Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Jul 1932

Vol. 15 No. 21

(Public Business.) - Constitution (Removal of Oath) Bill, 1932—Message from the Dáil.

Cathaoirleach

The following Message has been received from the Dáil:—

Dáil Eireann has disagreed to the amendments made by Seanad Eireann to the Constitution (Removal of Oath) Bill, 1932.

As I have already indicated, I should like, with the permission of the House, to have this Bill put down as first business for Wednesday next, in view of the very short period that elapsed since it passed in the other House.

Does the Minister suggest that it should be put down for the next meeting?

Cathaoirleach

Precisely.

On what grounds?

On the grounds generally, that it was not anticipated that it would be here to-day. It was only finished in the Dáil last night at 8.45, and for that reason I think it is reasonable that the leader of the House should ask to have it considered as first business on Wednesday next.

Cathaoirleach

Arising out of that, may I state that it was imperative on me to place it on the Order Paper for the first available opportunity? I advised members of the various groups in this House that I would remain as long as possible on Tuesday night, in order that we might have the Bill on the Order Paper. It is on the Order Paper, but it is for the House to consider the suggestion of the Minister, to defer consideration until next week. I want to make it clear that the House knew, as far as I am aware, that the Bill would be on the Order Paper.

I think the reason given by the Minister for suggesting this delay was entirely inadequate to justify such a proceeding. I cannot see that either he or the present Executive Council, which is responsible for the Bill, will be able to add anything to the discussion and the arguments that could not be made to-day. Is the Minister suggesting this on the ground that it is impossible for the President, who is Minister for External Affairs, to attend to-day, and will he undertake that he will be present at the next meeting? I see no reason why we should further delay finishing this Bill and, as far as I am concerned, I refuse to agree to the proposal.

Cathaoirleach

It is altogether a matter for the House to decide.

I am not worrying whether the Senator is prepared to go on or not. He asked if I could give any guarantee that the President would attend next week. I cannot. I do not think he will. The next point the Senator raised was that nothing could be added to what had been said. I agree, but one would not have thought that after listening to the Opposition in the Dáil last evening. I would like to know if Senator Milroy considers that he has nothing to add to what he has already said. I am in the hands of the House.

I would like to endorse what Senator Milroy has said. We all expected this Bill to-day. We knew that there was a possibility that it might not-come, but we were all ready for it. I am sure other Senators are in the same position as I am.

I think there should be some sense of decency in connection with these matters. The Minister representing the Government in this House states that the Bill was only passed by the Dáil at 8.45 last night, and he asks that consideration of it be postponed until next week. The House ought to agree to that. On former occasions, when the last Government was in power, if such a suggestion were made to the House it was granted, and I think it should be granted in this case. We should not be so peevish about these matters. There should be accommodation.

I was very anxious that this Bill should be taken to-day and that we should get rid of it. But the suggestion has been made by the Minister that it would be for his convenience at any rate that we should not take this Bill till this day week. In spite of the fact that I, and I think other Senators, would much rather get rid of the matter to-day, I think that, under the circumstances, it is a suggestion to which we should agree.

Considering the amount of business that has to be got through, I do not see what is going to be gained by postponing this matter. We have been told by the Minister that the President will not attend. I think that the Bill should be disposed of.

Cathaoirleach

I do not think that the Minister said that the President would not attend. What he said was that he could not guarantee whether he would be able to attend or not.

As I think I have explained already, this is done purely personally by myself for my own personal convenience. I am at present saddled with two Ministries, both of which are giving me very much work to do, and it is due to that that I am asking for a postponement of this matter. However, sooner than be under an obligation to either of the two Senators who have spoken I am ready to go on with the Bill now, if that is the desire.

I think that the Minister's application is quite reasonable and that the Bill should be allowed to stand over. A number of Senators came here to-day who did not know that this Bill would be up for discussion. Possibly a number of other Senators may be in the same position and did not know that the matter would be on for discussion to-day. In view of that I think it should be postponed.

Cathaoirleach

Perhaps the House would help me to come to a decision and will permit me to ask for a show of hands. I think it is obvious that the Minister desires that the Bill be not taken to-day and it will be necessary for me to have a motion.

I propose that the Message from the Dáil regarding the Constitution (Removal of Oath) Bill be taken next Wednesday, 20th July.

Motion carried.
Top
Share