The next business is the consideration of the Report of your Committee on the Standing Orders. I should like to mention, with regard to this Report, that it has been the subject not only of several meetings of the Committee, but also of very careful revision on the part of your Vice-Chairman, with the assistance of myself and the Assistant Clerk, so that the Report does not nearly represent the ordinary work of the Commiteee, but it represents many hours of very careful revision and very careful thought, and whatever the results may be we now commit them to the House for approval. I do not know what procedure the House would like to follow with regard to them, but I think the most convenient way is that I shall ask that the adoption of this Report be moved, and if any Senator would like to make a correction or addition I shall be glad to hear him.
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON STANDING ORDERS.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
As a member of the Committee, I formally move the adoption of the Report.
Is that the adoption of the entire Standing Orders as we have them here?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The Report, but it will then be open to any Senator who wishes to move on that motion that any particular thing may be altered or amended. We sent out a Report, Senator. You got the Report, and then you actually got the Standing Orders in the shape they will take if adopted. Perhaps the shortest way would be if I took the Report, and referred to it paragraph by paragraph, as I am Chairman of the Committee.
AMENDMENT No. 1.
"To delete Order 1 and to substitute therefor the following:—
"The Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach shall be elected by the Seanad. In the case of any vacancy in either office a day shall be fixed for the election on which candidates may be proposed and seconded. Should only one candidate be proposed he shall be declared to have been duly elected, but should more than one candidate be proposed the election shall be conducted in the mode hereinafter prescribed by Orders 99-102 (both inclusive) in the case of casual vacancies in the office of Senator save that the voting shall be open and not by ballot.
"Should the outgoing Cathaoirleach be proposed as a candidate for either office, he shall vacate the Chair, and the Seanad shall nominate a member, not being himself a candidate, who shall preside at the election, with a right to a casting vote, as prescribed by Order 102."
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The first change recommended is a change in Paragraph 1 of the Standing Orders, which deals with the election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman. No provision has been made for the machinery to be adopted on that election, and accordingly we recommend the machinery that you will find in our Report. We sent out a Report which contained our recommendation, and then we sent out a full copy of the Standing Orders in the shape they would be if our Report was adopted.
If you turn to Standing Order 99, and these Standing Orders only reached us yesterday——
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I am sorry for that. I thought they would have been in your hands three days ago.
I only got my copy yesterday, and I doubt very much if very many members of the Seanad have gone through these Standing Orders.
What do you mean by Standing Order 99?
No. 99 is on page 22. The whole thing is rather complicated, and we have to take our time and not to go in too great a hurry.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think it will be found that my original statement is correct. Every member of the House was sent a copy of the Standing Orders in the shape they will assume if our Report is adopted. They were also sent separately the amendments themselves.
I have not got that document, but in the old Standing Orders you have Standing Order No. 99, and at the beginning of that Standing Order you say that "On the appointed day." 99 stands, I take it.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
It has nothing whatever to do with what we are discussing now.
One has to discuss these Standing Orders more or less in connection with one another. Might I ask, under the new rule must a candidate be proposed beforehand?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
No.
Must any notice be given?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
No.
That relieves all my doubts as to No. 1, and, therefore, I have no objection to it whatever.
Might I draw attention to the fact that there is a misprint in the paper put before us. In the last figure, Order No. 102, I think, should read 109.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
It is 109 in my copy; it should be 109. If you look at the document which contains the Standing Orders as they will be if you adopt our report, you will find that the figures there are correct, 106 to 109. If our Report is adopted a number of new Standing Orders will be inserted, and that will alter the entire numbering, but in the print we have sent out to show the shape the Orders will be in, if our Report is adopted, the Orders in question will be 106 to 109.
In regard to Standing Order No. 1, paragraph 1, some Senators seem to read a different meaning into the clause than I think was intended. It is contended by some who have read it that the voting by ballot for the election of Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach shall only be in the case of casual vacancies. I, as a member of the Standing Orders Committee, took it that it should be an open vote in the case of all vacancies.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think nothing could be plainer than the Order as drafted: "In the case of any vacancy in either office"—nothing could be wider than that.
