|
|
|
Seanad Éireann - Volume 63 - 01 August, 1967 Order of Business. Tomás Ó Maoláin Tomás Ó Maoláin Tomás Ó Maoláin: It is proposed to take No. 1. Mr. O'Quigley Mr. O'Quigley Mr. O'Quigley: On a point of order, before dealing with this Bill, it seems to me that the Bill before the Seanad at present is not the Bill that was passed by Dáil Éireann. It seems to me that the Bill is in conflict with what seems to be the record of what took place in the Dáil as disclosed by the Official Report. If I might draw the attention of the Chair to Volume 230, column 70 of the Official Report, there was an amendment there debated that the words “or otherwise” be deleted from the first section of the Bill. According to the Official Report, at column 70, that amendment was put and the Dáil divided — Tá, 62; Níl, 43—and at the end of the list of persons voting for the amendment, there is “Amendment declared carried”. That would appear to me to suggest that the amendment, and I quote the amendment, “in line 15 to delete ‘or otherwise’ ”, was declared carried and that these words should therefore not appear in line 15 of section 1 of the Bill. It seems to me that the House should adjourn temporarily until it can be verified what the correct position is. The Journal of the Dáil may disclose a different position from what is contained in the Bill but on the face of it, it seems to me that there was an error and the Bill does not represent what, according to the Report, was passed by Dáil Éireann. An Cathaoirleach An Cathaoirleach An Cathaoirleach: The Chair wishes to inform the House that the Bill before the House is the Bill verified as being the Bill passed by Dáil Éireann. That is the only concern of the Chair. Mr. O'Quigley Mr. O'Quigley 1048 [1048] Mr. O'Quigley: Might I say that I cannot find anything in Standing Orders relative to public business in the Seanad which says we are bound by the Bill we get from Dáil Éireann certified. There should be some inquiry—— Tomás Ó Maoláin Tomás Ó Maoláin Tomás Ó Maoláin: What was the reference? Mr. O'Quigley Mr. O'Quigley Mr. O'Quigley: Volume 230, column 70, for the 18th July, 1967. It seems to me that where there is, on the face of it, an apparent conflict, there should be some inquiry as to what the true position is. It may be that it is in order but, on the face of it, it does not appear to be. An Cathaoirleach An Cathaoirleach An Cathaoirleach: The Bill before the House is the certified Bill as it came to us from the Dáil. I am ruling that the Bill is in order. Mr. O'Quigley Mr. O'Quigley Mr. O'Quigley: Would the Chair agree there appears to be some kind of hoodoo on this Bill from the very start? Tomás Ó Maoláin Tomás Ó Maoláin Tomás Ó Maoláin: Does the Senator believe that, in view of his amendment No. 2? Professor Stanford Professor Stanford Professor Stanford: May I inquire what will be the position if it does turn out that this certified Bill is incorrect? Will the Seanad have to sit again to deal with the correct version of the Bill? It is a serious matter. Mr. O'Quigley Mr. O'Quigley Mr. O'Quigley: I am informed that the Imeachtaí of the Dáil coincides with this Report, Volume 230. In view of that conflict, I suggest the House should adjourn in order to ascertain if we are debating the Bill passed by Dáil Éireann. An Cathaoirleach An Cathaoirleach An Cathaoirleach: The Chair is ruling that the Bill as before the House is in order. Mr. O'Quigley Mr. O'Quigley Mr. O'Quigley: With respect, how can the Chair rule that, in the light of the conflict? An Cathaoirleach An Cathaoirleach 1049 An Cathaoirleach: Before proceeding with No. 1, before we take up consideration of the Committee Stage of the Bill, I should like to indicate [1049] that I have ruled that amendment No. 51, in the names of Senators Prender-gast, Malone and McDonald, is out of order as it involves a charge on State Funds. The Senators have been notified accordingly. Mr. O'Quigley Mr. O'Quigley Mr. O'Quigley: On that ruling, might I say that amendment No. 51 does not propose to make any charge on public funds? It merely prohibits the imposition of a charge on the rates. There is nothing in that amendment, considered by itself, which suggests any kind of charge on public funds. An Cathaoirleach An Cathaoirleach An Cathaoirleach: The Chair has ruled that amendment No. 51 is out of order. Mr. O'Quigley Mr. O'Quigley Mr. O'Quigley: I can see why some people object to Papal infallibility. Mr. Garret FitzGerald Mr. Garret FitzGerald Mr. Garret FitzGerald: On a point of order, I wonder if you could expand on your first ruling, Sir? It is my understanding that the Dáil Imeachtaí—— An Cathaoirleach An Cathaoirleach An Cathaoirleach: The Chair is not going to expand on its ruling. The ruling has been made by the Chair. That is the end of the matter. Mr. Garret FitzGerald Mr. Garret FitzGerald Mr. Garret FitzGerald: I do not understand how the Chair can make a ruling when I understand that the Imeachtaí—— An Cathaoirleach An Cathaoirleach An Cathaoirleach: The Chair has ruled that that is the end of the matter. Mr. O'Quigley Mr. O'Quigley Mr. O'Quigley: There is nothing in Standing Orders which says that the Bill sent up is in order when the Imeachtaí are different. An Cathaoirleach An Cathaoirleach An Cathaoirleach: There is a Standing Order which indicates the standing of the Chair. Mr. O'Quigley Mr. O'Quigley Mr. O'Quigley: But not the infallibility. The only remedy left is to report it to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Seanad Éireann 63 Order of Business. General Debate 19670801
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
