With regard to the motions by Senator Douglas and Senator O'Farrell respecting amendments to the Standing Orders, I suggest that instead of discussing them now they should be referred to the Committee on Procedure for report. They both deal with matters in the Standing Orders that I think it is very desirable should be dealt with, but in the form in which they stand we could not possibly accept or pass them, and I will tell you why. There is a provision in the Constitution that every matter in either House must be determined by a majority, and that in the event of an equality of votes the presiding officer is to have a casting vote. That manifestly assumes that every matter is to be decided by a bare majority. Consequently any proposition to alter the majority to two-fifths, three-fifths or two-thirds would seem to be a breach of the Constitution. The first portion of Senator Douglas's proposal would not be out of order, but where it goes on to say that if the Chairman is satisfied that it is a case of urgent necessity he may, with the assent of 30 members, do so and so, it is different. Very often there would not be thirty members in the House, and in such a case it would not be a question of the vote of any majority at all, and it would be almost impossible to pass it, because we have only sixty members, and if it were to be a bare majority you never could pass anything in a full House except with the casting vote of the Chairman. So that the matter is clearly one that requires consideration. Then, coming to Senator O'Farrell's motion, the difficulty is this, that while the general principle is, I think, quite sound, it omits to consider special urgent cases. First of all it omits altogether the case of Senators. Senators should not be deprived of the right of communicating certain facts to the House through the Chairman. For example, take Senator Dowdall's absence to-day. If this Standing Order were in operation I could not have communicated his message. I do not think it is intended by the Senator to apply this to members of the House, but in its present form it would so apply.
PUBLIC BUSINESS. - AMENDMENT TO STANDING ORDERS.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Is it customary in any Parliament to read communications from members of the House or to convey personal messages?
CATHAOIRLEACH
I think I have heard—I am not sure, because memory is such a treacherous thing—in the House of Commons explanations where there were disorderly scenes or members suspended. I think I have heard read from the Chair either apologies or explanations from members of the House. I do not want to be dogmatic on the subject. That is a matter, amongst others, that the Committee will look into. I think in some form it is desirable and I would welcome it. I think it would be desirable with regard to both these two Standing Orders that they should be referred to the Procedure Committee for Report. Do you see any objection?
No, but I suggest that the Committee should also consider that two of our Standing Orders are repugnant to the Constitution. Article 25 reads:—"Sittings of each House of the Oireachtas shall be public. In cases of special emergency either House may hold a private sitting with the assent of two-thirds of the members present." Our Standing Order 44 provides that we can exclude the Press with the assent of a bare majority. Article 22 of the Constitution says:—"All matters in each House shall, save as otherwise provided by this Constitution, be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present other than the Chairman or presiding member," whilst our Standing Order 76 says:—"Should a Senator wish to suspend a Bill initiated in the Dáil he may, upon the motion for the Second Stage of the Bill, or upon the motion for the Fifth Stage, move "That the Bill do come up for consideration in ... time," setting out any space of time not exceeding two hundred and fifty days from the date on which the Bill was first sent to the Seanad. The second part of the Standing Order reads:—"Should a Bill be suspended in this way it may be revived for consideration before the expiration of the time of suspension on a motion of which seven clear days' notice has been given, with the consent of two-thirds of the Senators present and voting."
CATHAOIRLEACH
Both those matters have been present to my mind. In fact, my attention was called to them some two weeks ago by our Clerk. However, we have had no meeting of the Committee in the interval. When the Committee meets it will have to consider not only the matters on the Agenda but a number of other matters. However, the immediate question is whether you think it more desirable to refer these two proposed new Standing Orders for Report to the Committee on Procedure.
I am agreeable.
My reason for putting down the amendment was that there might be some discussion. I intended to suggest that it should be referred to the Committee on Procedure but it seems to me that where Senators feel that there should be a change in the Standing Orders, particularly those Senators who are not members of the Committee on Procedure, it is proper and desirable to put down a proposal. I agree that they should go before the Committee, but I think in a matter which involves considerable amendment, such as the one I have moved, and, to a considerable extent, that proposed by Senator O'Farrell, it is well that the Committee should have some idea as to the wishes of the House before they consider it. The details and the working out of it should be considered by the House. The reason I put it down is because I think some little time might be spent upon the matter by the House so that the Committee could frame a Standing Order to meet the wishes of the House.
With reference to your point as to its being constitutional or not, I based my motion on Standing Order 29, which provides that motions can only be rescinded with the written assent of so many members, but I was under the impression—I bow to your ruling on the matter—that there was nothing to prevent the assent being required of so many members before it was actually accepted by the Chairman. I agree that when the House-meets a bare majority must decide the issue, but I put this forward to be considered by the Committee. I did not think there was anything in the Constitution to require the written assent of so many members of the House before a motion is considered.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I thought it meant this—I may have taken it up wrong—that before I could allow a motion to suspend Standing Orders to be moved without notice I should ask whether the motion had the support of twenty Senators. I think that would be evading the Constitution.
With regard to that I accept that view and the word "written" can be introduced to meet the point, I mention it, not for the sake of arguing it, but that the Committee might consider that as a way of meeting it. I feel there should be a proper and regular method of suspending the Standing Orders with notice so that every Senator will know that it is proposed to put a Bill through so many stages on a day and that it should be as difficult as is reasonably possible to suspend Standing Orders without notice. That is really my argument in a nutshell. On one occasion recently we had a Bill which no Senators other than those actually present, and there were only twenty or less present, knew was going to be put through all its stages. Not a single Senator received formal notice that it was coming. My point is that it is not desirable to suspend Standing Orders, but if it is necessary there should be notice given, and if there is not notice the suspension of Standing Orders should be made exceedingly difficult.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Is it the wish of the House that the two motions on the Order Paper, Nos. 12 and 13, should be referred to the Committee on Procedure for consideration and report?
I move accordingly.
I second.