I inferred from your ruling last day when this matter was discussed that the motion was out of order and, consequently, that my amendment was, also, out of order. It would appear from the ruling on the last occasion that according to Standing Order 122 this motion was out of order by reason of the fact that it named the number of members to be selected by the Seanad. If that is so, and if that is your ruling, of course my amendment would collapse. If you do not rule that way, then I will propose my amendment that the word "nine" be substituted for the word "five."
Private Business. - Allowances to Members of Seanad Eireann.
"That it is expedient that a Joint Committee, consisting of five members of the Dáil and five members of the Seanad, 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."— (Professor Tierney).
Debate resumed on amendment: To delete the word "five" where it first occurs and substitute therefor the word "nine."—(Mr. O'Hanlon).
In so far as a ruling was given, the ruling was that the motion should not purport to fix the number of Senators to act upon the proposed Joint Committee, and to that extent, and only to that extent, the motion, as it appears on the Paper, would be out of order. If the Deputy's amendment is an amendment which purports to fix in a motion of expediency nine Deputies as against five Senators, to that extent, also, the amendment is out of order.
I understand that on the last occasion permission was given to the mover of the motion to amend it; in fact, I understand that the amendment was already circulated and I was waiting for it to appear on the Paper, but it appears, for some reason or other, it has not arrived yet.
My objection to this motion in the first instance is that, first of all, by selecting five members of this House on a Joint Committee it is impossible to give proper representation to the various Parties. For that reason, in my opinion, the number of five, which has been the number followed in regard to previous Joint Committees, should be enlarged in some way. Nine may be considered too many. Seven Deputies, at any rate, should be appointed in order to give full representation to all Parties.
On a point of order. Have you ruled this motion in order before we go into a discussion upon it? Is the motion or the amendment in order?
The motion is, I think, in order, but I would not put the question from the Chair in the form in which the motion now appears. Deputy O'Hanlon would be out of order in moving an amendment which purports to appoint on a Joint Committee nine members of the Dáil as against five members of the Seanad. The position in regard to the motion is that it can be put in a particular form so as to make it in order. If Deputy O'Hanlon wants to alter the number "five" to give a better representation to the different groups in the Dáil, that is quite in order, but if he wants to alter the number "five" so as to have a different number of Deputies and Senators, that is not in order, as the essence of a Joint Committee is equal numbers.
In view of your ruling, perhaps it would simplify matters if I proposed the motion in the other form now.
Yes, but I want to get Deputy O'Hanlon clear on the point. I think there would be no difficulty in settling the number of Deputies first.
The position is that in the first instance there would be no necessity for me to move the amendment at all except to draw attention to the fact that the motion was out of order. That arose out of a different matter in relation to the original motion to have this Bill referred to a Committee. If that is right, I am out of order and the motion is out of order.
That is the ruling.
The fact that emerges from this whole proceeding is that what has happened in this House since the Joint Committee was set up is out of order. Whether we can correct that now in this particular instance I do not know. I am prepared to go on with my amendment. If Deputy Tierney, with your permission, thinks that he can amend his motion to bring it within Standing Orders I would leave the matter in that form.
Deputy Tierney can certainly amend his motion to bring it within Standing Orders. I am not accepting Deputy O'Hanlon's paraphrase nor Deputy O'Connell's paraphrase of my ruling that the motion is out of order. My statement would have to be carefully searched for that.
Would you tell us whether it is in order? You said that you would not put it from the Chair in that form.
I would be willing to amend the motion so as to have it read to the effect that the number of Deputies to serve on the Joint Committee be seven. Perhaps that would simplify matters for Deputy O'Hanlon and we might get the whole thing settled without much further discussion.
In so far as the figure dealing with the number of Deputies be increased from five to seven——
On a point of order, are we to take it that Deputy Tierney is moving a new motion?
He is moving a motion different to that on the Order Paper.
The motion has been before the House whether for a long or short period makes no difference. The point of order as raised does not vitiate the proceedings, but if upheld it would alter the form of the motion. The form of a motion may be altered without a ruling from the Chair that the debate that has gone before was null and void and must be started all over again. That is not the position. I am accepting from Deputy Tierney the motion in its altered form and I will put the question in the new form.
