It is proposed to take Nos. 1 and 2 on the Order Paper.
Order of Business.
On the Order of Business, may I ask Senator Ó Maoláin a question regarding No. 6? The time limit is approaching fairly rapidly and it seems to me that, although it is a motion in the names of Senators John Kelly and Alexis FitzGerald, it is a statutory matter and I suggest that Government time be allowed either this week or next week for its discussion. This is the motion on the coinage regulations.
As the Senator is aware, the Minister dealing with this matter is unfortunately not available at the moment. I have been trying to arrange it for some time but I cannot do anything about it at the moment. However, I shall look into the matter this evening and see if there is anything I can do to facilitate the Senator.
On the Order of Business, I should like to raise the matter of motions in general. We have had circulated to us by you, Sir, a document emanating from the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and in its opening paragraph it is stated:
At its meeting held on 28th January, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges decided that motions tabled by Senators should be dealt with as follows:—
It then lays out certain conditions. I should like to draw your attention to Article 63 of our Standing Orders on page 45 which deals with the powers of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The first sentence of paragraph 63 on page 45 states:
This Committee may consider matters of procedure generally and may recommend any additions or amendments to these Standing Orders which may be deemed necessary.
It is my submission that it is the function of this Committee to recommend but not to decide and, therefore, it is for this House to decide whether to accept the recommendations of the Committee. I should like to ask whether it is being proposed now, or will be proposed later, that we accept, or accept with amendment, those recommendations of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I think it would be a mistake procedurally for this House to accept them as decisions of that Committee.
I understand that it is in accordance with numerous precedents in the past for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to recommend ad hoc changes of this kind not on a permanent basis but on a tentative basis to see how they work out. It is not proposed by the Committee to amend Standing Orders; as the Senator has pointed out, they have not the power. This is an experimental arrangement and the intention of the Committee was that it should be tried for a while to see how it worked out. If the Senator has any objection—and, of course, the Committee are representative of the Seanad as a whole —it is open to him to put down a motion, but I think that on this matter the Committee have interpreted the general view of the House that the former situation was unsatisfactory and that it is worthwhile making this new experimental arrangement.
The Senator's point was that the Committee have decided to recommend, not that they have made a decision binding on the House.
This is a matter for the House. It is open to the House to reject the proposition of the Committee. Is the Senator wishing to oppose this arrangement?
It must come before the House before I can oppose it. It has just been circulated but it has not in any procedural sense come before the House. It seems to me that it should at least come before the House by way of formal resolution. I feel the recommendations are good in general but there are points which could be amended. It is not enough to say "We have circulated a decision of the Committee", particularly when it is of an experimental nature, which is not made apparent in the circular. I do not feel quite happy about the way in which this has come before the House.
As I have said, this is a matter for the House. If the House felt this should be dealt with by way of resolution, there would be no difficulty about it.
It was by wish of the House that this decision was come to.
That is right.
And the decision to circulate——
It was mentioned on 15th January last in reply to Senator Sheehy Skeffington, that this matter was to be considered by the Committee. It is a matter for the House to decide by resolution, should it so wish.
I think it was on the last day, in answer to Senator Bourke, that we were told it would be circulated. Merely to say that the Committee have reached a decision which will be circulated is not, I feel, the proper way to deal with it. I should therefore like to request—I cannot really suggest referring this back to the Committee since it has not been formally proposed to us—the Committee to do two things: to make recommendations for us rather than to tell us of decisions, and to indicate in their document that it is of an experimental nature.
May I point out again to Senator Sheehy Skeffington that the number of motions which appeared in the Clár in the previous Seanad, and the situation which obtained as a consequence of debates which we had or might have had, made the whole business chaotic and made it impossible for us to deal with many of those resolutions. It was on my initiative that the Committee considered this matter and it was agreed by all parties, by Fine Gael, the party of this side, the Labour representatives and the Independent representative, that this would be worth trying experimentally as a possible solution and that after we had tried it out if it did not work or was capable of improvement we should sit down and do something about it. If Senator Sheehy Skeffington, who was the foremost champion in complaining that this motion or that was not taken, would only recall that this is an effort to ensure that motions will be taken and dealt with in a reasonable time, he would let us get on with the job of trying it out.
This is a good effort taken in the wrong way. The Leader of the House said that all parties agreed. He means outside the House. I think he should seek agreement inside the House, even if only formally. Although I realise that the aim and the general framework are good, if the House is to be guided by this circular, it must be before the House, not just before the Committee.
In order to bring some finality to this matter, would the Leader of the House be willing to put down a resolution on the same terms as the recommendations of the Committee?
Certainly.
With mention of the fact that it is experimental.
The Senator cannot have it both ways. If he put me to the trouble of putting down a resolution, I had better put down something of benefit.
It is a matter for the House, if it wishes, to change the procedure at any time. Therefore, there is no need to insert the word "experimental". In order to put an end to this matter I am suggesting to the Leader of the House that he put down a resolution in the terms of the recommendation of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and that this matter can be debated further in the House when the Senator will be able to speak on it if he so wishes.