Following some remarks that Deputy Cosgrave made on this measure, I was asking that the Minister would give the House some assurance that the Government would approach the questions that had been raised, before they would be discussed by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, in a reasonable and satisfactory manner. I want to indicate that, with the unicameral system now in operation, some safeguard is required that there will be sufficient time given for consideration, particularly between the introduction of a Bill and its Second Reading, and a normal period between the other stages. As the Standing Orders of the House are at present, there is nothing to prevent a Bill being introduced to-day and passed through all its stages to-morrow. I raise the question following Deputy Cosgrave's remarks and influenced also by this, that the Government's attitude as it has presented itself on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, in so far as it has gone up to the present, has been rather antagonistic to the making of any changes. I think the House should not agree with the proposals in this measure until we hear that the Government propose to approach the question that Deputy Cosgrave raised in a reasonable and helpful manner, considering the position of the House.
Public Business. - Seanad Eireann (Consequential Provisions) Bill, 1936.—Second Stage (Resumed).
This Bill is a Bill to remove all references to the Seanad, so far as possible, in ordinary legislation, and I do not think some of the matters that have been raised in the discussion are strictly relevant.
We do not argue that.
Deputy Cosgrave stated that there was no information given by the Minister. I should have thought no great amount of information was necessary, having regard to the title of the Bill and the fact that I have just mentioned, that it simply proposes to delete all references to Seanad Eireann which may occur in the ordinary law of the country. The Deputy also referred to the policy as a result of which this Bill had to be introduced and he described that policy as being hastily conceived and carried out with very little delay. Having regard to the fact that the matter of the abolition of the Seanad has been before the country for about two years, I do not think anybody will agree with Deputy Cosgrave that the policy has been hastily conceived and carried out with very little delay. The surprising fact is that there has been so very little interest taken in this matter of the abolition of the Seanad, having regard to the dreadful consequences which Deputy Cosgrave even still tells us are bound to result. He tells us, for instance, that when this Bill passes into law we can be presented at any sitting of the Dáil, so long as the notice is on the Order Paper, with the introduction of a Bill and with its passage into law before night. Deputy Mulcahy suggests two days would be necessary, one to introduce a Bill and the second to pass it through all its stages.
I did not say it would be necessary; I said it could be done.
Apart from the fact that this matter would more properly arise on the resolution for the abolition of the Seanad, I might ask what will public opinion in the country and what will our friends in the Opposition be doing in this eventuality? Are we to assume that the Executive of the day are to be permitted to introduce legislation affecting the rights and liberties of the people and rush it through this House within 24 hours, even if the Executive should so desire? I do not think we can rate the Opposition at quite such a low level, or that we need not fear that in such an emergency public opinion outside will not make itself felt. Deputy Cosgrave referred to the necessity for safeguards. I should have thought the Deputy, and the other Deputies on that side who spoke, would have taken advantage of the opportunity which they were recently offered to try to effect a safeguard by suggesting how a Second Chamber might be usefully constituted, that, in their opinion, being the only really valuable safeguard or check upon the Government of the day. The Deputy and his Party refused to take part in this Commission and now they come along scolding the members of the Commission, as Deputy McGilligan has done, telling us they possess a see-saw type of mind and so on. The Deputy must be extremely annoyed with the independent and non-Government members of the Commission who have kindly consented to give their time and experience in an endeavour to find a solution of this question.
Deputy Dillon wants to know what our policy is. That has already been pretty fully dealt with by the President, and the Deputy is the very person who should appreciate that. The President explained that we were waiting to see whether a Seanad that would be worth while would be suggested, and if such a suggestion comes from the Commission I have no doubt the Government will accept it, it being clearly understood, of course, that the Government are quite free to accept, reject or modify the recommendations of the Commission. Deputy Cosgrave, not having participated in the work of the Commission and having been left out in the cold, tells us that we should have in the interim some system by which it would be necessary to get a two-thirds, a three-fourths, or a five-sixths majority in the House. Is not that an absurd idea?
For what?
For legislation.
There was no such suggestion made.
Deputy Cosgrave, in the course of his speech, said:
"If necessary, it could be provided for in the measure that a large majority of the House would be required. When I speak of a majority in that case I mean a majority of the whole House rather than a majority that would be composed of the majority Parties. I mean a majority of the House, or two-thirds or three-fourths or five-sixths or something of that sort."
So that there would be a perpetual veto on the Government of the day.
I would ask the Minister to recollect that Deputy Cosgrave is only recommending such a majority on a motion as to the time that should be allowed between one stage of a Bill and another. Deputy Cosgrave raised the point that some safeguards were necessary before the Second Reading of the measure was taken, so that the members of the House and the country would have time to understand what was in it: that no motion to take the Second Reading inside the stated time should be allowed without a substantial majority of the House voting. His remarks did not apply to taking a decision of the House on any point of legislation.
I think that what the Deputy has said has not helped to make the matter clear. The Deputy has referred to the fact that this matter is at present engaging the attention of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Deputy Cosgrave's idea seems to me to be an absurd one, that the Dáil should be asked to discuss a question which is at the moment engaging the attention of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. That Committee will probably put forward recommendations, if it should consider it necessary to do so, and, presumably, the question may come before the House; but, in any case, it is really a matter, I think, of amending the Standing Orders and is not relevant to the legislation now before the House.
Deputy McGilligan's references to the position of the judges and his contention that a bare majority of the Dáil can now remove a judge from office are not, in my opinion, relevant either to the measure under consideration. I am informed that the question of the security of the judges is already dealt with under the measure for the abolition of the Seanad: that it is provided in that measure that adjustments will be made in that connection, and that a majority of, I think, four-sevenths will be necessary. In any case, it is quite clear that, until the question of a Second Chamber is finally resolved, it is most unlikely the Executive Council is going to introduce any measure of that kind. There is no use in telling the House and the country that the Government of the day can, with a bare majority, do this, that and the other. There are good reasons why an Executive, even if it should wish to do certain things to advance its own political programme or its own interests, is precluded from so doing. I think Deputy Cosgrave admitted that fact when he said that, no doubt, it could be urged that the intention was not there. Even if it was not a matter that should be provided for, it has been provided for to this extent, at any rate, that a four-sevenths majority is necessary. I do not think that the matter is really relevant to the present Bill. I am told that it is inserted in the Constitution. It is now part of the Constitution and will have to be regarded accordingly.
Deputy Mulcahy wishes that sufficient time should be given to Deputies to consult their constituents with regard to measures that come before the House. I think that is a matter that can be taken up when measures are brought forward. It is quite clear that the Opposition will have plenty of time between the different stages of Bills that come before the House to make their opinions felt, and to effect any changes that they may think necessary, in so far as they are able to bring about such changes.