Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 29 Mar 1977

Vol. 298 No. 4

Friendly Societies (Amendment) Bill, 1976: [From the Seanad.]

The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad.
SECTION 3.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:

In page 2, subsection (2), line 38, "friendly" deleted.

It is a drafting amendment.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary give the reason for this amendment?

This is a drafting amendment. Though most people would assume that Friendly Societies cover all societies registered under the Friendly Societies Acts there is a specific definition in those Acts of a friendly society. This definition classifies one group as friendly societies for the purpose of the Act. There are four other groups variously described, benevolent societies, special authorised loans societies and so on. To enable regulations to cover all of those societies it is necessary to delete the word "friendly" in section 3 (2).

Question put and agreed to.

Before we go on to the next section, could I draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to section 1 where the Acts are defined as being from 1896 to 1976. That should be amended as it is no longer correct.

On the face of it, the Deputy is correct. I am not aware of the procedure whereby one would meet the point at this stage.

Amendment No. 1 is agreed?

I have already agreed to that.

I understand that if the House agrees the amendment suggested orally by Deputy O'Malley to insert the figure 1977 in place of 1976 can be made in the final print of the Bill as passed by both Houses.

That is agreed, so?

Question proposed: "That section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill." Is that agreed?

Can we discuss the section? I thought this was a Report Stage.

We are confined to the Seanad amendments.

That is what I thought but the Chair put the section as amended.

The amendment is agreed.

Would the Chair rule on the amendment to section 1 which the Parliamentary Secretary and I have agreed on?

We are confined to the amendments which I have now before me.

Yes, but if the House agrees, it can be taken.

The Bill has been disposed of by both Houses. We cannot deal with it at this stage.

The Seanad made a mistake. It made other amendments later on. The next two amendments were made because we had gone into 1977 and the references to the 1st January, 1977, in the Bill as passed by the Dáil were no longer appropriate. As I understand it, unfortunately, the Seanad overlooked making this amendment. It should be made here and now.

Will it not be made automatically any way in the sense that this is just a Bill but immediately it becomes an Act the relevant dates are changed in the titles?

That applies to the short title but not to anything else. What I am referring to is actually in the Bill in section 1 and it is wrong. I have seen these dates having to be changed before by amendment and this one will have to be changed. The printers have no authority to change that 1976 to 1977. They have authority in regard to the short title when they are printing it as an Act. When they are printing it as a Bill as passed by both Houses they will still describe it as the Friendly Societies (Amendment) Bill, 1976, as passed on such a date. When it becomes printed as the Friendly Societies (Amendment) Act, 1977, that is all right. The date I am referring to is in the body of the Bill.

The position under Standing Order No. 134 is as follows:

An amendment made by the Seanad to a Bill initiated in the Dáil may be accepted by the Dáil with or without amendment or be rejected. No amendment shall be moved to an amendment made by the Seanad that is not strictly relevant thereto, nor can any other amendment be moved to the Bill unless it be consequential upon the acceptance, amendment or rejection of a Seanad amendment.

Standing Orders rule it out.

It may well be consequential but it would be a pity to rule it out as this would leave a defect. Surely, when we know it is wrong we should rectify it before passing the Bill.

Standing Orders do not seem to leave scope for that.

Very often Standing Orders are disregarded, either by agreement or otherwise.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary assure the House that the amendment is consequential on a Seanad amendment?

It is consequential on deliberations which took place in the Seanad during 1977. Because the Bill was not enacted in 1976 it was necessary to have those discussions in the Seanad. In that sense, the amendment is consequential on the Seanad deliberations.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary prepared to assure the House that the change is consequential on any of the amendments before the House from the Seanad?

I could not give that assurance but, as I have said, the change is consequential on the fact that the Bill had to be considered in the Seanad and that, consequently, there was a delay which resulted in an overlap from one year to the next. This Bill will be a 1977 and not a 1976 Act.

