Public Business. - Report of the Committee on Procedure Relative to Standing Orders (Resumed).
Standing Orders Nos. 6 to 11 agreed to.
Standing Order No. 12: "The Cathaoirleach shall nominate at the commencement of each triennial period a panel of two Senators, either of whom shall act as presiding Senator or Chairman of Committee of the whole Seanad when requested so to act by the Cathaoirleach."
I move amendment 4:
To add at the end of the Standing Order the words "or, in his absence, by the Leas-Chathaoirleach."
This is not a very important proposal but I think it is desirable in order to clear up an ambiguity that seems to exist in the proposed Standing Order No. 12. This Standing Order is one of two to deal with the appointment of a Chairman over our proceedings in the absence of the Cathaoirleach or the Leas-Chathaoirleach. The idea is that in the absence of the Cathaoirleach and the Leas-Chathaoirleach we should have a panel of two Senators, either of whom may be called upon to act in the absence of the regular Chairman. In this proposed Standing Order we have the Cathaoirleach mentioned twice. It seems to me that the word has a different meaning in the second case in which it is mentioned from what it has in the first instance. That is a position which, I think, should be remedied. "Cathaoirleach" in the first line of the Standing Order means the Cathaoirleach himself and only him, but in the last line the word "Cathaoirleach" may mean either the regular Cathaoirleach or the Leas-Chathaoirleach. Under Standing Order 11, the Leas-Chathaoirleach is given authority to exercise the duties devolving upon and the authority conferred upon the Cathaoirleach by these Standing Orders. Let us assume that the Cathaoirleach is absent and that the Leas-Chathaoirleach is also absent. According to this Standing Order either might nominate a member of the panel who would act as Chairman. This seems to be merely pedantic, but it has a practical bearing, because one can imagine a situation in which both the Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach being absent, two different members of the panel might be nominated, one by each of them. Let us assume that the Cathaoirleach is incapacitated by illness over a period and that his work is being carried on by the Leas-Chathaoirleach. The Leas-Chathaoirleach, through unavoidable circumstances, is unable to attend. The Cathaoirleach hears of that and he nominates one member of the panel. The Leas-Chathaoirleach may nominate the other member of the panel. We would be faced with a situation in which two men would come along armed with authority to act as Chairman—the authority coming from each of our regular Chairmen. For that reason I propose that we give power specifically to the Cathaoirleach, and failing him, to the Leas-Chathaoirleach to appoint a Chairman to preside. In that way we would close all loopholes. Before formally putting the amendment before the Seanad, I would ask the permission of the House to make a small alteration in it. As it stands at present, it proposes to add to the Standing Order the words "or in his absence"—that is, the Cathaoirleach—"by the Leas-Chathaoirleach." It would be quite possible, as I have explained, for the Cathaoirleach and the Leas-Chathaoirleach to nominate different members of the panel. By using the words "failing him" instead of the words "in his absence" I think we would provide against all possible contingencies. The position would then be that in the absence of the Cathaoirleach and the Leas-Chathaoirleach, a member of the panel might be nominated by the Cathaoirleach to act, and if so, would act. Failing nomination by the Cathaoirleach, nomination by the Leas-Chathaoirleach would be effective, and, failing nomination by either of them, the House could proceed under Standing Order 13 and elect a Chairman for the day. I ask the leave of the House to insert in the amendment the words "failing him" instead of "in his absence."
Alteration of amendment agreed to.
I suggest to Senator Hooper that Standing Order 11 covers his amendment entirely and that if his amendment were to be introduced into Standing Order 12 we would require to go through all the Standing Orders in which there was the possibility of the Leas-Chathaoirleach acting in place of the Cathaoirleach and make the same provision that Senator Hooper proposes, to enable the Leas-Chathaoirleach to act. Standing Order 11 provides definitely that, in the absence of the Cathaoirleach, the Leas-Chathaoirleach shall perform the duties devolving upon and exercise the authority conferred upon the Cathaoirleach by these Standing Orders. What Senator Hooper has alluded to, I suggest, does not happen, for the simple reason that the Cathaoirleach and the Leas-Chathaoirleach act in conjunction with the Clerk. In the extraordinary case of the unexpected absence of the Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach, the Clerk would know quite well what steps had been taken for the good order of the House. Arrangements of this kind for the carrying on of the business of the House are always made in conjunction with the Clerk or Assistant-Clerk. I cannot conceive the Cathaoirleach, on any occasion on which he would be absent from a meeting, meeting a Senator in the street and authorising him to act as Chairman or the Leas-Chathaoirleach doing the same thing without informing the Clerk. I suggest that it would be disorderly to do so. If you made this provision specifically in the case of Standing Order 12, you would have to do it right through the Standing Orders, and it might appear that you were affecting the validity of Standing Order 11.
I do not think this is a very important matter, but for the sake of clarity I think it is desirable. Standing Order 11 (quoted) does not seem to alter my point, nor does it seem to be an answer to my case to say that it would be necessary to put in similar words in other Orders if they were put in here. I do say that my amendment makes for greater clearness. It is not a very important matter, but I should like to see the amendment made if the House were agreeable.
I think it is a reasonable suggestion and I approve of it.
As Senator Douglas has said, Standing Order No. 11 covers every possibility and there is no object in repeating what you have already got in No. 11 by the addition of what Senator Hooper suggests.
And having to repeat it in a number of other cases.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Standing Order 12 agreed to.
Standing Orders 13 to 24 inclusive agreed to.
I move to delete paragraph 3 of Standing Order 25. The Standing Order provides for motions for the adjournment for the purpose of discussing matters of urgent public importance. It provides that such a motion may be made if the Senator within half an hour after the opening of the sitting rises in his place and states that he requests leave to move such adjournment of the Seanad for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, whereupon he shall state the matter and deliver to the Cathaoirleach a written statement of the subject to be discussed. Then it is provided in paragraph 2 that the Cathaoirleach shall ask those in support of the motion to rise in their places and if not less than five Senators rise accordingly he shall fix a time later in the day when the matter shall be considered. Paragraph 3 reads: "A matter submitted in pursuance of this Standing Order which fails to obtain the requisite support cannot during the current year be again brought forward under the Standing Order." I propose the deletion of that paragraph. It precludes the possibility of a Senator bringing on at a later period up to a year a motion which has already been refused by the House on the ground that it is not of urgent public importance. Surely if the matter is of urgent public importance it is a matter to be raised at the moment, and I think it is absurd for us to provide against the possibility of matters of urgent public importance being raised in a period running up to a year after the original date on which it was moved. For that reason I think the sub-section is quite unnecessary and I move its deletion.
I have a similar amendment down. It was for the same reason, that there seems to be a contradiction of thought. I would put it to the House that if the word "urgent" were deleted—and it seems to me entirely unnecessary— then paragraph 3 might stand. But when we lay emphasis upon the urgency before a question can be discussed by this method it is obvious that the same question cannot be urgent at a later period of the year. I would prefer, notwithstanding the fact that I put down this amendment, that the question should be considered as to whether definite matters of public importance, irrespective of the question of urgency, might not be publicly discussed in this way, except that it may be said that they can be raised on a formal motion. When the word "urgent" is in it it seems to me that No. 3 ought not to be present at all.
May I point out, particularly to Senator Johnson, that Standing Order 24 provides for what is very seldom used, that is the right of raising for half an hour on the motion for the adjournment a matter of importance. The word "urgent" is not included there. Standing Order 25 deals with a specific urgent matter for which the business of the House would be specially laid aside to take up and is rather intended to meet an exceptional case. Standing Order 24 may quite conceivably be a regular and frequent procedure, but it has not been availed of in the way in which it was originally hoped it would be. Standing Order 25 is to meet rather exceptional cases. I do not want to be taken as speaking for the Committee. I am only trying to help the House by putting forward what appears to me to be the opinions of the Committee. I gathered that the reason for paragraph 3 was that if the requisite support could not be obtained on this very urgent matter it did not seem desirable that a Senator could the next day claim that it was a matter of urgent public importance. It might render the thing rather absurd. I would like to point out that the Dáil has a similar Order but that they use the word Session. We had a feeling that a Session might go into a number of years and we specifically provided in this section the current year which is meant to be Anno Domini. In this case if a request were made to-day and it did not receive the requisite support it could not be brought up again during 1930, but it could be brought up in 1931. It is entirely a matter for the House. I am merely trying to explain the idea behind the Order.
A matter might be considered urgent by one Senator to-day, and it might not get the support of the necessary five. Notwithstanding that fact, the matter may continue to be urgent in his opinion, and perhaps in a fortnight's time or in a month's time it may be urgent in the opinion of ten members of the Seanad. There is another consideration also, that a matter may be urgent to-day and more urgent to-morrow or in a month's time. Therefore, I think, with great respect to my friend, Senator Hooper, that this rule is quite correct.
