick J.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, John A.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Kinane, Patrick.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, James.
- Lehane, Con.
- Lehane, Patrick D.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- MacBride, Seán.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- McQuillan, John.
- Madden, David J.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, William J.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- Davin, William.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Esmonde, Sir John L.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Flynn, John.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keyes, Michael.
- O'Gorman, Patrick J.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Spring, Daniel.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Timoney, John J.
- Tully, John.
Níl
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Davern, Michael J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- De Valera, Vivion.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Friel, John.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, James.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lahiffe, Robert.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Lynch, John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- Moran, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Walsh, Thomas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Kyne; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy.
Motion declared carried.
Question put: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1."
The Committee divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 52.
Tá
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, John.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Brennan, Joseph P.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Cogan, Patrick
- Donnellan. Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Sir John L.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Flynn, John.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kinane, Patrick.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, James.
- Lehane, Con.
- Lehane, Patrick D.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- MacBride, Seán.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Collins, Seán.
- Commons, Bernard.
- Connolly, Roderick J.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, John A.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Davin, William.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- McQuillan, John.
- Madden, David J.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, William J.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Gorman, Patrick J.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Spring, Daniel.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Timoney, John J.
- Tully, John.
Níl
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Bourke, Patrick.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Davern, Michael J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- De Valera, Vivion.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Friel, John.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, James.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lahiffe, Robert.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Lynch, John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- Moran, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Walsh, Thomas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Kyne; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy.
Motion declared carried.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2:—
2. In page 5, at the end of Section 18, a new sub-section inserted as follows:—
(4) Each member of the advisory board shall, unless he sooner dies or resigns, retain his membership of the board for one year from the date of his appointment and no longer but shall be eligible for reappointment.
This is a purely procedural matter, providing for the term of office of members of the advisory board.
I would ask the Minister whether this particular amendment was suggested by the Seanad or suggested by the Minister to the Seanad.
It is a Seanad amendment.
I have to accept it, of course, as being a Seanad amendment, but I was wondering whether it was——
An inspired one.
——suggested by the Seanad. Apart entirely from the principle involved in the amendment, it is rather loosely worded:—
"Each member of the advisory board shall, unless he sooner dies or resigns, retain his membership of the board for one year from the date of his appointment and no longer but shall be eligible for reappointment."
Why I asked was that I was wondering whether that amendment was put forward by some Senator with a sense of humour. It is a very slovenly drafted amendment whoever was responsible.
Would it save the Deputy trouble if he knew that it was a copy of similar provisions in numerous other Acts of Parliament?
What I feel should be done is to try to keep up-to-date. Even if that objectionable form has been used in previous Acts, there is no reason why it should be followed. It is cumbersome and ridiculous. Might I ask the Minister whether he will simply appoint this board for a year? This Bill would seem to imply that if this advisory board is to be of any value at all, it would need a reasonable period of office. This system whereby the members of the board will be appointed for one year, will attract very few people because immediately any member of this advisory board expresses a viewpoint that the Minister does not like, he will disappear at the end of 12 months and somebody else will be appointed. That is a matter for consideration. I would like to know from the Minister what reason he had for agreeing to the introduction of this particular amendment, apart entirely from its form which will make membership of the advisory board membership for one year only unless the person is reappointed. However, I cannot discuss it without having some information on the point and therefore I should like to know what the Minister's views are.
It was felt that it was better that it should be a short period so that if there is any change of circumstances it would be possible to appoint new persons. A change in circumstances might mean a change of Government or any other reasons.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3:—
In page 5, at the end of Section 18 a new sub-section inserted as follows:—
(5) The remuneration, if any, of the members of the advisory board shall be determined from time to time by the Minister after consultation with the Minister for Finance.
This amendment provides that the remuneration, if any, of the members of the advisory board shall be determined, in effect, not by the directors but by the Minister for External Affairs after consultation with the Minister for Finance.
Is there any intention of remunerating the members of the board?
No general intention, but in some ways it may be necessary. It may be necessary to pay expenses or to pay a fee for attendance.