That does not overcome the difficulty of whether the change is consequential on any of the amendments before us from the Seanad.

I understand that the Clerk of the Dáil agreed in private discussions to an amendment of a similar nature and in relation to a similar matter in respect of section 5 where there is reference to the Friendly Societies Act, 1936 whereas the correct title of the Act in question is the Registry of Friendly Societies Act, 1936. I understand it was agreed by the Clerk in that case that if the matter was mentioned at this stage and if agreement was reached, there would be no problem in relation to amending the title. By analogy the Chair would be in a position to agree to the amendment suggested by Deputy O'Malley.

All that can be said at this stage is that the matter will be looked at in the Clerk's office to see whether it is possible to deal with it in the way suggested. In the instance referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary there was a correction involved whereas what is proposed here is claimed to be a change.

To say the least the position is not satisfactory. There is an error in each of the sections 1 and 5. There are five errors in section 6 and two in section 9. The errors in section 9 are of lesser importance than the others because they may change automatically with the change in Title. In section 6 there is reference on five occasions to the Friendly Societies Acts, 1896 to 1976. There is also the error in section 5 to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred and there is the error in section 1 which is the same essentially as the five errors in section 6.

Reference has been made by the Parliamentary Secretary to some private discussions with the Clerk as to what changes might or might not be made by the printers. This is a dangerous field. Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann amend Bills. This is not a power that lies in the hands of anybody else. Private discussion with the Clerk of either House is not the way to amend Bills. Neither is it a matter for the printers to juggle with Bills when they find mistakes in them.

I might explain, for the Deputy's information that the discussion to which I referred was in the context of whether such a procedure was possible technically but if, and only if, it had been discussed and agreed in the House.

I am glad to hear that there was no question of these proposed changes or corrections being made privately and that they would have been referred to the House. The suggestion appears to have extended only to the error in section 5 but not to the error to which I drew attention in section 1 or to the five errors in section 6. In all there are seven errors in the Bill. We appear to be precluded by Standing Orders, which are very tight in this regard, from rectifying those errors. However, I would not consider it proper to pass a Bill in which there are seven errors of which we are aware. Consequently, the best course might be to withdraw it now and to send it back to the Seanad in order to have the errors rectified there.

I agree with the Deputy in regard to the matter he has mentioned and I assure him that under Standing Order 104 corrections can be made by order of the Ceann Comhairle but that there is no provision for changes to be made in this way.

I would presume that corrections in this regard would refer to misprints.

Misspellings et cetera.

With respect, giving a wrong title to an Act cannot be regarded as a misspelling. Neither are the other six errors mentioned merely misspellings. Such corrections are made normally in the Seanad but unfortunately, on this occasion the errors were overlooked there with the result that we are left in a very difficult position. In these circumstances I suggest that the Bill be returned to the Seanad where the errors can be corrected before it is brought before this House again.

I am informed that it was conveyed that this matter would have to be mentioned in the House and that the title could not refer to any but one Bill.

To whom was it conveyed?

To the Minister's office.

Currently I am not attached to the office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The information to which the Chair has referred was not conveyed to me. Telling privately the Minister who introduced the Bill while not telling the Opposition is a matter of some concern.

The discussions related only to what was possible technically. They were in the context of any such change being made with the agreement and only with the agreement of the House. I presume that the Minister, just like any other Deputy, has the right to seek guidance from the Clerk's office as to what is technically possible and there is nothing improper in seeking it.

There is nothing improper in seeking it but I understood that the advice had come from the Ceann Comhairle's office to the Minister alone.

The advice was sought by the Minister.

But if it referred to a matter which is before the House I think the advice should be made available to all Deputies.

It is now available to all Deputies——

It is, because I ferreted it out.

If that were the case, every communication between a Deputy in respect of any procedural matter with the Clerk would have to be made available automatically to the House, even the most simple request for guidance by an individual Deputy. In this context the Minister was merely seeking information which is now being made fully available to the House so that the House can agree or otherwise to the provision.

