Vol. 15 No. 4
On behalf of Senator Milroy, I beg to move:
That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Standing Orders 79 (1) and 85, the Committee Stage and Report Stage of the Railways (Valuation for Rating) Bill, 1931, be taken to-day.
The House will understand that there is no amendment to the Bill so far.
So far?
I will not say anything more.
I beg to second the motion.
I wish to oppose this motion. Such proposals are put forward always on the plea of urgency. I cannot see any special urgency for this Bill. The Minister has admitted it is of a highly technical nature. So far as I am concerned, I have not yet received the Bill as passed by the Dáil. The Bill I have is the one amended in Committee. Possibly the Bill as passed by the Dáil has gone astray. I certainly would like more information before I could agree to the final adoption of the Bill here.
I desire to support the protest against the taking of the Committee and Report Stages to-day. This Bill makes a very important change with regard to tenants' capital, and it is only fair to those who have interests — and I am one interested — that they should be given an opportunity of studying the effect of the measure on the property of shareholders.
There ought to be very exceptional reasons submitted before we could consent to take the Committee and Report Stages of this Bill to-day. The House should insist on the proper procedure being followed in this case.
I have a good deal of sympathy with what has been stated, but it seems to me that the position we are in is this. A House over which, unfortunately, under the Constitution, we have no control has decided that it is not going to meet after to-night. We are not considering now whether or not it is desirable to take the Committee and Report Stages of this Bill to-day. What we really are considering is this — whether or not we are to hold this Bill over until next year. That may or may not be a wise thing to do, but that is simply the issue.
It seems to me that Ministers have declared war against the rules of this House. On every occasion they want to engage in battle in the course of that warfare. I am, of course, opposed to the motion proposed by Senator Wilson. It is stated that if we do not pass certain stages of this Bill to-day something terrible will happen. The most terrible thing that could happen is that the members of the Dáil would be able to come up to Dublin for Christmas or soon after Christmas. I do not think we should take the Committee and Report Stages of this Bill to-day. Ministers will admit that amendments introduced in this House in the past twelve months have been very useful. Bills which have been considered in this House have been vastly improved.
The Seanad has commended itself to the public, if it has not commended itself to Ministers, during the past year. Ministers, of course, have a lot of ministerial work to do. They feel that their work in the other House gives them sufficient exercise for their powers of eloquence. They rather seem to feel that coming to this House is a sort of waste of precious time. If that is their opinion it is not ours. I will put it to any impartial person who has to consider Acts of Parliament as they leave the Oireachtas whether they have not been clarified and greatly improved in the Seanad? In fact I would go so far as to say that a good many of these Bills ought to be considered in the first instance in this House and then sent to the Dáil for acceptance or rejection. A good many Bills of a technical character ought to be dealt with first in this House.
I said some hours ago on a motion similar to this that I would never again raise my voice in protest against resolutions of this description. But now that the Minister for Finance is here, and he is not as great an offender as some of the others, I thought I would voice my disapproval and the general disapproval of motions such as this one proposed by Senator Wilson as leader of the Government forces in this House.
Deputy leader!
I wish to support the opposition to this motion. The Second Reading of this Bill was passed only a few minutes ago. The Minister told us it is a technical Bill. We can now read the Bill in the light of the Minister's statement and understand it in a way we could not understand it before. We ought to have an opportunity of reading it in the light of the explanations given to us by the Minister.
I think Senator Douglas is rather belittling the functions and states of this House when he asks us to support the motion on the ground that the Dáil has come to a certain decision. The fact that the Dáil has come to the decision referred to, if it has, more or less indicates to us that the Dáil is not very much concerned with what will be done to this Bill to-day; that members of the Dáil are not so very anxious that this Bill should go back to them, if it is amended, before they resume their sittings. The plea that the Dáil has come to some decision about not meeting again should not, I submit, affect us.
If there is any amendment made in the Bill when the Seanad meets to-morrow or Friday or next week, and if the Dáil thinks it is so important that the Bill should be passed before any particular date, the Dáil can meet again. I certainly ask that the House do not agree to the degradation — speaking in the purely technical and literal meaning of the word—that a Bill of this kind, which is technical and detailed, should be passed in all its stages within perhaps ten minutes. I think it is wrong and unworthy of the House.
I would ask the Seanad to consider this on its merits. There is nothing wrong or degrading or objectionable in the mere fact of passing a Bill within five or ten or two minutes, as the case may be.
Without considering it.
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.
May I suggest, with all respect, that in respect of this motion the Minister had no right to speak at all? I think I am within my rights in speaking again, and I can only say if the Minister rates the intelligence of the Dáil comparably to his rating of the intelligence of the Seanad in the speech he has made he rates it very low. I suggest there is an important point in this Bill which I wish to have considered and discussed. I have no opportunity of considering it owing to the proposal of Senator Wilson, acting for Senator Milroy—that is, the question of tenants' capital.
First there is a clear distinction as to whether we are asking that the Bill should go through its Second and Third Stages or between its Third and Fourth Stages. If you have gone through the Second and Third Stages it may be very reasonable to go on to the Fourth Stage the same day, but to go into the Third the same day as the Second is not a reasonable proposition.