I should like to make my position clear in regard to this. As this Bill went through the House, there was some difficulty as to what the functions of the advisory board might be. None of us visualised the possibility that any member of this board would be remunerated. That was perfectly understood. I think it is still the Minister's view that there will be no remuneration for any member of the board. In this amendment there is provision for the remuneration of members, subject to its being determined from time to time by the Minister after consultation with the Minister for Finance. That opens the door to payment. I can see no circumstances in which a person who accepts membership of the board, which will be rather in the nature of an honorary appointment, would be remunerated. If we pass this amendment, there is no reason in the world why, if the Minister for Finance agrees, the members of this board may not be paid substantial salaries. I feel that perhaps there ought to be an amendment to this amendment to provide specifically that no remuneration will be paid to any members. But that is hardly necessary. If the Dáil rejects this amendment, then I do not think there will be power under the Bill to provide for remuneration. At no stage was the Minister able to indicate what the particular functions of the board would be, whether the board was to advise the Minister or to advise the directors.
That is utter nonsense. You only have to read the section.
I want to know what the functions of the board are to be.
This deals only with remuneration, not functions.
If the board have no functions except the function of meeting either the Minister or the directors operating the news agency from time to time, then they should not be renumerated.
Obviously, we cannot discuss functions on a matter which deals solely with remuneration.
I agree that that ought not to be discussed on the amendment. But, if we have a board that has no work to do except to meet the Minister or somebody else periodically, perhaps weekly, or monthly or quarterly——
The Deputy accepts my ruling and immediately proceeds to infringe it.
I am not discussing the functions of the board. The point I am making is that, if the board has no work to do, then we ought not to provide remuneration for it. This seems to be the last stage of the Bill as far as this House is concerned and it would be much better if we did not insert this amendment because during the discussions in the Dáil no person conceived that in any circumstances remuneration might be paid.
It was discussed.
I do not remember its being discussed. It certainly was not discussed on the basis that remuneration would be paid. I think this amendment should not be inserted and I oppose it.
May I say to the Minister that if we decide to pay salaries to the board I would regard it as a very grave abuse? The provision for the remuneration of the directors of the news agency ensures that there will be sufficient salaried appointments in connection with it, and to put another tier on top of the whole structure, in the form of salaries to members of the advisory board, would be unprecedented and a gross waste of public funds. It is a matter of indifference to me whether the Minister proposed this change in the Bill himself or merely accepted it to meet the Seanad. I think, however, that he should make it quite clear now in everybody's mind, including his own, that he does not intend to provide salaries for the members of the advisory board.
The amendment merely provides that the remuneration, if any, will be determined by the Minister after consultation with the Minister for Finance. If there was no such provision, it would be within the power of the directors to pay any remuneration they desire.
Deputy Cowan is quite right. When the Dáil was considering the Bill in Committee, nobody even thought of the possibility of the members of the advisory board getting salaries.
It was, in fact, discussed.
There was incidental reference to it. I cannot accept the Minister's contention that, if this amendment is not inserted, remuneration can be paid. Clearly, if there is no statutory provision for remuneration it cannot be paid to anybody except with the authority of the Minister for Finance. Is it not the general principle of the control of public funds that, if there is no statutory authority for payment, it cannot be done without the authority of the Minister for Finance? What then is the purpose of this amendment? It seems to me that the purpose of the amendment is to provide for the payment of remuneration. If words mean anything, that is what the amendment means. The Minister says that, as far as this is concerned, it only provides that remuneration can be determined by the Minister in consultation with the Minister for Finance.
The amendment provides that the remuneration "shall be determined" and not can be determined as the Deputy has said.
Well, I think that is even stronger because it does provide that there will be remuneration, and that it shall be determined by the two Ministers.
Is the Deputy deliberately misreading the amendment, which says that "the remuneration, if any... shall be determined"? Is there anything mandatory about that? Is it not being deliberately left open?
The words "if any" are put in there for no other purpose than to mislead. It would be a simple thing for the Minister to answer and say whether or not the members of this advisory board will be remunerated, to say what likely circumstances may arise whereby they may be paid. When the Bill was going through the Dáil, which is the House primarily concerned with the control of public funds, no such section was inserted in the Bill. When, however, it reached the Seanad the Seanad put in a clause which imposes a charge on public funds. I can do nothing more than express my opposition to such a section as this, coming at the end of a very long debate on this Bill. We cannot even yet get anything from the Minister beyond this, that remuneration may in certain circumstances be paid.
Question put and declared carried.
Agreement with the three amendments from the Seanad reported.
Ordered: That the Seanad be notified accordingly.