Certain Senators, when a motion like this is set down, always protest that it is an insult to the Seanad that the Minister should insist that several stages should be taken in one day. When Senator Johnson was in the Dáil he used to have that cry. Now there are people in the Dáil who have a more realistic view of life, and they do not do it any more. If there is some important amendment to be moved, if there is some obvious flaw in the Bill or some definite reason relating to public business, they may object, but they do not make a fetish of delay. Senator Johnson makes a fetish of delay. He seems to think there is some virtue in doing in three days what you can do in one, or in taking three or four stages on separate days even when there is not going to be an amendment or anything of the sort. My view is this: Senator Comyn said I was not a particularly bad offender in some respects. The view I have always taken, both here and in the Dáil, is that if there seems to be some sound reason relating to the due consideration of the Bill I have never pressed the House to take two stages in one day, but, on the other hand, if it is a Bill that is not likely to be amended — and I venture to say this is a Bill not likely to be amended — I would ask them to take it. The very fact that it is a technical Bill, and is the result of negotiation, leaves it not likely to be amended. In the short discussion we have had here it has not been suggested that it should be amended. There were no attempts to amend it from outside. I venture to say it is not a Bill which is likely to be amended, and it is not susceptible of amendment because it is the result of negotiations between different parties. I say, therefore, it being the sort of Bill that is not likely to be amended, and as no suggestion was made here that there is any particular feature of the Bill that requires prolonged consideration and requires to be modified, that the House ought in this particular case have regard to the old proverb "Never put off till to-morrow what you can do to-day."
The Dáil Standing Orders happen to be different from the Seanad Standing Orders, and it is not necessary to move for suspension in order to take several stages. Therefore we cannot have this performance about the need for delay that the Standing Orders gave Senator Johnson the opportunity for indulging in. When the Bill is not of a character that is very controversial or likely to be amended very considerably, to insist on a rigid fulfilment of the Standing Orders, to insist that there be a delay now and a delay two days again, seems to me to be in any circumstances pedantic and not to have regard for the public business. I do not say that the Seanad must always put itself out or must ever put itself out because the Dáil has not put itself out, but it is fair to have regard to actual facts as we find them. If there is no other business to keep the Dáil in session it is not reasonable that an attempt should be made to keep the Dáil in session.
On the other hand, if there is likely to be no great amendment except the one drafting amendment that has been put down, I do not see any reason why the Seanad should take up the attitude that for no good reason, but merely to assert some sort of a dignity that was never attacked, it should insist on the Dáil coming back. Senator Comyn set up a number of cockshies and knocked them down again. The Ministers do not think it a waste of time to come to the Seanad. The Ministers do not treat the Seanad any differently from the Dáil, and these requests for taking those stages in one day are made in the Dáil as frequently as they are made in the Seanad. The only difference is that Senator Johnson was once in the Dáil and is now in the Seanad.