I have to complain that the printed copy of these Orders and the amendments to be made to them did not reach me until this morning. Perhaps there may be other Senators here in the same position.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Of course, the Senator will see that the posts are not as regular as we might wish them to be in some parts. I took infinite trouble and care to get these out of my hands at the earliest possible moment so as to be in the hands of Senators. If Senators feel any difficulty about it, I would not have the least objection to this matter being adjourned.
I am sure no blame attaches to you. These Standing Orders now last for some time.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I might remind the Senator that we had a very influential Select Committee to deal with these matters. It is very difficult to deal with them in a large assembly like this.
I would like to draw attention to one item in paragraph 1— under which the Seanad are bound to elect a Vice-Chairman, without any option being given to them—in connection with the matter of future economy and the curtailing of our paid officials.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That is not by the Standing Orders at all. That is in accordance with the Constitution. It is not the Standing Orders have created that at all.
Might I ask if it is in the Constitution that the Vice-Chairmanship should be a salaried position?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That I would not like to answer, as it is a legal question. It is not for me to answer that.
There is an idea prevalent in the Seanad that in the interests of economy——
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That is really out of order. That is a matter that can be raised by itself, but it does not arise on these Standing Orders. As long as you have got a Chairman and a Deputy-Chairman you have got to make Standing Orders in reference to them. The moment you abolish either of them, then the Standing Orders relating to the one you abolish disappear from your Orders. You are not prejudiced or embarrassed in any way by these Standing Orders in attempting to do what you suggest. So long as you have a Chairman and a Deputy Chairman you have got to make Standing Orders providing for the election to fill a vacancy. When the vacancy occurs any Senator can move that it should not be filled.
I should like to move that the position of Leas-Chathaoirleach be abolished.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That would not be in order on what we are at to-day.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I should mention in connection with this that I have received a letter from Senator Mrs. Wyse-Power expressing her regret at being absent to-day, and saying that if she had been present she intended to move that this prayer should be read in Irish.
I think it is only right that the prayer should be read in Irish. I have been consulted by Senator the Earl of Wicklow in regard to this matter, and I suggested to him, and I understand other Senators also suggested, that the prayer should be bi-lingual—in Irish and English—and that the Irish version of it should be printed in Roman characters and circulated amongst the Senators for their use. In that way Senators would, in a very short time, become familiar with the sound of the prayer in Irish as read by the Clerk. I think it would be a very damaging thing to the cause of the Irish language if this Seanad gave an example to the country by ignoring it. The Government has done a great deal for the propagation of the language, and will continue to do a great deal, and we hope that some day in the Dáil they will come to have prayers before their proceedings. I would venture to say that in all probability these prayers will be read in Irish, and if we want to be consistent in our support of the language movement we should have our prayer in Irish as well as in English.
Would I be in order in moving as an amendment that the prayer be read in Irish as soon as the majority of the members of the Seanad know Irish?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think it would perhaps be a little premature, Senator, to propose that recommendation just now. At best it would amount to a direction that it should be read in both languages. I think, perhaps, that it would be a mistake. It is not, of course, for me, but for the Seanad, to decide. I think probably it would be wiser to let it proceed as the Committee recommends, and then later on, if the Seanad were prepared for it, to have it read either also in Irish or exclusively in Irish. I think you are a little premature about it. I only throw out that suggestion.
I hope no definite decision will be taken as to the exact wording of the Prayer, or as to whether it should be read in Irish. I think it ought to be known that the words of the Prayer are the result of conversations, I believe, that took place between the two Archbishops of Dublin—Catholic and Protestant—and it is certainly the case that the wording was approved by both of them. That is why the Prayer is suggested to the Seanad by the Committee. Personally, I think it is most desirable that the same form of Prayer should be used in both the Dáil and the Seanad. I think it would be very undesirable, unless there is a very strong difference of opinion, that there should be any difference on a matter of religious observance between the two Houses of the Oireachtas. Consequently, although the matter has come before the Seanad first, it is, I understand, about to be recommended for incorporation in the same form by the Standing Orders Committee to the Dáil. Whether they are making a recommendation to read it in Irish or English I do not know. I think it well that the Seanad should have definite information as to the action to be taken in the Dáil before coming to a definite decision.
I suppose it will be thought reasonable, as the suggestion emanated originally from me, that I should make one or two observations.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think you deserve the entire credit for it.
