We do not want to make this a matter of contention, but we are certainly entitled to be treated with some courtesy. The idea of flinging this Bill at the House, as though Deputies were to be like so many letterboxes with apertures down which this measure was going to be shoved by the Attorney-General, is not good enough. There has not been such a mass of legislation before the House that, when a Bill of this sort comes and the House is asked to give general authority—that is what the general resolution means—to enact legislation which may involve the State in expenditure and may, of course, ultimately make the taxpayer subject to taxation, we could not be treated with some greater courtesy than has been extended to us here this evening.
Again I am entitled, in view of the line which the Attorney-General has taken, to go through this Bill section by section and to ask the Attorney-General, who is in charge of the Bill, to tell the House whether in respect of any one of them expenditure may be incurred. I do not want to be difficult in a matter of this sort but I certainly will not permit the House to be treated as though it was a mere rubber stamp. I want to ensure that Deputies, when they ask for information from those who are responsible to the House for the conduct of its business, they will be given that information.
It is not good enough to come in here and, from a superabundance of caution, ask the House to vote a Money Resolution if, in fact, a Money Resolution is not necessary. The procedure which is laid down in this House has been very carefully considered. There is the requirement that before any Bill which may involve the expenditure of public money passes to Committee Stage a Money Resolution will be put before the House, not merely put before the House in a formal manner in which it has been done here but put before the House in detail. On numerous occasions I remember Money Resolutions being debated at great length. I do not propose to follow that example, but I do propose to insist, if I can find sufficient support in the House to do so, that the business of the House will not be treated in the perfunctory sort of way of which we have an example here.
I notice that Part IV of the Bill relates to arbitration. Is it anticipated that any public liability will be incurred in relation to these arbitration proposals? Perhaps the Attorney-General could answer that point?