I propose that the Standing Orders be suspended to enable this Bill to be put through all stages to-day.
LAND BILL, 1926—THIRD STAGE.
Bill passed through Committee without amendment.
The Seanad went out of Committee.
Bill reported, without amendment.
I second.
CATHAOIRLEACH
What is the urgency?
I believe the proposal will be satisfactory to the Seanad.
CATHAOIRLEACH
It must be urgent, and I have to decide whether it is urgent or not. I want to get some ground to base my decision on. What is the suggestion of urgency?
Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us.
There is no positive urgency if I could assume that the Seanad would meet next week, but, as, I understand, there is a dearth of business, and the possibility that the Seanad will adjourn over next week, I think it desirable that the Bill should be put through its remaining stages. On Second Reading it was clear that, while a proportion of the Seanad disapproved of the form of the Bill and the method we are adopting to secure a particular end, there was something approaching unanimity with regard to the end itself, and those who dissented from the form were disposed to waive their objection. The Committee Stage is passed. No section of the Bill has been challenged. No amendment has been moved, and in view of that, if the Seanad is not intending to meet next week, I certainly would be glad to get the remaining stages of this Bill taken to-day.
I suggest that an insufficient case has been made out for the urgency of the proposal. If you rule to the contrary, I shall proceed to argue against the suspension of the Standing Orders.
I suggest that the fact that the Bill has not been challenged to a division and that no amendments have been moved in Committee, are insufficient reasons why we should suspend Standing Orders and pass all stages of the Bill to-day. There is a disposition to over-ride the Standing Orders. We are doing that too often. No real grounds have been advanced on this occasion for suspending Standing Orders. There is no danger, I think, that the proceedings before the Privy Council will come on, and even if they do they will be rendered null and void by the passing of the Bill. I will vote against suspending the Standing Orders.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I may say that this Standing Order has received very wide interpretation. We have been very indulgent in the interpretation given it. To a large extent I am, perhaps, to blame for that. This is a very difficult case, but I do not think the Minister has put forward any ground of urgency. Perhaps he would be satisfied with this assurance: that if between this and Monday next any urgency did arise, I would convene the Seanad for some day next week. There is no other business to justify my calling Senators together next week, but if there was any real urgency in the interval, I could call the Seanad for next week. Unless there is some real, positive question of urgency, I think, perhaps, it would be wiser for the Minister not to press it.
May I suggest a compromise? I have consulted some Senators who are opposing this, and I think we would agree to have the Report Stage taken but not to have the Final Stage taken to-day.
Will the Seanad meet to-morrow morning?
I suggest to the Minister, owing to the peculiar nature of this Bill, it would be an unwise thing to hurry it through at all irregularly. Besides, I do not think there is any urgency.
I would have been reluctant to ask the Seanad to depart in any way from the Standing Orders but for the fact that I had heard that there was an intention on the part of the Seanad not to meet next week. That opens up the prospect of this Bill not becoming law for the best part of another fortnight. There is then the necessary seven days to run as from that and the signing, so that the Bill would not be operative law for three weeks. I am reluctant to refer here to the proceedings of either House of the British Parliament, but there is a growing disposition in one of those Houses to put down motions dealing with the affairs of this State, either its legislative or administrative affairs, and a motion has been put down for debate and discussion in the House of Lords in connection with this Bill. I think that is a very deplorable state of affairs.
I think it is as improper as if a motion were put down in this House or in the Dáil to discuss the legislative or administrative affairs of Britain. I should be glad if this Bill were a closed issue so far as they are concerned before any such debate took place on the other side. I would, if the Seanad are to meet on Tuesday, be prepared to wait until then for the remaining Stages of this Bill, but having regard to what I have heard as to the intention to adjourn over next week, I certainly would feel grateful if the Seanad could see its way to take the remaining stages of this Bill to-day.
Considering what we have heard just now of the urgency owing to the matters on the other side, I think the Minister is right, and it is desirable to have this question settled right away.
Could we not meet in the morning?
CATHAOIRLEACH
No. That would mean we would have to suspend the Standing Orders. I think the very fact mentioned by the Minister is a reason why we should not rush this. The very fact of it would seem to suggest we were nervous or frightened to have this Bill referred to elsewhere. I think that is a pity and a mistake. I cannot see what the urgency is. I cannot conscientiously rule that the Bill is an urgent one. I have heard no grounds to satisfy me. I thought, perhaps, it might be suggested that there was some danger of this particular case coming on. That might have been a different consideration, but I understand there is no prospect of that at all. Cases listed many months before it have not been heard at all. I do not think the Bill is in the slightest danger owing to that consideration.
I think it would be unfortunate if it went out that this House got panic-stricken, and that we were intimidated, as the result of a discussion elsewhere.
Could we have it put to a vote?
CATHAOIRLEACH
No, the question of urgency is for me.
What is the advantage of waiting when we can dispatch the business and anticipate the motion in the House of Lords?
CATHAOIRLEACH
That would apply to every motion.
As we will not be sitting this Bill is not gaining from our consideration.
You cannot see your way to say this is an urgent matter. Therefore there is no power, without notice, to suspend the Standing Orders. Personally I think the House should not depart from the reading of the Standing Orders. There is a feeling amongst the Seanad that the way we have met suddenly, have suspended the Standing Orders, and then passed Bills does not make for the dignity of the Seanad. I do not think the House can have it both ways. If we are not willing to meet we must rush through business in the time we do meet. I think we ought to meet on Tuesday or Wednesday next, even for half an hour. I think we must be prepared to suspend our Standing Orders or be prepared to meet if there is a case put forward even for the sake of one Bill. The custom of handing in notice when you wish to suspend Standing Orders should be revived. There are many cases where you will be prepared to vote for the suspension of Standing Orders, but I think notice should be given.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I think I am largely responsible for any blame that is to be attached owing to a certain laxity shown in the administration of our Standing Orders. The cases which I have in my mind were cases where Bills came at the close of the session and there was urgency from the point of view of time. The Government was to blame, because they kept the Bills from us too long, and I think I unduly relaxed the construction of the Standing Orders. As far as this particular case is concerned, I cannot see my way to say it is urgent. I am quite willing to convene a sitting for next week for the purpose of disposing of the Report Stage of this Bill and, with reference to that, a Senator can give notice of motion that the Standing Orders be suspended to take the Fifth Stage that day. Is it the wish of the Seanad that we should meet next week for the purpose of disposing of the remaining stages of the Bill?
Agreed.
Dealing with the Order in question, I want to say that the Order specifically deals with three matters. Senator Douglas suggests that we should revive the old custom of giving notice to move the suspension. Surely cases will arise frequently—it may be within a few hours—in which it would be impossible to give notice.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I think the Senator only meant the cases where the intention had existed in the mind of the proposer of the Bill. I do not think that he mentioned that it was to be an inflexible rule. He only meant wherever it was reasonably right or possible.
What I say is this— that wherever it is possible it should be done, and where it is not done that we should be very reluctant to suspend them.