It is proposed to take business as on the Order Paper— Nos. 1 to 9 inclusive.
Order of Business.
Today's little joke.
That surely is an unreasonable programme. I think it reasonable to say that this House has proved itself very co-operative to Ministers. What I should like to suggest is a modification of this fearsome list of Bills in front of us. In the first place, we promised the Minister for Industry and Commerce yesterday that we would take all Stages of the Tourist Traffic Bill next week and that will be done. For this week and next week, when I hope we could adjourn, we could do Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 as on the Order Paper.
There are then four very substantial Bills from the Department of Justice which deal with law. One of these, No. 7, the Courts (Establishment and Constitution) Bill, 1959, is a short Bill but it is a very important Bill. If it betokens any doubt as to the position of the courts, I think we ought to do it and as far as we are concerned, we are prepared to deal with it.
The Civil Liability Bill, 1960, which was, I think, originally based on a text book, has been considerably altered in the other House. The Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Bill, 1959, is a very big Bill with more than 50 sections and eight Schedules. The Defamation Bill, 1961, is a technical Bill. I think we should not be asked to deal with this Bill this side of the Adjournment because the Second Stage of the Bill, if we agree to it, and we will, in any circumstances, would lead to a Committee Stage. It is the kind of Bill which really requires consideration by a Special Committee.
These Bills can get no real consideration, I do suggest in all seriousness and in all reasonableness, at this moment and in this atmosphere. If we do pass an amendment, the Dáil will not be reassembled to consider it. First and foremost, my friends opposite—I have already told Senator Ó Ciosáin my view—will make sure that we do not pass any amendment, no matter how reasonable. If we did, I am perfectly certain that the Taoiseach, who is a seasoned warrior, would do no such thing as reassemble the Dáil. What he said yesterday was: "The Dáil may be reassembled" and he certainly will not in the atmosphere of an election bring the Dáil back to deal with an amendment.
Another point is that the Seanad can meet after the election and do these Bills in the interval between the assembly of the new Dáil and the election of the new Seanad and that is a reason why I say that we should not do them now in this session. These Bills have taken years to hatch in the Department and it is unreasonable, unfair and a prostitution of the whole process of Parliamentary procedure to expect us to do them now in a hurry. I think we ought not be asked to do it.
I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Order of Business is dealt with under Standing Order No. 19.
What is Standing Order No. 19? We have not got copies of Standing Orders. I understand they are in short supply.
Standing Order No. 19 says:
Every sitting of the Seanad shall be governed by the printed order of business which shall be prepared under the direction of An Cathaoirleach. Business shall be dealt with in order as printed unless the Seanad shall otherwise order.
That is what we want.
It has always been the practice here to declare the Order of business and allow comment upon that order. Indeed, it is generally agreed and I think Senator Ó Ciosáin and everybody will recognise that there has generally been co-operation on the matter. I suggest that there is agreement now but that it excludes consideration of three big technical Bills which we have no machinery to consider.
The nature of the programme with which we have been asked to deal at the end of the session has been discussed between Senators in the past ten days or so. I know, of course, that a large chunk of this programme, as I said yesterday, is in the nature of election literature and we are giving the Government all their election literature. The Defamation Bill, the Civil Liability Bill and the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Bill will, I hope, not become subjects for discussion in the election and the election will not be concerned in any way with them. This House has prided itself that when big technical Bills come in here, they get the kind of examination they frequently do not get in the other House. The fact of the matter is that there would be no trouble at all in keeping this House for another fortnight on these Bills. There is enough material in them to talk about until the cows come home.
As Senator Hayes has said, the custom and tradition in this House has been to give the Government, whatever Government are in office, what they reasonably require and certainly the suggestion that the first five Bills on the Order Paper should be dealt with completely before the recess and No. 7, if the Government feel it should be dealt with—although indeed it is a very odd Bill—is, I think, a very fair and reasonable approach to the absurd position that has arisen because the Government did not continue the tradition instituted by the inter-Party Government of originating Bills in this House. If that had been done, there would be no need for this congestion at the end of the session. We are now already in the first week in August and will go into the second. But if we are to sit here for the whole month of August, so be it.
I wonder if the Leader of the House is aware that the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Bill reached the hands of Senators only this morning? We are to be asked, 24 years after the enactment of the Constitution which provides for the establishment of courts, to give a Second Reading to a Bill which we have had in our hands for a few hours. We are now to be asked to do in 24 hours what the Government failed to do in 24 years. I think that it is most unreasonable.
I should also like to address a question, through the Chair, to the Leader of the House. Is he aware that in the Fourth Schedule of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Bill, there are 72 statutes which are being adapted for the purposes of the Bill, and that in the Fifth Schedule, there are another 31 statutes dealt with and then 20 statutes which are amended in whole or in part in another Schedule? Unless this Parliament is to become a laughing stock, or a machine through which Bills are passed in and out, how is anybody to have the opportunity of examining this Bill in detail? So much for that Bill.
The Civil Liability Bill is in the same position. We did not get it until this morning. How are we supposed to give it a Second Reading when we have not had the opportunity of studying, even in broad outline, what the Bill contains? The Leader of the House should consider another Standing Order, that is, the Standing Order which requires that Seanad Éireann should get three or four days notice of Bills before they are asked to consider them. That is a very important Standing Order also.
I must say I do not want to steamroll the Seanad or anything like that. What I want to do is dispose of the business we have before us. These Bills have been passed by Dáil Éireann and it would be wrong to leave them hanging in the air after Dáil Éireann has gone into recess for the summer holidays. Whether Dáil Éireann will or will not come back again after the summer holidays is not for me to say.
I do not think that it can be said we are rushing these Bills as quickly as some of the members opposite try to persuade us we are doing. It is true they have come to us from the Dáil, but at the same time, these Bills have been in our hands for longer than that. There is no doubt about that. There should have been time to read them for those members who are interested in them. Some members will be interested in one Bill and others will be specially interested in another Bill, and so on, and we all have a general interest in all the Bills. I think there is nothing wrong with presenting these Bills to the Seanad because, after all, we have not been burdened with so much work during the past six months and if we have to sit a week or two extra, there can be nothing wrong with that. We are prepared to sit next week and the week after.
And the week after.
And the week after, to finish the business.
Will the Dáil sit and wait for us?
Senator Ó Ciosáin says that these Bills have been with us for some time. When I got the Civil Liability Bill, I read it right through, but it has been amended since and requires complete re-reading. The same applies to the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Bill. It has been amended extensively in the Dáil and the fact that one has read it already does not avail anything at this stage. If the Government want to get these Bills, I see no reason why they should not get them and there is no objection to their getting them at the earliest possible date. I think the Seanad should adjourn consideration of these Bills until some time towards the middle of September. In the meantime, there would be ample time to consider them and have amendments drafted.
If the Government's time and Parliament's time had been properly arranged, and these Bills which are now before us had been introduced here, it would have saved a great deal of Parliamentary time and we would not be in the present position.
The Senator means that the Bills should have been introduced here? There is nothing wrong with that. We could do that in future.
There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents these Bills being discussed in November or December and dealt with in the Dáil, if they have to come back. It is quite wrong that enormous Bills of this sort should be presented here for the purpose of railroading the Seanad.
The matter is clearly one for the House.
I feel I should intervene——
Not when the Chair is speaking.
I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that there is no motion before the House.
Let the business go on.
I have given the Order of Business to the Seanad. Let us proceed with that and see how we get on in the course of the day. We can meet and discuss it further. There would be nothing wrong with that.
The business as ordered.
Provisionally.
There is no question of provision: the business is as ordered.
Subject to amendment.