The Joint Committee on Standing Orders relative to Private Business report that they have discharged Deputy Lemass from the Joint Committee on the Bank of Ireland Bill, 1929, and have substituted Deputy O'Hanlon in his stead.
Private Business. - Bank of Ireland Bill, 1929.
You may take us as objecting very strongly to the action of the Committee on Standing Orders. Our attitude in this matter is this: this Committee of Selection, we understand, is intended to simplify the procedure so that the House will not proceed to select members for committees——
That is the Joint Committee on Standing Orders relative to Private Business.
Yes, just as on others. The procedure in the case of the ordinary Committee of Selection is that representatives of the different Parties intimate to that Committee what members of their Party are prepared to serve on it. These members are usually chosen by the Party with a view to the particular circumstances. The members of the Party know each other much better than other Deputies can know them, and, accordingly, they make these selections in view of the particular abilities or qualifications of the members in connection with the committee that is projected. In connection with this particular Bill, there were to be seven members on the committee, and we hold that as we number more than one-third of the two Houses, we are entitled to representation, and we believe that the action of the Committee in not putting on members of our Party is equivalent to partisan action.
The Deputy ought not to arraign the Committee. The Committee put on a member of the Deputy's Party, but he refused to act. Since the Committee is not represented here, except by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, we want to have the facts clear. The Deputy's complaint is that the Joint Committee on Standing Orders relative to Private Business, did not put on members of the Deputy's Party selected by the Deputy's Party.
The proportion according to the strength of the party.
The point is that the Committee would not put on the particular members of this House nominated by his party.
Mr. Boland
Two members.
Accordingly, therefore, we seek an opportunity in order to have the whole question of that Committee discussed.
In spite of what Deputy de Valera has said about the Committee having acted in a partisan way, I want to say that I consider it has not acted at all in a partisan spirit. The Committee acted in the same way as it acted during the last six years. What the Committee refused to do was to alter the whole procedure and practice of the last six years, if I may say so without any offence, at a Deputy's behest. That is all. I submit that the function of the Committee is to select a Committee of members of both Houses who, in their opinion, are best fitted to serve on any particular Bill, having in view the fact that this Committee is supposed to be a judicial or semi-judicial body.
The first point is to find out what the issue is. This is not on the merits.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle has misrepresented my position in saying that certain action was sought to be taken at the behest of a single individual on that Committee and——
I did not say any such thing.
My attitude is this, that I am here as one of a Party, and I am entitled to be here as a representative of the people on that Committee, or else I have no right to be here at all. I am here as a member of a Party——
Think of Saint Bernard.
The position I think is that Deputies desire to take exception to Private Bill procedure on a point regarded as a fundamental matter by the Joint Committee which is dealing with Private Business. The Deputy desires to make what would be regarded by the Joint Committee on Private Bill business as a fundamental change in our Private Bill procedure. I think he should take steps to do that by amending the Private Bill Standing Orders. I know of no other way in which it could be done, because you need to get this House to agree to a fundamental change and to get the concurrence of the other House if we are to continue to take business as at present by means of a Joint Committee on Bills and an identical procedure in both Houses. I think the Deputy should take an opportunity of moving for an alteration of Private Bill procedure. Any other way would be the wrong way.
It seems to me that it is an improper thing on the part of the Committee to fill vacancies on that Committee in spite of the view held by a large section of this House that until the question is decided by the House should vacancies remain.
Might I say that it is not possible under No. 7 Private Bill Standing Order to appoint the Committee on a Party representative basis. It is not possible to do that unless the Standing Orders are changed.
Was it merely by accident that on the last Private Bill Committee of any importance there were representatives from each Party in the House and that an Independent Deputy was Chairman?
I was informed this morning by an official of the House that I was nominated on this Committee, and I consented to act. I want to make it perfectly clear that I knew nothing at all about the matter antecedent to this. If told by the House to act I will act on that Committee. I am not here on behalf of any Party. I was not chosen by any Party, but I will act.
The question is how this matter should be raised. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle, speaking in his official capacity as the Deputy charged with the direction of Private Business here, tells us that the Joint Committee has acted in accordance with its usual procedure. If Deputies want that procedure changed, they must take some steps to do so. How this is to be done is the next matter. I have given some consideration to it, and I am not quite decided as to how it could be done. Proceedings could be initiated to amend Private Bill procedure. But I suggest to Deputy Little that Private Bill Business could not in the meantime be suspended.
Is it proposed now to ask the Dáil to sanction the person appointed by the Committee. What is the position if that is not done?
Usually when a report of this kind is made to the Dáil it is ordered that the Report lie upon the Table. The matter is usually automatic. Objection, of course, could be taken to that.
I understand that one of the reasons advanced against the appointment of a particular Deputy was that he had expressed views on this Bill. As far as I am aware, all the Deputies can be taken as having expressed views on the Bill in so far as they all have voted on the Bill already.
You may take us as objecting, and if it is in order we will move that the report be not accepted.
Then I will put it down as a motion for a day next week and have the matter decided. The motion simply is that the Order lie upon the Table. If that is decided in the affirmative, then the Committee is appointed. If not, further proceedings must take place. I take it that a decision of that kind would not answer the purpose of altering the Private Bill procedure. Even if this motion were divided upon the decision would not be upon Private Bill procedure generally.
As far as I am aware the Standing Orders do not recognise the existence of parties at all. That is a matter of precedent.
Standing Order No. 70 on Public Business, which deals with the setting up of a Committee of Selection, concludes in this way:—"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 is a recognition of the existence of varying opinion in the Dáil, and for that reason in our practice here the Committees are never constituted of less than seven Deputies, because it has been found that any number less than seven would not be impartially representative of the whole Dáil. Exception was taken on a recent occasion to a Committee of five. You had to have at least seven. There was a Committee of eleven also, and to that extent the Standing Orders do take cognisance of the fact that the Dáil is not absolutely a united body.
What would be the effect of the Dáil refusing to allow the order to lie on the Table?
I will answer that question next week.
May I take it the statement of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that the Committee of Selection have never appointed Committees on the basis of party, is correct?
The statement of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle had reference to the Joint Committee on Standing Orders for Private Business, which is a different thing altogether. The Joint Committee really has to deal with private business—not private Deputies' business, but business relating to Private Bills, and that is a different thing.
With regard to Committees on Private Bills, I pointed out that in connection with the last Committee of any importance there seems to have been a decision to give representation to parties; otherwise it was a remarkable accident.
Actually the Joint Committee on Standing Orders has no representative of the majority party in the House.
Quite so.
We apparently are suffering our grievances in silence.
I will take Deputies as objecting to the Order, and will fix time for consideration of the matter next week.