When will you take the next Stage?

I propose, with the leave of the Dáil, that the Bill be now received for final consideration.

Agreed.

I would ask the leave of the Dáil to move that the Bill do now pass.

On a point of order, I would draw your attention to the fact that this motion requires notice under Standing Order No. 88.

Under Standing Order 88 I cannot receive this motion unless a motion is moved and carried that the Standing Order be suspended.

I raise a protest against this method of doing business. The motion moved by the Minister, with full respect I say, is one which you had a right to rule in order or out of order, without any reference at all to a suggestion of a suspension of the Standing Orders. I ask you to rule is it in order or is it not in order that this motion can be received.

The Standing Order states that when a Bill shall come forward for final consideration it shall be moved on notice given that the Bill do now pass.

Therefore the motion is out of order.

Therefore the motion cannot be accepted at the moment.

I move that we proceed to the next business.

May I draw your attention to Standing Order 123, which enables one to move, as a matter of urgency, the suspension of the Standing Orders for a particular purpose, and inasmuch as I regard the passage of this Bill as a matter of considerable urgency for the security and general well-being of the citizens of the State, I move the suspension of the Standing Orders to enable the Final Stage to be taken.

I second the motion.

Do you accept that as a case of urgent necessity? Are you satisfied that it is a case of urgent necessity that the Standing Orders should be suspended?

The evidence I have before me is that the Minister states that it is essential for him for the peace of the country that this Bill be carried with the least possible delay, and I take it that he being the best judge of the situation, it is a matter of urgency to have this Bill passed, and I rule the motion in order.

Will you read the motion?

The motion is: "That the Standing Orders be suspended to allow the Final Stage of this Bill to be taken."

I would like to ask your interpretation of some words in the Standing Order, that they may be suspended for the day's sitting. Does that mean that if these Standing Orders are suspended now, they are suspended for the rest of the day's sitting?

I think it is only for the moment in order to allow the passage of this Bill. The Orders of the Day will be followed immediately afterwards.

May I call attention to Standing Order 124: "The suspension of any Standing Order or Orders is limited to its operation to the particular purpose for which suspension has been sought."

On a point of order, the Standing Order requires that any such motion must have a majority of the Teachtaí of the Dáil qualified to vote. I would ask you to state how many Teachtaí are qualified to vote, and we will find out whether there is a majority or not.

There are 105 Teachtaí qualified to vote.

I take it, therefore, that 49 is not a majority.

Is it not a fact that the motion has already been declared carried?

Subject to your ruling on the matter raised by Deputy Mrs. Collins O'Driscoll, I wish to raise a further point of order on Standing Order 123, and as to a particular proviso thereto, which reads:—"Provided that such motion has the support of a majority of the Teachtaí of the Dáil, who are qualified to vote." That proviso, I submit, is inconsistent with Article 22 of the Constitution, and should therefore be void and of no effect. Article 22 of the Constitution reads:—"All matters in each House shall, save as otherwise provided by this Constitution, be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present, other than the Chairman or Presiding Member, who shall have and exercise, a casting vote in the case of an equality of votes." I ask your ruling, A Leas-Chinn Chomhairle, on that very important matter.

Before you give your ruling, A Leas-Chinn Chomhairle, may I draw attention to the fact that the Standing Orders were passed by the vote of the House, and it is on the Standing Orders of the House that we are acting, and it is on the Standing Orders of the House that you decide that this motion should be taken. We are acting under the Standing Orders which have been approved by the vote of the Dáil, and I submit that in such a matter you cannot refer to the Constitution to meet one case without referring to the Constitution to meet other cases.

I submit that the point has been definitely raised that the Order to which Deputy Johnson is appealing is against the Constitution, whereas the same point was not raised and could not be raised in connection with the Order under which we are carrying on the debate.

I am sorry that in my rulings to-day I appeared to be always against the minority of this House. It is the duty of a Chairman to try to act as fairly and as impartially as he can, and especially to respect the rights of minorities. This is a question that has been raised here for the first time.

No.

I, at least, do not remember that it was ever raised before. I take it that, in the first instance, the Articles of the Constitution are binding on us, and no matter what may appear in the Standing Orders, if they are in contradiction of the Constitution, in my judgment they are of no effect.