It strikes me that I should almost apologise for my presumption, being one of the junior Senators, in venturing to suggest to the Seanad that it would be proper for them to indulge in this religious observance at the opening of the proceedings. As no one else was disposed to do so, and as I received kind encouragement, I ventured to write letters to every Senator, and I received kind and sympathetic replies, suggesting a Prayer, somewhat in the form in which it appears in the Report. With regard to the words selected, they were mainly suggested to me by a layman friend. I took the words to His Grace the Archbishop of the Church of Ireland in Dublin and consulted him. He made one or two small suggestions, and he subsequently, at my suggestion, discussed the Prayer with the Administrator of the Pro-Cathedral, in the absence of the Roman Catholic Archbishop. They agreed that the words were most suitable for our proceedings. On the return of the Catholic Archbishop I visited his house, and he was kind enough to say that on the whole he agreed with the wording. His Grace thought perhaps that the Prayer might be more dignified, or more eloquent, but in his view it met the requirement of a Prayer such as we desire to use. He made one or two trifling amendments, which are now in the Prayer. With regard to the prayer being read in Irish, I sympathise entirely with those who made the suggestion, but, as Senator Yeats has pointed out, there is a doubt whether anything approaching a majority of the Senators would understand it, if it were read in Irish. I rather doubt if in the near future it is likely that Senators will be much better informed in that direction. Would it suit the view of those who take their stand on the side of the Irish language, if the Prayer was translated into Irish and used on alternate occasions in each language? It seems to me that it would be rather cumbersome if the Prayer was read in both languages on the same day. If it would be more practicable to have it read on one occasion in Irish, and the next occasion in English, I would not have any objection. In fact, rather than have no Prayer at all, I would prefer to have it read in Irish. In any case whatever the Seanad may desire to do, I hope, now that we have got so far as having it on the recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee, that nothing will happen to prevent the institution of a Prayer asking for that guidance which, I do not think any Senator will be prepared to deny, we are sorely in need of.
I think Senator the Earl of Wicklow should be congratulated on the way he has dealt with this matter. Speaking for myself, I consider the Prayer to be a very good one. I have read it myself, and it takes exactly a quarter of a minute. If it takes a quarter of a minute to read it in English, I suppose it would not take much longer to read it in Irish. If it is read in English first we shall understand it, and if it is then read in Irish we would have the Prayer in our minds and we would understand the purport of it. Therefore, the whole thing, if it is read in both languages, will only take half a minute. I have not the slightest objection to having it read in Irish, and if it pleases Senators to have it read in that language, well and good.
May I support Senator the Earl of Mayo's suggestion, that it would be becoming and decorous to read the Prayer in Irish first and then in English. After all, it does not matter what language we pray in. It is the spirit of the prayer, not the wording of it, that matters. The Prayer ought to be said in Irish and English. I shall endeavour to say it in both languages. I would like to congratulate Senator the Earl of Wicklow on the manner in which he has carried this matter through. He has spent an anxious time dealing with the question of the Prayer, and he has been most industrious and most painstaking. May I also say that he has acted with extremely good tact. It is a most agreeable thing, and it is significant of the spirit of this little country of ours, to get the heads of the Protestant and the Catholic churches to agree upon a form of Prayer of this kind. It is a most hopeful sign, and I desire to congratulate Senator the Earl of Wicklow on his efforts. I hope we will have the Prayer when the Seanad meets in future.
I wish to move the following resolution:—
"That the Prayer be read in Irish and English every day."
I think the time devoted to Irish in this Seanad, even though it is only half a minute a day, will produce valuable results.
I beg to second the motion.
I wish to make a very emphatic protest against the histrionics which have crept into the whole Gaelic movement. People pretend to know a thing that they do not know and which they have not the smallest intention of ever learning. It seems to me to be discreditable and undesirable. I hope this will not be taken as being unsympathetic to the Gaelic movement. In the Abbey Theatre, on Monday night, a play in Irish was produced, and the theatre was packed with an enthusiastic audience. They knew Irish, and they were able to understand the language of the play, but I think this method of histrionics, and going through a childish performance of something we do not know, and which we do not intend to learn, will ultimately lead to a reaction against the language. I wish to say that I wish to see the country Irish speaking.
