The next business on the Order Paper is Senator Jameson's motion.
SEANAD RESUMES. - CERTIFICATES AS TO MONEYBILLS
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The motion that stands in my name is as follows:—
"That, in the case of a Bill held by the Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil to be a Money Bill, the Ceann Comhairle be requested to issue his Certificate to this effect not later than the conclusion of the Second Stage of the Bill in the Dáil; and also to direct that upon the day upon which such Bill has been passed a notice to this effect be sent to the Clerk of the Seanad, in order to enable an immediate message to be sent to members of the Seanad."
This motion is one that I am bringing forward on behalf of the Committee on Standing Orders. A few words of explanation will probably be of use to the Seanad in deciding what to do about it. This matter arose in making Standing Orders that dealt with the question of Money Bills. Looking at the Constitution we found that the limit of time given to the Seanad or to members in the Dáil to act was extremely short after they had received notice that a Bill had been declared a Money Bill. I think I might give a little bit of reminiscence as regards this part of the Constitution. Some of us met the late Mr. Griffith and Mr. O'Higgins in London and were going over the conditions of the proposed Constitution from the point of view of various undertakings which Mr. Griffith had given to us. I am glad to be able to take this opportunity of saying, as I was not able to be here the other day, that I had a good deal to say to Mr. Griffith in connection with negotiations which all the Senators know went on. I always found him an upright and honourable gentleman whose word was as good as his bond whenever he passed it and, I am glad to say, that those on whom the burden that killed him has fallen, have in all I have had to do with them in these matters, followed in his footsteps. In dealing with the question of Money Bills and the certificates that had to be given we found that in the British Parliament it was one of the most delicate and difficult questions that had to be dealt with and gave rise to more ill-feeling than almost any other question. We tried to see whether there was any way by which we might avoid that when we came to deal with the matter in the Oireachtas. It was decided that the single opinion of the Speaker of the Dáil might be disputed and not looked on, as it ought to be, as a final authority. I believe that in the British Parliament that has been the case and we were told if it had been possible to alter things so as to have a Committee of Privileges, to whom the dissenting members of the House of Commons or of the House of Lords could appeal, that it would have been a very good thing. So we decided that we would try and put into the Constitution — I am not talking of any so-called Unionists or anything of that kind, as both Mr. Griffith and Mr. O'Higgins coincided with us — a Clause which did give a Committee of Privileges to which either members of the Seanad or dissenting members of the Dáil itself could appeal if they wished to dispute the decision of the Speaker in certifying a Bill as a Money Bill and which, therefore, could not come before the Seanad for discussion. That is inserted as you will see in the Constitution, and yesterday, when we were considering the question of drawing up Standing Orders which would enable the Seanad to take advantage of that and to carry into effect their appeal to the Committee of Privileges, we found the following words: "the Chairman of Dáil Eireann shall certify any Bill which in his opinion is a Money Bill to be a Money Bill, but if within three days after the Bill has been passed by Dáil Eireann two-fifths of the members of either House by notice in writing addressed to the Chairman," and so on, "it shall be referred to a Committee of Privileges." I think everybody will see that in the event of the Seanad not being sitting it would be a physical impossibility to exercise the right which is given in the Constitution if three days are only given to obtain the signatures of two-fifths of the members. Accordingly our Committee asked the Seanad to pass the motion which I am now putting before you, that the Speaker of the Dáil shall rule as to whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not not later than the conclusion of the Second Stage of the Bill. Every member of the Seanad will then have sufficient notice that the Bill is a Money Bill, and if Senators conclude that they ought to call for a Committee of Privileges they will have ample time to be ready, and when the Bill is passed in the Dáil they will be in a position to make use of the three days so as to call for the Committee of Privileges. The same thing will apply to the members of the Dáil. We have known cases in the British House of Commons where the opposition to the decision that a Bill was a Money Bill was just as strong in the Commons as in the Lords and we will probably see the day in Ireland when in the Dáil as well as in the Seanad there may be disputes as to the question whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not and when in either House they would want to have the matter referred to a Committee of Privileges. We believe that if the Speaker gives a decision on the Second Stage of a Bill then there will be no doubt whatever that both in the Dáil and Seanad full opportunity can be taken of the conditions which have been laid down in the Constitution.