Before you give your ruling, may I draw attention to a consideration that was before the Dáil when these Standing Orders were adopted. The members on the Committee which drew them up, and members of the Dáil generally, will recollect that, if the ruling you are asked to give is accepted as the procedure of this House, on any day, when there is a small minority of members present, a motion may be brought forward to rescind Rules, Regulations and Standing Orders and pass Bills, or do anything which is within the competence of the Dáil to do without notice, on the motion of a Minister or of a Member who may have a temporary majority to support him. If that is the ruling, then good-bye to order.

May I submit that what Deputy Johnson has said would have been very relevant when we were discussing Article 22 of the Constitution; it would have been very relevant if he had said it on that occasion, and it would no doubt have impressed members of the Dáil, but it is belated now to get up in this Dáil and criticise the Constitution. I ask, A Leas-Chinn Comhairle, your ruling on the point I have already raised, that the proviso in Standing Order 123 is inconsistent with the Constitution.

I just wish to direct attention to the danger that Deputy Johnson has referred to. The second limb of Article 22 of the Constitution provides that "The number of members necessary to constitute a meeting of either House for the exercise of its powers shall be determined by its Standing Orders." Therefore, if by the Standing Orders there is determined a sufficiently large and responsible quorum, then a simple majority would not involve such a danger.

But they do not.

That is a matter for the amendment of the Standing Orders; the other is a matter for Constitutional amendment.

I submit that the proper interpretation of Standing Order 123 is the interpretation that must be made of any Standing Order or of any Clause or Act of Parliament, so long as the Constitution stands as the fundamental rule and the fundamental law. The words of the Standing Order are: "Provided that such motion has the support of the majority of the Teachtaí of the Dáil who are qualified to vote." I direct attention to the words, "who are qualified to vote." I think, Sir, you have said that there are 105 Teachtaí qualified to vote. Yes, there are 105 qualified to vote in so far as qualification consists in having subscribed the oath and taken a seat, but I submit there is a further qualification, a qualification demanded by an Article of the Constitution to qualify for a vote, and that is that Teachtaí must be present here in their places and record their votes. Consequently, there is a majority under Standing Order 123, and there is no necessity so to interpret it as to make it to be in conflict with the Constitution.

Is it likely that we will have another war with England if you override this Article of the Constitution and decided in accordance with the Standing Orders?

Ministers have been allowed very great consideration in the conduct of their measures through this Dáil. We have given facilities, and the Dáil has agreed ——

On a point of order, I wish to ask if it is to a point of order the Deputy is addressing himself? A point of order has been raised, and the Chair has not ruled on it.

I understood the Chair had ruled.

Deputy O'Connell has a point of order to raise, I think.

No.

As regards the arguments put forward by Deputy Johnson as to how a motion can be sprung on the Dáil by a Minister having a majority of members present for the time being, I think in a case of that kind, if there is anything in the motion that would infringe on the rights of a minority of members in the House it would be obviously the duty of the Chairman or Speaker of the Dáil for the time being to rule that motion out of order; but I do not see that that arises in the present case, and as regards the point raised by Deputy Magennis, there could be two constructions put on the matter of who is qualified to vote, and that view put forward by Deputy Magennis was in my mind previous to giving any decision.

God help us!

I strongly object to this interjection of Deputy Johnson.

I am sorry; I apologise and beg to withdraw the remark.

As far as my limitations go I do not want to sway one side or the other, but difficult questions of Order have been put up to me to-day, and I am trying, as far as I can, within my limitations, to give a right ruling. This question is a pretty difficult one to decide, there can be two views about it, and I am sorry that it has fallen to me to give the first interpretation on this matter. My ruling is that the motion is duly carried.

May I be allowed to say that there will be many occasions in the future for a suspension of Standing Orders if Ministers desire to get Bills through with the facility that they have been given in the past.

I move "That the Bill do now pass."

replied when his name was called: "I am not voting."

The Deputy must leave the Dáil if he is not voting.

On a point of order, are not the Standing Orders suspended?

Deputy Everard remained in the Dáil during the recording of the division, and Messrs. Johnson, Corish, Clancy, O'Connell, Colahan, Davin, Morrissey, T. P. Murphy, and P. Hogan (Clare), also remained in their places and did not vote.

The Bill having been passed will accordingly be sent to the Seanad.

at this stage took the Chair.