It is proposed to take business in the following order:— No. 8, and in No. 8 Votes 58 and 59; Nos. 9, 5, 6 and 10. It is proposed that consideration of Government business be not interrupted by time taken for Private Deputies' business.
Order of Business.
It is completely unprecedented that the House should be asked to discuss the Committee Stage of a Bill with important amendments promised by the Minister, but not before the House. It is essential that such amendments should be before the House so that the Committee Stage discussion can take place in the light of the House's understanding as to what the Government's proposals are. It is all the more unprecedented, and indeed all the more objectionable, in the practice of the House that we should be asked to go through this procedure after the Minister had indicated that there were very definite amendments to be made, and that these amendments were of a very important and fundamental character. I object to the proposal of the Government now in this matter, and I ask the Minister to explain the proposal.
There is nothing to explain. The Government orders the business of the Dáil and the Government proposes to take this Bill to-day. Any amendments which have been referred to are of a purely minor and incidental kind——
Oh!
——and can be discussed adequately on a later stage of the Bill. In the meantime there is no reason to hold up the business of the House. This Bill is important. The country wants it and we should proceed with it.
The Minister responsible for the Bill has indicated that he proposes to introduce amendments of a very substantial and important kind—amendments of such kind as to safeguard some of the vital personal interests involved in our Constitution and referred to very definitely in the Preamble to that Constitution. We must, therefore, take it that they are of first-class importance. I submit that the Report Stage of a Bill is the stage on which we hear what has happened on Committee. It has been ruled repeatedly from the Chair that amendments of fundamental importance which have not been discussed on Committee are not presentable for discussion on Report. The Minister is, therefore, treating the House very lightly in asking it to discuss the Committee Stage of this Bill with important amendments in the background. He is trampling on the normal procedure of order in thinking that he can introduce on the Report Stage amendments of a fundamental kind that have not been discussed on Committee, even though they have been admitted by the Minister as being required and he has announced his intention of introducing such amendments.
The Deputy's attitude is quite incomprehensible. Dáil Éireann, by 73 votes to 50, passed the Money Resolution which permits the Dáil to proceed to the consideration of the Bill in Committee. I suggest that the feeling of the House having beenexpressed in no uncertain way, there is now no justification for holding up the whole Bill until the one or two amendments, which have been foreshadowed by the Minister for Health, are available to the Dáil. On the point that it would be desirable that these particular amendments should be considered in Committee, I think the rules of the House provide for the recommittal to Committee for the purpose of considering specific amendments and we should, therefore, avail, if necessary of that machinery. I cannot see any point in the argument which the Deputy has adduced.
May I make a submission? Our procedure, as I understand it, is largely founded on the application of common sense to the discharge of business. The purpose of the House, I take it, is to deal with the Health Bill in Committee as efficiently and as expeditiously as we can. May I put it to the Government that the Minister for Health in concluding his observations on the Money Resolution told the House that, in respect of the letter issued by the Hierarchy, certain matters had arisen which he proposed to meet?
There is no letter before the Dáil. There is no useful purpose in dragging it in.
The Minister said that he proposed to meet these matters, or to attempt to meet them, by amendments which he would thereafter introduce, and he specifically referred in his concluding remarks to an amendment that he proposed to submit to the House in respect of Section 4. I put it to the Government that Section 4 expressly governs every other section in the Bill. That is the purpose for which it is in the Bill. Is it reasonable, then, to ask the House to deal in Committee with every section of a Bill to which the Government itself says it is going to introduce a new amendment, the nature of which nobody knows but which will govern every section?
I cannot allow this discussion to proceed any furtherbecause there is really nothing before the House.
Is not the Order of Business before the House?
The Government is entitled to arrange the Order of Business.
But surely representations may be made?
I have allowed representations to be made. The only knowledge the Chair has relevant to the matter is that at the conclusion of the Second Stage of this Bill the Bill was ordered for Committee. That is an order of the Dáil. The Bill is now the property of the Dáil and the Bill on the Committee Stage must now proceed because that is the order of the Dáil.
Surely it is in order to make representations?
But it is ordered that this Bill be in Committee.
That order can be discharged in so far as it applies to to-day. Here is a situation in which a number of amendments have been announced, one at least of a character which will govern every section of the Bill. Is it reasonable to ask——
Is the Chair ruling that he will not allow the discussion to go on or will he allow the discussion to go on?
The Chair will rule the discussion out of order when it is considered proper to do so.
Is it reasonable to ask us to discuss a Bill on Committee and amendments on the Order Paper in the knowledge that further amendments forecast by the Minister for Health must affect—not may affect—every section that we deliberate on the Committee Stage? The Minister for Finance says that these are trivial and small amendments.
Minor amendments.
The Minister for Health has told us that these amendments are the amendments devised by the Government to meet the representations made in the three-page letter from the Hierarchy.
There was never a word about that.
