A message of the 12th November, 1925, has been received from the Seanad that they passed resolutions amending Standing Order 41 and Standing Order 114 relative to private business.
REPORT OF JOINT COMMITTEE ON STANDING ORDERS.
I move: "That the report of the Joint Committee on Standing Orders be now considered." Copies of this report I understand have been circulated to Deputies. It deals with the amendment of Standing Orders Nos. 41 and 114.
On a point of order, this report of the Joint Committee has been placed in our hands only within the last few hours and I submit that it is not reasonable to have the consideration of this until we have had some notice and an opportunity of reading it. Is it essential, as a matter of order, that this matter should be discussed to-day?
What is actually being proposed is that the report be considered. If objection, be taken to the moving of the report now the mover of the motion can make suitable arrangements for its discussion. It is not essential from the point of view of private business that this report should be considered to-day. Does Deputy Johnson, take objection to its consideration to-day?
My whole point is that I do not think we ought to consider it with a view to coming to a decision to-day, and while I think it is quite reasonable that Deputy O Maille should state his case the immediate process to follow that should be an adjournment of the discussion so that we may consider the matter contained in the report.
I think the members of this House who acted on the Joint Committee with regard to Standing Orders relating to private members' business have no desire that a matter of this kind should be rushed in any way. Deputy Johnson's objection is a reasonable one, but the amendments suggested do not affect any great principle. Standing Order 41 made provision whereby promoters of Bills should make application to introduce Private Bills at two dates in the year. It is felt that in dealing with legislation of this kind in the first few years it would be desirable to provide promoters of Private Bills with every possible facility. There is no likelihood that there will be a big rush of Private Bills, but it is felt by the Committee that there may in the first few years be Private Bills of urgency, and it would be unfair to the parties concerned if they had not an opportunity of having those Bills submitted twice a year. This Standing Order allowed during the first two years the opportunity to promoters of Private Bills to introduce the Bills in March and April as well as October and November. The suggested amendment in Standing Order 41 would mean the extension of that period for another term, provided that the promoters of the Private Bills received in writing the sanction of the Chairman of the Joint Committee dealing with Private Bill legislation. That does not effect any considerable change. As regards the amendment of Standing Order No. 114, it has been suggested that the taxation of Parliamentary agents' costs in connection with Private Bills be carried out by the Taxing Masters of the High Courts in accordance with a practice which has been in vogue, to a certain extent, prior to the Treaty. To enable this arrangement to be arrived at, without an amendment of Private Bill Costs Act, 1924, Standing Order 114 requires amendment. This appointment of an official would not necessitate the expenditure of any further public funds, as those officials are already in existence. It was felt by the Joint Committee that one of the three existing officials should be made responsible for the taxing of costs of Private Bills. The amount of work carried out by this official would not by any means be considerable, but it was thought that it is better to have one of the three officials directly responsible for carrying out the work.
The motion is: "That the Report of the Joint Committee on Standing Orders be now considered." If the word "now" was deleted, and, say, Tuesday or Wednesday substituted as the date for consideration, would not that meet the case?
I would suggest that the motion be amended to delete the word "now" and to insert next Friday. My reason for saying Friday is to allow time for consideration of the Report, and also time to consider the explanation by the Deputy who has moved the motion. I do not know whether this involves any matter of importance or not, but it is of considerable importance that we should be careful in our amendments of Standing Orders to ensure that the rights and privileges of members of the Dáil should be conserved. Standing Orders have been printed and circulated affecting Private Bills, and changes are now proposed. Deputies may be absent from this meeting to-day who will not know anything until they have received the official report of the reasons for these changes. Therefore we ought not to consider the Report until the explanation that has been given to us by Deputy O Maille has been available to Deputies in the country. I move the deletion of the word "now," and to insert in its place "Friday, 20th November."
I am quite agreeable to accept that amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Question: "That the Report of the Joint Committee on Standing Orders on Private Business be considered on Friday, 20th November," put and agreed to.