In reply to Senator Comyn, he said that if a member came to raise a matter that he considered of urgent public importance, and did not get the support of five members, that it might be urgent again in a month's time.
Although it might not receive support it might be urgent.
If it does not receive support, the Senator can table a motion for the next meeting of the Seanad, and then it must be discussed. If he has nobody to support him he is entitled to speak on it himself. That safeguards the position. This is not an attempt to curtail the privileges of the members at all. It is in order to safeguard the position and dignity of the House. That is the idea we had in our minds when we drafted the Standing Order. I might say that we spent a considerable time over this particular Standing Order. We had in mind all that Senator Comyn has in mind.
I am in favour of the Standing Order, and against the amendment.
It surprises me to hear that Senator Comyn is in favour of the Standing Order, because it seemed to me his argument was quite against it. The Standing Order prevents what the Senator wants done.
The whole object is to deal with a case which is so urgent that the ordinary machinery of resolution does not give an opportunity of dealing with it.
I should like a further word of explanation from Senator Farren. If the matter submitted in pursuance of this Standing Order fails to obtain the requisite support, it cannot during the current year be again brought forward under this Standing Order.
Under which Standing Order can it be done?
Standing Order 21, which permits the handing in a notice of motion.
May I make just one further observation? The point was made that what might be urgent to-day might also be urgent in the minds of other Senators to-morrow or next week. The governing situation is not what is urgent in the particular Senator's mind; it is what is urgent in the mind of the Cathaoirleach. He has to decide what is an urgent motion. If he decides one day that it is not urgent it is not likely that in a week's time he will decide that it is urgent. For that reason this sub-section seems to me to be utterly redundant and to bring that part of the Standing Order into absurdity.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Standing Orders 25 to 28 inclusive agreed to.
STANDING ORDER 29.
I move to add at the end of Standing Order 29 the words "except by leave of the Cathaoirleach." I hope that this suggested amendment will meet with the approval of the House. I think every member of the House has recollections of occasions when he would have liked to put on a half sheet of paper something that he did not wish to trust to his memory. This means that he is not allowed to quote figures or something that is of very great importance, that he must trust to his memory. This Standing Order prevents him reading a word. He must trust to his memory to do it. This Standing Order prevents the Senator doing the work.
Cathaoirleach
I am still satisfied that a Senator might make a speech not taking up more than half a sheet of ordinary notepaper. He might like to read it and it might be a very useful, even though a very brief, statement to have on the official records of the House. If this Standing Order goes through it is up to the Cathaoirleach to refuse to allow the Senator to read the few remarks that he may wish to make. I hope that the Seanad will give the Cathaoirleach discretion in this matter and allow any member, on any occasion that he desires to do so, to read out a very short statement.
I respectfully suggest to the Senator that he ought to withdraw this amendment.
There is really no necessity for it. Senator Byrne has stated that a member might read his speech from half a sheet of notepaper. I am sure no occupant of the Chair would attempt to prevent anybody from reading a speech of reasonable length. What the Standing Order really aims at is to prevent the House being bored by a person who might like to read newspaper extracts or quote from books. It is not intended to curb any member from reading matter to assembled Senators. In fact, we all hope that Senators will avail themselves of committing to paper important statements that they may wish to make. There would be no objection, I am sure, to reading those statements. The Standing Order really seeks to safeguard the House from people boring them to death. There is no intention to curb Senator Byrne or any other Senator who wants to put forward an important point of view.
I have constantly advocated the same thing from the beginning. Anybody who has followed the procedure in Parliaments knows that when an important speech is to be made, when a statement is uttered and when a great deal of importance is laid on the actual wording, it is absolutely necessary that it should be in writing and read out. The object of that is to avoid the putting down of anything which might be contrary to the words actually uttered. It has been stated here that this proposal means something quite different. I want something done here that means exactly what it says, and not something else. The Standing Order here reads: "No Senator shall read his speech." That is quite clear and decisive, and as long as that is there it would be improper for the Cathaoirleach to allow a Senator to read out his speech. It is not very often that speeches are read here. I maintain that a speech written out beforehand is much more likely to be short and more to the point than a rambling speech such as one hears— I will not say in this Seanad, but in some places. One hears occasionally rambling, rigmarole speeches that wander in and out in such a way as to bore the life actually out of one. A Senator who would write out his speech beforehand would be much more likely to keep to the point, and it would be a much better speech than if we had a person rambling in the way some people do. I want to put the Cathaoirleach in a proper position. If he observes a Senator reading long statements from newspapers or books and wearing everybody out he can tell him that he must come to the point. We only want to entrust to the Cathaoirleach the power to do that. The words "No Senator shall read his speech" are very clear and definite, and the Cathaoirleach is not entitled to intervene. To say that the Cathaoirleach may do it if he likes is going along a line forbidden by the Standing Orders.
I submit that all Senators can do, under the present Standing Orders, what they want to do. I think the Senator who moved the amendment was in the House of Commons when a similar matter was discussed. The answer then given by the Speaker was just what the Cathaoirleach here would give—that no member had the right to read his speech, but he could use notes. It is at the discretion of the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees to decide whether a member would be breaking that law or not and he could allow him to read a statement such as Senator Byrne mentioned—one that would occupy about half a sheet of notepaper. That is all that is required. I entirely agree that if it were a recognised thing that Senators could read their speeches, the debates would become somewhat interminable, and if members wanted to do it they could read papers, blue books and notes and we would never have an end to a discussion. If Senators are anxious to read a short statement, that is already covered by the Standing Orders.
We have gone on for seven years with the old Standing Order and no harm has resulted. I have seen more than one member of the House reading practically their whole speeches and they were not interfered with.
I think the Standing Order before the House is too drastic. I was in the House of Commons when the Standing Order Senator Sir Walter Nugent refers to was made. I know that occasions arose in the House of Commons when it was necessary for Ministers, and not alone ordinary Ministers but the Prime Minister of England, to read their speeches. There might be a very important document and the Minister could not trust to his memory; it would not be wise if he did so. Such an occasion might arise here and I think the Cathaoirleach should have discretion. The Standing Order should not be allowed to remain as drastic as it is. Take, as an example, the case of Senator Milroy to-day. He had charge of three or four motions on the Order Paper. The Minister's statement here was on a sheet of notepaper. Owing to the unavoidable absence of the Minister, business was held up here for some time. I contend that if Senator Milroy could have made that statement on behalf of the Minister it would have satisfied Senator Johnson and other Senators. The whole information was on a small sheet of notepaper. If the House desires to give this right to its members it ought to do so in a clear, bold way. You have all seen men in this and in the other House and if they wanted to make an effective speech they wrote it out beforehand. They tried to look at you and read the speech at the same time. What is the use of that sort of humbug?
The Standing Order does not refer in the smallest degree to a Senator's notes. The Standing Order is very wise, because it tells us that we must not read our speeches.
As we are quoting Westminster, I would like to quote a saying of a pretty famous British Speaker, that one of the greatest qualifications of a Speaker was to know the right time to have a blind eye. We have got on exceedingly well for seven years with this wording, and there has been no misunderstanding. I think in the circumstances it would be very dangerous, indeed, to introduce Senator Byrne's wording. His wording seeks to continue these words plus "except by leave of the Cathaoirleach." I think it would be very undesirable if a Senator about to make a speech stood up and said: "Cathaoirleach, may I read my speech?" The Cathaoirleach would not know if that Senator had volumes behind him from which he would quote. He might give him permission to do so, and that Senator could go on as long as his voice would last. As it is, the Cathaoirleach would know quite well if a Senator is abusing the privileges of the House by reading too lengthy a speech, or quoting documents at too great a length. If you give him specific permission, as Senator Byrne's amendment proposes, you will be asking for trouble.
Suppose the Cathaoirleach gave permission to a Senator to read his speech, and then that Senator produced a concealed battery in the shape of a lot of papers, would it be competent for the Cathaoirleach to stop him?
Cathaoirleach
I think not, once he has given him permission.
I do not think the amendment would work out satisfactorily, but I want to draw attention to this. It is known to any Senator who has ever been in the Dáil that when the Budget is being introduced a document is quite openly read. Senator Douglas has pointed out the wisdom regarding the Speaker of the House of Commons not opening his eyes to certain breaches, but with this particular motion in the Standing Orders we are in the position that even though the Cathaoirleach has decided to allow a person to read his speech if some offensive member of the Seanad calls his attention to the fact I think he would be bound under the Standing Orders to prevent that Senator reading his speech. I am assuming now that any Standing Orders regarding the rules of discussion which are directed to Senators would also apply to Ministers coming into the Seanad, and that the existence of this Standing Order might easily cause a little difficulty. I think the practice of the House would be better if it were continued without the presence of this Standing Order at all. The very fact that you have got a Standing Order of this kind would cause more confusion and difficulty. However, it is on the books and there is no suggestion of its abolition, but in view of the discussion which is taking place I would suggest for consideration that the question should be discussed by the Committee whether there is any wisdom in keeping this Standing Order in existence, and whether we should not leave it for the general practice of the House to determine what should be the rule in regard to Senators and their mode of delivering their speeches.
