The next matter, I regret to say, is a much more important one, and it arises in reference to the action of the Dáil in regard to an amendment that was inserted in this House in the Electors' Registration Bill of 1923. The Dáil have not either accepted or rejected that amendment, but have sent a message to the effect that it is desirable that a Joint Committee of the Dáil and Seanad be appointed to consider the procedure in regard to amendments made by the Seanad, and I regret that, before I ask the House to discuss or consider this, it is really absolutely essential for me to call attention to certain matters that occurred and to certain representations that were made, and claims put forward, in the Dáil, because these claims are now on record on the journal of the Dáil and, if not challenged or taken up in this House, will effectively destroy—I say this deliberately—will effectively destroy any useful power for amendment, by way of legislation or otherwise, that this House possesses under the Constitution. That is a strong statement to make but I propose to justify it by informing the House of the claims that were, in fact, put forward by responsible persons in the Dáil when this matter came up there for consideration.
I regret to have, in the first instance, to deal with a complaint—in my humble judgment a very unfair and unreasonable complaint—that was made by the Minister for Local Government, in reference to what he called "the way in which Ministers were treated in the Seanad." Now, I have heard the President speak very often in terms of very gracious courtesy and thanks to the Seanad for the consideration that was invariably extended to him here. I have heard other Ministers do the same, and I think we were not undeserving of that compliment, and for this reason, speaking for myself, I have gone out of my way to consult the convenience of Ministers on all occasions. I have communicated with them privately to find at what particular stage of our meetings they would like particular business to be taken up. I have arranged, or disarranged, our programme to meet them, and actually, on other occasions when they had been obliged to leave in the middle of a debate, I have induced the House, and they were willing to do so, to let matters stand over for a while to await the return of the Ministers. So that on every occasion I think I am entitled to say that this House has gone out of its way to afford facilities and accommodation to Ministers, recognising that they are here very often under great difficulties and that their attendance is urgently required in the Dáil.
Nevertheless, they have to come in here in connection with Bills for which they are responsible, and, therefore, I think it is not only a matter of courtesy, but a matter of duty, to extend to them every facility in our power. It is for that reason I greatly regret the Minister for Local Government should have made this statement in the Dáil on the 11th of January. I will read it, and I will say in the first place that if he had any complaint to make he should have made it here, where it would have been explained and dealt with, and not to have made it in the Dáil, where no Senators were present and no explanation was possible:
"I think it is scarcely fair the way Ministers are treated in regard to amendments in the Seanad. We often have amendments thrust into our hands a few minutes before going there."
And then he proceeds to describe what happened in this particular case—that is in regard to this amendment to the Electors Registration Bill—and I am sorry to have to say that the statement he made in regard to what happened in this House when he was present when this Bill was passed was absolutely inaccurate from beginning to end. I will read it:—
"In this particular case there were two amendments, A. and B. B. was struck out, and my arguments were mainly directed against B, and did apply not so much to A."
How he could have directed all his arguments to an amendment that was struck out is a matter that requires a little explanation. I cannot follow it. I am reading exactly what he stated. In this particular case there were two amendments, A. and B.
"B. was struck out, and my arguments were mainly directed against B., and did not apply so much to A. The two Sections"—he means the two amendments—"were separated at the time, and Senator Linehan withdrew Section B., and went ahead with Section A. That is, perhaps, partly an explanation of why this has arisen."
That is a ludicrous description of what actually happened. First of all, with regard to the Minister being taken by surprise by this amendment, may I give the facts? On the 12th December we suddenly found ourselves confronted with no less than eight Bills, I think, which were hurled at us on that date, with an intimation that they were all more or less non-controversial and all urgent, and a desire was intimated to me on the part of the Government that these Bills should be got through as speedily as possible. Anxious to help them in that respect, I did get the Second Reading stage of those Bills put through on the 12th December. After we had disposed of the Second Stage, I said in reference to this very particular Bill we are now dealing with that "This appears to have been treated in the Dáil as a non-controversial Bill, and if the Seanad are going to treat it in the same way, perhaps they would suspend Standing Orders to allow it to get through to-day all its remaining stages." Thereupon Senator Linehan got up and said: "I object to that because I intend to put down amendments to this particular Bill to which you refer." Senator Douglas made a very important observation in connection with which I would like to refer.
