Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 5 Jul 1923

Vol. 1 No. 31

THE SEANAD IN COMMITTEE. - REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON STANDING ORDERS—DEBATE RESUMED.

AN LEAS-CHATHAOIRLEACH

The Report of the Committee on the Standing Orders was taken at the meeting of the Seanad yesterday and its adoption was moved by Senator McPartlin, and seconded by Senator Farren, but as there was not a quorum of the Seanad present when I was about to put the motion, the debate had to be adjourned until to-day, and we now resume discussion on the Report. The motion is that the Report of the Committee on Standing Orders be adopted, with the following addition, which has been been moved by Senator McPartlin:—"in line 9 of paragraph 2 of Standing Order No. 70 to insert after the word "stage" the following:—"but save in the case of a certified Money Bill, not before the expiration of three clear days after the circulation of the Bill as passed by the Dáil."

I ought to say that the Report of the Standing Orders Committee was, in substance, adopted by the Seanad, but Standing Order No. 56 was referred back to the Committee to have some verbal alterations made. The Report now before the Seanad is the Report making the alterations that were suggested, and also suggesting some slight verbal alterations for the purpose of clarity in two other Orders.

It has been proposed that the report should be adopted with this amendment I think the effect of the amendment proposed by Senator McPartlin would be to make it impossible for the Cathaoirleach—unless a special motion to take it were passed—to put down any Bill, except a Money Bill, until three days after it had been sent out to the members of the Seanad in its final form as passed by the Dáil.

Sir T. ESMONDE

What you tell us is very interesting. How would it be if we referred the matter back to the Standing Orders Committee, the same as the other proposals which have been referred back to them, to see whether they could not meet this difficulty? I think that the Senator's amendment is a good one. It would be a great advantage to us by and by, when we get settled down, and when legislation is going on in the normal fashion, if we could have any Bill we propose to amend at least three days before. It would also be possible to suspend the Standing Orders if the Chairman or Deputy Chairman wishes us to do so. No doubt the Seanad would always agree to that for reasons shown. I think, on the general principles it is only right that we should know what we are supposed to amend. Complaints have been made heretofore that we have had very short notice in connection with Bills we were to discuss, and there was much weight in that objection which, of course, we waived in the circumstances of the country. I am not sure that it would not be well to have it upon record in our Standing Orders that, at all events, we should have three clear days for the investigation of a legislative proposal after it has been circulated. If there is any difficulty about the matter we might refer it back to the Standing Orders Committee, otherwise I would very much like to support Senator McPartlin and get the amendment now. If you thought there would be any advantage in referring it back to the Committee I would support that view.

AN LEAS-CHATHAOIRLEACH

That is not for me to say. If it is the unanimous view of the Seanad, then referring it back would mean a delay in getting properly indexed copies of the Standing Orders circulated to Senators which the Clerk is very anxious to do. On the other hand, if there is any difference of opinion it probably would be wise to refer it to the Committee.

Sir T. ESMONDE

I beg to move that the proposed amendment be referred back to the Standing Orders Committee for consideration.

Mr. GUINNESS

I beg to second.

AN LEAS-CHATHAOIRLEACH

I take it that the amendment would mean that the Report be referred back to the Standing Orders Committee for the re-consideration of the proposed amendment by Senator McPartlin. Would Senator McPartlin be inclined to accept that amendment?

Mr. McPARTLIN

I am not very keen on the matter, but you have said it would mean delay in the printing of the Standing Orders. We have this difficulty at the present time. Yesterday we met here to consider the Civic Guard (Acquisition of Premises) Bill, and we only got a copy of the Bill by the morning's post. Most of the Senators had not even read it and it was while reading it that they suggested amendments. That is the reason I say that we should have time to read these Bills and see what they are about. If you think the delay in the printing of the Standing Orders does not matter I am prepared to agree.

Sir T. ESMONDE

There is no strong feeling one way or the other. We would like to have the amendment passed, but we want to suit the convenience of the Committee.