The Standing Order says: "No Senator shall read his speech." Are lady Senators to be immune from this Standing Order?
In law the male includes the female.
I think the experience of the whole House for the last six or seven years is that this rule has been extremely useful in a great many ways, and I think we must put our trust in our Chairman.
You do not; you forbid him.
We know from past practice that the Chairman exercises excellent judgment in the way he carries that out. I say we are runing into desperate difficulties if we give the Chairman leave to allow a written speech to be read, and I think we ought to leave the rule where it is. The Chairman knows very well when not to see things, and if one's notes are not too voluminous and as long as one is not reading page after page, the Cathaoirleach will not interfere.
Cathaoirleach
I think, personally, the proposed Standing Order is very necessary and very valuable.
In view of Senator Douglas's remarks with regard to the blind eye, I do not see the necessity of pressing the motion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Standing Order 29 put and agreed to.
STANDING ORDER 30.
If a Senator does not move the motion or amendment which stands in his name, such motion or amendment shall lapse unless moved by some other Senator.
I move amendment 7:—
S.O. 30. To delete the words "shall lapse unless moved by some other Senator" and to substitute therefore the words "may be moved by some other Senator with the permission of the Seanad."
This Standing Order deals with the moving by another Senator of a motion standing in the name of a Senator who is unable to be present. The old Standing Order says that a Senator, at the request of the Senator who has given notice of any motion, may move it on his behalf. The new Standing Order now before us seeks to provide that if a Senator does not move the motion or amendment standing in his name such motion or amendment shall lapse unless moved by another Senator. I propose in such a case that it may be moved by some other Senator with the permission of the Seanad.
In the past when a Senator who gave notice of motion was not able to be present Senators were in difficulty about moving the motion because nobody had been requested by him to act on his behalf. It seems to me that the Standing Order before us swings rather in the other direction because it allows any Senator in the absence of the Senator who has given notice of a motion to move it whether with his consent or not. It seems to me we ought to give some consideration to the Senator who has given notice and who for some reason or another is not able to be present. It is desirable that the notice on the Order Paper should not be withheld from the Seanad without good reason. I can conceive of a man who gives notice of motion and who is prevented from some unavoidable cause from coming to move it. Someone else who may not be as well informed as he but who for some reason or another may want to bring it on does so and nobody in the House can stop him. That is the effect of the Standing Order as proposed. I say that would be doing injustice to the man who has made up his subject and has gone to the trouble of putting it down.
My proposal would work out in this way. If a Senator does not move the motion or amendment which stands in his name then some other Senator might rise and ask the permission of the Seanad to move it in his stead. It may be that the Senator who has given notice of the motion may have communicated with the Cathaoirleach or some other Senator and explained the impossibility of his attending and the reason for it and requested that it be adjourned until some other day. My motion leaves the whole matter within the discretion of the House, whereas the Standing Order in front of us does not give a discretion of that kind.
I would like the House to consider the position of this proposed Standing Order and the case of a Senator who has sent in notice of motion and is, as Senator Hooper pointed out, for some reason not foreseen, unable to be present to move the motion standing in his name.
Under the Standing Order, either as it stands or as it is proposed to be amended, once a subject is disposed of it cannot be brought forward again in the same year. The position would then be that if a Senator for some reason was not able to move it the opponents of it might move the motion in such a way as to secure its defeat, and then, notwithstanding the fact that the original proposer was unable to be present, he would be precluded by the Standing Orders from bringing the matter forward again. I think some agreement should be presumed on the part of the person who sent in the notice that some other person should move it on his behalf if he is absent. That does not apply so much to amendments to a Bill; I am thinking more of notices of motions. I suggest that that point should be considered and that when a man is not able to be present the case ought not to be prejudged in his absence by such a motion being moved by somebody else who is not conversant with the subject or who might desire its defeat.
I suggest that this should go back to the Committee, because I think there are two distinct points which would need to be dealt with and which would not be met entirely by Senator Hooper's amendment.
Cathaoirleach
I think so.
Standing Order referred back to Committee.
Standing Orders 31, 32 and 33 agreed to.
STANDING ORDER 34.
Every amendment must be relevant to the motion on which it is proposed, and must be directed to omitting, adding or substituting words. No amendment shall be accepted by the Cathaoirleach which is equivalent to a direct negative.
I move: To delete the word "direct" and to substitute therefor the word "simple."
This is again, I think, rather too bald and direct, and it might destroy the value of a discussion on an important motion. We are well aware of the procedure which deals with a motion by what is called a reasoned amendment the counter-proposition, which is not a simple negative, although it involves a direct opposition. A direct negative might be contained in a reasoned amendment, but a reasoned amendment would not be precluded if the word "simple" were to be substituted for the word "direct," and I think a reasoned amendment to a motion of which notice has been given should be allowed. This again applies rather to motions than to discussions on Bills. I think a reasoned amendment should be allowed to be moved and discussed to a motion of which notice has been given.
There are very few cases in which this will occur, and, of course, a thing of this kind very largely depends on the discretion of the Chairman. I confess I find a certain amount of difficulty in, getting Senator Johnson's exact point I take it that the object of the proposed Standing Order is to prevent a motion being turned by means of a reasoned amendment into something which in itself ought to be a motion with notice; in other words, that the House gets notice of a motion dealing with a specific subject, and if it were permissible, with the very short notice that is allowed for amendments so to transform it, the passing of it would mean something diametrically opposite. I think the object of the amendment is to prevent that being done, or, if it is to be done, that it should be done by a new motion. If the word "direct" would cause misunderstanding, I think I would prefer the word "negative." I am not sure that a simple negative helps us very much, but I cannot see very much difference. I would like to meet the Senator. This is a case on which the Committee wants to get general agreement.
I will give an illustration. One is aware, from the British House of Commons procedure, where there is a formal vote of confidence, and the Opposition puts down an amendment, giving reasons for no confidence. It is not simply "no," but reasons are given why the original motion should not be carried. Although that is clearly a direct negative it is not simply a direct negative, but a negative with certain reasons. I think we should allow the possibility of that being done, and I think the Standing Order, as it stands, would preclude it.
Cathaoirleach
I think this might also go back.
That would probably be the best way of dealing with it. I see the point, but I cannot see that this amendment would meet it.
Cathaoirleach
I do not think it meets it. It would be very hard to do so.
Possibly something like this might do—I mention it simply to see if it would meet the case—"which amounts only to a negative." We could consider that in the Committee.
Standing Order referred back to the Committee.
Standing Orders 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 agreed to.
STANDING ORDER 42 (1).
42. (1) Whenever any Senator shall have been named by the Cathaoirleach immediately after the commission of the offence of disregarding the authority of the Chair, then, if the offence has been committed by such Senator in the Seanad, the Cathaoirleach shall forthwith put the question on a motion being made—no amendment, adjournment or debate being allowed—"That Senator.......... (naming him) be suspended from the service of the Seanad.” If the offence has been committed in Committee of the whole Seanad, the Chairman shall forthwith suspend proceedings and report the circumstances to the Seanad, and the Cathaoirleach shall thereupon on motion being made, put the same question without amendment, adjournment or debate as if the offence had been committed in the Seanad.
I propose:
"To delete all after the word ‘Seanad' in line 10 down to the end of the Standing Order."
This, perhaps, has a certain importance and it depends upon the view that the House is to take of its position when it is in Committee of the whole House and when it is sitting as the Seanad. It seems to me to be an undesirable thing that, in the circumstances which lead to the suspension of a Senator in Committee of the whole House, that that should be related forthwith, without any actual change but with a formal change, to the same body of people, sitting as the Seanad.
I think it would be undesirable to pretend, in such circumstances as would surround suspension, that the Chairman of the Seanad, sitting in Committee, would then proceed to relate all the circumstances to the Seanad sitting as the Seanad, when all those present were fully conversant with all that had passed. It seems to me to be an undesirable procedure, and quite unnecessary, that such a report should be made. I think we should rather consider a Committee of the whole House as in effect the Seanad with all the powers of suspension that are necessary.
I do not think that any such report would in fact be made. At any rate, the method adopted by the Committee was simply to deal with the record of proceedings in the House which, up to the present, are never recorded. It was to deal with very important matters such as the actual suspension of a member for a period of a week from Parliamentary rights, which should be specifically the act of the House itself. The wording of the report would be a pure formality, unless it happened that the Chairman of the Committee would be a different person, when there would have to be the formality that I believe occurs frequently in Westminster. Here no one considers that such a report would be necessary, except a few words from the Chairman, when the House would proceed to act. It would appear in the proceedings and would appear to be the action of the House rather than of the Committee. It could be met by specifically providing that a Committee of the whole House could suspend a member. Deleting the words would not meet the case. On the whole, I am inclined to think that the method provided will not really prove formidable, and that it is rather simpler than providing that a Committee of the whole House may suspend. It is quite clear that it would never do to give other Committees such power.