May I make this inquiry? It is obviously advantageous to us when we are discussing the Committee Stage that we should know all the amendments we have to discuss at that stage. When replying on the Money Resolution the Minister indicated that he proposed to circulate amendments for the Committee Stage, the stage we are now approaching. We are in the position that although the Minister has made certain promises in that respect, we have not yet seen the amendments. I concede that the Minister might need some time to draft the amendments which he proposes to submit. Is it not possible, however, at this stage for the Minister to turn out whatever amendments are available so that we can tie them up with the sections on the Committee Stage? Could we get the amendments—even though we have gone some distance on the Committee Stage—in order to shorten discussion and to prevent a duplication of the Committee Stage? I am concerned with a speedy approach to the matter.
How can we deal with Section 4?
I should just like to put this view. As I see it, when we are discussing the Committee Stage of the Bill and the sections, the Minister will indicate that he proposes to introduce then, or perhaps later on the Report Stage, an amendment to cover a particular point that may then be under discussion. I understand that that has always been the procedure in this House and that there has never been any difficulty——
Never.
There is a discussion about some document which I have never seen, which you have never seenand which the public have never seen. We are the people who are running this country in the interests of the people. I object to reference to a document which, apparently, was circulated and withdrawn by the people who circulated it and which is not before this House. I object to reference to such a document. I am not governed in my public duties by any such secret document that has never seen the light of day——
May I ask a question, for guidance? Would it be in order on this or on any other Bill to introduce amendments of substance or of principle on the Report Stage?
The Chair can only decide on amendments of substance or principle when they come before it. The Chair cannot give a decision on hypothetical matters.
I am not asking a hypothetical question. What, in fact, is to happen on the Report Stage of a Bill is pretty well defined and laid down. I am asking the Chair if it would be in order or if it will be in order to submit amendments of principle or of substance, if they are of principle or of substance——
That is a hypothetical question and the Chair cannot give a decision on a hypothetical question. The Chair will decide on particular motions coming before it.
Has it ever been allowed in this House that amendments of principle were taken on the Report Stage of a Bill?
That is not a matter of order.
It is a matter of principle that should be within the knowledge of the Ceann Comhairle.
The position is a bit unusual on account of the antics of Fine Gael. Usually, on a Second Stage, Deputies tell the Minister in what ways they would like to have the Bill amended. For some reason best known to themselves, they did not discuss the Bill on the SecondStage. They spoke on the Money Resolution. A Money Resolution usually immediately precedes the Committee Stage. In these circumstances, how am I to be in a position to meet the wishes of Deputies? After all, it is their own fault. I assume—although it is a big assumption—that they are now sincere and honest in regard to this Bill. When I was winding up the debate on the Money Resolution I said that I proposed to agree to certain amendments though they might have to be redrafted. Deputy Norton has an amendment in relation to choice of doctor and Deputy MacBride has an amendment in regard to consultative councils. There may be others besides these two amendments but I have these in mind at the moment. I said that I proposed to bring in two amendments: (1) to add certain words to section 4 which, I think, any Deputy will agree does not change the meaning of the section but puts it beyond all doubt that there is no compulsion. That is not a fundamental amendment.
Show it to us.
I could dictate it to the Deputy right now.
That would help.
The second amendment concerns a choice of hospital. that was mentioned by several Deputies in the course of the discussion. If I bring in an amendment on a choice of hospital it is not a fundamental matter. If Deputies had treated this Bill properly on the Second Reading instead of being afraid of one another and afraid to speak, then I could probably have had that amendment circulated for the Committee Stage. As things have turned out, I could not.
Deputy Mac Fheórais rose.
I cannot allow a discussion of the Bill to proceed.
May I assume that when the Minister comes to the different sections he will, before we have any discussion, indicate his proposals?
Is it not quite usual for a Minister to say that he will accept an amendment?
These are your own amendments. We are concerned about the amendments of other Deputies.
Does the Minister say four amendments—amendments dealing with a local health authority, a free choice of hospital, of doctor and some embroidery amendment to Section 4? Is that all?
That is all—a central consultative council and local——
Will the Minister agree then to recommit this Bill on the Report Stage so that we can have discussion?
If the Deputy has an amendment with regard to choice of doctor and I say that I will accept it but would like to redraft it surely the Deputy will agree that no recommittal is required for that?
I do not want all this to develop into a discussion on the Bill.
On the question of establishing a local committee, the powers and functions will be important. The Minister will agree that that is not a thing that can adequately be discussed on the Report Stage when a Deputy is limited to one speech and is not able to deal with the light and shade.
The amendments are on the Committee Stage. Deputy MacBride has an amendment——
I am opposed to Deputy MacBride's amendment, and I have put down an amendment.
I am quite sure that Deputy Norton is fully capable of discussing it when we come to it.
Can I take it that the Minister will not object to recommittal? Can I take it that the Minister will not be too starchy about recommittal on the Report Stage?
When a good case can be made for it.
Is there anything dafter than to have two Committee Stages?