With the greatest respect to the Parliamentary Secretary, I did not and do not suggest that every time a Deputy, whether a Minister or not, seeks advice from the Ceann Comhairle's office that that advice should be made public. The advice sought in this case was whether or not the wording of a subsection of a Bill which was about to be passed by the House could be changed. That advice should have been conveyed at least to the Opposition Whip. Here we are really talking only about one of the errors. There are six others. I shall not be party to passing a Bill with seven errors in it. The Bill should now be withdrawn and returned to the Seanad for rectification. We can then deal with it.

Perhaps I could seek the guidance of the Chair in the matter. We are discussing amendments that have been made by the Seanad and it seems to me that it should be possible to consider these amendments and adjourn consideration of the other matter as to the changes that have to be made, to discover whether or not it is necessary to go back to the Seanad or whether the fact that we are agreed here on the necessity for making these changes is sufficient. That would be a more expeditious way of dealing with the matter. However, I am as anxious as the Deputy to ensure that the Bill has no technical defects when it becomes an Act and I am prepared to make whatever arrangements are necessary. It would be more convenient if it is procedurally possible to deal with the amendments now before us and to come back with the other matters if this is necessary. The outcome of whatever discussions take place on the matter, whether they indicate the necessity to come back or not can be communicated to the House. I am not in a position to say, obviously, whether what I have suggested is procedurally possible and I seek guidance thereon.

Before the Chair decides might I submit to him that the position is that if the suggestion of the Parliamentary Secretary were accepted and these amendments were dealt with now and assuming the House agreed to each of them, that would end consideration of the Bill by both Houses and it would not be possible when these six amendments have been disposed of to introduce any further amendment here because the Bill would then have to go to the President tonight for signature within the prescribed period. I know of no procedure under Standing Orders whereby a Bill that has been passed by both Houses can then be amended again before it is signed by the President. It would entail amending legislation which would be messy, to say the least of it, particularly as we are now aware of the seven errors which this Bill contains.

On the points made by Deputy O'Malley it would seem that the appropriate thing would be to adjourn consideration and send a message to the Seanad in regard to the errors that have been made and send the Bill back to the Seanad for the correction of these errors.

That was my original suggestion and I think it is an excellent one. Since I suggested it, I thoroughly agree. It may make the constitutional lawyers think about the value of a bi-cameral legislature.

Did the Deputy mention seven errors or eight?

I think it was seven. I shall check. There is an error in sections 1, 5 (3), 6 in the third line, 6 in line eight, 7 in line 12, 7 in line 20, 7 in line 28. I think that amounts to seven. I think the Seanad should resolve the question as to whether section 9 should also be amended in the light of the fact that the debate has carried on from one calendar year to another. That may possibly be a further error. I know that this has been amended in other instances.

That would normally be correct.

I can see that there is a distinction between this and the others because it refers to the "Act" and it is in a different situation because it is the collective citation.

This matter will be considered by the Seanad in any case and I do not know that it is necessary to indicate the number of errors at this juncture.

Leaving section 9 out of it, there are seven errors. The Seanad can make whatever corrections it thinks necessary.

The debate is now adjourned on amendment 1 and the Bill is being sent back to the Seanad. We are suspending the debate on amendment No. 1.

But amendment No. 1 was passed. The difficulty about that, even if it is only a procedural difficulty, is that the first of the eight new amendments the Seanad will have to make will be on section 1 which is prior in time to the one we have passed and the one we are actually on.

Will we show amendment No. 1 at all? It would not be entered? Would that be the best thing to do?

I am agreeable to that but I wonder is it in order? It does not seem to be what Standing Orders envisaged. I presume the sending back of a Bill with eight errors is without precedent in the history of the Oireachtas. We have to make the precedent now so I will not raise any objection to amendment No. 1, as it appears on today's yellow sheet, not reappearing next time it comes into this House.

Message to be sent to the Seanad.
Barr
Roinn