I move:—
That on the passing of the Health Bill by Dáil Éireann, the stated period in respect of that Bill shall, in pursuance of Article 23 1 2º of the Constitution be 120 days;
That a message be sent to Dáil Éireann requesting their agreement to the period mentioned.
As this is a matter entirely concerning the Seanad, it might very well be taken without being concluded, and, if a particular Minister desires to speak on it, we could take it again next week. The motion on its face seeks an increase of 30 days in the period allowed to the Seanad for consideration of the Health Bill, but, although it mentions the Health Bill, I should like to explain that the intention of the motion is general and is not directed particularly to the Health Bill or towards a particular Government. What I desire to do by way of the motion is to assert a principle, to ask the House to agree, and to apply it this year to the Health Bill, and, in subsequent years to any Bill of a similar character, that is to say, any Bill of an important character.
As Senators know, the period allowed to the Seanad for the consideration of Bills is 90 days from the time the Bill is sent from the Dáil. If a Bill of any importance is passed at this time of the year, at the very end of July, and sent to the Seanad, the 90 days begin to run immediately. There must be some conventions and some arrangements even for people who have to legislate or for people who have to work in the service of the Oireachtas and it is generally assumed, as I think it should be, that the months of August and September are two months when normally the Houses would not be sitting. The result, therefore, is that if an important Bill —the Army Pensions Bill we have just dealt with, which is a Money Bill and which meets with general agreement, does not fall within the category of the Bills I am now referring to—an important Bill like the Health Bill or another Bill which I shall use for my purposes, the Adoption Bill, is passed on the 30th July and sent to the Seanad on that date, the House, in effect, has only 30 days to consider it instead of 90. The motion asks that in that kind of case the Dáil and Seanad should agree between themselves, as they are entitled to do under the terms of Article 23, Section 1, paragraph 2, which reads:—
"The stated period is a period of 90 days commencing on the day on which the Bill is first sent by Dáil Éireann to Seanad Éireann or any longer period agreed upon in respect of the Bill by both Houses of the Oireachtas."
I am suggesting that in that kind of case the period should be extended to 120 days. This, in effect, gives the House two months in the autumn to consider it. The arguments in favour of that should be considered calmly and without reference to the merits of a particular Bill. Under our Constitution the Government of the day is assured of a majority in this House. The power of the House is to hold up a Bill for 90 days. Therefore, no matter what character the Opposition may have politically, it would be very foolish and undesirable, even if it were possible, to defeat a Bill on Second Stage.
That is to say, Second Stages are stages during which a Bill is discussed and a particular line of thought and a particular line of amendment in regard to the Bill is set out. Amendments cannot be inserted in a Bill at all unless it has received a Second Reading in this House. It also means—and I think this has certainly been the practice under different Governments —that amendments here must be urged in a persuasive manner and set forth objectively.
You cannot really work obstruction in this House—I am saying that quite without prejudice—for two reasons. First, if you put amendments in that particular way they will not pass because an Opposition in this House is always confronted with a substantial majority. Secondly, if you take steps to obstruct any particular Bill in this House you are not wasting the Government's time but your own. You are wasting the 90 days which the Seanad has at its disposal to pass a Bill. It seems to me that although the Constitution, the nature of election and the general proceedings in regard to this House do tend to make this House resemble the Dáil, it is desirable that the Seanad should give a Bill a different kind of consideration from what it gets in the Dáil. In spite of the Constitution, we have often succeeded in doing that since 1938.
Curiously enough, amendments have been accepted here by Ministers who steadfastly refused to accept them in the Dáil. Similarly, Government amendments have been put down on several occasions to remedy the flaws in a Bill which were not discovered when the Dáil was discussing the Bill. One of the best examples of getting a Bill at the last minute and of being hampered from the point of view of time is that offered by the Adoption Bill. Amendments were put forward here to the Adoption Bill and agreed to by the Minister. There had been a delay in putting forward the amendments. This delay was occasioned not by neglect on the part of Senators or on the part of the present Minister for Justice but because the agreement of certain religious bodies between themselves had to be awaited. The Minister was in favour of the amendments, but when they were inserted in the Bill the point was made that the period at the disposal of the Seanad had elapsed and that, therefore, they could not be made law. There is a case about which there was no fundamental difference at all where the period might have been extended.
As between the Seanad and Dáil, there should be the maximum of courtesy and good feeling. One of the things we should never do is to refer to members of the Dáil by name or to what they said in the Dáil. It is inevitable in the case of a Minister, but he is present in the Seanad in person when making his case. The 90-day period is mentioned in the Constitution. This motion does not profess to be an amendment of the Constitution, but I submit we are entitled to urge, and I think the House should consider that the Constitution should be interpreted as to allow in reality a period of 90 sitting days when the House is sitting normally. When the Dáil deals with a Bill at this time of year and sends it to the Seanad we really have not 90 days to consider it at all. If we get a Bill now from the Dáil—the Health Bill, for example; I am taking the Health Bill as an example without discussing its merits—the period will run out at the end of October, but owing to the necessity of passing the Bill some days before signature we really would want to get it finished by the 25th October. Even then we would have only a little more than three weeks to consider it.
I should like to put this point to the House. This motion does not indicate reluctance to sit in the Seanad, to have the Seanad meet or to do the work the Seanad ought to do. This motion is an appeal to allow the Seanad to consider Bills properly and thoroughly and to do its work in a helpful manner to Governments and Ministers. We could, if we liked, do all the stages of the Health Bill next week but I take it that every member, whatever his views may be, would consider that would be a disgraceful proceeding on our part. It would stultify us and make us an object of contempt to everybody, including ourselves. I do not think anybody would advocate that.
I put down the motion in a completely non-Party spirit and from the point of view of the House itself and the performance of its business, and also in an endeavour to establish a practice to be agreed upon by the Government and by the House that, when a Bill of importance is passed at the end of July, the period of consideration by the Seanad should be extended.
There is another method of doing this. In the case of the Health Bill or other Bills the Minister could postpone the Fifth Stage in the Dáil until the autumn but I am sufficiently experienced to know that no Minister would agree with that because his chances, whether he has a large or small majority, of getting the Fifth Stage passed at the very end of July with a comparative short debate are much better than would be his chances in October. I am advocating a much simpler method. Many Ministers have been facilitated here and Ministers have treated this House fairly so far.
I should like to appeal to the House for consideration of this matter as one which concerns the Seanad as a whole. I think we should be jealous of the rights of the Seanad. We should endeavour to do the work we have to do in the best possible manner. Nobody could argue that when we get a Bill at the end of July we could consider it adequately. Even if we were to give the Health Bill a Second Reading next week we should still find ourselves in the autumn obliged to pass all the stages in a few weeks. That is bad for ourselves, bad for legislation and ultimately a scheme that is not for the benefit of Ministers or of the law being passed.
I would like, therefore, to get consideration of members of the House for the motion on that basis. If we sent a message to the other House in these terms, the other House would probably agree—although I know that, in the circumstances, if the Government does not agree the other House is not likely to agree. If the case is put up to the Government and if the Minister considers it, there will be very little difficulty in arriving at an arrangement which would make for the smoother passage of legislation, for better legislation and for better work by Seanad Éireann.