I beg to second the motion.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I regard this matter as one of such vital importance to the Seanad that I wish to enlarge a little upon what Senator Jameson has already said, particularly as I happen to be the Chairman of the Standing Committee at whose suggestion this question has been raised. It is very difficult to understand what was in the minds of the framers of the Constitution who were responsible for this particular Article, because as it stands it practically makes it absolutely impossible either for the members of the Dáil or of the Seanad to take advantage of its provisions. Just see what it proposes. It proposes that within three days after the Speaker of the Dáil has given his certificate that a particular Bill is a Money Bill within the definition in the Constitution, if that decision is to be challenged it must be challenged in writing by two-fifths of the members of the Seanad. Now just test that. In practice a certificate is given by the Speaker of the Dáil on the day that the Bill passes the Dáil, or perhaps even later, on the day that it was sent up to this Seanad. The three days may have expired by accident or by design. The limit of three days might actually have long since elapsed before the Money Bill which has been passed through the Dáil has been sent up to this Seanad with the Speaker's certificate. But supposing that it is sent up immediately after it has passed with the certificate upon it, and suppose that was on a Thursday. The three days allowed to the Seanad to challenge the decision that it was a Money Bill are Friday, Saturday and Sunday. By what conceivable machinery that we have now, or can provide, could the views of two-fifths of the Senators be possibly obtained in such a period as that? The thing is simply impossible. This most important provision in the Constitution, which was put in for the protection of the community at large in regard to these Money Bills, will practically be nugatory and abortive unless something is done on the lines of the motion which Senator Jameson has proposed. I might mention that he is not responsible for the form of this motion. To some extent I am responsible for the motion which was drafted rather hurriedly and it is defective in one material point because it makes no provision for the Seanad receiving any notification of the fact that a certificate has been given. The practice hitherto has been for the Speaker, in conformity with the practice in the British Parliament, not to give his certificate until the Bill is coming up to the Seanad, because the material matter in connection with the certificate is in order to disentitle us, when it reaches us as a Money Bill, to deal with it by amendment as we would be entitled in the case of an ordinary Bill. Once he puts his certificate on it as it comes up to us our only power is to make certain recommendations, but if we do not in addition provide that the certificate is to be given at an earlier date, and also that we have to get immediate notice to the effect that the certificate is given, it is plain that three days or any period may elapse before we are in a position to deal with it. I suggest to Senator Jameson to adopt instead of the Resolution he has proposed a Resolution in this form:—
"That in order to give effect to the provisions of Article 35 of the Constitution it is essential in the case of any Bill which is claimed to be a Money Bill as defined by such Article a certificate to that effect if given by the Chairman of Dáil Eireann should be given at or before the conclusion of the Second Stage of such Bill, and that notice that it has been so certified, and also of its having passed through its Final Stage in the Dáil shall be given to the Seanad immediately upon the happening of each of such events respectively."
That would enable members of the Seanad to get notice the moment the Speaker has given his certificate, that it is a Money Bill, and also enable us to get notice of the further step which is necessary before we can take action— notice that the Bill has, in fact, been passed through the Final Stage in the other House. I may say, and I do not think that even these suggestions, if adopted by the Dáil, will be sufficient to meet the situation. I am afraid experience will show both in the interests of the members of the Dáil and of the Seanad that that period of three days must be materially lengthened. Plainly on the face of it it is an absurdity as it stands. Whoever drafted it apparently thought that the Dáil and the Seanad sat continuously from day to day, because otherwise the proviso that two-fifths of the Seanad or two-fifths of the Dáil should be collected, and their signatures attached to a document challenging the decision of the Speaker as to it being a Money Bill within three days after the Bill had left the Dáil, was manifestly a physical impossibility. Even with these precautions that we propose should be taken, though they may help us for the immediate future, I think it will be found later on in practice, and I believe it is the view of the Speaker of the Dáil too, that this period will require substantial extension.
