While waiting for the Minister I wish to say that I notice there are no amendments down to Part 1 of the Damage to Property Bill, and Part 1, I would have thought, is one to which the criticisms of this Seanad might well have been directed. Incidentally I might call the attention of the Seanad to a matter that arises in connection with this, and that is the precise powers and functions of your Chairman. There is no provision in the Standing Orders up to date which regulates or determines how far, if at all, the Chairman is at liberty to intervene in the debates. There is a provision in the Constitution that on any Division he is not entitled to record a vote, but there is nothing in the Constitution, apparently, which limits or, in fact, affects in any way or touches upon his power of taking part in the debates and the discussions of the Seanad. Hitherto I have been reluctant, in fact have abstained from taking any part by way of direct speech or contribution to the debates, but I am not sure that that is a satisfactory position. The Seanad might possibly declare by a Standing Order one way or the other whether it is or is not their wish that the Chairman should take part in the debates. If it is the wish that he should do so, I think that appropriate Standing Orders ought to be framed for the purpose, because that takes the responsibility from him and prevents him deciding the matter for himself, the matter being, as I think, one more for the collective wisdom of the Seanad, to whose decision, of course, I will loyally submit myself.
POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF AN CATHAOIRLEACH.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
It would certainly I think, be to the benefit of the Seanad that our Chairman, who is our only lawyer, should take part in our discussions. I think it has been suggested that he should on occasions vacate the Chair, and that the Vice-Chairman should take his place on such occasions, so that he could take part in our discussions like every other member of the Seanad.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That does not at all settle the difficulty, because, though he may vacate the Chair, and though his Deputy may take the Chair for him, if he is in the House he does not cease to be the Chairman. I mean, he remains the Chairman, though the Deputy-Chairman is in the Chair. I would be very slow myself, in the absence of a Standing Order conferring that power upon me, to assume the right to take part even under those conditions in the discussions of the Seanad. I think it is well worth while the Seanad considering the matter and looking up the precedents, so that they might be quite sure that they were proceeding on proper constitutional lines.
I rather gather from your statement that you would very much like to intervene in the discussion upon Part 1. of this Bill.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I only mentioned that as illustrating the difficulty that has arisen in my mind. I should like to have made some remarks with reference to Part I., but I feel at a difficulty in doing so unless and until my powers in the matter are defined by the body to whom I am responsible, namely, the Seanad itself. Up to the present the matter is left untouched; and it might be said that my taking part in this debate was an intrusion.
Can we take any step in the matter now?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not think so. I only mentioned it for the purpose of drawing the attention of the Seanad to it so that, if they think fit, they should consider among themselves and determine what they think right. I am not asking them to confer this power upon me if they think it would be better that I should not have it, but I want the position to be determined by the Seanad and not by myself.
I suggest that on this occasion you do vacate the Chair and give us the advantage of your views upon Part I. I am quite sure that the Seanad desire to have your views in every conceivable case. At the same time I feel sure the Seanad are not anxious to have their Chairman intervening while in the Chair. I feel quite sure that they want to have the benefit of your experience now, and therefore I suggest that you vacate the Chair in order to give us your views on Part I. of the Bill.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I would be doing that without any authority from the Seanad.
For this occasion only, and then the Standing Orders Committee can deal with it later.
Would an instruction from the Seanad to the Standing Orders Committee meet the case? If they frame the Standing Order, it could be brought up to the Seanad for confirmation. You have a Standing Orders Committee, I understand, and if it is the wish of the Seanad that this should be brought to their notice, they could consider the matter, and it could come forward here.
I would like to support the Chairman in his contention that the powers should be defined definitely by the Standing Orders Committee so that there could be no question in future. I think his position is quite right.
I would like to point out that in the Dáil the Ceann Comhairle takes no part whatsoever, under any circumstances.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That is so, and also in the House of Commons. Of course, it differs in the House of Lords.
I believe the Lord Chancellor is in a different position altogether.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
There is a great distinction between his position and mine, because he is a Member of the Government and I am not. I think the Seanad ought to enquire and ascertain what is the practice in the case of Canada, Australia, and other places with regard to the Senate there. As I say, I should be very slow myself, and certainly would not undertake the responsibility of intervening in debates unless that power is conferred upon me by a Standing Order of the Seanad. I am not asking the Seanad to give me this power. I merely say that they ought to consider it and, if they think it desirable I should have it, to confer it by Standing Order.
I think Senator Guinness's suggestion exactly meets my views.
It might be better to leave the matter open. We can consider it, and send a message to the Standing Orders Committee.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That is what Senator Guinness proposed.
I move that the matter be referred to the Standing Orders Committee to consider and report on the question as to what extent, if at all, the Cathaoirleach be allowed to intervene in discussions in the Seanad.
I second the proposition. Motion put and agreed to.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
In view of that I shall abstain from taking any part in the discussion to-day.
I do not think that was the intention of the mover of the resolution.
No.
I think the intention was that you should take part in the discussion.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I cannot do it until the position has been considered by the Standing Orders Committee. I must wait until they have arrived at some conclusion, and until the Seanad has adopted it. My attention has just been called to a quotation in one of these books on Parliamentary practice which defines the powers of the Speaker of the Senate in Canada. There he has a vote. He also has power to address the House, in which case he has to vacate the Chair and speak from the floor like every other member of the Senate. There is a note added—"this is a privilege which is rarely exercised."
Would it be in order to move that on this occasion An Cathaoirleach should be allowed to address the Seanad.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think it is not worth while that the Seanad should so decide now. I should prefer personally if the matter is left in the position it is for the present.
