I will tell you exactly what occurred in regard to that. I am glad you called attention to it. The result of the Conference, as we understood it, that is to say, as our Sub-Committee understood it, is as I have already stated to the House, but when that report was sent to be printed, with a view to its circulation amongst the members of the Seanad, the Chairman of the other House called attention to the fact that we had omitted something which he said he had regarded as a matter of agreement namely, that if any question arises as between the two Clerks—that is the Clerk of the Seanad, and the Clerk of the Dáil—the Clerk of the Dáil was to have the senior vote, that is to say, he was to have a right of precedent. It is a small matter. I do not think it will lead to any friction, because what I clearly made plain, I think, to the Chairman of the Dáil, and what I inform the Seanad now, as the clear understanding and intention of our Committee is this—that as regards all matters that this common staff has to do or discharge for this House they are to take their orders from the Clerk of this House and from him alone. That is our understanding of the arrangement we arrived at. It might be that on some point of form or otherwise, some question affecting the dignity of either Clerk might arise, and, with regard to that, we did say—not really as a matter to be put into black and white— what we thought would be a workable arrangement, that probably the Clerk of the Dáil might be regarded as the senior of the two, but we never did agree that he was to override the orders of the Clerk of the Seanad, or that the Clerk of the Seanad was under any obligation to take directions from him, but that in regard to the work done for the Seanad by the common staff of the Oireachtas, that common staff, in doing that work, were to be under the control of, and take their orders from, the Clerk of the Seanad. Then we had to consider what was to be done with regard to inter-communication between the two Houses.
You naturally understand from the Constitution, and from our own Standing Orders that inter-communication on various matters, and on various occasions, will be necessary between the two Houses, and that our Standing Orders should provide for that, but we came to the conclusion that that was a matter arising for joint arrangement or agreement, and we propose to you that that would be best settled by a joint Conferference between Standing Committees of the two Houses and, if you approve of that suggestion, we of course, will take steps to have this joint Conference in bringing about a general agreement.
The next matter the report deals with is that a considerable amount of time is lost, and uncertainty created, when you put to the vote a question and say those in favour to say "Tá," and those against "Níl." The more articulate members, although in a minority, may present the appearance of a substantial majority, and we think it would save time, and do away with the necessity of calling the roll, if the alternative power was left to the Chairman to decide the matter preliminarily—instead of calling for those to answer in favour "Tá," and against "Níl," rather to ask for a show of hands because, of course, there can be no mistake about the hands, which I was going to say speak for themselves. It would be much simpler, and in either case members will have the right to call for a division, but it will facilitate and expedite business if the alternative power is granted to the Chairman as requested here.
One other matter we had to deal with was a very difficult one and that is the matter of question to Ministers. We came to the conclusion that, at least for the present and under existing conditions, we could not possibly require Ministers to attend here for the purpose of answering questions that might be submitted to them on any matter in connection with Executive or Administrative policy. We have no power to compel them to be here, and, consequently, we came to the conclusion that as long as we have no power to compel them, and as long as they are engrossed, as they are at present, with very grave and responsible duties, it would be an extra, and perhaps impossible, burden to cast upon them to suggest that they should attend here for the purpose of answering questions. The alternative proposal was made that Ministers might transmit their answer in writing and thereby avoid the necessity of coming here in person. We did not think that satisfactory because it gives no opportunity for supplementary questions and supplementary questions are really very often the only valuable part of such proceedings, because unless you can follow up an answer from a Minister by a supplementary question not much good can be derived from it.
Then it was suggested that one Minister should be requested to attend and answer for all the others. That also was practically worthless, because if such a Minister had a question put to him of a supplementary character about another department than his own, he would manifestly be unable to answer it, and certainly would be unwilling to answer it, and the conclusion we arrived at is that unless times change, and there is some agreed practice between the two Houses hereafter, it would be better make no suggestion as to any Standing Order dealing with questions at all.