Should not the words of the amendment be to delete down to the end of the sub-section?
Yes. There is a mistake in the form. The amendment should be to delete all after the word "shall" down to the end of the sub-section. The words of the Standing Order are: "and report the circumstances to the Seanad." The very phrase suggests a formal report of the circumstances to the House. May I put this forward, that the rule might provide that the report of the Chairman of the Committee of the whole House would be recorded in the proceedings of the Seanad? If that is the object sought, that some recognition should be given of the fact that the Chairman of the Committee of the whole House acting and formally suspending, would report the fact in a formal way his word would be taken as the record of the proceedings for the purpose of notification of suspension.
I see no difficulty in doing it that way if the House thinks that better. There would be the same amount of writing but you want to have some record. It seems that there are three ways. One way is provided here. Another way it could be done is by the whole House being given specific power to suspend. Another way would be to give power of suspension which would be recorded not on the Committee's proceedings but on the proceedings of the House. There is very little difference between them.
I think the Standing Order as it is is the simplest and best way of dealing with a situation which we hope will not arise. At one time, I thought I would be the first member to be suspended. If I were suspended I would prefer the method laid down in the Standing Order.
There is a human reason why this rule should remain as it is. Of course, Senator Johnson with his desire for precision and rapidity wants to have this little bit of circumlocution struck out, but, in a matter where the suspension of a member of the Seanad is concerned, I think the greater time there is for the reconsideration of matters the better. I have a little experience of suspensions and ejectments in other places. I was never ejected myself, but I have seen people ejected, and I have seen occasions when people properly deserved to be ejected, where on the spur of the moment, if time was not given for a little consideration, they would have been ejected. But time being given the result was that they were not ejected, and things went on as usual. I think if this rule were left as it is there would be no great harm done and I think Senator Johnson should withdraw the amendment.
I would like to ask Senator Douglas whether the procedure outlined in Standing Order 44 is not the same as the procedure in the House of Commons?
I am not competent to answer that question.
I think it is practically the same.
It is taken practically word for word from the House of Commons procedure. What happens there is that the chairmen of committees are not the same, and when anything happens in Committee of the whole House the Speaker is sent for, and he goes through the formality described here.
As Senator Moore has mentioned, it is important that the House should remember that here we are decidedly different. We deliberately, at an early stage of the Seanad, decided that we would place our Leas-Chathaoirleach in a different position. Such a situation as Senator Comyn mentioned could not arise The Leas-Chathaoirleach would have complete power to carry out suspension when in the Chair.
It is better to give him time to think.
I should like to be quite clear as to the procedure to be adopted.
Cathaoirleach
Is it not very clear in the Standing Orders?
I do not think it is. Assuming that a member is disorderly in the House sitting in Committee, the Cathaoirleach will name him to the Committee for disorderly conduct. What will be the motion then?
Cathaoirleach
If an offence is committed in the whole Committee of the Seanad the Chairman shall forthwith suspend the proceedings and report the circumstances to the Seanad, and the Seanad shall then decide.
There will be no suspension before that?
Cathaoirleach
I have seen many suspensions, so that the House may take me as an authority on suspended members. If you want to suspend a member of the Seanad the best plan is to stick to the Standing Order.
Standing Orders 42 and 43 agreed to.
STANDING ORDER 44.
I move:—
S.O. 44. To add at the end of the Standing Order a new paragraph as follows:—
"(2) When a question has been decided in accordance with this Standing Order any further motion may be moved which is requisite to bring to a decision any question already proposed from the Chair and, subject to the discretion of the Cathaoirleach as provided in this Standing Order, such motion shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate."
In the old Standing Orders there were three dealing with closure motions. There was the first dealing with the simple closure motion, the second dealing with supplementary motions in order to bring to a conclusion any previous motion that had been put from the Chair, and, thirdly, there was a Standing Order dealing with closure by compartments. The Committee that prepared the new Standing Orders omitted the latter two of these old Standing Orders, and the one now before us is confined simply to the closure of a single motion. It seemed to me they went rather too far in deleting the other two, and that the second course should be retained by which further motions might immediately be put from the Chair in order to bring to a conclusion any question that had been previously put. Let us take the case of the section of a Bill to which amendments have been put down. Very frequently it happens in discussions of that kind that the Cathaoirleach allows a fairly wide discussion to take place on one of the amendments, and after that discussion has run for some time somebody moves the closure of the discussion. Now unless the proposal I have here is included in the Standing Orders, it will be still possible for Senators to go on and move these other later amendments, and there could be no closure motion moved on any of them for one hour on each. Under the old Standing Orders if a position of that kind were reached and the closure were carried on the first amendment, the Chairman was then empowered under subsequent Standing Orders to put all the remaining amendments. That would enable the Seanad to come to a conclusion on the general section. There is no power to do that under these Standing Orders, and the proposed paragraph, I submit, would give that power, and would save what might easily become a serious abuse, and would, I believe, give the Seanad a businesslike procedure in respect of that point. If there were six amendments down the closure motion could not be moved in respect of any of them until the debate on any of them had lasted for an hour. There is an opening for abuse in that.
I think that in the Committee we had a long discussion over this particular Standing Order. We had in mind the point raised by Senator Hooper. It had been cited that in the case of amendments to sections of a Bill, that when the question was put by the Chairman that meant the amendment before the House was the question put and the closure motion only closured that particular amendment, and not the section, and the other amendments could go on.
I think I was absent from the Committee when this discussion took place. What Senator Farren has said is, I think, correct. Personally I am of opinion it would mean an improvement to add the words suggested by Senator Hooper, and I do not think they would take away from the position stated by Senator Farren, but I can see circumstances under which a very strict reading of the Order as it is in the draft might prevent, as a result of carrying the closure motion, the completion of the matters before the House which was necessary. I think it ought to go back to the Committee. I think it is similar to the Dáil, and I do not see that it can do any harm or take away from what Senator Farren has said.
Supposing the motion had been debated for an hour and decided, and there were other motions of the same character following on the Order Paper, would it be competent for the Chair to say, "This motion now proposed is ruled by the motion already decided?"
Cathaoirleach
I would not like it to go back as a suggestion to the Committee that Senator Douglas's interpretation is what we desire as right. I think when there are amendments down to the motion in respect of a Bill in which there is a series of amendments the closure motion must and would only deal with the actual question under discussion, and not the original subject under discussion to which there had been tabled a series of amendments.
I entirely agree. What I suggest is that when there is a closure it is only the particular matter closured would end, but if it was a motion which required other actions to bring it to finality, then I think there should be power in the Chair without further debate to deal with the other matters.
I would like to make this clear. Before any other division can be taken to bring the matter to a conclusion the Chairman must be satisfied in the same way as he would under the original Standing Order that the motion is not an infringement of the rights of the minority, and every time it is within the discretion of the Chairman to withhold sanction to the motion.
This particular case occurred within the last fortnight or three weeks when an amendment of this kind was made, and everyone was confused about it and did not know the procedure to follow. I really forget now what did happen. It is really very awkward to have a lot of new amendments ruled out merely because one particular amendment is objected to. Anyhow, I think it ought to be within the power of the Cathaoirleach to protect in all cases the rights of minorities.
Ordered: That Standing Order be referred back to the Committee.
Standing Orders 45, 46 and 47 agreed to.
STANDING ORDER 48.
With regard to Standing Order 48, could the House have a little information as to the time normally occupied now in the taking of divisions?
Cathaoirleach
The time previously allowed was three minutes, but under the proposed Standing Order it is going to be five minutes.
That is to say, five minutes will be allowed for the taking of a division. Heretofore, we had the calling of the roll, but in future it is proposed that there shall be some physical division. Is it anticipated that the Lobby method will be shorter than the calling of the roll?
Cathaoirleach
Yes, and it will be easier for the officials of the House as well. Under the present method of calling the roll they sometimes find it very difficult to catch the responses given when the names are called.
I think it is only reasonable to allow five minutes for the taking of a division. It is a long way from the refreshment room to the Seanad Chamber, and if a member were taking a meal there it meant a great rush to get here in the time allowed previously.
Some members of the Committee thought that three minutes was ample time to allow, but a number of Senators, especially those who are not as young as they used to be, found it difficult occasionally to get to the Chamber in the time allowed. The Committee in the circumstances agreed to put the period at five minutes.
Standing Order 48 agreed to.
STANDING ORDER 49.
