With reference to the Report Stage of this Bill, I have got to mention that Senator Barrington, who took a great interest in the Bill and whose intervention was really responsible for the introduction of a number of Government amendments, is engaged on official business in London and he has asked that the consideration of this Bill be postponed. Inasmuch as he was the one Senator who did take an interest in the Bill, I think that his request that consideration of it might be adjourned to give him an opportunity of being present is one that the Seanad might favourably regard. I do not know what the Minister has to say on the subject.
PUBLIC BUSINESS. - ARTERIAL DRAINAGE (MINOR SCHEMES) BILL, 1928—REPORT STAGE.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I would like to ask the Seanad's consideration for my position. There are just two points that I would refer to. In the first place in the matter of time, and in the second place in the matter of the questions at issue. As regards the questions at issue, three of the amendments that have been put down are consequential, arising out of an amendment from Senator O'Farrell that the Seanad accepted; five of them are amendments put down by Senator Barrington, dealing with the control of the appointment of officers under the Bill, and in respect of which I pointed out that we had a complete and ample code under the Local Officers and Employment Order, 1924, arising out of Section 15 of the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923, that gave Ministers entire control over these appointments. Then there is one miscellaneous amendment, and there are nine other amendments arising out of the question of bogs, but in fact only one point is involved in all these amendments.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Take Amendmend No. 10—a new section. That is a very complicated and long section. Was not that section put down as a result of Senator Barrington's amendment?
Yes, I would like to refer to that. The one point is Amendment No. 8 against Amendment No. 10, and in respect of that Senator Barrington had a very long conversation with our legal people, having had the amendment before him. The position is that Senator Barrington apparently holds to his Amendment No. 8. He can see no way of collecting the money properly due in respect of improvements to bogs other than the arrangement set out in his Amendment No. 8, whereby money would be collected for turf banks or per load of peat removed from the bogs, whereas we, in Amendment No. 10, put in a complete arrangement whereby there would be a turbary assessment, as distinct from the land assessment, and a parallel scheme for dealing with the collection of money arising out of the turbary assessment. So that there is Amendment 10 against Amendment 8 to be considered. On the other hand, as regards the matter of time, this Bill was introduced into the Dáil on the 22nd February; it left the Dáil on the 30th March, and the Committee Stage in the Seanad took place on the 2nd May. There have been delays since, to some extent due to the fact that there was a difficulty in drafting amendments to suit the difficult problem that we had to deal with. But you can infer from the very fact that there has been that difficulty in drafting these amendments that there would be difficulty in framing regulations dealing with the administrative side of this Bill as far as the county councils are concerned, and regulations dealing with the technical side of it. Regulations dealing with the technical side of it have to be prepared by the Local Government Department in co-operation with the Board of Works. If there is very much further delay we arrive at the stage when this Bill is passed, and when the work of co-operation in regard to these regulations can only begin between these two Departments at the beginning of the holiday season, when it may be difficult to co-ordinate the machinery between these two Departments. Nevertheless we want to have these regulations in the hands of public bodies and a general outline of the Bill to sink into the minds of members of public bodies and into the public mind, so that if work is going to be carried out during a suitable period next year schemes may be prepared and the necessary preparations made so that the work can be carried out next year. There has been a complaint all along that drainage has been delayed, and delayed under the 1925 Act, and that is simply because the preparatory arrangements that it is necessary to make, leading up to the carrying out of drainage schemes, are long drawn out. I feel that if we miss another fortnight now, when we are coming to the most important time of the year to get our regulations framed, so that the work can be carried out next summer——
CATHAOIRLEACH
Surely if on this day fortnight we give you the Final Stage of this Bill the delay will not be serious. Remember, that this Bill came into this House for the Committee Stage on the 2nd May at the request of the Government; it was adjourned for three weeks to give them time to look into the points raised by Senator Barrington and time to meet his points if they thought that there was anything in them, and they took three weeks to do that. That was at your request. Senator Barrington said he was quite satisfied that you should have any time or opportunity for considering them that you wished. Therefore I do not think that it is unreasonable that his convenience should now be considered when it only means a fortnight's delay. There will be no difficulty about the concluding Stage; some Senator will put down a motion which will enable the Final Stage to be taken this day fortnight, as well as the Report Stage, so that you will have your Bill this day fortnight.
Personally, I think it is rather a dangerous principle to adopt to adjourn business because of the absence of some member of the House. I think unless it is a Minister in charge of a Bill or a Senator in charge of a Bill that the House should not allow its business to be held up through the absence, for any cause whatever, of any member of the House.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Would that apply to sickness, for example?
