A point raised here on the last occasion that this Bill was before us was not met satisfactorily by the President. It was with reference to the time. I looked up the Article of the Constitution dealing with it since, and I do not see how anybody could conclude definitely, from the Article of the Constitution, that the Committee which would be set up to give a declaration whether or not a Bill was a Money Bill could not continue to sit indefinitely or for such a long period as would seriously hamper and obstruct the Dáil or the Executive of the day in respect to a Bill held to be a Money Bill. I did not get it directly from the President, but I made some inquiries to find out what was at the back of his mind in respect to the case in regard to which his explanation here was so unsatisfactory, to find what theory he was working on when he said that if the Bill did not come back in twenty-one days it would automatically be sent forward for signature and become law.
Money Resolution—Industrial and Commercial Property (Protection) (Amendment) Bill, 1929. - Constitution (Amendment No. 12) Bill, 1928—Committee.
Yes.
That would be all right if the question was finished with as to whether or not it was a Money Bill. But surely the matter would be sub judice until the Committee had definitely decided and reported it was a Money Bill; I do not know whether it would be possible to have an injunction, for example, to prevent the Executive sending it on for signature after twenty-one days until this Committee had reported.
It seems to me that the President is simply depending on probabilities and so on instead of making it perfectly definite, as he can by a slight alteration, that the report of the Committee should come back within a specified period. I have no objection to the minor changes which have been suggested here, to make it possible to give facilities to the Senators to meet and consider the matter, but I certainly think it very wrong of us to allow a Bill pass out of our hands which may lead to considerable trouble afterwards and hamper the Executive when, by careful drafting and consideration of that point, it could be made perfectly definite. I think the theory on which the President is working at present is that the certificate of the Ceann Comhairle goes unless it is reversed.
That is it.
As I said, I have been looking through the Articles of the Constitution to see if that would follow definitely from those Articles; in other words, that the certificate of the Ceann Comhairle held unless it was reversed. It seems to me the Articles indicate quite a different mode of procedure and that the matter is in suspense from the time the Committee is set up. Once the Committee is set up, the question of whether it is or is not a Money Bill is in abeyance. Therefore, the twenty-one days do not follow, and therefore the certificate of the Ceann Comhairle is abrogated the moment this Committee is set up unless afterwards it confirms the judgment of the Ceann Comhairle. I have not been convinced by what the President said, nor have I been convinced from another source from which I inquired that the President's interpretation is right, and I think the House ought not to let it go until that matter is cleared up definitely.
Of course, the question as to whether or not a Bill is a Money Bill is not one which affects, or is likely to affect, quite a number of clauses. It is more than possible, in fact it is quite probable, that the only point in dispute will be perhaps a single line or a single paragraph of a Money Bill. It is most unlikely, and it is most improbable that there will be quite a number of points in dispute in that connection. It is, therefore, a question which will fall to be easily resolved by a Committee consisting of three members of the Dáil, three members of the Seanad, with a Judge of the Supreme Court. The question to be settled there is one which should not call for a day's consideration at all. We approach the consideration of the trouble Deputy de Valera has suggested, with this in mind, that there is a difficulty there to be resolved and that they might take a longer period than the 21 days. Apart from other considerations altogether, it is exceedingly unlikely that such scant courtesy would be shown to the principal institutions in the country, particularly by those persons who are members of the two institutions, and again particularly in view of the fact that the highest judicial person of the country would also be a member. So I think that of itself disposes of the question of unnecessary delay.
Now, as to the trouble of resolving the question, I think that is unlikely. The Deputy had, I presume, before him a case in which a doubt might arise as to whether or not a Bill was a Money Bill. He has had an example of the kind before him in considering the question. As I said, I think it is most unlikely that more than one single objection would lie in respect of any measure. It retains its character, as I said, of a Money Bill until the contrary is proved. I will undertake to have that particular point examined in more detail before the Report Stage, but at present I must say I think it is all right.
I must say the attitude of the President is most unsatisfactory. It is all "he thinks." His argument, in one case, is that he thinks it would take a long time; he thinks it unfair to put any limit.
The Deputy misunderstands me absolutely in respect to that. I said, number one, if there is an objection to a Bill being called a Money Bill that objection will be in respect of a very short clause. Number two, in consequence of that the matter to be resolved is a matter that can be resolved quickly. Number three, the persons to resolve it are six out of seven members of the two institutions in question.
Apparently, I misunderstood the trend of part of the argument. I clearly understood the part of it that said it was going to be a simple matter. I could not understand why he could not see his way to introduce a limit to the time period. The other part of his argument was that we would not like to rush them in determining the matter and therefore time may be necessary. Therefore, his argument now satisfies me at least that he should agree that it is possible to indicate a time limit here. Why not make it quite clear that the Committee shall report within 21 days or add some phrase to make it clear that the Committee cannot hold this up over a long period? You know very well when you have three members of the Seanad and three members of the Dáil that it is possible that the question at issue might be one on which the Houses as Houses might take sides. It is possible to conceive a case like that. Suppose they take sides in this matter and argue it at length, I can very easily see the prolonging of these disputes between them for a considerable period. Why should we be dealing with what is likely to happen and all the rest of it? It is a bad principle in legislation. It seems to me we should set down in black and white as definitely as we can what we want. There ought to be no difficulty for the President. The Executive Council ought first to satisfy themselves as to what is a reasonable time and then get the draftsman to insert the clause here. If 21 days is considered a reasonable time for the various considerations which the Committee have to go through, why not get 21 days inserted so as to be definite that the Committee must report back within 21 days?
Tá
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlan, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cooper, Bryan Ricco.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Mvles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Wolfe, George.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Níl
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Clancy, Patrick.
- Clery, Michael.
- Colbert, James.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killane, James Joseph.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Maguire, Ben.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.