It is not my intention to keep the Dáil very long on this matter, and I think we will dispose of it very rapidly. What I wish to propose is: "That the following Deputies be elected to act on the Special Committee of the Public Charitable Hospitals (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1923:— Deputy O'Maille, Chairman; Deputies Milroy, White, Sears, Hughes, Corish, Nagle, Thrift, Professor Magennis and Duggan; that the quorum be 4, and that the Committee report to the Dáil not later than Friday, 6th July, 1923."

I have tried to make the personnel of this Committee as representative, as far as it was humanly possible, of conflicting opinions, and all the Deputies I have suggested have expressed their willingness to act on the Committee. I beg formally to move the motion.

I beg to second the motion.

at this stage resumed the Chair.

Perhaps we could have some information as to the powers of the Special Committee with regard to the calling of witnesses, etc.?

The terms of the original motion, referring the Bill to the Special Committee, state that the Committee shall have power to examine witnesses in regard to the Bill, and send for papers and records. I think that gives them the power.

Then the passing of the resolution in its present form will carry with it those powers?

The passing of the resolution in its present form merely nominates Deputies who are to act, the Deputy who is to be Chairman, the quorum, and the date not later than which the Committee must report to the Dáil. It must be taken, of course, in connection with the original motion which constituted the Committee and defined its powers. I think that is clear.

I desire to move as as amendment that the Committee be enlarged by 2 and that Deputies Figgis and Gorey be added.

On a point of order, is there not a rule in the Dáil that no Deputy can be placed on a Committee without his consent? Therefore it would be interesting to know whether Deputy Johnson has secured the consent of the Deputies he has named.

Deputy Figgis is here.

I am compelled to say my consent has not been secured, and there is very little likelihood of its being secured.

I am not as familiar as Deputy Milroy about the rules. Is what he states the rule?

There is no such rule, but I take it that in accordance with what is, I should suggest, commonsense, if a Deputy is present and refuses to act he cannot be put on the Committee. If a Deputy is not present and if he is put on the Committee, our rules do not provide for the Deputy being discharged from attendance at the Committee and another being substituted. In the case of a Deputy who is not present he may be nominated. In the case of a Deputy who is present and refuses to act it would be obviously wrong to put him on.

Would I be in order in the circumstances in proposing, instead of my name, that the name of Deputy Johnson be substituted?

We will have to take Deputy Johnson as having the power to move an amendment.

In view of Deputy Milroy's insistence on what he thought was the rule, I think it is quite reasonable to expect that we should have had beforehand the names of the Deputies that were to be submitted. Deputies could then make arrangements in regard to the names proposed and the names they would consider ought to be proposed. When he is so insistent, I submit this is a motion of which not merely notice should be given, but the terms should have been set out. I do not want to press that, nor do I want to press my proposal that Deputies Figgis and Gorey be added, though I am sure the Committee would be greatly strengthened and improved by their presence.

Will Deputy Gorey be the nominee of the Labour Party, or will he be representing them?

That is a rhetorical question.

I am not speaking as a leader of the Labour Party, but as the Deputy for County Dublin.

Is the Deputy withdrawing his amendment?

I am quite satisfied, if Deputy Figgis will not act, and I presume he is speaking on behalf of his ally, Deputy Gorey.

There is another amendment which I wish to propose quite seriously: It is: "That the date be altered from 6th July to 4th August, 1923." The four weeks that would elapse between now and the 6th July would not, I think, be sufficient to enable the Committee to call witnesses and procure the evidence and papers necessary to examine this Bill thoroughly. After all, the Committee has to meet, and it can hardly meet before Monday or Tuesday. It then has to decide upon its procedure, and probably to submit a questionnaire or at least get into communication with witnesses who would be able to inform them what facts they think are essential to form a judgment on this question. I think that the 6th July is quite too early a date to expect a report duly considered. I, therefore, beg to move that the date be altered to the 4th August.

I will second that. I think it is quite acceptable that the Special Committee shall report to the Dáil not later than 4th August. I have no objection to that. We may report sooner, but not later.

I quite imagine that the Committee proposed by Deputy Milroy will be able to report by next Friday, or even to-morrow.

Or even to-night.

I was going to suggest that though Deputy Gorey is not in the Dáil to-day, his name should be added to the Committee, as this is a matter in which he has taken great interest. I now propose that he be included in the Committee. If he does not attend, it is his own affair.

I have great pleasure in seconding that.

There has been a discussion about rules, and it is a rule that when part of a motion has been amended, no preceding part of it is capable of amendment.

I asked Deputy McGoldrick to go on the Committee but he refused, and it is rather strange that he should now propose another Deputy.

Are we to assume, for the sake of procedure, that Deputy Figgis is leader of the Farmers' Party when Deputy Gorey and other Deputies are absent?

May I ask who will summon us?

The Chairman.

By what procedure does the next business arise? Is it necessary that the adjournment should be moved beforehand?

The President made a promise to move the adjournment.