The precedents to which the Ceann Comhairle refers were Private Members' Bills, in accordance with English precedents. It is dispensed with in the case of Private Members' Bills frequently but not in the case of Government Bills. Further more, we are not competent to hear anyone but members.
Page 3
The Chairman read the following minute which he had submitted to the Ceann Comhairle in connection with verbatim reporting together with the Ceann Comhairle’s reply.
Ceann Comhairle :
PROCEDURE IN SPECIAL COMMITTEE.
Deputy Seán Collins' withdrawal from the Special Committee on the Defence Bill raises the issue as to whether it was competent for the Committee to decide
(a) to dispense with the customary verbatim report of its proceedings, and
(b) to hear persons other than Deputies members of the Committee.
Under Standing Order No. 64, it appears that the Committee is bound to the procedure applicable to a Committee of the whole House. It appears to have no further power and scope than the House in Committee in the ordinary way. This view is reinforced by the fact that the additional powers usually required by Select Committees are explicitly provided for in Standing Orders Nos. 67 and 68.
As to (a) : it is customary to have the verbatim report taken when the whole House is in Committee. The question under Standing Order 64 then is—is the taking of such report part of the " procedure ". I think it arguable that it is. The report could only be dispensed with in the House by special resolution. But it seems such special resolution would have to be passed by the House and to do so the House would have to come out of Committee for the purpose. It would therefore seem to follow that in the case of a Special Committee the matter should be referred back to the Dáil before the report can be dispensed with. In England, it is customary to take verbatim reports in the corresponding Standing Committees (see May, Fourteenth Edition, pps. 625-645).
As to (b) : similar considerations seem to apply. It is to be noted that the powers of Select Committees to pursue inquiries are explicitly provided for; but the terms of reference must also explicitly provide for the powers that any particular Select Committee is to have (Standing Order No. 67). A Select Committee has power under Standing Order No. 68, only when explicitly empowered by the House as set out in Standing Order No. 67. No similar provision is made for a Special Committee which remains bound by the procedure applicable to a Committee of the whole House.
It would seem that a resolution to suspend Standing Orders for the purpose, or some similar resolution or consent of the House, would be required before a person other than a Deputy could be heard. Again, the House would probably have to come out of Committee for this purpose, if it wished to hear outsiders in Committee.
As requested in our recent conversations, I am referring the above to you. As Chairman, I accepted the relevant motions only because I was informed that you had left the matters open. I have no details of precedents to guide me.
(Signed) VIVION DE VALERA,
(Chairman.)
Vivion de Valera, Esq., T.D., Chairman, Special Committee on Defence Bill, 1951.
Procedure in Special Committee.
I have received your communication dated 27th instant under above reference and I have to thank you for bringing this matter so promptly to my notice.
I agree with your submission that a Special Committee to which a Bill is in the normal way referred is bound by the procedure applicable to the Committee of the whole House.
In general it is the practice to report verbatim the proceedings of Special Committees on Bills though in going through past records I have found a number of cases, mostly of Private Members' Bills of a minor nature, where a verbatim report of the proceedings has been omitted.
I now rule that the Special Committee on the Defence Bill, 1951, should, in reporting to the House, present a verbatim record of its proceedings. I may say in so ruling that it is the view of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, whose attention I drew to the matter yesterday, that verbatim reporting is implied in the terms of Standing Order No. 64 and could only be dispensed with by a formal resolution of the House.
Since procedure in the Dáil applies to Special Committees it is clear that only the members of a Committee are entitled to speak and be recorded during its proceedings.
P. O. HOGÁIN,
Ceann Comhairle.
29th February, 1952.
We are not directly concerned about that decision. When we were advocating carrying on without the aid of the reporters, we had in view the fact that it would greatly facilitate the business of the Committee and make for more speed. Now we have been informed that the position is as we suspected it would be. It is quite possible that the only time the Committee will be able to meet will be on days the Dáil is not sitting. If the Dáil and Seanad were sitting it would not be found possible to provide reporters, and the Committee would be unable to work. That is one of the repercussions.
We must also face the question whether we can have meetings of this Committee on days the Dáil is not sitting. We will be beginning the long week soon, with sittings of the Dáil on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, with the possibility of Friday. It has just been announced that the Dáil will meet next Tuesday. Deputies would have to come to the House for this Committee either on Monday or stay over until Friday.