With regard to Standing Order 49, there is just a small question on that which I want to raise. This matter that I am going to deal with arose in the Dáil when they changed the method of taking divisions there. They began by following the procedure of the House of Commons: that is to say, the tellers were not counted amongst those "for" or "against." With a small number in Opposition in the Dáil in those days, it was found that the numbers "against" were too small—smaller in fact than they actually were. I call attention to this in the hope that if we simply adopt that precedent the tellers will be recorded and counted. We need not alter the Standing Order to do that.
Cathaoirleach
The tellers will be counted, and I think that is the better way of dealing with the matter.
Standing Orders 49 and 50 agreed to.
STANDING ORDER 51.
With regard to Standing Order 51, it applies in general to the rules of procedure of the Seanad and the procedure of committees, with three exceptions, which are mentioned. It seems to me that elsewhere in these Standing Orders we have made other alterations and other exceptions from the general rules of procedure in the Seanad. I think it would be well if at the end of the first line of the Standing Order we inserted something to this effect: The rules as to procedure in the Seanad shall, unless otherwise provided by these Standing Orders, apply to the procedure in Committee of the whole Seanad, etc. The point is one that I think requires further consideration, and I suggest that the Standing Order might be referred back.
If this matter is pressed, of course it could be considered, but I am afraid there is a little of the blind eye in it as well. We have, in effect, two kinds of Committees. A Committee considering a Bill adopts the procedure of this House, and takes the Bill section by section as it is taken here. But a Committee that is not dealing with a specific matter, obviously never does and, in effect, could not adopt the form of procedure followed here. That kind of Committee appoints its own chairman, and a considerable amount of discretion is allowed to him in the carrying out of the proceedings. The reason for this Standing Order is in case of a dispute to have something to which one could refer back. These Standing Orders do not attempt to deal with the kind of discussion that must of necessity take place before certain types of Committees. We sometimes send Bills to a Committee. A general discussion is not desirable in the case of a Committee of that sort. A Bill is before the Committee and it is taken section by section, with the moving of amendments and so on, the procedure followed being the same as that adopted here. But in the case of a Committee discussing questions like, say, the remuneration of Senators, obviously that kind of formal procedure is not followed. The danger that I see in Senator Hooper's proposal would be to make the Standing Order more rigid than it is. I think it would be most undesirable if the Chairman of every Committee were made to feel that on every occasion the strict, rigid rules laid down by Standing Orders should be followed.
The object of this Standing Order is to have something for the guidance of Committees in special circumstances. The opinion of the Committee was that where it was necessary to have regulations for these committees something should be laid down to guide them.
One case that I have in mind is in reference to the casting vote of the Chairman. If the casting vote is to be taken from the Chairman, as is proposed by this Standing Order, that would be another exception to the general rule that the procedure of committees should be governed by the procedure in the Seanad. I suggest that the matter should be further considered.
If it is held that the Chairman of a Committee is not to have a casting vote, then it might be possible for the sake of uniformity not to make it appear that there were only these three exceptions.
As Senator Hooper has raised this point I do not see how we can possibly avoid sending the Standing Order back to the Committee, because undoubtedly there are other matters besides these three matters that we discussed a short time ago to be considered. What are the rules of procedure, for instance, in the case of the suspension of a member of this House? Are they different in the Seanad to what they would be in Committee of the whole House? As Senator Hooper has raised this point, I think it ought to be sent back to the committee in order to have it clarified.
Possibly the wisest thing to do would be to send it back.
With regard to another point on this Standing Order, it is a constant occurrence that people do speak a great deal more than three times in these particular discussions.
Cathaoirleach
The number of times a Senator may speak has been enlarged. It used to be only twice, now it is three times. The Senator will have an opportunity of explaining his point before the Committee when the matter is referred back.
I tried to press that point before the Committee, but I was overruled. One finds that at every Committee people speak more than three times. Very often the discussion may be between two or three people who want perhaps some slight change in words. A conversation goes on between them, and the matter is settled, but it takes more than three speeches, though the speeches may be only a couple of words each. I think discretion should be given in this matter to the Chair. Of course, if there is any obstructive practice, the Chairman could point out that we already had enough of it. What I object to is putting things into the Standing Orders that are never carried out. This limitation is never carried out. Why, then, put them in the Standing Orders?
Question—"That the Standing Order be referred back"—put and agreed to.
Standing Orders 52 to 56 inclusive agreed to.
STANDING ORDER 57.
Every Select or Special Committee, previous to the commencement of business, shall elect one of its members to be Chairman, and he shall have only one vote.
I move:—
To delete the words "and he shall have only one vote" and to substitute therefor the words "He shall have a vote as an ordinary member of the Committee, but not a casting vote."
In the old Standing Order it is provided that the Chairman shall have a casting vote. In the Standing Order now before us it is proposed that he shall have only one vote but it does not say whether it is to be a casting vote or a vote as an ordinary member of the Committee. My amendment seeks merely to make that clear and that he shall have a vote only as an ordinary member of the Committee and not a casting vote. I am not now arguing whether a casting vote or an ordinary vote is the better. I merely put down this amendment to carry out what I understand was the intention of the Committee and which I think is not quite clearly expressed as a Standing Order stands.
Certain matters have been put before me which convince me that this ought to be referred back to the Committee. In the first place I do not think it is really clear particularly in view of this other Standing Order which provides that the rules of the Seanad shall apply to Committees. The Seanad is governed by the Constitution, which provides definitely that its Chairman shall have a casting vote and if you sent this Standing Order in this form to a Committee providing that the Chairman shall have only one vote it would mean that he would only have a vote as an ordinary member of the Committee, but that he would have no strict right to a casting vote. I think it looks as if this will have to be amended with the other Standing Orders that apply to the procedure of the Seanad in Committee. What I am not sure about is whether the Chairman should have a casting vote or an ordinary vote. I think in a Committee dealing with a Bill where you have members of the two Houses he ought to have a vote as an ordinary member. The chief advantage of a casting vote is that while you sacrifice something you do get a decision. I am convinced this must clearly go back in order that it may be decided which class of vote the House would wish a Chairman of Committee to have.
In considering this, the point of view that has become almost as well understood in law and practice, regarding the action of the Chairman, is that his casting vote should go with the status quo. It seems to me that it is desirable that that should continue and that the vote of the Chairman ought to be only the casting vote and not the vote as an ordinary member. If he is to have a vote as an ordinary member he is almost bound to vote according to his own judgment, not to maintain the status quo, whereas it is perhaps a desirable thing in an important Committee that the Chairman should really maintain the status quo so that the House—the larger body—may have an opportunity of deciding. It is a matter that I think is well worthy of consideration.
The difficulty really is, you may have a Committee of ten and you want all Parties to be represented and you get a Chairman by robbing one of the Parties of one vote, so that you actually start with a difficulty right off.
Another thing that should be considered is that a very large number of Committees are Joint Committees, and it is most important that the Standing Orders as regards the Chairman's vote should be the same in both Houses. I respectfully suggest that it should be an ordinary vote and not a casting vote. At least, in the Dáil that is the Standing Order.
The Chairman of a Committee should have only one vote, which he should never use. I have been Chairman of many Committees. The Chairman never uses his vote except when the votes are equal, and then he votes whichever way he likes.
One consideration that I would like to be kept in mind is the fact that the proposal is to give the Chairman only one ordinary vote. If he has an ordinary vote and not a casting vote he takes part in the general work of the Committee. In his capacity as Chairman he has to consider whether motions put before him are in order or not. Where he has to deal with a motion put forward by other Senators he may be regarded as impartial, but where he brings forward a motion of his own it is very difficult for him sometimes to judge. I have had some experience of my own in that connection; I found it very difficult, and it seems to me a point that should be considered in deciding whether we should give the Chairman an ordinary vote or a casting vote. If he has a casting vote only in a small Committee of the Seanad, it will tilt the balance as against the rest of the Committee. There may be six members on the Committee and if the Chairman only has a casting vote, then it leaves the decision of the Committee to practically one person; there are three people as against two. That is a rather awkward thing. I think these are the points that the Committee should consider.
Cathaoirleach
My personal opinion is that this vote is a vote whether it is given as a casting-vote or given in the ordinary way. However, it is better to let it go back to the Committee.
Agreed to.
STANDING ORDER 58.
I move:—
To add at the end of the Standing Order the words "In the event of an equality of votes, the question which is the subject of the division may again be proposed at a subsequent meeting of the Committee."
I do not think that it takes very much to explain this amendment. If there is equality of votes on any motion in Committee, it is decided automatically in the negative, and that motion cannot be brought forward again. In that way it seems to me that you attach a greater weight to the Níl vote than to the Tá vote, and it is questionable how far that is desirable. It seems to me that a good arrangement would be that if you can get any decision at a Committee, and there be no case of a casting-vote in the Chairman, that it ought to be permissible for members of the Committee to bring that question up again at a later date and to get a clear decision upon it. It may be that you may have a succession of days on which there would be equality of votes, in fact, on any question. But some time or other the Committee must come to an end, and there would be no subsequent meeting. So long as you can keep the decision open so as to get a clear decision, I think you ought to do so.
