Vol. 17 No. 2
I beg to submit the Twentieth Report of the Committee of Selection:—
The Committee of Selection met on Tuesday, 16th November, 1926.
The Committee nominated the following Deputies to serve on the Select Committee on the Land Bill (No. 2), 1926, viz.: The Minister for Lands and Agriculture, Deputies Roddy, Noonan, Dwyer, James Cosgrave, Heffernan, Gorey, P. Hogan (Clare), and T.J. Murphy.
Ordered: "That the Report do lie upon the Table."
Am I in order in making a comment on this?
Yes.
I must protest against the decision of the Committee of Selection in this matter. I agreed to refer this Bill to a Committee of Selection for the purpose of giving certain people an opportunity of moving amendments which would not be in order otherwise. Now what has happened? The Committee of Selection has met, and I would have thought that it was the function of the Committee to give proportional representation to the various parties in the Dáil, but instead they have given a representation of four to a party of about sixty, and a representation of five to the other parties of about fortyfour—all the other parties would amount to about forty-four. I think that is a regrettable incident, and I think it is a very serious question for the Committee to come to such a decision. I must say that I cannot see the justification for it. To my mind it will reduce the procedure of the Committee of Selection to a farce.
It is, of course, open to me to come back to the Dáil, and to ask the Dáil to consider amendments, but I do not want to do that. I want to meet all the parties and to discuss the amendments with them on the merits. I am faced now with a position where the Government Party, amounting to between 55 and 64, is in a minority on that Committee. I always thought that the functions of that Committee were to give proportional representation to all parties. This is not the first time this Committee will have to function. There will be other matters referred to the Committee of Selection. This is a serious precedent for them to make and, obviously, if this is to be taken as a precedent, I do not see how the Government, in important matters such as this question of the Land Act, involving extremely weighty financial considerations, is to act. If this is the way the Committee of Selection is performing their functions—I have not consulted any member of the Government about it—I must say that I imagine the Government Party will have to review their whole attitude towards the Committee of Selection, and if they do it might destroy the usefulness of the Committee itself.
I do not want to press this to a division; unless I have the general consent of the whole Dáil, I do not want even to move an amendment to it. But I do suggest that the proper thing to do in this case, having regard to all the circumstances, and having regard to the financial importance of the Bill, is, if I get general agreement on the matter from the House, to move that it be referred back to the Committee of Selection for reconsideration.
I think if anybody is at fault in this matter it is the representative of the Government Party. The Committee of Selection met yesterday evening and the representatives of the Government on the Committee seemed to me to be in charge of a Professor—Professor Tierney.
They were in charge of a Deputy.
A Deputy Professor.
He is not a Deputy Professor.
I did not know that there was that good reason.
The matter was under consideration and the Chairman asked the Government Party representative how many did they want and Deputy Professor Tierney answered that they wanted five. I think I said we would like to get three, and Deputy Johnson said he would expect two, and the Independents wanted one. We were trying to make provision also for the People's Party. I do not know if anybody yet knows what is the real strength of the Government Party.
You have good reason to know it often.
Deputy Professor Tierney said "we will take off one and let them take off one also." We agreed, and we were the happiest family in the world last night. We put on the Committee the members of the Government Party that we thought were the best men for the job. As a matter of fact, I think I proposed all the names myself. We were in perfect agreement about this. The question did not arise, and if anyone is at fault it is the representative of the Government. There was no intention of doing anything wrong.
I would like to support what Deputy Gorey has said in regard to the proceedings of the Committee. The Government representatives, so far as I understood the matter, were prepared to agree to the Committee as now formed. That being so, I do not know whether it is up to the Minister to complain now of the action of the Selection Committee when representatives of his own party agreed—this was a unanimous report— to the Committee being composed as it is now. As regards meeting all parties, as the Minister suggests, I think he would find a little difficulty on a Committee of nine members in meeting all parties. The method in which the members have been allocated seemed to the members of the Selection Committee to be the fairest under the circumstances. As Deputy Gorey has said, there is one party which has no representative on the Committee.
