Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Nov 1923

Vol. 2 No. 5

PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE. - REPORT OF JOINT COMMITTEE.

May I ask a question with reference to the Report of the Joint Committee on Private Bill procedure? Would it be desirable to enter into consideration of it at this stage, as there are a great many small amendments, not controversial, which would take some time to go through? If consideration of the Report was adjourned until to-morrow, I think it would be very desirable.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

The only thing is that it is very inconvenient to discuss any Report of this kind. I am afraid there will be very little advantage gained by discussing the Report here. I should inform the Seanad that the Report is the result of the labours of a Joint Committee, consisting of six representatives from the Seanad and six from the Dáil. It had previously been very carefully prepared by a member of the Irish Bar and was afterwards revised thoroughly by an expert from that particular office in the British House of Commons. I spent weeks over it myself, and I had the assistance of the Leas-Chathaoirleach. The Report is now in the shape we ultimately put it after many weeks of labour. If the Seanad would like to take it and discuss it, that is another matter, but I am afraid they will have to take most of it on trust. The orders are purely technical, many of them entirely dealing with legal matters. Some are of a scientific nature, on which, of course, we had to get expert assistance.

There are a number of these Orders to which I think it is absolutely essential to call attention, and the usefulness of the Standing Orders will be vastly improved by slight amendment.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I am sorry we had not you on the Committee.

That is not my fault. It is absolutely essential that the Orders should be amended. I think the amendments will be non-controversial.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

That is the reason I was thinking we might go on with them now. I am quite certain that if you put forward suggestions from a scientific or from an engineering point of view you will have it all your own way.

As you know the Standing Orders of the British House of Commons have been taken as the basis on which these Standing Orders were framed. As these Orders were framed a great many years ago it was found, in the course of experience, that it was desirable to alter them in certain respects. For instance, when the Irish Tramways Act was passed in 1883, two applications were allowed in the course of the year, in November and May.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Would it not be more convenient if you bring forward a concrete case? Take the Orders in their order. What is the first amendment you would like to suggest?

On page 1 you have "definitions." The Report says "the term ‘occupier' applies only to ratepayers and to other persons not being ratepayers whose interest in the premises occupied is not less than that of a quarterly tenant." I think that should be made yearly tenant, and for a great many reasons. In promoting these Bills, in which a great portion of my life has been spent, a great difficulty arises in finding out who are the occupiers of a place. Very often you cannot find out whether he is a tenant at all or not. If it was made a yearly tenant it would meet the case. I do not think that a man in occupation for three months should really have any say as to whether land should be taken or not. It will make difficulty in complying with the Standing Orders, and also make the number of objections which can be raised as to non-compliance very great. It will put difficulties in the way of promoters, and I think we should encourage people to promote as many Bills as possible, as otherwise progress will not come. If you put in quarterly tenants as persons who should get notice, and if it was proved afterwards you did not ascertain there was such a person in existence, and if you did not serve him, the whole of your money would be thrown away.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Then you move to substitute the word "yearly" for "quarterly?"

I beg to second.

Might I suggest that the suggestions made by Senator Barrington and the other suggestions might be referred to the Committee rather than be quickly adopted here? The nature of the draft Standing Orders on private business is of a highly technical character, and you, Sir, probably are the only person in this Seanad who could deal with them from the legal point of view. They will be coming before the Dáil, and there is very little doubt that some suggestions will come from them by way of amendments. If both sets of suggestions could come before the Joint Committee by way of suggestions rather than amendments, I think it would be a wiser and better way of dealing with the matter. I am not quite sure that a quarterly tenant simply means a person who has been there just three months. He might have been there for a considerable time. I hesitate to substitute the word "yearly" for "quarterly," as the term might be too restricted.

I would like to support Senator Douglas. I feel that these matters are highly technical, and are such that the Seanad is not competent to decide. They should be investigated by experts before a final vote is taken.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

That would be an exceedingly convenient and proper course if it is feasible, but I am not satisfied that it is feasible. It is a Joint Committee, and I do not think that our separate Committee can take action. It was expressly appointed only to act in conjunction with a Committee of the other House. That Joint Committee has given in its report, and it is functus officio. There is great difficulty in seeing how anything could be referred to it again, but if it is referred it must be referred to it as a Joint Committee. If it could be managed, it has everything to be said for it on the ground of convenience.