Mr. JAMESON

I suppose what Senator Sir Thomas Esmonde wants is to get the opinion of the Committee on the amendment for the information of the Seanad. If the Committee agrees with Senator McPartlin then we know that it is all right, but if there happens to be a difference of opinion we will hear what the Committee have to say. I imagine that as this affects the Standing Orders it would be wiser to have it threshed out before debating it here. From what Senator Sir Thomas Esmonde says it looks as if he were in favour of Senator McPartlin's proposal.

Mr. McPARTLIN

I have no desire to force the hands of the Committee. I believe they have done good work and I will withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

AN LEAS-CHATHAOIRLEACH

I take it that Senator Sir Thomas Esmonde will move as a definite motion that the Report be referred back to the Committee for consideration of the following proposed amendment:—Amendment to Standing Order 70—In line 9 of paragraph 2, after the word "stage" to insert the following: "but save in the case of a certified Money Bill, not before the expiration of three clear days after the circulation of the Bill as passed by the Dáil."

Sir THOMAS ESMONDE

And I would like to add "with authority to the Committee to incorporate it in the Standing Orders if they so approve."

Mr. JAMESON

You are taking it for granted that you have the vote of the Seanad behind you. Remember that you have not got that as we have not debated this matter yet. We are not going to debate the Senator's amendment until we hear the Committee's opinion. You would place the whole matter in the hands of the Committee while Senators might like to debate it.

Sir THOMAS ESMONDE

I imagine the Report will come back to the Seanad in any case.

AN LEAS-CHATHAOIRLEACH

If that is the desire of Senator Sir Thomas Esmonde I think the amendment he has moved would be scarcely correct. If such power were given to the Committee the Report would not come back. I take it that the motion is "that the Report be referred back to the Committee for consideration of the proposed amendment."

Motion put and agreed to.

Mr. KENNY

I wish to make a suggestion as the Standing Orders are being referred back to the Committee.

AN LEAS-CHATHAOIRLEACH

The Standing Orders are not properly before the Seanad as we have just carried an amendment referring the Report back for the consideration of a proposed new amendment. Although it would not be in order, if the Senator wishes, and in order to save time, to move another amendment he might do so now. The Senator is a member of the Committee so that it is hardly necessary for him to do so.

Mr. KENNY

I venture to suggest a change in connection with Clause 3 in which provision is made in case the Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach are not able to attend, to have a reserve of two Senators. A contingency may arise, and while I do not think it probable, it is possible. If the Cathaoirleach is absent and the Leas-Chathaoirleach finds at the last moment that he cannot attend, and if the reserve Senator with whom he makes an arrangement to act meets with an accident coming to the Seanad, then the Seanad might find itself without a Chairman. That would be a very awkward crux. I would suggest that we add after the second paragraph "that in the absence of both selected Senators, the Seanad may appoint one of their number to act as Chairman pro tem.” I should like to see the Standing Orders in their complete form in the form of a little book with headings or marginal notes for the purpose of easy reference. That might also be referred to the Committee for consideration.

Mr. GUINNESS

I should like to support the suggestion.

AN LEAS-CHATHAOIRLEACH

I should like to say that the first suggestion has already been . The Standing Orders provide that without notice or discussion the Seanad may appoint a Chairman. The other point has also been decided, and the only reason that the Standing Orders in booklet form are not ready is that the Standing Orders have not been completed. We were waiting until they were completed. The Clerk of the Seanad has an index of the Standing Orders prepared.

Mr. GUINNESS

I imagine that after the report you will be able to publish the Standing Orders in booklet form.

AN LEAS-CHATHAOIRLEACH

I am not foolish enough to prophesy what the Seanad might do.

Mr. GUINNESS

I move the adjournment of the Seanad.

Mr. JAMESON

I second the motion

Question put and agreed to.

DOWAGER COUNTESS of DESART

Until what date?

AN LEAS-CHATHAOIRLEACH

In the ordinary way the Seanad would meet next Wednesday unless the Cathaoirleach in his discretion decides that the business would not warrant a meeting.

The Seanad adjourned at 4.20 p.m.