Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 17 Dec 1958

Vol. 50 No. 4

Amendment of Standing Orders Relative to Private Business: Motion.

Mr. Cole

I move:—

That the Standing Orders of the Dáil and the Seanad relative to Private Business be amended as set out in the Schedule to the Report (T. 165) of the Joint Committee on Standing Orders (Private Business), dated 19th November, 1958.

For some time past, it has been felt that the Standing Orders relating to Private Business should be amended in order to bring them into harmony with present practice and conditions. The Joint Committee on Standing Orders (Private Business) considered the matter and its recommendations are embodied in the Schedule to the report under consideration.

The first amendment deals with Standing Order 20. This Standing Order lists the Departments at which copies of Private Bills must be deposited. The purpose of the amendment is to bring the Standing Order up to date as regards the changes in number and nomenclature of the Departments since the Standing Orders were last printed in 1939.

Amendment No. 2 regularises present practice. Departments are empowered to make reports on Private Bills which have been deposited with them and, as doubt has been expressed as to whom they should be forwarded, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that these reports are lodged in the Private Bill Office in the first instance. Copies of the reports will, as a matter of routine, be sent to the promoters as soon as possible after receipt.

The third amendment relates to the fees payable in respect of proceedings on Private Bills and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills. These fees have not been altered since 1923 and the Joint Committee felt that, in present circumstances, they are unreal and should be increased. Under the present scale of fees, an average of £90 is received in respect of a Private Bill. When it is considered that the cost of printing the last report of a Joint Committee on a Private Bill was £37, it will be appreciated that the amount received in fees does not adequately cover the expenses involved. Accordingly, the Joint Committee recommends that all these fees should be increased by roughly 100 per cent.

Amendment No. 4 has been necessitated by the transfer of the Fisheries Branch from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Lands.

Amendment No. 5 is consequential on amendment No. 4.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Am I in order in discussing the details of this? There are just two points on which I should like clarification, if possible

An Cathaoirleach

It is in order. The motion is before the House.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

It is in relation to two points on fees. One is on page 5, where the translation fee per 150 words is proposed to be £1. The other is one page 7, where I notice that the fees suggested in respect of the shorthand writer "shall be four guineas for every day he shall attend." The point I should like to ask is whether the practice in international organisations has been taken into account in suggesting these fees. In fact, international organisations, whether they be O.E.E.C., the United Nations or the Council of Europe, pay fees for such expert services considerably in excess of this £1 and four guineas.

In such organisations, the shorthand writer, for instance, is not required to be bilingual. For bilingual transcriptions, the fees would be higher still. The question I should like to ask those concerned with drawing up this is whether they have taken into consideration the fact that our shorthand writers, in particular, are required to have an equally high standard in two languages and, in the light of that and of the fact that the fees here proposed are considerably lower than the rate in international organisations, why exactly it was that these two rather small rates were decided on and recommended.

Mr. Cole

The only answer I can give is that the translation fees are those based on the fees laid down by the Department of Finance for all translation work done. As regards the other point raised by the Senator, I am only presuming these are the fees collected and need not necessarily be paid to the officer doing the shorthand work.

An Cathaoirleach

Perhaps it might help the Senator if I mentioned that the fees in question are not paid directly to members of the staff. They are paid to the State by way of stamp duty for services rendered.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

The actual writer probably gets even less.

An Cathaoirleach

The translators are already members of the staff. That has to be taken into account.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

The main reason I mention the fact is that I fear we are in danger of losing some of our best staff by reason of the fact that the rates we suggest are considerably lower than the international rates.

Question put and agreed to.