I accept the alteration, and move the motion in the manner suggested.
I hope we will pass the amendment without much discussion. I understand it is very largely a matter on which a conversation should take place between the Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil and the Chairman of the Seanad. I understand there may be a certain difficulty as to the exact form of giving the certificate, as it is conceivable a Bill may be introduced which would within the terms of the Constitution be a Money Bill, but owing to amendments and other matters it may not be a Money Bill in its Final Stages. It might be found possible for the Minister in charge to ask for a certificate at an early stage. With regard to the drafting, as I was one of the Constitutional Committee, perhaps I may be allowed to say that this was in the nature of a compromise agreed to in London, for which we are not responsible.
As has been pointed out I do not think it would be feasible to get the signatures of members of the Seanad asking for a Conference between the two Houses within three days. If we were conducting our proceedings under normal conditions it would not be necessary to have any regulations with regard to the Speaker's declaration that a Bill was, or was not, a Money Bill, because the Bill would come up to the Seanad and be put down on the Order Paper on whatever date the Chairman of the Seanad decided. In the case of a Money Bill he would put it down on a date to suit the convenience of the Seanad generally, so that all the members might be fully conversant with the circumstances. With this curious proviso of three days it is necessary that some steps should be taken immediately to deal with the matter. Whether this resolution leads to anything or not, at all events it draws attention to an error, a slip, perhaps, in the drawing up of the Constitution, but, no doubt, it will have the desired effect.
Is it mandatory on the Speaker of the Dáil to give a certificate in regard to any Bill or not?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
No; the Speaker has to make up his own mind as to whether it comes within the definition of a Money Bill. You will find the article in the Constitution defines what a Money Bill is, and it is for the Speaker to say whether any particular Bill comes within that definition or not. If he decides it is not he withholds his certificate, and if he decides it is he gives his certificate.
Is it mandatory?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The Bill cannot come before the Seanad as a Money Bill unless it has a certificate that it is such. If the Speaker is going to withhold his certificate from every Bill presented him the question will never arise. He has already exercised his privilege, and certified that two or three Bills that were put before the Seanad were Money Bills, so that you need not be afraid that he is going to abstain from exercising his prerogative.
The Seanad may then assume, provided the Bill has no certificate from the Speaker, that in fact makes it an ordinary Bill?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That is so.
I think this may be looked upon as a non-controversial subject so far as the Seanad is concerned, and generally I think it will be looked upon in the same light as far as the Dáil is concerned. We can easily visualise situations arising in which important sections in the Dáil will think it very desirable that a Bill should not be certified as a Money Bill for very weighty reasons. One of the difficulties arising out of the position is that the majority of members of both Houses, in regard to some Bills, will not be clear in their minds as to whether they are Money Bills or otherwise until the certificate is issued, and the certificate need not be issued at present until the Bill comes to this House, by which time the three days would have elapsed. Therefore, the principle of the resolution is to enable advantage to be taken of a very important Article of the Constitution. It is useless putting in an Article of this kind if it encounters so many difficulties that it cannot be taken advantage of. For that reason I think it is very necessary that, although it may not be possible to meet the position as provided for in the resolution, some measures should be taken with a view to rendering this important Article nugatory. Already we have passed one or two measures that have been Money Bills. For instance, at the last meeting we passed a Bill here which had been certified as a Money Bill. I wonder how many Senators or, indeed, members of the Dáil realised that it was a Money Bill, although the certificate came along with it? Many of them, if the Bill were of another character, might be inclined to move amendments without realising that it was a Money Bill, and they would only realise their mistake when they were informed that the Bill was a Money Bill, and therefore could not be amended.
Motion put and carried.