I support the resolution. Senator Yeats talks of histrionics and so forth, but to be consistent he should have started at the beginning when we termed our Chairman An Cathaoirleach, and used the expressions Níl and Tá for No and Yes. If he looks at the Order Paper every day he will find that a great part of it is printed in Irish and English. Is it not rather late in the day now to raise this protest on the ground that it is mere sentiment? After all, Senator Yeats will admit that there is something in sentiment, and that great movements have been inspired merely on the ground of sentiment. We found sentiment in hard-headed business people during the great war when we found people changing their German titles and changing the names of cities and streets simply because they had a Teutonic atmosphere or tinge about them. On these grounds I think the protest is somewhat late in the day and somewhat out of place in regard to this particular motion.
After all, the legislative assembly of this country is not doing anything very silly, and I think it is acting well in trying to encourage the study of the language of the country itself. That does not in the least prevent those who wish to develop West-British ideas from developing them, but I do not think that they should do anything to discourage the study of the language of most of our forefathers so that we may become acquainted with its history and develop an idealism which is more suited to our people than an imported one which has never fitted very well and which has not proved very successful.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Might I suggest very respectfully to the Seanad that having regard to the subject matter we ought not to debate it further? It is not a matter about which there should be much controversy. If some members wish to have it read in both languages why not read it in both?
As the Clerk does not know Irish would it not be better to change the Standing Order so that the Assistant Clerk might read the Prayer in Irish?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
It would be very simple for the Clerk to get an Irish translation, and it would not require more than half an hour to master and read it. I think I would offer to undertake to do that myself. The matter would be met in this way: To insert after the words "read by Clerk,""in the Irish and English language." Does the Seanad agree?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
No. 3 on the recommendation paper is purely formal except as regards the second paragraph, which you will see proposes to make permanent the practice adopted on the last occasion, that is to say, that there should be a discussion merely on the Governor-General's Address.
This raises the question which was decided provisionally a year ago, and which incidentally was responsible, I think, for some of the misconceptions that have occurred. I am sorry I cannot agree to this proposal. I think if the Seanad gives up its right to discuss the speech of the Governor-General and to move an amendment in the customary form it would be very much curtailing its own powers.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The Standing Order does not propose to do so. Any member can give notice for the next day of any motion he likes with reference to the Address. It is always in the power of any Senator to put down a notice of motion. The only thing this deals with is that on the day we meet, perhaps half an hour after the Address has come, there should only be a discussion upon it.
I am much obliged for that information. It is quite open to Senators on the next day to proceed in the customary way.
Might I point out that as the proposed alteration reads, no motions of any kind would be moved which, I take it, would prevent a definite amendment either approving of or objecting to the Governor-General's Speech on the day it is received. It would not prevent a separate motion being proposed by members of the Seanad. I think the reasons for that were considered at length. A motion approving of the Speech will be moved in the Dáil. It is well known that the Governor-General's Speech is the programme for the Session of the Executive Council. The Executive Council under the Irish Constitution must consist of members of the Lower House. Therefore it seems impossible for them to attend at both places, and as they are responsible only to the Lower House the Seanad would not be wise in having the Address in both Houses, as Senators would not have the attention desired from the Ministers.
There was a further point, the Seanad does not want to commit itself in advance to legislative proposals in the abstract. You find in the Governor-General's Address that it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill for such and such a purpose. We will receive that Bill, no matter whether we like it or not. We must take it on its First Reading because it is a Government Bill. If the Seanad were to express its opinion it would be on important principles, and the Standing Orders Committee is placing itself in a false position. Therefore, while the Standing Orders state that without actual division they should disapprove or approve of it, that would be sufficient to give an idea of what the feeling of the Seanad was. That would leave them free to discuss the matters when they came before them in a constitutional manner.
What the Deputy-Chairman has said seems to me to contradict itself. In the first place, he said anyone who wished, on the second day, to bring in a motion, might do so without any objection, but in the latter part of his speech he meant it would be undesirable in any case for the Seanad to consider motions about the Governor-General's speech until those came up in the form of Bills. If we cannot discuss it until the matter comes up, it may be six months hence.
My first remark possibly might have led to the statement made by Col. Moore. My first remark was that nothing in this Order could prevent the ordinary right at another time to raise a particular question by means of a motion, which, I think, is the undoubted right of a Senator, if he gets the support of the Seanad. But if you provide here that there shall be moved an address of approval or disapproval, you force the Seanad to come to a decision. There is a great difference between an option and forcing them to have an address of approval.
