I do not under stand what you mean by the word "now."
PUBLIC BUSINESS. - CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT No. 5) BILL, 1926—MOTION BY SENATOR DOUGLAS.
The following Motion stood in the name of Senator Douglas:—
"That the Select Committee appointed to consider the Constitution (Amendment No. 5) Bill, 1926, be discharged and that the Constitution (Amendment No. 5) Bill, 1926, be now considered in Committee of the Whole House."
CATHAOIRLEACH
I meant to go on with the Committee Stage to-day.
CATHAOIRLEACH
We could not do that, because that would not give an opportunity of putting down amendments.
I am satisfied if the Seanad would allow me to substitute this day week. There seems to be an impression in the Dáil that we held up this Bill, whereas, as far as I can see, we did nothing of the sort; we simply postponed further consideration, the same as we have done in the Patents Bill, and the same, as I understand, we are to do again in the case of the Patents Bill. It seems to me what is required is to go on with the Bill at the stage at which it was left. Would it not be better to put down this day week?
CATHAOIRLEACH
I think I would move the whole of your Motion, but leave out the word "now."
Very well. I move:—
"That the Select Committee appointed to consider the Constitution (Amendment No. 5) Bill, 1926, be discharged, and that the Constitution (Amendment No. 5) Bill, 1926, be considered in Committee of the Whole House."
I think I ought again to point out the position of this Bill. It was referred to a Select Committee of this House with the intention that it be taken through Committee, amended or otherwise, and sent back. The Committee, instead of taking section by section, sent it back with the recommendation that a Message be sent to the Dáil suggesting a Joint Committee and that in the meantime the Bill be not proceeded with. When the Committee met there were two distinct points of view; one was that it was not desirable to introduce other matter into this Bill. That was the point of view that I personally held. Another point of view was that this was a suitable opportunity to provide that members of the Senate should be eligible to be Executive Ministers, if the Executive consist of twelve, or eligible under any circumstances. You ruled that it was quite in order so to amend this Bill if the Committee wished to do it, and after considerable discussion I think it was moved in Committee that a report be sent to this House, as it was in effect sent and the intention was to avoid the possible amending of this Bill by the Seanad, because I believe, and a number of members of the Committee share the view, that it would be a great pity to have two or three different matters in the same Constitution Amendment Bill.
There is, undoubtedly, in this House, a feeling that, sooner or later, particularly if the number of the Executive be raised to twelve, there should be an amendment of the Constitution so that Senators would be eligible if the Dáil wished to choose them. That is not a very drastic proposal. Whether they should be eligible for the Executive Council if the membership is only five, or seven, or some such small number as that, is a somewhat different matter. For my part I do not think they should. I think if it is a small Executive Council, with other members outside, that small number should be entirely confined to the Dáil which has the control of them. But if the number is increased, and you have twelve on the Executive Council, I certainly think the Dáil should be in a position to choose Senators if it thought fit or considered it expedient to do so.
I do not believe, however, that is strictly relevant to this Bill. It is desirable that it should be so amended, but it is clear that as the Dáil is unwilling to agree to a conference that we must go on with this Bill and take it in Committee Stage. Senators who wish to do so can move amendments at that stage, but we should go on with the Bill and not make it a matter of bargain—take it in the ordinary course as a Constitution Amendment Bill. I do not think the question of the dignity of the House is affected at all. I think it is a matter of expediency, and the best way to amend our Constitution. I do not think it should be suggested that there is anything infra dig in a Seanad with no Ministers in it. Neither House of the United States has any Minister, and I think these suggestions are irrelevant. I think it is desirable that we should go on with this Bill, and I suggest we proceed with it next week.
I second the motion proposed by Senator Douglas. In doing so I think it right to say that, in my view, the Minister's presentation of the case in the Dáil was not such as this Seanad might have expected from him judging by the attitude he took up in the Committee. I think the Minister largely prejudiced the case in the eyes of the Dáil by his method of stating it. I do not say he did so purposely; he may have done so unwittingly, but that was the impression produced to my mind after reading the official reports of the proceedings in the Dáil. One argument the Minister used, and I presume it had its effect and weight, was that it never was contemplated in the framing of this particular article of the Constitution, setting up a Seanad and defining Senators' duties and qualifications, that they should aspire to or reach the Executive office.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not think it would be convenient, or that this is the time to go into this question now, either as to what was going to be done to this Bill or what was said anywhere else about it. The only thing before us now is to take the stay off our proceedings and to start again. All these considerations will then be properly urged when we come to deal with the Bill in Committee. At present they have no relevancy. The only matter before us now is will we agree to go on with the Bill instead of having it hung up? That is the only matter before the House.
Very well, I shall content myself with seconding the motion.
Question put and agreed to.