Yes. I do not think it is a matter that should come before the House in reality. This was simply a private communication from a Senator, and I do not think that the House should take any cognisance of a matter of that kind. There were a few occasions when I would have liked to have business in which I was interested postponed, but I certainly would not like to make such a precedent as is now suggested.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Might I remind you that on more occasions than one I received communications to that effect from you, and I got the House to accommodate you by letting the matter in question stand over until you were able to attend.
I am afraid that your memory is at fault. I only asked on one occasion that the debate should be adjourned for an hour, and I attended before the hour was up.
CATHAOIRLEACH
You should have been here when it came up.
This Bill is a matter of some urgency. It is undesirable that a great part of the year should be allowed to pass before it comes into active operation, particularly in view of what the Minister has stated regarding the time that should be spent in drawing up regulations arising out of this very elaborate amendment that he has put down. In my opinion Senator Barrington's points have been completely and elaborately met, as far as turbary rights are concerned, by Amendment No. 10 which the Minister has put down, and the only other points that arise in which Senator Barrington would be interested are the points connected with the appointment of temporary officials, which is not a matter of importance in the view-point of this House, and which is amply provided for, according to the Minister's statement. If we hold up this Bill for another fortnight, I think we should have some good reason for doing so. Senator Barrington is to be congratulated for having induced the Minister to bring in this very elaborate amendment to the Bill, but certainly I do not think that he himself would feel, on consideration, that that would justify the Bill being held up for another fortnight or more in order that he may be here in effect to express his appreciation of the principle of the amendment.
CATHAOIRLEACH
If a Bill is held up to suit the convenience of a Minister or Senator in charge of it, one would think the same principle might reasonably apply to a Senator who has made himself conspicuous in introducing amendments. This question of turbary is a very complicated one, and the introduction of this amendment is entirely due to the intervention of Senator Barrington. You say that it raises a right, but I am afraid that neither you nor I are competent to settle that. I am not able to express an opinion on it. All I know is that in the communication I received from Senator Barrington he stated that he was not satisfied, and he was anxious that he should have an opportunity of expressing his views. You said that the House ought not to take notice of a communication from a private member to the Chairman, but how otherwise can I protect the rights of Senators unless I do it on the application of a Senator made to me? If I cannot look after Senators' interests in that way great personal inconvenience must often arise. Up to the present whenever I get a letter of that kind I have always felt it my duty to bring the matter before the House and to leave it to the House to decide.
I take it that the House will take note of the fact that the private business of Senators is to come before public business, and if any Senator having an interest in a Bill can convince the Cathaoirleach that a postponement for his convenience is desirable, that postponement must be agreed to, because one cannot have one set of regulations for one Senator and something else for the rest of the House. To-day we are asked to lay down a precedent that will enable any Senator to ask that public business be postponed because he cannot be here on account of his own private business.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not agree with that at all. We are laying down no precedent; every case must be taken on its own merits, and it is for the House to determine it, and not for me. I simply state the facts, and it is for the House to say whether, on these particular facts, they will give the indulgence to the Senator. That lays down no precedent at all.
It was clear that when this Bill was before the House previously Senator Barrington had made a very special and exhaustive study of it and was very well qualified to deal with a measure which most of us felt we were not qualified to deal with. He has been instrumental in getting this comprehensive amendment in. I think in this case there are special circumstances, and that his request should be acceded to. There are other amendments in his name, and he may have something to say on them that would further improve this Bill.
I rather feel, with Senator O'Farrell, that this matter may open a dangerous door, and lead to putting the Chairman in a rather invidious position. Would it not be much better to refer it to the Committee on Procedure and Standing Orders to consider whether a Standing Order should not be framed to meet cases of this kind? I do think that it would be very difficult for the House or for the Chairman really to consider each case on its merits.
CATHAOIRLEACH
As far as I understood what the Minister said—and of course the House would pay very great attention and give special consideration to what the Minister in charge of a Bill says—I understood him to say that it is important that if this Bill is to come into operation next year —that is, seven months hence—that the regulations under the Bill should be out in time for the public to understand what they are. Well, surely a fortnight out of seven months would not diminish the time very much. I think, especially in view of the fact that Senator Barrington went out of his way on three occasions to agree to this Bill being adjourned for the convenience of the Minister in charge, a little reciprocity is desirable. However, it is for the House to decide.
The last point mentioned by you is, in my opinion, the one and only strong point in favour of it, and in view of the fact that the Minister himself has asked for postponements when Senator Barrington was here, I withdraw my objections. But I do not withdraw the objection to postponing public business for the convenience of any member of the House.
I think that that is the right course. In the main I agree with Senator O'Farrell.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Then the House understands that on this day fortnight it will be asked to take the final Stage also, so that at the latest the Minister can have his Bill on this day fortnight.