The difficulty arises only on Wednesdays and Thursdays when the Seanad is not meeting. The Seanad does not meet on Tuesdays, so Tuesday would be in order.
This is very important business of Parliament, not just something that will meet when note takers are available. The Committee has been appointed by the House with the duty to do a job of work. It is the duty of whoever is responsible for the reporting to have reporters available for us. That is their duty. This is part of the Parliamentary business. We cannot take it that we cannot do this important business because reporters are not available.
Deputies may frequently need to be in the House. That is another argument. We have our duty in the House, too.
That has always been taken into consideration in regard to special committees. There are other functions that Deputies have to carry out as well. I said that no matter where reporters be got they should be got for this Committee. It is as important as if we were holding this discussion in the House. If it were not here we would have to hold it in the House and public time would be used up. I agree with Deputy Cowan about the desirability of having reporters, wherever their services may be secured.
I agree with that. We tried to facilitate things and now we have been ordered by the Ceann Comhairle otherwise. It is up to them to provide reporters.
I think it is the view that when the Committee decides to sit, facilities must be provided.
There is another matter of procedure. In the discussion of this Bill in Committee, on opposition to sections, the Committee may consider—and the Minister may agree with the Committee—that some alteration or amendment might be made. I feel that when the amendments submitted in accordance with our previous decision have been dealt with and the Bill has gone through Committee the Minister should have an opportunity then to move amendments that he thinks are necessary as a result of the discussions.
He can do that on Report.
It will make it much easier if he could do it here.
The Bill would have to be recommitted.
We are bound by our first decision. It would be desirable but I am afraid we will have to stick to our procedure.
SECTION I.
I move amendment No. 1 :—
To delete sub-section (2).
I proposed this because I think that when this Bill has been passed by the Dáil and Seanad and signed by the President it should come into operation. Subject to whatever the Minister has to say, I see no reason why, when the Bill becomes law, its operation should be dependent on an Order being made by the Minister fixing a date.
The Deputy will realise that regulations have to be made, and it is necessary to have a definite time for that. They cannot be made until the Bill has been passed by the Oireachtas. Time intervening between that and the operation of the Bill would also be necessary, to permit Army personnel to study the Bill and acquaint themselves with its legal aspects and other points. If the Bill came into operation on the day it was signed by the President, which would be the effect of the proposed amendment, there would be absolute chaos. It would not have been printed in its final form or circulated to the Defence Forces, and they would be operating under an Act which they had had no time to study, so that we would want at the very least six months. I do not know whether it will take a longer time than that, but it will certainly take at least six months to prepare the regulations arising out of the Bill as well as to provide an opportunity for the members of the forces to familiarise themselves with it. From that point of view alone, it would be impossible to accept this amendment.
I think it is only reasonable that they would get that length of time.
It is a very usual provision in Bills.
It is.
Usual or not, it is required in this case.
That would be the minimum time that would be required. It might take even longer. By getting to work right away, they probably would be able to do it in that time. Therefore, a Chathaoirleach, I cannot accept the amendment.
I see the force of what the Minister says in regard to the matters he mentioned but I think that it is not in this type of Bill that such a provision is generally inserted. That provision is generally inserted in a very different type of Bill where particular parts of the Bill are brought into operation at particular times. As far as the regulations are concerned, no regulation can be made under this Bill until the Bill becomes law. Undoubtedly, regulations may be prepared for its coming into operation. No regulation can be made until the Bill becomes law and it would be the simplest thing in the world for the Minister, with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, to pass a very simple regulation that all regulations existing would remain in force until new ones were made. That aspect of it could be got over. There is a further point : the present Temporary Provisions Act expires probably in March, 1953. It has been extended recently and I take it it is extended to March.
Actually, we have to bring in the Temporary Provisions Act for another 12 months yet. We have to do that before 31st March.
Of this year ?
Of this year, until whatever time this Act comes into operation, probably until April, 1953.
I feel that this is not the sort of Bill that should be subject just to Ministerial order as from the date on which it comes into operation. It is a very important Act. I would much prefer that we would put a date on it, that it would become law at a particular date six months ahead than leave it just to be brought into force by order of the Minister for Defence. However, as I say, I realise the force of the arguments that have been advanced and I will not press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 1 agreed to.
Section 2 postponed.
Section 3 agreed to.