Now, one other matter. Under our existing Standing Orders it is provided that a panel of not less than two Senators shall be appointed, each session, who, at the request of the Chairman or the Deputy, should take the Chair during his absence. We have recommended that, during the present session, this panel should consist of Senator Sir Thomas Esmonde and Senator J.T. O'Farrell, and we recommend that the Senators to be selected for this purpose should be varied each Session. We do that because by circulating the duties between Senators they will acquire experience in the Chair that will be useful afterwards when they are serving on Committees.
Your Standing Orders expire on the 25th of this month, and, therefore, in order to avoid the expenditure of duplicate printing we recommend that if you approve of our proposal in paragraph 2, and these two new Standing Orders about the Captain of the Guard, and the Standing Order giving power to call for a show of hands, they should not be printed now, but appear with the new Standing Orders that must be adopted on or before the 25th of this month.
Paragraph 4 deals with a very important matter. The Seanad will understand that when we speak of Private Bills, Private Bills are of two kinds. There is a Private Bill in the sense of a Bill introduced by a private member, although dealing with public matters; that is one head under which these Bills are called Private Bills; but there is a more important head, and that is Private Bills brought in by promoters of public undertakings which require the sanction of law, because they interfere with private rights, such as the taking of land, interference with private rights, compulsory acquisition of land, and so forth—these are Private Bills in the proper sense of the term, and it is almost certain that a considerable number of these will be coming before Parliament in the near future. Railway companies and other public boards and bodies which require extension of their power, and want to branch out in new directions will all have to come and obtain those powers by Private Bills. And that is likely to be a very important portion of our work in the near future. In the British Parliament where there are a great many of these Private Bills, arrangements are made at the beginning of each Session by allocating a certain number to be initiated in the one House, and the remainder to be initiated in the other House. For the purposes of these Private Bills it is necessary that they should comply with certain conditions, that they should be in certain form and contain certain affirmations, and disclose certain facts upon the face of the Bills, and to make sure that they comply with these requirements it is always found necessary to have what is called Examiners of Private Bills. Remember, now, I am not talking of private members' public Bills, but of those Private Bills introduced by promoters for their own purposes. It is always essential to have examiners for these Bills to see that they comply with the Standing Orders of Parliament. Your Committee was satisfied that these Standing Orders must be the same for both Houses, and, consequently the same official should act as examiner for both Houses, and that it would be an extravagance if there were to be separate officials in each House discharging practically the same work. And accordingly, at this joint Conference with the Speaker and the President, we agreed, subject to your approval, that the same official should act as examiner for Private Bills for both Houses, and that the Standing Orders in relation to Private Bills should be drawn up by the Joint Committee, and should be the same in each House. It was also thought desirable, and we so far agreed, that this gentleman, whoever he is, who may be appointed Examiner of Private Bills, should, for the time being, give advice to the Speaker and the Deputy in the other House, and to the Chairman and the Deputy here, but, at the same time, we had present to our minds and saw plainly and so reported that we did not think that that arrangement could ever relieve us from the necessity in the near future of appointing an independent counsel who shall act as advisor, not merely to the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman, but to the Chairman of Committees in this House, and to members of the Seanad itself.
I think that will be inevitable because, as you know, when you proceed to deal with Private Bills and sit in Committee upon them, the Chairman of the Committee will require to have at his elbow, or available, a competent legal expert who will assist him on legal points that Counsel, appearing in support of the Bills, will raise. At present that work is discharged in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, not merely with the assistance of Counsel, but they have also a body of trained expert clerks, one of whom attends each Committee. We do not propose, at the present at any rate, to advise you to go to the expense of employing expert clerks, but we do believe that you will require, very soon, to have a legal adviser for a purpose of this kind. I mention that, in order that you may not think that we have overlooked it. In agreeing that the same official should act as an examiner of Private Bills for the Seanad and Dáil we have not lost sight of the fact that it will probably be necessary for us to have a legal adviser of our own. I think I have travelled over the whole ground, and to put the matter in form, perhaps some member will now move the adoption of the report. When it is seconded it will be open for discussion by the members of the Seanad.