Secondly, I would like to ask the Minister if there is any urgency in this matter. On the face of it there does not seem that there is. Thirdly, he said there was not likely to be any amendment, but the last Senator had said that he himself wants information and would put forward an amendment, but that this proposal has prevented him. Senator Douglas said that it was a Money Bill, if I understood him correctly.
No.
I misunderstood him. These Bills might go through the Dáil long ago, but systematically during the last nine years they have piled up these Bills at the last moment. I know that every year a protest has been made. This motion is in the name of Senator Milroy, who is not here at all, who has not been here for months, and who is living out of the country.
That point does not arise. He has authorised Senator Wilson to move in his absence.
I think it is quite within our rights, when a Senator absents himself systematically, to raise the question if that were done unreasonably. Perhaps there might be an objection, but when a Senator shoots amendments over to us from London I think the matter is very unreasonable and should not be allowed.
I think it is not at all fair for a Senator to make an attack on a brother Senator. It is well known that Senator Milroy was in the Seanad on the last occasion it met, and I do not think it is fair for any Senator to say that he has not been here for months. It is a recognised custom, not alone in the Seanad but at all public meetings, that if any measure is not of great importance and is not contentious or likely to be amended that it should be dealt with in the shortest time possible. Public men's time is of some consideration, and also public funds are of some consideration. The public funds are used for bringing all of us here, and I do not think that they should be wasted in bringing the Seanad and the Dáil back when we are capable of discharging the duties at our disposal.
Might I suggest that consideration be postponed until to-morrow? Personally I have not yet received a copy of the Bill passed by the Dáil. From what I have heard from the Minister I think if we had a night to think it over we might be in a better position to consider it.
To-morrow is the same as six weeks hence.
There is no necessity to rush through——
I have a motion and I must get it decided.
A number of hares have been raised and a number of red herrings have been drawn across the trail, but not one word has been used to show that there is any urgency whatever for the passing of this Bill. The Senator who proposed the motion made extraordinary statements that it must be a non-controversial Bill as no amendments had been moved, although we had not arrived at that stage. I would have thought, as spokesman of the Government Party, that the Senator would have an elementary knowledge of the rules of this House. The Senator suggests, and Senator Toal supports him, that if it is a Bill to which it is unlikely that amendments will be moved then why not put it through all its stages at once? The Minister makes up his mind that there will be no amendment to this Bill here because there were no amendments in the Dáil, and he lectures us for insisting on our own Standing Orders. I would put it the other way about. There is no necessity whatever or no justification for rushing the Bill without consideration unless there is some real urgency in regard to the matter. Senator Toal has spoken of the question of public funds. Does he actually suggest that there is to be a special meeting of the Seanad to put this Bill through its remaining stages? We must carry a certain amount of work over the Christmas recess. The Dáil is rushing through a couple of measures that we will have to deal with after the Christmas recess. I understand that the President said that if the Seanad inserted any amendments in the Bills brought before it the Dáil would be called together in January. That being the case, is it not humbug to say that we will have to put the Bill through seeing that we will have to meet in any case? I am sorry that Senator Wilson or any other Senator should allow himself to be used to put forward a motion of this kind. It is not a case of dignity, but it is the duty of the Seanad to consider these measures. There is a whole series of Bills with the same miserable motion at the foot of each one of them. If we are to discharge our duties seriously I do not think that we should adopt, Paddy-go-easy, the suggestion of the Minister. I hope the Seanad will turn down this motion.
It is important not to lose the other two Bills. If the Dáil adjourns we shall lose Nos. 11 and 12. That is the only expediency that I see in this motion.
If we pass this Bill a month hence it still becomes law even though the Dáil is adjourned.
The peculiar circumstances of the case have been explained. If the law stands as it is the railway valuation for the present year can be made nil. Under the Bill a certain amount of immediate valuation is being provided for them. I do not stand for any Senator not doing his duty, but I have a painful remembrance of what happened here last Friday. We could do the same thing this week. We could have the Committee Stage to-morrow. When this happened last Friday out of every different party there was not five per cent. of attendances. Those people who prate so much about doing their duty were the people who were not here. I am sorry to have to say that, but that is so. There is nothing extraordinary about asking this Bill to be taken this evening. Supposing we carry out the Standing Orders and take the final stages on Thursday and there is no quorum, we will have to wait here to get a quorum. That is supposed to be doing your duty.
When did that happen?
It happened last week. It is no use getting indignant on account of my bringing forward this motion. It is a necessary motion. It is the duty of the Seanad to have the thing done properly and I insist on moving it.
The remarks made by Senator Wilson may or may not be correct, but I am going to approach it from a different point of view. I come 160 odd miles to attend this House. On principle I protest against this procedure. We are asked to take the Bill on the Second Stage. We are asked to take all its stages to-night. We did not receive the Bill passed by Dáil Eireann yet. We had not time to consider it. We will not get time to consider it between now and to-morrow morning. I take it it is an important measure, and because of its highly technical nature we ought at least to get time to consider it. It is a procedure that we are having here Christmas after Christmas since I became a member of this House, and I think on principle that it is the duty of members of this House to object to the suspension of Standing Orders.
As a new Senator, I understand I am privileged to say that I inadvertently voted on the wrong side. I understand that it is a matter of considerable importance.
I am afraid, Senator, I have no power to alter it.
I think the rule is that it cannot be changed, but that the remark might be noted.
The Senator's remarks will appear in the debates.