I gave Committee work a great deal of consideration, and I do not think it would be wise to insert an amendment of this kind. In the first place let us take the Committee which in the main we are legislating for—that is, the Committee which is considering a Bill sent to it from this House for consideration and possible amendment. You would never get that Bill back if you have not some method by which the proceedings will come to an end, and there is no grievance at all if the Party proposing the amendment have equality with the Party who are opposed to the amendment. I say that because there would be a further Stage of the Bill. In any case there would be the Report Stage in which they would have a further opportunity of bringing up an amendment. If you were to give the specific right that is proposed in this amendment you would have a member bringing forward an amendment again and again. You would probably have a determined, energetic or pig-headed Senator bringing forward an amendment from day to day until somebody opposed to him might stay away, in which event he might get it passed. I do think that discretion lies in the Chairman. If the Chairman fails to get a decision by agreement when some report has to be made, he will find that the matter has not been dealt with at all or that it is coming forward for consideration again. I cannot see in a Committee of that kind that any difficulty will arise at all in reconsidering an amendment on which agreement has not been reached. I think it would be dangerous to give that discretion.
This is a very dangerous amendment. If it is accepted the work of your Committees will never come to an end.
Still there is this consideration—Do I take it that under Standing Order 58 a private Bill might come under the consideration of the Committee?
A Private Member's Bill. A private Bill and a Private Member's Bill are entirely different things. A Private Member's Bill is in exactly the same position as any other Bill coming before the House.
There is this consideration—unless a certain amendment were carried in the Committee it might not be worth bringing it forward at all.
The argument in favour of the amendment falls because we are dealing with Special and Select Committees that will not reach finality. Those Committees must report back to the House, and if there is an even division it is open to the member of the Committee, instead of bringing this before the Committee and threshing it out again and again, to bring it before the House. There is no finality in Committee. It is only a Stage of the Bill. Therefore I think the amendment is unnecessary.
What I have in mind is a Committee not so much dealing with a Bill. It is quite a while since we had any Bill referred to a Special Committee.
Cathaoirleach
You have had quite a few.
I had more in mind proceedings in Committee dealing with a general subject. They might be reporting to the House on that subject. A report would come up to the House in the form wished for by the Tá voters, and in a particular point, although an equal number of Níl voters would be against that point, the Tá voters views would prevail.
Cathaoirleach
The Níl voters could make their point subsequently in the House.
Why should they have the onus put upon them any more than the Tá voters to make their case?
Do I understand the Senator to suggest that if you had a Committee before which there was the question of the remuneration of members of the House and you had five in favour of paying members a salary of £1,000 and you had five against that, the Committee must bring in a report in favour of the Tá side of the Committee, that is in favour of a salary of £1,000? That would be quite ridiculous. It is only on an amendment to a Bill that it would arise.
In a Committee on which I was, there was an even division of votes on an important issue and the question was put to me in the Chair as to whether that would come up again. We had reached the end in Committee and I said I did not know what the ruling was. There was no Standing Order to govern the matter. I made inquiries and I was told that precedents were in favour of the acceptance of the proposal. I ruled accordingly, but it seemed to me rather hard on the people who were voting Níl in that case.
Amendment declared lost.
Standing Orders 58 to 68, inclusive, put and agreed to.
STANDING ORDER 69.
The Superintendent of the Oireachtas or his Deputy shall attend in the Seanad during the sittings of the House, and while attending there such officer shall be subject to the control of the Cathaoirleach....
I move to delete the words "of the Oireachtas" in the first line.
This is rather a matter of terminology. We are discussing the Standing Orders of the Seanad and we are basing them on this: that the Oireachtas shall consist of the two Houses and the King. Then we have this clause headed "the Superintendent of the Oireachtas." That seems to me to be a term which is not quite fit. While it may appear in some of the official documents, I think it is probably a mistake that it has been so termed. The Estimates simply describe him as "Superintendent." I think that is quite enough. It means the same thing and I am rather averse from the House speaking of the official who is in charge of the building as the "Superintendent of the Oireachtas." That is the whole object of the amendment.
It might save time if I just simply explained—it is entirely a matter for the House to decide whether they will delete the words or not—that this matter arose on the joint report in regard to the staff of the House some time ago and the gentleman was christened Superintendent of the Oireachtas. Read in the way in which Senator Johnson has put it——
Cathaoirleach
He is Superintendent of this House—of the place.
He is Superintendent of the two Houses.
Read in that way, it may appear ridiculous. He is not Superintendent of the Oireachtas but of the place. It is a matter for the House whether they wish to delete the words or not.
This is his official title. Is Superintendent sufficient title?
He is Superintendent of the House of Parliament but not of the Oireachtas.
Cathaoirleach
We had better let the Standing Order be sent back for consideration.
Standing Order referred back for consideration.
Standing Orders 70 and 71 put and agreed to.
I move:—
New S.O. Before S.O. 72 to insert a new S.O. as follows:—
72. Questions may be addressed in writing to a Minister but such questions shall be confined to matters relating to general public policy and administration for which he is responsible, and not to the details of departmental administration. Any such question shall be delivered to the Clerk and, if held by the Cathaoirleach to be within the terms of this Standing Order, shall be forwarded to the Minister concerned. On the receipt by the Clerk of the Minister's reply, such reply shall be forwarded by him to the Senator who put the question; and the question, together with the reply thereto, shall be printed at the beginning of the Official Report of the Debates for the next succeeding day on which the Seanad shall sit.
I have a view that it ought not be necessary to have a Standing Order governing this, but it would be requisite to have the replies that the Minister might make to a question inserted in the Official Report. It is chiefly with the object of having replies to questions that might be put forward inserted in the Official Report that I desire that the Standing Order should make provision accordingly. The Seanad has not machinery, apparently, for getting replies to questions by the procedure of the House of Lords, where you have Ministers in the House who are capable of answering questions that may be put by a member of the Upper House. The procedure there is to raise a question by putting it on the paper, and they then get an answer from a responsible Minister. My desire is that a Senator who seeks information on a matter of public importance, not on departmental affairs, should be able to use the machinery of the House for transmitting a question of this public nature to a Minister, and to have the answer recorded in the Official Report.
It may be said that it is open to any Senator to get a question of that kind put by a member of the Dáil. I do not think that is satisfactory. I have in mind, for instance, certain questions which I put to a Minister seeking information which the Minister promised to provide, or at least to consider, and although there was no reason why the information should not have been given, the information has not been given. I would like that that information, for instance, should be supplied to the House in answer to a question. I do not want to compel the Minister to come to the House to answer the question and read it out, because the kind of question which I have in contemplation was not one which would be subject to cross-examination or anything of that kind. I think it is not desirable that we should ask Ministers to come to the House to answer questions of this nature themselves, but it is desirable that Senators should have some formal opportunity of submitting questions to the Ministers on matters of public importance, and that the replies received by the Clerk should be inserted in the Official Report. It is of public interest and public importance that questions of that type should be permissible. I therefore move that this Standing Order be inserted.
I entirely agree with the proposed Standing Order. As a matter of fact, I have on some occasions, through the Clerk of the Seanad, sent a message to the Ministers, and I must say that I got an answer back either delivered by the Minister himself when he came into the Seanad or in some other way. I think this is much the easier way because in many cases it might obviate the putting down of a motion. Supposing a Senator is going to bring forward a motion. and that before doing so he wants to be sure of certain facts. If he writes to the Minister or sends him a message asking him about these facts, and if he gets these facts he will know everything about the matter and he may not then bother putting down the motion. It would save trouble and time in that way If the Minister says something different he can go on with the motion. I do not see any reason why this should not be done. The objection to answering questions when Standing Orders were originally drafted was on quite different grounds. That was because at that time we all objected to questions being put here on local matters from Donegal to Cork. We were not prepared in the early days to face the matter of asking questions of that kind, so we ruled out questions. We did not then think of questions such as are now contemplated. It was in the early days when we first made this rule, and a very proper rule it was. This, however, is a different matter. We are merely asking that the Minister should give certain information on a subject with which he is well acquainted. He can say as he often says in the Dáil, that he will not give it, if he wishes.
I am rather puzzled to know, after listening to Senators, what is the object of the Standing Order. Senator Colonel Moore thinks that this matter of communicating with Ministers for the purpose of getting information is a wonderful privilege which individual Senators should possess. Therefore why make this a matter of the Standing Orders? The point that I am puzzled about is this: these communications are really extern to the procedure of the business of the House.