"I think a certain amount of the criticism of the Seanad is due to the fact that naturally, and I think wisely, members do not read Bills until they pass the Dáil. We then come to what looks like a non-controversial Bill on the Second Reading, and we find that on a little more consideration it may require some amendment. I personally strongly favour that in every Bill, unless there are very urgent circumstances, we should reach the Committee stage."
Accordingly, Senator Linehan having intimated he desired to put down amendments to this Bill, I did not further press on the Seanad to proceed to pass it through its remaining stages, for I recognised the propriety of Senator Linehan's objection. The House adjourned on that day, and did not meet for a week, but in the interval the agenda of the following week, the 19th December, was prepared, and sent out to every member of the House and Dáil. On that agenda appeared Senator Linehan's two amendments in black and white, so that when this Bill was brought up on the Committee Stage on the 19th December, not only every member of the Seanad, but every member of the Dáil had, or might have had, the amendments in his possession. When the amendments were reached, Senator Linehan moved the first of them, that is the particular one we are conversant with now, and that we afterwards received a message from the Dáil about, and on that discussion the Minister did speak, but he only spoke for a few minutes. All of what are called his arguments are found in half a column of the Journal of this House. Then Senator Linehan moved his second amendment, and on that amendment the Minister never opened his lips, although he stated in the Dáil, when he was complaining of the unfair treatment he received here, that the bulk of his arguments were directed to the second amendment, which was withdrawn. I think it is only fair to this House when they are charged with discourtesy, not merely to this particular Minister, but to all Ministers in general, that I should mention these facts for the justification of this House in the matter. I pass from it.
There is a much more important matter behind this particular amendment, and this particular Bill than this mere suggestion of the Minister, which is absolutely, as I have said, without foundation and fact. The importance of it arises, and I do now invite the most careful and anxious consideration of the House to this, because I say without hesitation of any sort or kind that if they were acquiesced in, the claims put forward there by responsible Ministers and others, as to their powers and rights over the proceedings of this House, it might as well close for any effective good it could do in the matter of legislation, and as for myself, I should be perfectly worthless to you and of no assistance or use of any sort, kind or description. Now, what happened? This House had inserted, on the motion of Senator Linehan, an amendment to this registration of Voters Bill, and the amendment, as you may recollect, was in effect this, that no person should be entitled to vote at the Local Government Elections unless within a certain period prior to the election he had paid the rates issuing out of his tenement.
I am not going to discuss whether that was a wise or a foolish amendment, I am not concerned with it in any shape or form. What I am concerned with is, what happened, first of all, in this House. Nobody, when that amendment was moved, challenged its propriety. Nobody questioned that it was an amendment within our Standing Orders and one that could be legitimately moved.
The Minister for Local Government stated in the Dáil that all along he was under the impression it was not a proper amendment, because it was outside the scope of the Bill. He so informed the Dáil. He kept that important view of his when he was in the Seanad. He never suggested directly or indirectly that the amendment in question in any way travelled beyond or outside the scope of the Bill. It did occur to myself, not on the suggestion of any Minister, and not on the suggestion of any member of the Seanad, that there might be some reason for the view that this amendment of Senator Linehan was not relevant to the exact subject matter of the Bill.
Although the question was not raised I carefully considered it. I stated to the Seanad, and gave it as my opinion, that the amendment was quite relevant by reason of the fact that the Bill itself contained a clause as introduced by the Government which did interfere with the qualification of voters. That Clause in the Bill is Clause 3, and I will read it as it came to the Seanad:—
"So much of sub-section II of Section 44 of the Representation of the People Act of 1918, as enacts that the qualifying period shall be a period of six months ending on the 15th day of July is hereby repealed, and in lieu thereof it is hereby enacted that the qualifying period for Local Government Electors shall be a period of six months ending on the 15th day of November, and including that day."
