Before we adjourn, I wish again to remind the Seanad that the Constitution (Amendment) Bill No. 5 is at present in a state of suspense, and that we cannot proceed any further with it unless a motion with reference to it is put down by a member of the Seanad. The motion would be either to send it back to the Select Committee or to recommit it to the whole House. Possibly in view of what happened, recommittal to the whole House would be the wiser course.
THE ADJOURNMENT.
CATHAOIRLEACH
If no Senator sees his way to table such a motion, will the Bill remain permanently suspended?
CATHAOIRLEACH
No, it would become operative after the period fixed by the Constitution.
I think that would be only after consideration by this House.
CATHAOIRLEACH
We did consider it. We passed the Second Stage, and so we have considered that Bill. You may recollect that the question of consideration occurred in reference to the Intoxicating Liquor Bill of 1924. But there, instead of giving the Bill a Second Reading, as I recollect, we postponed the consideration of the Second Stage. Notwithstanding that, the Government were advised—I am not going to say that I agree with the view or not—that the period operated, and at the end of the stipulated number of days provided by the Constitution that the Intoxicating Liquor Bill automatically became law and they proceeded to enforce it. I do not think anybody was more surprised than the Government themselves when they discovered it had become law.
I just want to say that the two cases are not the same.
On a point of order, have we not actually passed the Second Stage?
CATHAOIRLEACH
That is what I have said.
That is only part consideration. A Bill cannot be deemed to have been considered until it is finally and completely considered.
CATHAOIRLEACH
There is another point, and it is this—if we do nothing with this Bill until June, and there is a dissolution in June, I am rather inclined to suggest that the effect of that dissolution will be to get rid of the Bill altogether. I do not pronounce a definite opinion on that because the position has not yet arisen.
Yes; it did on the Intoxicating Liquor Bill of 1924.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I was strongly of the opinion that the Liquor Bill of 1924 was dead, but the Government thought otherwise and nobody raised the point.
The Constitution does not deal with that point, wisely or unwisely.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Then we would have to go back to Constitutional usage and practice. I had no doubt at that time that under the Constitutional practice of Great Britain, that the Bill was as dead as Julius Caesar, but it was brought to life and has been kept going for a couple of years.
Do you not think the Seanad should have an opportunity of deciding whether they intend to hang up the Bill or not?
CATHAOIRLEACH
Any Senator can get an opportunity of discussing that by putting down a motion.
We could not get the Senate to dispose of the whole matter of leaving it in suspense without having the Senate decide whether they wished to hang it up or not.
If it is in order I will put down a motion that the Constitution (Amendment) No. 5 Bill be considered by a Committee of the whole House.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I suggest to the House that that is the wiser course. Instead of re-committing it to the Select Committee, I think it would be better for the House to keep control of the Bill itself.
If we move that it be considered in Committee of the whole House that would make the matter right. I will put down a motion to that effect.
The Seanad adjourned at 5.15 till 3 o'clock on Wednesday, 30th March.