I am informed that there will be amendments or suggestions in the Dáil in the same way.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Unless the Dáil follow the example we are setting and refer the amendments suggested there back to the Joint Committee, then Senator Barrington's chance will be gone. If they proceed to amend the report of their own motion in the ordinary way and do not send back the suggestions to the Joint Committee, the Standing Order will be passed without Senator Barrington having an opportunity of moving it. I think it might be wiser for us to adjourn this until it is passed by the other House.

My suggestion is that we should hear the suggestions without finally passing them, and then adjourn the consideration of the Report.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

My difficulty is that we have no power of ourselves to summon the Joint Committee. The Dáil might say "This has left the Committee and it is now for us, and we will finish it off."

All Joint Committees work by way of suggestion, and we could make this by way of suggestion to the Dáil that it be referred back.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

We could make it to our six colleagues in the Dáil, as we must get the other members of the Joint Committee to co-operate. My difficulty is that if the six members representing the Dáil were to say: "No, this is not a matter for the Committee, and any alteration to be made must be made in the Seanad or Dáil," then Senator Barrington would have lost his time. It might be wiser if the Senator would make out a list of his points and send it to us. We could then adjourn and send the list to the members of the Joint Committee and ask them to bear the points in mind.

I only meant that they should be sent to the Committee in the hope that they would consider them. If they decline the Senator could move them when they come up again.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I do not want to shut out the Senator, because I know that these things about tramways, etc., have advanced very much in recent years, and that Standing Orders which might have suited some years ago might be old-fashioned now, particularly having regard to the conditions in this country. I think we should adjourn the matter until we ascertain the procedure in the Dáil.

Undoubtedly the simplest and wisest course, if it could be carried out, would be to do what Senator Douglas suggests and let the Joint Committee consider all these questions again. The only difficulty seems to be whether that Committee is alive or not.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Or whether if it is alive, the members of the Dáil will consent to that course.

Probably some of these points will be raised in the Dáil. In these circumstances they will be in the same quandary as we are in. Why should we rush into these things now after holding them up for twelve months when, in a few days, we might have them perfect? If it is possible to ask the Committee to meet again and consider the suggestions raised either here or in the Dáil, it would be best to do so.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

That is what I am suggesting. I think the best plan would be for me to communicate with the Speaker and point out the difficulty that has arisen and suggest that if either House agree that any amendments put down in the Dáil and put down here should all be referred to a Joint Committee, that would be following our example and you would be quite safe.

That would leave Senator Barrington safe, but it would not leave some of us safe. I understood Senator Barrington to say at first, that he was going to deal with technical matters. The first matter he raised is not a technical matter. He is going to debar a person who has been in his holding less than a year. That is a deliberate attempt to deprive such people from participating in what they are entitled to. If these questions are to go before the Joint Committee, I suggest that they are going to go before it without my permission. His first suggestion is going to do a gross injustice to people who have a holding of less than a yearly tenancy.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I think you may take it from me that your fears are groundless. I do not think that that recommendation would have the slightest chance of being accepted by the Joint Committee, but even if it had, it will have to come back again to the Seanad. The Joint Committee cannot legislate. They can only recommend. I would suggest to you that, apart from taking up any particular application of the motion, the way to solve this is to get the Dáil to agree in reference to all those suggestions made in the Dáil, they should be sent back to the Joint Committee for report, in the same way as we are suggesting here, and they should thrash them out and report back to each House, which will still have control of them. It will be a sort of supplementary report.

I think if we take action first, as I know the Dáil is not taking them to-day, it is much more likely to agree.

There is no desire on my part to prejudice anybody. I mentioned the quarterly tenant, not that I wished to do anybody any harm.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Your selection was unfortunate.

It is purely technical.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

It is more; it would mean striking out the word "occupier" from all the Standing Orders in the case of quarterly tenancies and you might thus create an injustice. Is it the wish of the Seanad that the further consideration of this report stand adjourned?

If that is so it should be clearly understood that all members of the Seanad should prepare and send in suggestions.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

The proper thing to do is to adjourn for a fortnight, and any member who makes a suggestion should send it in within a fortnight.

Notice should be sent to all members who are not here, by the Clerk.

I propose that the matter should be adjourned for a fortnight.

I second.

Some of those points require explanation to make them clear. I do not know that a simple list would enable explanations to be made.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I was going to suggest to the Speaker that if the Dáil saw their way they should allow interested members to attend at a Joint Committee and place their views before them.

Motion put and agreed to.
Top
Share