I think it would be to the advantage of the Seanad that you should take part in the discussion. We are considering a very important Bill, and I move that you be requested to take part in the discussion to-day.
I second the proposition.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
If it is the general wish of the Seanad that I should, I will do so at their request.
The trouble is that we have just passed a resolution referring the matter to the Standing Orders Committee so that the real thing now would be for the Seanad to adjourn for the Committee to report to it, or otherwise repeal the resolution just passed.
I take it that the Committee have to inquire into the whole situation and prescribe for the future. We are dealing with a Bill to-day that we must go ahead with, and we want to get the benefit of your advice.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
As a matter of order, I do not think myself that the resolution proposed by Senator Guinness in any way conflicts with the resolution from the Seanad requesting that I should take part in the discussion on this particular Bill, as that arms me with the same authority as a Standing Order for this particular debate. Unless the resolution is practically unanimous I should hesitate to act upon it.
I suggest that the Deputy Chairman takes the Chair meanwhile, either now or any time that you wish to intervene, so that you could discuss the matter any way you wish. You will not then be doing so from the Chair.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That is not the difficulty. The question of whether I vacate the Chair or not when speaking is unimportant. The question under discussion is whether, notwithstanding the motion moved by Senator Guinness, I would be at liberty at the request of the Seanad, before the Standing Orders are framed, to intervene in the debates on this particular Bill.
I would add an amendment that while doing so you would leave the Chair.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That would be a matter of mere form.
I think it would be much more in order that the matter should be referred to the Standing Orders Committee and settled for all time.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
As a point of order, that does not arise, as that is what Senator Guinness has proposed— that at the earliest date a Standing Order dealing with this matter in perpetuum should be framed. Meanwhile there is a further motion moved that, pending the framing and adoption of such a Standing Order the Chairman should be at liberty to take part in the discussion on this particular Bill.
Might we not go on with the discussion on Part 1 of the Bill now? Speaking personally on the subject, on looking over the Bill I came to the conclusion that the answers we received from the Government that cases under Part I were dealt with between the two Governments, that there was really nothing in the way of amendments we could propose that would be of any use. Part I. seems really to provide for all the cases as far as we could see. Therefore, the view of some friends I was talking to was that we could not see how we could frame any amendments that would have a likelihood of passing, or that would be worth fighting for. As to what you have said, there is evidently something we have overlooked.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
There are two or three points that strike me as being well worth discussing, but probably when the Minister for Finance attends he will clear up any difficulty there may be. It appears to me that the latter part of Sub-section 2, which deprives the party who has initiated proceedings already in respect of damage sustained during the period in question of all the costs he has incurred in taking preliminary proceedings is not just, and is in conflict with what they have done when they come to deal with injuries that occurred at a later period, and as regards which they say that if they are to be reviewed or reheard, the costs already incurred will be added to the compensation.
It seems to me that while Sub-section 2, Part I., deprives a party, of the costs he has incurred in pursuing his legal remedy that if that legal remedy is to be taken from him and he has to resort to another tribunal that the costs he has properly incurred already should be part of his compensation when he comes before the new tribunal. That is one matter. But the most important of all, I think, is Sub-section 6, which provides the alternative remedy for these people, namely, presentation of their claim before a Commission of Inquiry. Now, that is exceedingly indefinite. Does that mean an existing Commission? I do not think it does, because an existing Commission, as I understand it, has only power to deal with cases in which decrees have been obtained. This part of the Bill deals with cases in which a party has not yet obtained his decree, and may not even have made his application yet. Then, if it is to be brought before a new Commission, is that Commission bound to entertain his claim, and who will pay the money if they make an award. All that is left in the dark, and is obscure. I know from the communications I have received that there is the very greatest uneasiness and anxiety on the part of these claimants in reference to this matter. Probably the Minister would be able to clear it up if some member of the Seanad would call his attention to it, and it would save the trouble of my intervening at all, but I do think that these points on that Part I. ought to be cleared up. I do not know whether I made myself quite clear as to the last portion, namely, the alternative relief that is suggested—first, the fact that the present Commission, as far as I recollect, is confined to dealing with cases in which decrees have been already obtained, and, secondly, that there is no provision made for setting up any other Commission or extending the powers of that Commission, and, thirdly, nothing is stated here as to by what Department or by what country the award, if ever made, will be paid. These are matters that I think are well worthy of being cleared up.
I understand, Sir, your complaint is that under Sub-section II., the latter part of that Sub-section conflicts with a section later on in the Bill? Is that it?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
No; you have not quite followed me. What I was referring to was, when they come to deal with another period of time, the first part of the Bill only deals with a certain period of time, namely, injuries committed between the 31st January, 1919, and the 11th July, 1921. The first part of the Bill is confined to that. Part II. of the Bill deals with another period, and gives the power to re-hear cases already decided. It provides that the costs already incurred shall be part of the Compensation, whereas Part I., Sub-section II., deprives the party of the costs he has already incurred.
I happen to be a member of the Commission inquiring into pre-truce Claims, and we have regard to non-decree cases, as well as the decree cases. Perhaps as it may settle your first point, I will say that I think we are trying to be fair and reasonable with regard to any costs that have been already incurred, even though they have not gone through the Judicial Court.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
This Section says:—"No Party to any such proceedings shall have any claim against any other Party thereto in respect of costs incurred in such proceedings." I think it is probably an oversight. However, the President is now in his place, and we will proceed formally with the discussion of the Bill, and the first motion is that this Bill be now taken in Committee of the whole House.
Agreed.