How many parties are in the House?
That is the point. I think it is difficult for the Minister to meet all parties as he suggests. The nearest that we could go to bring about that state of affairs was to make the selection we did. When I say "we" I mean the Committee as a whole, including the Government's representatives. It was thought at the Committee that this matter of the Land Bill was a question in regard to which hard and fast party lines could really be waived. The Land Bill is a great Bill for the benefit, I presume, of the supporters of all parties. It was thought that on a measure such as this, hard, fast and narrow party distinctions should not be drawn. At any rate, the Selection Committee made their choice, and I strongly support Deputy Gorey when he says that if the Minister has any complaint it is against the members of his own party who are on the Selection Committee.
I was under the impression that I had the distinction of being a member of the Selection Committee, but I now learn for the first time that that Committee met last night and selected a Committee to deal with the Land Bill.
The Deputy is certainly a member of the Selection Committee.
If Deputy Magennis is a member of the Selection Committee why was he not notified of the meeting?
I think Deputy Magennis will be able to make that point clear.
The point is, if the Deputy is a member of the Committee, why was he not notified about yesterday's meeting?
The Deputy can make his mind perfectly clear about Deputy Magennis's capacity to argue his own case.
I do not agree that because certain Deputies in the Government Party agreed to this, that necessarily ends it. I did not think that that was the way in which Deputies would face the matter. I thought it was the business of the Selection Committee and of each and every member, not only members of the Government Party but members of other parties, to give proportional representation to each party. Undoubtedly that has not been done in this case, and I protest against what has occurred. The Government Party, with a clear majority, are left in a minority on the Committee. I have not been treated fairly. I could have adopted another mode of procedure. I could have taken the Bill in Second Reading in the ordinary way and, without indicating what other parties might or might not do in Committee, I have little doubt that I would have carried the Bill. In order, however, to meet other parties I suggested that amendments be brought up, but it was found that these amendments were not in order and this Committee was suggested to give Deputies an opportunity of bringing them up and of giving the Dáil an opportunity of discussing the amendments. The Selection Committee has met and has put the Government Party, who have a majority, in a minority on the Committee.
I protest. First of all we were met with the difficulty as regards numbers. In selecting a Committee of nine we could not have treated the different parties in proportion. Had the figure been different to nine we might have been able to work it out differently. I think the view was held that the findings of the Committee were to be reported to the Dáil and that the Dáil would decide the matter.
That is begging the question.
There was no intention to go outside the ordinary terms, which I always insisted on and which I had occasion to insist on, and I want no implication cast on any members of the Committee either at the meeting last night or at any other time. I do not know what the Minister intends. There is nothing final in the findings in this case. The report will not have the effect of an Act. I do not think that it is any undue hardship on the Minister. No party interested in this measure, such as my party, could scarcely claim that they would be adequately represented by having one member on the Committee. If the Minister got what he wanted it would mean that there would be one representative from the Farmers' Party, one from the Labour Party, and one from the Independent Party. Owing to the number required to form the Committee we could not work out the representation proportionately.
I take it that the Minister really wants to pass a vote of censure on the Selection Committee for not obeying Standing Orders. His own party had a majority on the Committee last night.
Had a majority last night?
Yes, to make the selection.
Might I ask is that the only time they had a majority?
At the Committee which made the selection.
We always had to send for Government members on this Committee. They have been the worst attendants at the Committee, and in order to give them representation we had to send for them time and again to attend the Committee.
This Committee, presumably, was called last night at very short notice. I do not know who received notice or who did not. It happened that the regular Chairman was not present, and I was asked to take the Chair. The supporters of the Government had a majority present. The selection was made as near as possible to the Standing Order, which said that the Committee was to be as nearly representative as possible according to the Parties in the Dáil. Perhaps the Minister will mobilise the mathematicians the next time the Committee meets and work out the proper proportion for parties, so that we could have a man and a boy for one party and a mixture of two or three boys for another party. The Minister wants the exact mathematical proportion applied to the Government Party and to have any other proportion applied to other parties.
