SECTION 1.

The Parliamentary Deposits Act, 1846, shall have effect in Saorstát Eireann subject to the following modifications, that is to say :—
(a) references to the standing orders of either House of Parliament shall be construed as referring to the standing orders made jointly by Dáil Eireann and Seanad Eireann relative to private business.
(b) references to the Office of Clerk of the Parliaments and references to the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons shall be construed as referring to the Private Bill Office of the Oireachtas.
(c) references to the certificate of the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords or of the Speaker of the House of Commons shall be construed as referring to the certificate of the Chairman of the Joint Committee of Dáil Eireann and Seanad Eireann on standing orders relative to private business.

The question is that Section 1 stand part of the Bill. The section deals with the application of the Parliamentary Deposits Act, 1846. Mr. Christie has raised a point in reference to this section. He says it would be more correct in line 19, Section 1 (a) to delete the word " of " and to substitute therefor the words " made jointly by." It is a question of the technical description of the Private Bill Standing Orders. Are they the Standing Orders of the Dáil or Seanad, or are they made jointly ?

They are Standing Orders made jointly.

That is correct. As stated in the Bill it is not strictly correct. Mr. Ryan, of the Private Bill Office, has seen Mr. Matheson, and he says Mr. Christie's amendment is more accurate.

I propose the amendment and line 19 will then read : " Standing Orders made jointly by Dail Eireann and Seanad Eireann relative to private business."

The question is in line 19 to delete the word " of " and to substitute therefor the words " made jointly by."

Question put and agreed to.

I move to add at the end of line 30 the words " relative to private business."

The question is : to add at the end of line 30 the words " relative to private business."

Question put and agreed to.

There is a point in Sub-Section C which was raised by one or two persons, and I think it is important to call attention to it. It is inserted deliberately by Mr. Matheson, and it may arise in discussion. That is the reason I would like to refer to it here. In England all private Bills are dealt with quite separately in each House. A Bill may be introduced in the Lords and be examined by the Lords' Examiner to see if it complies with their orders. If it does, it goes through the various stages in the Lords. It only goes to the Commons when it is finally disposed of, and there it starts absolutely all over again. It is important, because under the Parliamentary Deposits Act, which provides for deposits in the case of certain private Bills, the return of these deposits, not made by court, is made on certificate, either by the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords or the Speaker of the House of Commons. It may be raised in the Dail that you are taking, under this Bill, power from the Ceann Comhairle in the Dail and giving it to a person holding a lower position, but the answer to that is that the Chairman of the Joint Committee of both Houses is the nearest approach to the position in regard to both Houses that these two hold relative to private business and Bills in England, and that it is fitting in with the new procedure we have adopted here. Sometimes the Chairman of the Joint Committee might be a member of the Dail and sometimes a member of the Seanad. There is no order as to which it should be.

It is just as good that the certificate be given by a person who has dealt with the Bill in Committee. The Ceann Comhairle in the Dail might not know anything about it and he would have to act on the advice of his Clerk. It is a roundabout method they have in England. The Speaker of the House of Commons gives a certificate, though he has no knowledge of the thing at all.

If we adopt a similar procedure, it would have to be a joint certificate by the Chairman of the Seanad and the Ceann Comhairle.

That would be nonsense.

They would have to go to the office and satisfy themselves that everything was in order before they could give a certificate. It would place a great amount of work on the Private Bill Office. The fact really is that the Chairman of the Joint Committee is more or less the head of the Private Bill Office, and has to deal with the procedure and the points that arise in that office. He will have the machinery of that office, including his Chief Clerk, to advise him in any certificate he gives. The Chairman of either House would have to go through his own office and ascertain the facts in the Private Bill office. The question is that Section 1 as amended stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.