Seanad Éireann · 2021-11-04
Party shown is the one held on 2021-11-04, frozen at parse time — not the speaker's party today.
I move: That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, or the Order of the Seanad of 21st September, 2021, initiation of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Bill 2021 may proceed pursuant to Standing Order 145, notwithstanding that pre-legislative consideration of the Bill pursuant to Standing Order 143 has not been waived.” Is the motion agreed? It is important that we act before 30 November but I am not sure technically if it is necessary in the Seanad because we do not normally have the practice of pre-legislative scrutiny in terms of legislation coming to the Seanad.
We changed the procedure at the Committee on Parliamentary Privileges and Oversight meeting during the year. We may revisit that at a Committee on Parliamentary Privileges and Oversight meeting.
Built by scoring every sentence in the debate on how distinctive its language is, then quoting the highest-scoring ones back word for word and in the order spoken. Nothing is paraphrased or invented — if a sentence appears here, it was said in the chamber. Drawn from 309 words across 14 contributions by 3 speakers.
How often each word appears across the whole debate, ranked by how distinctive it is to this debate rather than common to all parliamentary language.
All 14 contributions, start to finish, in the order they were made. The one you came here for is highlighted.
I move:
That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, or the Order of the Seanad of 21st September, 2021, initiation of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Bill 2021 may proceed pursuant to Standing Order 145, notwithstanding that pre-legislative consideration of the Bill pursuant to Standing Order 143 has not been waived.”
Is the motion agreed?
I do not object to the speedy moving of the Land and Conveyancing Reform Bill as I have called for the legislation for a year. It is important that we act before 30 November but I am not sure technically if it is necessary in the Seanad because we do not normally have the practice of pre-legislative scrutiny in terms of legislation coming to the Seanad. I do not want us to set a precedent.
There is no issue. To be helpful to the Senator, it is a new procedure that has been introduced since September.
Yes.
It is just procedural and normally it would not be the case.
Senator Higgins must not have been at the meeting. I was not at the meeting either. We changed the procedure at the Committee on Parliamentary Privileges and Oversight meeting during the year.
Was that to require pre-legislative scrutiny of legislation initiated in the Seanad?
Yes.
We may revisit that at a Committee on Parliamentary Privileges and Oversight meeting.
This is a very good humoured exchanged but I wish to interrupt and say that it was approved by the House on 21 September.
We may need to address the matter at the Committee on Parliamentary Privileges and Oversight level because I am concerned that, even in the Dáil, normally it comes in after Second Stage rather than before Second Stage of legislation.
The Senator is very welcome to raise the matter at the Committee on Parliamentary Privileges and Oversight level.
We may need to revisit this.