I am not quite clear about this particular Section. If I am led to believe, or made to believe, that at a subsequent stage it will be possible to move an amendment, I accept it.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
No; that is not so. What I did say is, if this Standing Order is adopted there will be, on the day the Governor-General's Address is received, an opportunity for the Seanad to discuss it if they wish. That discussion is to proceed and end without motion or amendment. That disposes of the proceedings on the day the Address is received. That does not prejudice the right of any member, on the next day, to give ordinary notice of motion dealing with any particular topic in the Address he thinks fit.
In the second instance, there is a routine to be gone through as regards a particular matter you might like to include in your amendment. Possibly in a full House the matter might be discussed with advantage. I would like to know that an amendment may be moved when the particular motion came up.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Of course, it could. Any amendment could be moved to it.
There is no use discussing questions which are referred to in the Governor-General's Address, when those questions come before us in the form of Bills. Those matters may not come before us for weeks. What the Seanad wishes is to preserve the right of the Seanad to express its views on the policy of the Government when that policy is declared. The only way to do that is to speak on the Address. As I read this Standing Order, we cannot make any practical objection to anything in the Governor-General's Speech on the first day. But on the second day, by giving notice of motion to the effect that the Seanad disagrees with the Address on such and such a point, that question will come up automatically.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That is not accurate. The motion he would move the next day would be a motion expressing regret that something had not been referred to or that something else had not been added to it. It would not have any reference expressly to the Address itself. It would not involve the acceptance or rejection of the Address itself.
The second day it will be open to the Seanad to express its views on that Address by regretting that something had been left out or that something had not been put in.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
It will require formal notice of motion. The Seanad will not be in a position within half an hour after the hearing of the Address to discuss it properly. It can have a general discussion on it and express its views quite freely, but it would be much better for the Seanad, more especially in the absence of Ministers, if they adopted this proposal, because that will enable them three weeks later to raise any question they think has been omitted or not properly dealt with.
Certainly, sir, I realise the point about the Ministers. Of course Ministers cannot be in two places at once, and they cannot make an exposition of their policy here at the same time as they are making an exposition of their policy in the Dáil. What I want to make quite sure of is that the Seanad will not part with its rights to discuss the Governor-General's Address whenever the most convenient opportunity is found for it. That will probably be the day after the Governor-General's Address has been delivered.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
It could not well be that, because you must give two days' notice of your motion.
That is the difficulty we are in. It really is a very important question, and we want to make the position perfectly clear. If a Senator is liable to be ruled out of order, should he want to raise any question in connection with the Governor-General, because he has not given two days' notice of motion, or whatever notice is required, I think that should be clearly understood.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I cannot conceive any language in the British vocabulary which would make it plainer than it is, where it says that no motion is to be moved, or an amendment. I cannot conceive how anything you state will make it plainer than that.
No, sir; I cannot suggest any language that would make it plainer than that, but I thought, from your explanation, that it was to prevent discussion.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Quite the reverse. The very effect of the clause is to enable discussion, and full discussion.
I think the clause will not carry out the object which apparently is intended by it.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
What justification is there for saying that the clause does not provide an opportunity for discussion?
My only justification is your own statement.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
But my statement was the very reverse.
You said that the English language——
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I say that the English language could not make it plainer, that it is to give an opportunity for the discussion on the subject.
So long as we are satisfied that this matter only deals with the first day, and so long as we are satisfied that we shall be allowed to raise these various questions, I have no objection to it, but otherwise I shall vote against it, because I think it is most essential that the Seanad should preserve its liberty of action for criticising legislation.
On the discussion, if there is a discussion on the first day, if a member of the Seanad discusses it he will surely hint to the Seanad and to you, sir, what his motion is likely to be. When the proper time arrives for the motion he will most likely put one down, and the whole thing will be discussed and voted upon.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think, Senator Colonel Moore, that you are under a misapprehension about this. Under the Standing Orders that we been acting on for some time past there is a provision, somewhat similar to this new Order, which requires that a Senator who wants to raise a matter should have the consent of ten other Senators. We thought that it was a little restrictive on the rights of a Senator, and, accordingly, we framed a new Order which does not require the consent of ten members, but the two cannot stand together. You propose they should stand together?