To what extent may the form of a motion be altered? May it be altered so as to be a different motion altogether?
It may be altered to such an extent as may be permitted by the Chair.
At what stage of a debate is an alteration permitted? Can such alteration be made verbally when a Deputy finds that a motion on the Order Paper is in conflict with the ruling of the Chair?
It has been ruled on many occasions that a point of order may be raised on a motion before the House at any time before the motion has been put from the Chair.
At any stage?
A point of order may be made at any stage during the debate.
And an alteration in the motion can be made by a mover of the motion at any stage in the debate?
That is not my ruling. An alteration may be accepted by the Chair in the circumstances which will then have arisen, so as to bring the motion within the Standing Orders.
That is very interesting.
If Deputy O'Connell's point of order is in regard to the number 5, he can compel Deputy Tierney to adhere to the number 5, but if the number 7 is agreed to, I will take it in that form.
It seems to me that the principle Deputy Tierney had in mind was that in whatever Committee was set up, the Dáil and the Seanad would be equally represented. If I heard him correctly I think he said that the total membership of the Committee was not to exceed seven.
That is not correct. I said the number of Deputies on the Joint Committee should be seven.
Does Deputy O'Connell make any objection to the number 5 being changed to 7? The motion will then read: "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 seven Deputies represent the Dáil on the Joint Committee."
Mr. O'Connell
I do object. It has altered the motion materially.
We will take it then that five Deputies are to represent the Dáil on the Joint Committee. Deputy O'Hanlon can move to make it seven if he likes.
Can Deputy O'Connell compel the motion to be put in that form, and is he entitled to begin the debate all over again?
Deputy O'Connell cannot start the debate over again, but he can restrict the motion to the original form, except in so far as the original form is out of order, but the amendment of Deputy O'Hanlon is in order to make the number of Deputies nine or seven.
My amendment is not to the new motion. It is to the motion on the Paper.
I will put the motion that five Deputies represent the Dáil on this Committee.
Everybody understands it now.
Is Deputy O'Hanlon moving his amendment?
Seven is the better number for a Joint Committee.
Mr. O'Connell
If the motion is going to be put to-night, I would take seven instead of five, but I think that Deputy Tierney ought to withdraw the motion and put down a new motion.
If that were to be followed in every case, it would be a very serious penalty indeed. If a Deputy were to put down a motion which subsequently was found to contain a flaw, and had to withdraw it and put it down again at the end of Private Members' business, it would be a very grievous thing.
I withdraw my amendment in favour of Deputy Tierney's motion, but at the same time, I would like if I could have it definitely from you that we have not the right to alter the total number on the Committee. Is there no means by which we can move when setting up a Committee the numbers to represent each House. In other words, would I be out of order, supposing we had the other motion properly on the Paper, in moving that seven members from this House and five from the Seanad should constitute the Committee. There is nothing clear in the Standing Orders on the question.
The Standing Order is quite clear in so far as it specifies the number of Deputies on a Joint Committee. But it has been assumed, and I think it is correct, that a Committee of the Dáil and the Seanad should consist of equal numbers. I think if the Deputy wants to discuss that particular procedure, he should put down a motion in general terms that Joint Committees set up should have more members of the Dáil than of the Seanad. That should be a motion in general terms apart from this particular motion.
Has this motion been put on the Order Paper with your permission? Did it not pass through your hands?
Nothing happens without my permission.
May I take it that you accepted the motion appearing on the Order Paper and that you now refuse to put it from the Chair?
The motion appeared on the Order Paper with my permission.
In the form in which you accepted it?
Have we not got to this stage, that we have decided to set up a Joint Committee, and that there is general agreement that seven is the better number? Have we not wasted enough of the two months which is available for the purpose of this Committee and would it not be advisable to pass some motion which will lead to the setting up of such a Committee?
I think we might dispose of this question now if there is no objection to it. The motion is: "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 7 Deputies represent the Dáil on such Joint Committee."
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 70; Níl, 50.
Tá
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlan, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cooper, Bryan Ricco.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Wolfe, George.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Níl
- Allen, Denis.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Clery, Michael.
- Colbert, James.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Tubridy, John.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Thrift and Law. Níl: Deputies Boland and Allen.
Motion declared carried.
Ordered: That a Message be sent to the Seanad accordingly.