So far as I can see they are simply communications between individual Senators and individual Ministers. The records of the House are I take it records of transactions that occur during the proceedings and within the sittings of this assembly. It seems to me that it might open up a new vista of possibilities in the way of records. It would be alarming if matters other than the actual proceedings of the House were to be entered on the official records. What is sought to be done by the motion in a formal way is already being done and every information of this kind is at the disposal of every member of the Seanad. I can see no positive advantage to be gained by this. I cannot see that it will facilitate the procedure of the House in any way better than the facilities at present permitted. I can see also an opportunity, which would be an inducement or an incitement to a man who wants to appear conspicuous on the records to send all sorts of interrogations to Ministers in order to have them on the records. It will be noticed that this Standing Order is to apply only to interrogations that are of a certain character.
"Questions may be addressed to Ministers and such questions shall be confined to matters relating to general public policy and administration."
That seems to ask that a Minister shall set out on paper a statement of his public policy in regard to his Department. I could see much more reason for this innovation if the suggestion took the form of facilities for interrogating Ministers in the Assembly, where a statement could be made. I could see a certain advantage in that. Possibly it would not be a very positive advantage. But I can see very great inconvenience being caused by the procedure suggested here. For that reason, if this proposal by Senator Johnson is seriously entertained, I would certainly suggest that it be referred to the Committee, along with the other Standing Orders, for discussion before a decision is arrived at.
It may be well to make clear that a proposal of this kind was before the Committee. I was not present, but I understand it was rejected by the Committee after a considerable amount of consideration. I should like to state briefly the reasons why I think it is a mistake to put a Standing Order of this kind down. In the first place. you have questions addressed by an individual to a Minister. These questions, if they are within reason, ought to be answered irrespective of the Party of the Minister, and I understand in most cases are answered whether satisfactorily answered or not, is a matter of opinion. That, of course, is a matter of courtesy. This proposal would make that a right. We could only make it a matter of right by consent of the Ministry and by arrangement. There might be something to be said if we had power to make it a matter of right. If we make it a matter of Seanad demand, and the Minister refuses to give an answer, that refusal would be an affront to the House itself. That would be a very undesirable state of affairs. In my opinion, you are not then in a position to enforce the demand. Furthermore, you would have only a few questions which are of general public interest. I suggest that under Standing Order 24 half an hour at the end of the proceedings is the proper time to bring forward any questions of this sort, and the Minister will have to give a proper reason why he does not come here and answer them. That is the proper provision, and it is the requisite provision to meet the position. If you are dealing with general questions, which is not the intention, you will have requests from Senators' friends and all sorts of people who think they are represented by a Senator, and the system would be a nuisance to members, and, what is more important, would lead to a very large increase in public expense without any public gain. I think public questions can be answered satisfactorily in the other House. I think that is Senator Johnson's view, judging by the amendment. You would be getting no further information. You would be making a claim which you could not enforce, and which would lead to a grievance and the introduction of motions drawing attention to the refusal of the Minister to answer particular questions.
I think Senator Douglas must have been arguing some proposal which was before the Committee but which is essentially different from the proposal before this House. Every point he made seems to be answered by the form of this amendment in the name of Senator Johnson. He says all sorts of questions can be put. All sorts of questions cannot be put. They must be questions relating to general public policy and administration. He says these questions can be continued. They cannot be continued, because further down it is stated: "Any such question shall be delivered to the Clerk and if held by the Cathaoirleach to be within the terms of this Standing Order, shall be forwarded to the Minister concerned. On the receipt by the Clerk of the Minister's reply, such reply shall be forwarded by him to the Senator who put the question; and the question, together with the reply thereto, shall be printed at the beginning of the Official Report of the Debates." I think it is most important for the public and for the Seanad that Senators should have the right to ask questions, not relating to constituencies, but relating to general public policy. I have sufficient confidence in the good sense of the members of this Assembly to know that they would not abuse any right of that kind conferred upon them, particularly when the system would be operated under the direction and supervision of the Chairman of this Assembly.
Cathaoirleach
The Cathaoirleach would not have any supervision except to see that the matters related to public and general policy. He would have no other discretion.
I hope Senator Milroy in this case speaks in his private capacity.
I am glad to learn that. I thought he was speaking officially, and I was surprised that he was speaking in the strain in which he was, because I do not think Ministers would be wise in refusing to accede to a request of this kind. Senator Milroy, quoting Senator Colonel Moore, said Senators already have the right to send a question to the Minister and get an answer. But that is only a private method. It has not the authority of the Seanad behind it. I would not suggest that anything that Colonel Moore would do would not be straightforward, but it is not a proper, constitutional way of asking a question of the head of a public Department on a matter of public policy. I think the Seanad ought to accept this amendment, and include an Order of this kind amongst its Standing Orders. I am not very long here, but I find we can really do things of a general character better, perhaps, than they can be done in the other House. Questions of a general character asked here would receive a more satisfactory answer and more satisfactory discussion than they would receive in the other House. Moreover, I understand from Senator Colonel Moore that these are rights we have surrendered—that we had the right to ask these questions originally.
Cathaoirleach
No. We have not got the right.
In any event, though we had not the right, this is a little concession we are asking now, and I think we ought to try to get that power.
In addition to the reasons which have been already urged against this amendment, I should like to remind the House that the kind of questions which the amendment proposes we should have the power to ask Ministers are questions relating to general public policy and administration. A Minister would have no right to answer a question of that kind on his own responsibility. He would have to consult with, and could only give us an answer with the consent and concurrence of, his colleagues. This amendment is not practical politics.
I should like to say that occasionally in the Seanad I intended to bring forward some particular motion. I think it is unfair to bring forward a motion which the Minister would have to answer in the Seanad unless he knows about it beforehand, and I have always taken the opportunity of sending him notice that I was going to bring up such and such a subject in order that he might come fully prepared and documented to answer that particular question. I think it is only fair to the Minister that he should be fully informed. That comes under practically the same head as this particular question. You tell him that you are going to ask a certain question in the Seanad and he comes fully documented.
I think before any decision is arrived at on this Standing Order that we ought to find out whether or not there is machinery to carry it out if it is passed. We discussed that in the Committee and we found that there was really no machinery. I think it is essential to find that out before you touch the Standing Order at all. If it is considered that it should be sent back for that reason, well and good, but at the present moment there is no machinery.
There is the machinery that is always there the Clerk of the Seanad.
I agree entirely with what Senator Milroy and Senator Douglas said. If this motion is agreed to it will only add to the general expense and be a waste of public money. I would not mind if it were for the public good, but I do not think it would be. I do not think that there is any necessity for it. There is only one thing that I should like to add to what the Senators who have spoken in favour of rejecting the amendment have said, and that is to mention the very great pains taken by Ministers and the courtesy that they have always shown to those who write to them on any question. I would like to put on record my appreciation of their work in that respect. Very often I have to write to Ministers on all sorts of questions, and as soon as possible they have always answered these questions. They go into them fully and act with the greatest courtesy. I hope that this matter will not be referred back, but that a vote will be taken and the amendment rejected by the Seanad.
Of course it is not private questions like that that are contemplated.
Cathaoirleach
You are trying to put forward a thing for which there is no machinery, and compel a Minister to announce to us what his policy is, a thing which he could not announce without the agreement of his Executive.
I am astonished at the curious reception that this amendment has received. A Minister is not bound to answer any question of a Deputy let alone a Senator, and I am not asking for any more rights than a Deputy has. A Deputy has not any right to demand that a Minister shall reply to any question at all. Therefore, I am not asking for any rights that a Deputy has not got. I am entitled, if I can, to persuade a Deputy to put forward a question that I would like an answer to, but I think it is undesirable that I should be compelled to go via the media of Deputies before I can get a question answered which is requisite to my consideration of the Bills which are before this House. We have responsibilities here as well as Deputies have for the carrying of Bills into law, and the information that we seek is to enable us to do that efficiently and properly. Senator Miss Browne spoke of the trouble that Ministers take to answer questions. Undoubtedly they do. At least, their staffs do. Undoubtedly the kind of question that is involved in the amendment is not the kind of question that Senator Miss Browne and others send to Ministers, questions on departmental matters. These are the questions that involve expense in the main. There are other questions that involve departmental expense—the ordinary expense that a Deputy throws upon the State when he asks a question relating to some departmental matter. I require, let us say, some information regarding the number of houses that have been built since 1923, before the Minister comes forward with his Second Reading motion on the Housing Bill. This is just an illustration. I must wait until the Minister comes forward to get that information or I must persuade a Deputy to put down a question of that kind, and if I cannot persuade a Deputy, then I cannot get the information. I think that is an undesirable state of things and I think that the procedure here is simple.
