Before taking up item No. 10 on the Order Paper—the Legal Practitioners Bill—might I have a minute or two to raise a point of order about No. 11—Deputy Tierney's motion—which, I think, can be settled, and perhaps turn the motion into an agreed motion, because probably we will not finish No. 10 this evening? The point of order affects both the motion and the amendment, and it is this: I think Standing Order No. 122 empowers us to name the number of Deputies to be appointed on a joint committee, but it does not empower us to name the number of Senators. We ask the Seanad to join with us in forming a Committee, and we are empowered to name the number of Deputies. Therefore, I submit that in their present forms neither the motion nor the amendment is in order, and I think they might be very easily put in order.
Private Deputies' Business. - Appointment of Joint Committees.
On a point of order. Would we not be in order in authorising a certain number of members of the Dáil to meet a certain number of members of the Seanad, even though we are not in a position to say that the Seanad should appoint that number?
I do not wish to occupy any time that properly belongs to the other business, but I am prepared to give a decision on the point of order. If any other points are put to me on the point of order I will hear them now.
If Deputy Thrift's point of order is correct—that this amendment of Deputy Tierney's is not drafted properly—we must have been all wrong in the matter of setting up Joint Committees in the past. When the Joint Committee was set up to deal with the procedure with regard to the form of election for the Seanad, I find that the first motion—it originated in the Seanad, which took upon itself to decide what number should come from the Dáil—was on the 15th February, 1928, when it was resolved: "That it is expedient that a Joint Committee, consisting of five members of the Dáil and five members of the Seanad, with the Chairman of each House as ex officio members, be set up to consider," and so on. That was passed in the Seanad, and it was agreed to in the Dáil. If Deputy Thrift's point of order is correct, then the setting up of the Joint Committee which decided upon the manner in which the Senate was to be elected in future was altogether wrong and out of order. On the question of custom, I hold that this motion of Deputy Tierney's is quite in order; otherwise all that has gone before in the setting up of Joint Committees has been allowed to pass, although it was strictly out of order. Of course, you will rule on that first. On the question of the numbers I will have something to say later.
The point of order is that in the motion of expediency for the setting up of a Joint Committee mention should not be made of the number of members of the other House to serve on the Committee. A Joint Committee is, in effect, a meeting of a Committee of this House with a Committee of the other House to form a Joint Committee, and in the nature of things each House must be in a position to determine the number of its own members who will serve on the Committee and to nominate them. Our Standing Order dealing with the matter is Standing Order 122, which reads:—
When it is desired to obtain the concurrence of the Seanad in setting up a Joint Committee of the two Houses to consider any matter, a motion shall be made that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of the Dáil and the Seanad be set up for the purpose in question. Such motion shall state the number of Deputies to act on, and set out any special powers which it is proposed to give to, such Joint Committee.
A motion of expediency of that kind is first passed, the Seanad agrees, and then a motion is made in both Houses for the actual setting up of the Committee. The Standing Order is quite clear that the motion shall state the number of Deputies to act on the Committee, and it is also quite clear that there is no power to determine the number of Senators or even, I think, to suggest the number of Senators. But it has been accepted that when you determine a certain number of Deputies to act on a Committee the number of Senators will be a like number, and Deputy O'Hanlon is quite correct on that point—that a practice has grown up of moving the motion in the form in which Deputy Tierney's motion now is. But I think it would not be in order to pass a motion which did determine the number of members of the Seanad, particularly if it was a different number from the number of members of the Dáil. To that extent, I think, Deputy Thrift's point is sound, and I think it is open to him to reply to Deputy O'Hanlon that the practice that has been followed is not strictly in accordance with the Standing Orders. Deputy Tierney's motion, or any such motion, should not, in fact, if the Standing Orders were strictly interpreted, contain any reference to the number of members of the other House; it should simply be to send the matter to a Joint Committee consisting of a certain number of Deputies and the other House should then determine the number of Senators to sit on it. So that the question for us to decide is, I think, how many Deputies will be on the Joint Committee, not how many Senators.
Of course my amendment only deals with the number of Deputies.
That is so. The point of order is sound. The Deputy having dealt with that, we should not pass a resolution which would state the number of members of the other House which should be appointed.
Probably it could be made an agreed motion by moving: "That it is expedient to set up a Joint Committee on which seven Deputies should serve," and the rest as in Deputy Tierney's motion.
I should like to point out that if I had not put down my amendment this irregular procedure would have gone on indefinitely.
Will it be brought forward in a form that will be in order on Friday, or could it be agreed now in these words: "That it is expedient that a Joint Committee be set up to consider and report on the question of the amount of the allowance which should be paid to members of Seanad Eireann, and that the Dáil appoint seven Deputies to sit on this Committee."
That is reducing Deputy O'Hanlon's number of nine to seven?
Yes.
That could only be done now by unanimous agreement.
Of course we have not yet heard Deputy Tierney on the question.
I would accept the number seven.
I think a new motion ought to be put down in that form.
What is the urgency?
There is none.
The motion will not come up to-night.
It will have to take its place at the bottom of the list.
Oh, no.
Oh, yes. We shall object if it does not.
That is a new point. I will not decide that now.