I do not care which way it is. I am perfectly satisfied that if there is a new Order to that effect it will settle it.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The new Order says so.
The point is this, that, apparently, some of the Senators do not see the difference between the two.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I will tell you the difference. If you look up 14 you will see that my consent is required also, but, in addition to getting my consent to its being a matter of urgency, he has to get the consent of ten Senators. We do not require the support of ten in the new Order.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
No. 5 is a new Order which we have inserted to enable any Senator to raise a question of privilege. I may say there is a similar Order in the Orders of the Dáil.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Number 6 is only putting in other words what is already in the Standing Orders.
Except, Sir, that it adds the word "controversial." I think in the original Order there was no question of controversy, and it would be difficult to define the word.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The original Standing Order is not what you say. It says he is to leave the Chair except in a number of cases, but these cases are not exhaustive, and accordingly we thought it better to cover the whole ground by putting in the word "controversy," so that whenever there is a controversy, no matter what it is, he has to leave the Chair. Otherwise an occasion might arise when he would not know whether he had to leave the Chair or not. For example, as the Standing Order stands, I should have to leave the Chair when I was reading out Sir Horace Plunkett's letter and when I was referring to the death of Senator McPartlin, and the President's brother, so that instead of enumerating the occasions on which he has to leave the Chair it would be far better to say that he is to leave the Chair on all occasions when there is a matter of controversy before the House.
I had a motion to make a deletion after the word "notice" in paragraphs 7 and 22.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The reference there is to 22 in the existing Standing Orders.
I am rather puzzled now to find out where that is among these papers, and I think I had better leave it.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
It will not do any harm, Senator. Do not misunderstand me. I mean your suggestion is a mere verbal one, and I shall call the attention of the Assistant Clerk to it, and if there is anything in it we will bring it up later.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Nos. 8 and 9 are purely verbal.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
No. 10 is, I think, a desirable addition. It is dealing with the case of a decree of suspension against any member of the House, and it gives him and the House an opportunity to remit the suspension in certain events.
No. 9 states, "To add at the end of Order 25 the words ‘a Senator who has spoken on a motion may not again discuss it at the same sitting when speaking on a motion for the adjournment.'" Is the first motion covered by speaking on a motion for the adjournment on the second motion?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Pardon me, that means what it says, and what it says is that if any Senator has already taken part in a debate on a particular subject matter he cannot take part in a debate on the same matter on the motion for the adjournment.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
No. 11 contains several changes, that I suggested to the Committee and of which they approved. We have found that when a division is called for, and is about to take place, that members whose names happen to be low on the roll may have an advantage over members whose names are earlier on the roll, because the earlier ones may not have come in when the division is called, and consequently may miss the opportunity of recording their votes. What the Committee has recommended in the new order is, that after the question is put to the House by the Chairman, and he has given his decision as to how the majority lies, if a division is then called for that there should be an interval of 3 minutes, that it should be increased from 2 to 3 minutes. At the end of the 3 minutes he should put the question again in the ordinary way, and if a division is again challenged, then he should order the House to divide. The advantage of that is that very often— at least I found it in my experience in the House of Commons—members would call for a division, and the question was put to them for the first time, and after the House was cleared and all the trouble and bother gone to, and when the question was put by the Speaker, or Chairman, they did not challenge a division, and the division was called off. I think we ought to have that opportunity in the Seanad, and accordingly we recommend that after the question has been put for the first time, and a division called for, and the 3 minutes interval is up, it should be put again, and that on a formal show of hands the Chairman might be allowed to declare the result, and the result then passes unless a division is called for a second time. There is one other matter I want the House to notice, and it is that every member present when the division is called and the doors closed must vote. Those are the two changes. No. 12 is purely verbal.
At the end of it there you say that with the unanimous consent of the Seanad, "A Senator may, for special reasons assigned by him, change his vote immediately after the announcement of a division." Am I to understand that what that means is that after he has voted and he knows the result of the division, he can then change his vote, and alter the result of the division?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Certainly. With the leave of the House, it is constantly done. A member might quite easily misunderstand from the way the question was put whether his vote should be tá or níl, and he may find out that he has voted wrongly. It is like a man going into the wrong lobby in the House of Commons. He is entitled to have his vote properly recorded. There can be no abuse of this power. It can be done only by the unanimous consent of the House, and we feel that the opportunity should be given where the House is satisfied that a real bona fide mistake is made to rectify it.
