I move:—
Section 3, sub-section (1). To delete all after the word "payable" in line 16 down to the end of the sub-section.
The words referred to are as follows: "and may by any such order prescribe the penalties for any fraudulent conduct in relation to an application for any such pension, allowance, or gratuity." It is announced that this has been certified as a Money Bill. Sub-section (1) gives power to the Minister to do certain things by order in relation to pensions to widows of ex-R.I.C. men. It is possible by the words which I have read out for the Minister by such Order to prescribe penalties for fraudulent conduct. It seems to me that to allow an order to be made by the Minister to prescribe penalties for fraudulent conduct is going beyond the limits of what should be done by order. Senators are familiar with the very considerable dissatisfaction that there has been of recent years, not only in this country but more particularly elsewhere, as to the growth of legislation by order, and this is an illustration of the way in which the practice grows of allowing what are, in fact, legislative enactments to slip through by the order of a Minister. One cannot consider this particular amendment without having regard to the next sub-section. I would point out that the order the Minister may make in sub-section (1) to prescribe penalties for fraudulent conduct, by sub-section (2) would not be subject to consent, approval or ratification by the Seanad, so that, in fact, if the Bill passes in its present form the Minister is in a position to make an order prescribing penalties for fraud, without any assurance—the mere possibility, but certainly no assurance—that the order will be ratified by the formal approval of the Dáil. It will be noted—I do not want to enlarge upon this part of it —that in the latter part of sub-section (2) the Seanad may have an opportunity of making a recommendation to the Dáil in respect of such an order, but I am contending that an order which prescribes the penalties for fraudulent conduct should come within the range of legislation, that it should not be even possible for it to pass into legal force without at least the formal approval of the Seanad. It is pointed out that this is a Money Bill under the Constitution, and it may be pointed out—I am sure it will be pointed out—that the Principal Act, of which this is an amendment, also contains similar provisions, and that the provisions to which I am now drawing attention are merely repetitions of such provisions, which are contained in the Principal Act. The Principal Act was passed in 1923, and I may say, in passing, that it came to the Seanad, and with a few words of explanation by the President, passed, without any consideration, through all its stages in about five minutes. But it happened that quite by accident I noted that in the discussion on the Committee Stage of the Principal Act I adverted to the point I am now drawing attention to in respect to making provision by order prescribing penalties for fraudulent conduct. I said:
That, I think, goes beyond what should be allowed by an order. I would imagine that the ordinary law against endeavouring to obtain money by false pretences is quite strong enough without empowering the Minister for Finance to prescribe such penalties in an order. I wonder whether sufficient consideration has been given to this sub-section. I think it is too much power to authorise in this way, to give the Minister power to make an order prescribing the penalty.
It is not particularly my own statement, which was evidently made without very much pre-consideration, that I wish to call attention to, but to that of the President, who said:
In the absence of any particular information from the Attorney-General, I should say that in such cases there are prescribed penalties for infringing any pensions laws, but this is a new pensions law, and it is quite possible that, owing to the peculiar circumstances of it, that it might be open to abuse, and as such there might be a difficulty in prosecuting a person who had taken advantage of it and by fraudulent misrepresentation made a case for a pension, so that I take it the reason was that, it being special legislation dealing with a special class, unless provision were made for imposing such penalties, it would not be possible to prosecute a person for making fraudulent representations in connection with it.
I do not think anyone will assert that that was a very satisfactory or convincing explanation of the reason for this provision being inserted. The fact remains that it was inserted, and that no further discussion took place upon it. The matter was not pursued. I draw attention to the fact that that was in 1923, when a great many things were occupying the minds of Deputies, Senators and Ministers, and that many things were allowed to pass which, in normal times, would have been objected to. Now that we are in normal times, I hope, here we have an attempt to repeat what I consider to be an extension of the powers of the Minister beyond what is reasonable, and I am, therefore, moving that the sub-section should be amended by the deletion of these words. I will reserve any further comment in regard to the effects of sub-section (2) until the amendment in that regard is moved. I should say that while that particular provision in the Superannuation and Pensions Act, 1923, was inserted, a later Act, the Gárda Síochána Act, Section 8, dealing with pensions, also contained a provision of a similar kind, and this is the point I want to note, that Section 8 (2) of the Gárda Síochána Act, 1924, provides that no such order shall come into operation until it has been laid before each House of the Oireachtas, and approved by resolution of each of such Houses. That makes a very considerable difference in the position of the Seanad in regard to such an order. Whatever we may say regarding the advisability of giving powers to prescribe penalties to a Minister, it, at least, secured that such order would not come into effect until it had the formal approval of both Houses. In the case in question there is no provision suggesting that formal approval will be required before an order of the kind comes into effect.