The procedure is exactly the procedure that is adopted by a Deputy who wants a question answered in the Dáil. There is no necessity for printing those questions on the Order Paper, because we are not asking for oral answers. It is out of consideration for the work of Ministers that we do not ask for the presence of Ministers in giving the answers we seek. The Minister will not be subject to cross-examination in this House over these questions that I have in mind. I do think that it is desirable to have a procedure which would enable Senators to obtain information for public use and not for their own use. I think that is the essence of the trouble in the minds of some Senators. They think that the information sought is for the use of the Senator personally. The type of question that I have in mind is the type of question that I think is essential for the Senators in carrying on their work as Senators, and I think that that information which I might obtain by writing a letter to a Minister, ought to be on record in some document which is available for the use of Senators or Deputies if they look at Seanad reports.
Cathaoirleach
We are not concerned with Deputies. We are concerned only with Senators.
I understand that. I maintain that we ought to have a procedure within the House which would allow Ministers answers to questions to be printed for the use of Senators in their work as Senators. It is always possible for a Minister to say, as is often said elsewhere, that it is not in the public interest to answer that question, or he can give such an answer as will not give any information. If people are putting foolish or obstructive questions or questions merely for teasing and making the business of a Minister difficult, Ministers have an easy way of getting out of these things, but for questions for the legitimate use of the House, I think we ought to provide machinery and procedure which would allow that work to be done in a formal way.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Standing Orders 73 to 88 agreed to.
Standing Order 89:—Amendments may be moved on the Report Stage, but no amendment previously rejected in Committee of the whole Seanad shall be in order.
I beg to move amendment 15:—
To add at the end of the S.O. the words "nor shall any amendment carried in Committee of the whole Seanad be rejected on the Report Stage."
My view of the matter is that it would be better put the two things on the same level. Let both things be the same. Let it be that a motion rejected in Committee be rejected also on Report, or let it be the other way. Why have two different methods? An amendment is brought forward in Committee and it is rejected. It may be a very small House, just like the House we have now. On the Report Stage you may have a very large House. Let the amendment be agreed to or rejected, but put both on the same footing and that is all I want to do. I do not care which, as long as you put the two on the same footing.
I beg to second the amendment proposed by Senator Moore. He has stated so precisely the reason why this amendment should be accepted that I feel very few words from me will be necessary. If a motion is rejected in Committee it cannot be brought forward on Report; that is the rule. But if a motion is passed in Committee I think it is only fair that it shall not be rejected on Report. Senator Moore has said what is just and I think the justice of his claim ought to commend the amendment to the House. If this amendment of Senator Moore's is not carried there is absolutely no inducement whatever for us to appear on the Committee Stage of Bills.
On one occasion last year on a very important Bill dealing with the Gaeltacht we waited here and gave our time and consideration to that measure in Committee. After long argument in Committee we carried an amendment against the wish of the Minister. Then the same Minister came along on the Report Stage and had down a motion to reverse what we had done in Committee and it was carried by his battalions who had not been here and who had not attended to the work of the Seanad on the Committee Stage. That was one occasion upon which it happened and we made-no protest upon that occasion. Now we find the Dublin Bill coming along. We carried in Committee two most important amendments and I find the Minister is doing with the Dublin Bill just what he did with the Gaeltacht Bill—he has brought in a motion for the Report Stage to reverse the decisions we got from this House on the Committee Stage of the Bill. It is not fair to the House or to the people who attend here to discuss those measures, to proceed in that way. It is not fair that the battalions who do not attend on the Committee Stages of Bills should be brought here on the Report Stage to vote us down. It is, as a very eminent member of the other House has said, a strenuous argument for the abolition of the Seanad.
I am glad that I have roused the slumbering lion on the other side. Now that we have got on a note of good humour, I think I will conclude.
I think Senator Comyn seems to have quite forgotten, in his optimism, that in a short time he may have the battalions on his side. I have a kind of feeling that there is always a grave danger that battalions will use their majority whenever they want to get something done, and I do not know that any Standing Order will prevent that in this or any other House. We are now dealing with the question of the position on the Report Stage, irrespective of what the battalions may or may not do. I suggest that the amendment would be a great mistake and would be quite contrary to the whole spirit of the Report Stage. Whether the new Standing Order is absolutely in every case fair enough I am not quite sure. If new matter is introduced into a Bill on the Committee Stage, the whole object of the Report Stage is its revision, and if this amendment were adopted you may as well give up your Report Stage altogether. It cuts both ways. It is the case in the Dáil and here, and if you suggest that whether in a full or a small House the decision on the Committee Stage in relation to new matter should not be revised, it would be better to give up the Report Stage altogether.
On the other point raised by Senator Moore, on the question of what he called fair play, the new Standing Order put in by the Committee is more drastic than the previous one. It may be that there is a feeling that it goes too far. I am, of course, speaking entirely for myself. "Amendments may be moved on the Report Stage, but no amendment previously rejected in Committee of the whole Seanad shall be in order." In the old Standing Order No. 70 it is stated "The Cathaoirleach shall have power in his discretion to refuse an amendment tabled for the fourth stage of a Bill if he is of opinion that it is substantially the same as an amendment which has been rejected on the Committee Stage, and that the subject matter thereof has already been sufficiently debated." The other is more drastic. If it has been properly debated and has been rejected it is to a large extent obstruction to bring such amendment up again. If it is a matter of a snatch division or if it comes at the end of the sitting with a small House, it does not seem proper that such amendment shall not come forward again. If adopted, the proposal of Senator Colonel Moore would prevent the revision of an amendment so that the Report Stage would be ridiculous. Amendments are sometimes carried in Committee, and it frequently happens that the movers themselves desire to make alterations in them. To interfere with that procedure would, in my opinion, be a mistake.
I would suggest, instead of carrying this amendment, that Standing Order 89 be referred back for consideration. It seems to me to be too drastic and definite in its wording. There are occasions when an amendment that is really necessary, not to say desirable, may be rejected in the Committee Stage either through misunderstanding or the fact that there is not a full House. It would be ridiculous for us to insert a Standing Order which would prevent such amendment being brought on again on Report when a proper explanation of it would be given in cases where it might be necessary and desirable. The old Standing Order was far more preferable because this one is too hard and fast. I agree with a good deal of what the Senator who moved the amendment said, namely, that if an amendment, rejected in Committee, cannot be in order on the Report Stage, it seems inconsistent to propose that an amendment inserted in Committee can be rejected on Report. You cannot have such a contrast of procedure in that respect. I think that there is a via media between the two and I suggest the reference back of No. 89, so that the Committee may have it more fully considered and make it a little more elastic.
I think it is quite undesirable that it should be possible on Report to have a duplication of the discussion that has been gone through in Committee, and it may be possible, unless it is provided that amendments should not normally be allowed to come up on Report which had been rejected in Committee. I think that this is necessary unless you are going to invite every amendment rejected to be taken on Report. I would like this present provision to be reconsidered with a proviso of this kind: that no amendment. previously rejected in Committee of the whole Seanad, shall be in order unless the Cathaoirleach is of opinion that the subject matter has not been properly discussed. There is reason why the Report Stage should allow a rediscussion of an amendment that has been once rejected. I think that the normal procedure should be the other way round. I hope that the Committee, in reconsidering the matter, will take that point into consideration.
Standing Order No. 89 referred back for further consideration.
Standing Orders Nos. 90 to 103 agreed to.
STANDING ORDER 104.
When in the case of a Bill which has been received from the Dáil and amended in the Seanad a Message has been received from the Dáil disagreeing with or amending all or any of the amendments inserted in the Bill by the Seanad, such Message shall be placed on the Order Paper next thereafter prepared. Such amendments shall be considered in the order in which they appear, and in each case any Senator may move without notice "That the Seanad do not insist on the amendment." If no such motion be moved, the Seanad shall be deemed to insist on the amendment. If the Seanad insists upon all or any of the amendments not concurred in by the Dáil, the Clerk shall return the Bill to the Clerk of the Dáil with a certificate specifying the amendment or amendments on which the Seanad has decided to insist, with or without modification.
The following amendment stood in the name of Senator Johnson:—
To delete in the last line the words "with or without modification."
I think that this Standing Order might go back to the Committee with a view to having the words referred to taken out. Personally I do not see that it matters whether they are left in or not.
My point is that they are redundant.
Standing Order 104 referred back for further consideration.
Standing Orders 105 to 110 agreed to.
May I call your attention and the attention of Senators to the fact that we have been discussing Standing Orders all day and that your official title, according to Standing Orders is Cathaoirleach? I have heard you addressed as "Cathaoirleach,""Mr. President.""Sir," and so on during the whole discussion. I think in future you should exercise your power and rule the unofficial titles out of order.
Cathaoirleach
Senators should note that "Cathaoirleach" is the official title.
Is not the proper pronunciation, "A Chathaoirligh," when addressing the Chair?
Cathaoirleach
I move:—
That the Standing Orders be suspended for the purpose of enabling the Seanad to meet at 11.30 a.m. to-morrow.
Question put and agreed to.
The Seanad adjourned at 8.15 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Friday, 20th June.