I find that the word "verbatim" comes in, in No. 11.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
You cannot put a question verbatim, for it depends on the Chairman whether he puts it verbatim or not.
He should read out the motion before putting it to a vote.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
You never could do that verbatim.
Otherwise there may be misunderstanding.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The Chairman may do terrible things, but he certainly cannot put it verbatim.
Why cannot he read out that the motion is so and so?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I am sorry to say that is not precisely the way we have been doing business in Committee. If the Chairman were to read out verbatim the documents drawn up it would be very difficult for the House to understand what they were to vote on.
I say when the House has a certain motion and when it has been proposed, seconded, and discussed, that when it is being put to the House the Chairman should read it.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That is the only way he could put it in that particular case. You cannot do it in every case. There are some instances where it would not apply at all, but where there is a cut and dried motion before me, of course I will read out the motion.
I mention that because that is not the way it was done the other day.
Before we pass from No. 11, there is one word in it I do not like—the word "unanimous.""Unanimous" puts it into the power of any crank to prevent it.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
We have no cranks here.
I am afraid we have. Could we make it two-thirds or three-fourths?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
It is entirely a matter for the Seanad. But, after all, these provisions that are put in here, when a Senator gets the fullest opportunity of knowing exactly what he is going to vote upon, it is a great concession to let him change. I think myself he ought not to have that unless the Seanad should agree that he should have it.
The question is whether you will get really at the decision of the Seanad by making it unanimous, because, if you do happen to have some Senators of peculiar views, one Senator could stop it. Why not make it three-fourths? If you fix a number like that, it would prevent such a thing happening.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
If you propose that and it is seconded, I shall put it to the Seanad.
A Senator might be indistinctly heard by the Recording Clerk, and he might also be indistinctly heard by a section of the Seanad. I do not think there is any logic in putting it afterwards to the Seanad as to what the Senator intended. If anyone should know how a Senator intended to record his vote, it would be the Senator himself. We are supposed to be honourable men and women, and I do not think any man or woman in this Seanad who happened to respond "Tá" or "Níl" would afterwards, for some ulterior motive, try to withdraw from that position, and say he or she had voted otherwise. I think this is a reflection on the whole Seanad. I think it ought to be left entirely to the Senator to declare that a mistake has been made and that he or she wished to rectify it.
This says: "After an interval of three minutes the Cathaoirleach shall again put the question to the majority." Is that a misprint?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That is, of course, a misprint, and I am glad you called attention to it. Some words have been left out. It should read "Shall again put the question and declare the majority." Does Senator Barrington wish to move anything in regard to this?
It does not seem to be the general opinion of the Seanad, and I will not trouble moving it.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Amendment 15 is to enable Committees, which otherwise would lapse by the termination of a Session, to be continued notwithstanding that the Session has ended.
Might I ask what this means? Does it refer to Private Bills?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Committees are of different kinds. There is a Committee of the whole House. Then there is a Select Committee, and then there are Standing Committees. This excludes a Committee of the whole House.
I am in doubt as to how the latter part of No. 17 reads in connection with the Constitution, which provides that the Press can only be called upon to withdraw by a decision of two-thirds of the Senators present. The work of a Select Committee is, I take it, the same as that of the Seanad. Is it within the right of a majority of a Committee to expel the Press or call upon them to withdraw?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not know, but my recollection is that the Press do not attend Select Committees of the House of Commons.
They do attend some of the Private Bill Committees.
They also attend some of the Select Committees, but it is done as a matter of fact, by courtesy. They do not attend as a matter of right.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not think this conflicts with the Constitution. I think the Constitution was dealing with meetings of the Dáil and Seanad as such.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
We thought it necessary to put this in the form it is in. In the Dáil it is that the business shall proceed notwithstanding that there is no quorum. We thought that was too wide, because it would enable most important matters to be discussed in a Committee consisting of two.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
This is to settle the procedure on the Report Stage as to whether an amendment defeated in Committee can be brought up again on the Report Stage.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
This is a new Order. Under our previous Order two-thirds were required to suspend the Standing Orders. That seems to be contrary to the Constitution, which requires everything to be decided by a majority. We have taken this Order from the Standing Orders of the Dáil.