Perhaps the Deputy would read the Standing Order?
"The Committee shall be otherwise constituted according to the provisions of Standing Orders Nos. 67 and 68, and so as to be impartially representative of the Dáil." That has been done, and it is for the Minister to challenge by vote of the House as to whether the Committee of Selection has chosen this Committee impartially or otherwise. So far as I am concerned, the Committee did its work very satisfactorily and in accordance with Standing Orders. I am sure that the representation of the Government Party on the Committee is worth more than a numerical majority, considering the Minister himself is a member of it.
Deputy Johnson's idea of a Committee impartially representative of the Dáil is that a party of sixty should have a representation of four members, and that other parties with forty-four or forty-five members should have a representation of five.
There was some haste with regard to the summoning of the Selection Committee. I understand it was summoned yesterday evening by the process of handing notices to Deputies as they left the House. The meeting was held after the House adjourned. Deputy Magennis did not get a notice as he left.
That, of course, was wrong. The Selection Committee is not bound to appoint Committees impartially representative of the Dáil. The Standing Order which Deputy Johnson has quoted, and which the Minister for Lands and Agriculture has accepted, deals with the appointment of the Committee of Selection itself. New Standing Order 70 says: "...The Committee shall be otherwise constituted according to the provisions of Standing Orders Nos. 67 and 68, and so as to be impartially representative of the Dáil." An obligation, of course, rests on the Selection Committee to do its best under the circumstances. I would like to say that the utility of a Selection Committee in our procedure would be destroyed if the Selection Committee proceeded so that when there was a majority of one party the outcome of the Committee's work would be a particular result, and when there was a majority of another party there would be another result. That is not the intention, and has not been the practice. Notwithstanding the difficulty of the Minister at the moment, apparently that did not happen last night, because the Committee appears to have been unanimous. Although it is not obliged to choose a Committee in a particular way, still, the practice is that it endeavours to choose it so as to give representation to all parties. On occasions when parties are divided, as they were, for example, on a Private Members' Bill dealing with shop hours, the Committee of Selection appoints members in the way that seems best in the circumstances, but I think, always by way of unanimous report. In this instance, the Committee having been unanimous, I do not see a way out except to take the Committee that is suggested. There is this practical difficulty, that if a Government measure is referred to a Committee, and if the Government is in a majority in the House —I speak not of this Government but of Governments in general—and if the Committee does not have a majority in that particular way, it is likely to have the result that the decisions of the Committee will be reversed by the House, thus making the proceedings of the Committee, to a certain extent, a waste of time. I see no way of getting over the difficulty unless the Committee of Selection reconsiders its decision, or unless the Select Committee were increased in numbers, say, to eleven. If the Minister is not pressing the point, the matter stands. The only way I see is to increase the numbers, if it is desired to do so.
We would have done that cheerfully last night if we knew anything about it. Members of the Committee who do not belong to the Government Party are often in a difficulty, as they do not know who does and who does not belong to the Government Party. Two or three slices have fallen off the Government Party. We did not know who they were, and we did not like to be too inquisitive. Deputy Johnson did not know the extent of the slices that fell away in 1923, 1925 or 1926. We were in this difficulty, that we did not know where we were.
One admires Deputy Gorey's delicacy. The only way we can deal with the matter is to let the report stand or increase the numbers of the Select Committee.
If the Minister wants another member we will agree.
I suggest that the number be increased. I would like to refer to the statement Deputy Gorey made, as I have a particular care in the matter. The point was made, that at the meeting of the Committee there were four members of the Government Party present out of a possible five, one being ill, out of a total representation of eight.
In the circumstances, I think as there does not seem to be general agreement I have no objection to let the report stand.
The report will lie on the Table.
