Vol. 19 No. 19
The following Message has been received from the Dáil:—
That the Dáil concur with the Seanad in their Resolution communicated to the Dáil the 20th day of March, 1935, that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to consider the Bank of Ireland Bill, 1935.
The following motion stands on the Order Paper in my name:—
That the Bank of Ireland Bill, 1935, be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses."
I ask some Senator to move the motion for me.
I move it.
I second it.
There is one point I should like to have cleared up. On a private Bill dealing with the Bank of Ireland some years ago objection was taken to certain members of this House, and of the other House, being appointed on the Committee, on the grounds that they had certain objections to the Bill when it was going through. I do not know on what rule or regulation that was based, and I should like if the matter could be considered, because I think it is of itself a rather absurd ruling. The fact that a Senator or a Deputy objects to a Bill going through or raises certain points, should not, in my opinion, debar him from being a member of such Committee. I should like a note of that taken. Perhaps the Selection Committee could keep it in mind or, on the other hand, if there is any definite ruling, which prevents a Deputy or Senator from being on such Joint Committee, I should like to have the attention of the House drawn to it. I have no knowledge of any such ruling being in existence. It seems to have been so interpreted by the Selection Committee, and I think it is a mistake.
So far as I recollect it was by resolution of the House on the last occasion that a Bank of Ireland Bill was before it that objection was taken to certain Senators. I cannot see that there is any general rule excluding any Senator from taking part in a discussion on any Private Bill in Committee, and if there was any such rule I am perfectly satisfied it would be unconstitutional. So far as the present Bill is concerned, I have not heard that there is any objection to any Senator going on the Committee to inquire into the merits of the Bill, and if there is any such objection, as far as I am individually concerned, I would pay no attention whatsoever to it. I understand this Joint Committee on Standing Orders will appoint a committee to consider this Bill; I am perfectly satisfied that there is no objection to any Senator, and that if any objection were made it would not be sustained.
I have no particular interest in any representative on the committee but, if the Selection Committee should accept as a precedent what was done before, I think it would be very undesirable.
I think that is the general view of the Seanad.
I intended to ask that question. I am a member of the Selection Committee and I think I can speak for all the members when I say that all the rules will be carried out.
Does the Senator not agree that there is no such rule?
I do not believe there is.
If a man was a shareholder?
That is a different thing.
And if he announced that he was, and made known his views.
I should say that if he was on the Selection Committee he should indicate that.
The fact that the man is a shareholder is no disqualification. It is a matter for the good sense of a Senator.
I think there are Private Bill Standing Orders to deal with that subject.
Yes.
Is a person who is definitely prejudiced for or against a Bill eligible to give a fair judgment?
Who is to decide whether a person is unduly prejudiced for or against a Bill? If he has a private interest in the subject matter of the legislation, he ought not, in discharge of his public duty, go on a Committee, but who is to decide whether any person is unduly prejudiced? The fact that a person has strong views on any question is no disqualification for exercising the functions which he is sent here to exercise in regard to Public Bills and Private Bills.
