I had an amendment down.
Committee on Finance. - Dáil Eireann Loans and Funds (Amendment) Bill, 1936—Committee.
Question proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."
Did the Deputy get notice that it would not be in order?
Yes. I am not amending, but rather deleting certain words. I wanted to amend that by deleting the phrase in the opening of Section 1 of the Act of 1933. It was put to me that that was repealing a statute. I suggest that it is not. If I wanted to repeal the Act of 1933 I should have to say that the meaning given to the word subscriber established and always had been that contained in the Dáil Eireann Loan Fund Act and no other. The Dáil put into the Act of 1933 a principle extending the meaning of the words. No one proposed to change that. I do not propose to change the words of the Act of 1933 in the slightest, but I say that when we come to extending the time for making application, the only people who should be given power to make application in the extended period, are the folk who made application originally. To the objection that I am proposing to amending the statute, I say I am not. The statute is left without full force now in the time limit in the Act of 1933. We are now arriving by way of extension at the time for making applications, and in that connection I submit we should limit the persons entitled to make application to the original subscribers or their legal representatives.
The two points are the extension of the date and of the audit. This Bill got a Second Reading. The relation of the extension of the date was applied in principle on the Second Reading of the Bill to persons included in both Acts 1924 and 1933, and it is not in order, on Committee Stage, to, so far, not recognise the Act of 1933 as to delete certain clauses.
To move to amend the Act of 1933 in any way would be against the principle passed on Second Reading? I think your ruling goes that length?
I think so.
That is a ruling never before given.
Except in the matter of date, it would not be permissible to seek to amend the Act of 1924 or the 1933 Act in a Bill which purposes only to extend the date and the audit.
But it introduces a completely new machinery with regard to accounts. When the House passed this Bill on Second Reading it passed it with the phrase providing that certain words and expressions to which a particular meaning is given by Section 1 of the Dáil Eireann Loans and Fund Act, 1934, or by Section 1 of the 1933 Act should have that meaning given to them. Your ruling would preclude any discussion in relation to these two Acts. That is a ruling that was never given before. Definitions were changed from time to time for the purpose of the Bill. The practice of the House has been that one cannot move to insinuate the principle not passed on Second Reading. I am moving to agree, by way of limitation, to the extension of the principle passed on Second Reading. I suggest the only principle accepted was that allowance should be made for the recovery of certain moneys other than the period prescribed, and that that was the only point of principle on Second Reading. Otherwise we must assume that the principle carries not merely outside the basic consideration round which the principle is built but the outstanding feature including the definition. I suggest this is a very serious limitation of the rights of Deputies in this House in regard to amending measures brought in as amending Acts, because you cannot get it even stated that Dáil Eireann has one definition in a Principal Act and that an amending Act, being an amendment aimed at one point, carries the statement that words defined in a particular way, in a previous Act, should have the same meaning. Apparently, we are being coerced into accepting the contention that such a clause carries, as part of the principle, the definitions. I say that that has never been done.
I do not know what the Deputy means by the term "coerced."
Coerced by ruling.
I differ radically with the Deputy when he says that extensions of the measure are permissible on Committee Stage. This measure, as I said, deals with two points. One point is the fixation of the date for applications from subscribers. That principle was agreed to. To try to limit these subscribers now would be to make a change in the principle of the Bill which is not permissible and it would be against the practice of the House.
I do not know if I may put the point further. I do not understand how it can be said that there are only two points raised by this whole situation—one, the point as to time and the other the point as to the machinery of audit. These are two things which are referred to. I am assuming that the statement that these are the two points of principle——
The main points.
Also referred to are these definitions. There is definitely referred to, by implication, the position of the subscriber. I suggest that nobody is going to make any point of order that I could not move to change the day.
I said that the Deputy could so move.
Therefore, I can change a point that is mentioned. I can also change the machinery of audit.
On a point of procedure, it was arranged that the discussion on the employment period Order would take place at 8 o'clock.
I move to report progress.
Progress reported. Committee to sit again to-morrow.