Before we start the next business would it not be well to decide until what time we shall sit.
Business of Seanad.
I have consulted representatives of the different groups and they have decided to recommend that the House should adjourn after the motion on transport has been dealt with until next Tuesday and that it should meet on Tuesday and Wednesday. That seems to meet with general approval.
I wish again to press that we should meet on Friday. That is not from any desire, I hope I need not say, to inconvenience anybody. It is no more convenient to me to have it Friday than it is to have it Tuesday. I press for Friday in the interest of public business, and only in the interest of public business. I must say that I think there could easily be too much of a disposition—and I have often seen it to exist in the past in the Dáil—to put matters of private convenience before what is actually best for public business. I think that is a thing that, above all, ought not to be done at a moment when we are increasing parliamentary salaries, and when it would be tactless, to say the least, to give the country the impression that we are gentlemen of leisure who only come here exactly on the days that suit us.
The normal thing for a measure of importance is that its principles are discussed on the Second Reading Stage and that a suitable interval is then allowed for Senators to consider what amendments they wish to put down upon the basis of that discussion on the Second Reading Stage. Here we shall be dealing with Money Bills, so far as those two Bills are concerned —the Parliamentary Allowances Bill and the Ministers' Pensions Bill. They are almost certain to be certified as Money Bills, and it follows that we can do no good or no harm by rejecting them on the Second Reading, because, if we did, we should merely take away our power of moving amendments and the Bills would pass into law automatically in spite of us.
Is it in order for a Senator to tell us our duty on this question of whether we shall meet or not, after first telling us that we are concerned about the increase in salaries?
Leas-Chathaoirleach
I think all Senators are here to tell each other their duty. I think it is in order to discuss the matter.
As to the ordinary routine of the Seanad, is it to be assumed that all the wisdom is contained in one head?
Leas-Chathaoirleach
Other heads are open to contribute their wisdom.
It is open to every Senator to express his views. I do not see why there should be this attempt to throttle free speech. It was not I who raised the question as to when we next should sit—it was the Senator himself. That being so, it beats me to know on what principle he wishes to deny me the right to express my views.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
Perhaps it would be better if the Senator did not make too long a speech on the subject.
I have no intention of making a long speech on the subject. It seemed necessary to point out that the normal procedure is for an interval to elapse between the stage of a Bill when we discuss its principles and the stage where we discuss amendments. I suggest that that normal procedure ought not to be departed from in the case of two Bills in which the country takes a great interest, and that it certainly ought not to be departed from merely on the score that it is inconvenient to be here on Friday, because we do not intend to sit to-morrow.
It gives one very great guidance in the framing of one's amendments if one has had an opportunity of listening to the Minister on the general principles of a Bill; and it also gives the Minister some guidance to hear the members of the House on the general principles of the Bill. Then a few days elapse and there is time for all concerned to consider what amendments may be possible. I would, therefore, urge very strongly that the House should not depart on this occasion from what is customary and constitutional; that we should discuss these Bills in perfect good temper in principle on Friday on the Second Reading Stage, and then should have a few days to consider what amendments we might put down to be discussed on the following Wednesday.
It is a very fine thing for Senator MacDermot to talk about sitting here on Friday. Anybody who lives in a luxurious flat in Merrion Square can step across here in about five minutes, but, in my case, I have to come about 150 miles. It is not at all convenient for me to stay over here to-night and to-morrow night, and to wait on Friday until the House meets in the afternoon. So far as we know, anything to come before us can be very well disposed of next Wednesday, or, at all events, next Tuesday. Besides that, two days' notice of the meeting of the House, if it is to meet later, is not sufficient for me. While our public duties have first claim upon us, so far as it is possible to attend to them, we have also other business to look after, and two days' notice is not sufficient to enable us to make our arrangements. I have very important matters to attend to on Friday afternoon, and I cannot very well cancel them in order to attend to my duty here. As I say, there is nothing before us which cannot wait until next week, and I do not know that there is anything to come before us next week which could not wait until the week after that. I shall be available every week—even Christmas week and the week after—and we would have a precedent for meeting the week after Christmas. We should be at the service of the House when we get proper notice. For that reason, I propose that we meet on Tuesday of next week, and not on Friday.
We cannot carry this business over to the week after next, because the 21 days' provision with regard to Money Bills would come into operation. If we carried over our deliberations on these Bills until the week after next they would be completely useless, because there would not be time to call the Dáil together supposing any of our recommendations were accepted.
In fairness to the members of the House, they should have sufficient notice so that they may be here. If, as I understand, members are agreeable to meet on Tuesday, then we shall have sufficient notice and we can, if necessary, remain in session from Tuesday to Saturday to complete our business.
I agree with Senator McEllin that there is no great rush about the matters to come before us and that it would be better if we met on Tuesday so that we should have the whole week to discuss the business. So far as Senator MacDermot's statement is concerned, I do not think that there is any danger of anybody associated with us being accused of being a "gentleman of leisure." We are all prepared to work a seven-day week, if necessary, but is it necessary? The majority of the people here, so far as I can gather, are in favour of meeting on Tuesday instead of Friday, and I am always prepared to abide by majority rule.
We are all willing to abide by majority rule.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is it the feeling of the House that at the conclusion of business to-night we should adjourn until Tuesday next?
Agreed.
In these circumstances, we shall, I presume, be at liberty to put down recommendations with the minimum notice.