Well, giving the best judgment I could when this matter occurred to me in the course of the debate, I came to the conclusion that, inasmuch as the Bill itself contained a clause that interfered with the law determining the qualification of voters, the amendment proposed by Senator Linehan was consequently not outside the scope of the Bill or irrelevant to it. I may have been entirely wrong in that opinion. I think still that I was entirely right, but whether I was right or wrong I had to give my opinion, and I gave it to the best of my ability and judgment and it was adopted by the Seanad. When it came back to the Dáil the very first thing that happened was this: the Speaker of the Dáil got up and said that in his opinion the amendment we had passed was out of order, that it was not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill. The reason he gave was this, that the Bill did not touch the qualification for electors. Now this is not a personal issue. I hope the Seanad will bear in mind that the relations between the Speaker and myself have always been most friendly. I have never received anything but the greatest courtesy and consideration from him, and I have endeavoured to return it.
This is a matter of principle as between the two Houses, and as between the Constitutional rights and prerogatives of the Seanad. I only wish to point out that if this power, apparently claimed at one stage in the Dáil by the Speaker—though I think from what I will read to you later that he subsequently abandoned it—to overrule the Seanad in their own domestic forum, and overrule the ruling and decision of their Chairman upon a question of law as to whether their own procedure is right exists in the Speaker, then a corresponding power must exist in me to overrule the rulings of the Speaker. Neither of us got it under the Constitution. It is, in my opinion, absolutely inconsistent with the Constitution, but if we were to allow the claim to pass unchallenged then nothing but chaos could ensue, because you will have the Speaker overruling me in regard to a particular matter, and then when it comes back to this House I overrule the Speaker.
When this matter was being discussed in the Dáil on the 11th of this month Deputy Johnson, with that wonderful power he has of putting his finger on the spot, suggested that they ought to be very careful in the Dáil before they accepted any such idea, as that the Speaker in the Dáil could overrule the decision of the Chairman of the Seanad in regard to procedure that took place here. He made several references to it and warned the Dáil that they ought to be very slow in following this view of the Speaker, because he said it would amount to this: "that the Dáil were deciding that the Seanad exceeded its authority." I am giving his own words. "We are now ruling that the Seanad has exceeded its authority." Thereupon the President at once interposed and said "No." Then the Speaker said this and it is from these words I assume he abandoned his original claim that he could overrule the action of the Seanad. The Speaker said:—
"I would like to correct that. There is no question of the authority of the Seanad to pass legislation, and no question of our authority to introduce a Bill for certain purposes and amend it and afterwards make it serve a totally different purpose. We have authority to do that if we like. We have decided that we will not do such things."
That, I take it, amounts to this: that the Seanad had perfect power to do what it did; "we in the Dáil, by our Standing Orders, are determined that we will not do it," but there is no doubt the Seanad were quite within their powers in doing what they did. If so, it seems strange that he should have stated the action of the Seanad in putting in this amendment was entirely out of order. Deputy Johnson puts the position then in this way:—
"If we disagree now with this amendment because it is outside the scope of the Bill we are in fact informing the Chairman of the Seanad that his judgment was wrong. We are telling him that he must reconsider his judgment. He may be a very easy-going gentleman and he may say: ‘I do not mind; please yourselves.' It may be the other way and he may say ‘I stick to my right in this matter,' and the Seanad may say ‘We are going to stand by the amendment on its merits.'"
They seem to have been rendered a little uneasy about this claim on the part of the Speaker to rule out of order an amendment of the Seanad, passed in full regard to the Standing Orders of this House, and declared by me to be in order, that that could be overruled by him and turned down in the Dáil on that ground. So much for that particular claim.
But the Government then proceeded to advance a still stronger and more remarkable claim. You will find it in plain words as expressed by the President: that if the Government introduce what they choose to call a non-contentious Bill, label it as non-contentious, and induce the members of the Dáil to treat it as such, and then if it comes up to the Seanad and the Seanad interfere with it by putting in an amendment, they have exceeded their powers because they have turned the Bill into a wholly different Bill and have done what they had no right to do. I confess that is a most startling proposition having regard to the Constitution, and let there be no mistake about it. If I am challenged as to the accuracy of my interpretation I am prepared to read the passages.
