As the Minister for Justice is here now we will resume consideration of this Bill. It was suggested that the Minister would give some reason why the Dáil refused to accept sub-section (5) of amendment 6. It was suggested that it might be thought to be a money clause.
Game Preservation Bill, 1929 (Resumed).
Cathaoirleach
That was possibly one of the underlying reasons—that it was a money clause.
Cathaoirleach
The House now has the Minister's statement, and the statement which I made. It is for it to agree or disagree with the Dáil Message. I would like to have a motion on that matter.
I beg to move that we do not insist on the amendment that was rejected by the Dáil. I understand from the Minister that the amendment was making a charge for the Consultative Council.
Perhaps the Minister will tell the House if it is not the case that in the Fishery Bill there is a clause similar to this one, which puts a certain amount of expense on the Exchequer. If that is the case there is no valid reason why an amendment of a similar sort should not be put into this Bill. If there is not, I do not propose to move that we should insist on our amendment.
I second. I think the Seanad should go into the question, apart from the merits of the amendment.
Although I am not going to dispute this matter, I do not agree with the suggestion that the Seanad cannot insert an amendment in a Bill dealing with money. The question has arisen several times in this House, and the other position has always been taken up. The only occasion when such a plea could be put forward is when there is a Money Bill and when the Ceann Comhairle certifies that it is a Money Bill. That was not put forward in this case, so that there is really no reason why we should not insist on the amendment. But on the merits I have no wish to force it.
Cathaoirleach
You will remember, Senator, I gave my ruling on the matter as far as my opinion went, and it is purely on the merits we are discussing the question now.
The statement made by the Minister definitely raises an issue which I had hoped would not necessarily have been raised in this case. When I suggested that we might debate this matter in the presence of the Minister, I thought he would have found some other reason which in itself would have been adequate, and which would mean that we need not deal with a comparatively small matter. We know now that one of the underlying reasons is because this amendment of ours, in a Bill which was not a Money Bill, had to do with money—I think these were the words used. I think it is extremely important that the House should consider that before it allows a usage and a practice to grow up which will take away powers definitely conferred on it by the Constitution. There is in the Constitution definite provision by which Bills can be regarded as Money Bills on the certificate of the Ceann Comhairle. Once a Bill is a Money Bill the powers of this House are definitely defined and limited, and we do not for one moment challenge that limitation. But in a Bill which has not been so certified, there should not be—and I respectfully suggest that your ruling, sir, is right—and there is not any limit as to the amendments which we can make, except the limit which is imposed by the Money Resolution in the Dáil, which controls the expenditure. When a Bill involves an expenditure of money a message is received from the Governor-General—in effect from the Government of the day—and that limits the amount of expenditure. As long as amendments to a Bill are within that limit there is no doubt, in my opinion, that this House can make amendments which deal with money matters.
The control obviously is with the Dáil, but the details are with us as much as with the Dáil, and if we were to admit, or even to imply that we agreed, or even consented, that when amendments of this kind are made they will be, for the underlying reason stated by the Minister —that they deal with money—that they will be rejected and sent back to us, and that we will then submit, we will find that without any amendment of the Constitution whatever, a usage will have grown up by which this House will have given away part of its powers. I am not in favour of this House claiming powers which it has not got, but I think it should hesitate before giving away powers which clearly and definitely it has under the Constitution. This matter came up some time ago; it was not simply a matter for ruling by the Chairman, but, if my memory is right, a Committee representative of the different groups was appointed to deal with it. The Committee met, and I think sent in an unanimous report on the lines I have stated. That has not been challenged in any way by the Dáil. I think it should be made quite clear that there is no message from the Dáil; that no statement was made in the Dáil challenging that decision. I do not think it can be challenged that the underlying reason why this amendment was sent back was because it dealt with money. If a different reason were given by the Minister, or if it was stated that the amendment was unnecessary, I would not quarrel and would agree to the motion proposed by Senator the Earl of Granard. But in this case no other reason was given, and the suggestion was made that the Dáil would return amendments which dealt with money, even though the Bill is not a Money Bill. I think it would be right for us in this case to insist on our amendment. If it comes back again let us have a conference and clear the matter up.
Cathaoirleach
Do you move anything to that effect?
A motion has been moved and I am speaking against it.
Into the constitutional question which Senator Douglas has raised, I do not propose to enter. It is certainly within the function of the Dáil to reject or accept, or partly reject or partly accept any amendment which has been put forward by the Seanad. Here the Dáil has partly accepted and partly rejected an amendment that was put forward by the Seanad. This is not a vital matter, because I believe that in fact Section 32 is sufficient if this Advisory Council were set up. If expenses were to be paid to the members of the Advisory Council, then I believe they could be paid under Section 32. That is my view. But, on the main point, if the Seanad refuses this amendment as it has come up from the Dáil, and insists on keeping in this sub-section, then I am afraid the Bill will be held up.
This amendment is really of too little importance to raise a big constitutional issue about regarding the rights of the two Houses. I think it was quite unnecessary, in the first instance, to suggest asking the Dáil for reasons for rejecting the amendment. The Minister has given what he considers to be one reason, but the majority in the Dáil might give another reason. On the whole, I think the amendment was rejected simply and solely on its merits, and I think it is on its merits we should deal with it here. Therefore, I would support the motion that the Seanad do not insist on that part of its amendment to which the Dáil does not agree, whilst, of course, reserving all rights under the Constitution and without prejudice at all to the merits or demerits of the amendment. I agree with the statement made by Senator Douglas, and I do not think that can be very seriously questioned in any way, but I would prefer that we would deal with this amendment to-day, simply and solely on the merits, without regard to its constitutional importance or otherwise, and thereby preserve all our rights in that respect, or, at least, not prejudice them, because I do not think it can be said that the question of usage can be raised here, as we are not admitting the contention the Minister seemed to put forward. If on an important measure such a contention were put forward, remedies are available for testing its legality or otherwise.
Cathaoirleach
Unfortunately the Minister was not here when this matter came on for consideration and when a question was asked me by Senator Miss Browne as regards this amendment in the Dáil. She asked me if, under certain conditions, it was within our competence to insert a money clause in a non-money Bill. I gave what I considered was a reasoned answer: I said I was not aware, nor am I now aware, of the reasons given by the Dáil for rejecting the amendment, but if it was that we had no power to insert the amendment I considered that we had the power. My predecessor gave a similar ruling on the same point. Senator the Earl of Granard has now proposed that we accept the amendment made by the Dáil on its merits, and I hope that on these grounds the Seanad will consider the non-acceptance of the amendment.
Whatever the merits of this amendment may be, the statement of the Minister is on record that, in his view, the underlying reason for the rejection of the Seanad's amendment by the Dáil was due to the fact that it involved a question of the expenditure of money. In any dispute on a more important matter of this kind that may arise between the two Houses that would be bound to be regarded as a precedent, and under the circumstances I am very strongly in favour of insisting on our amendment, and I shall vote in favour of insisting on it.
I did not take it from the Minister that he gave it as a definite opinion that that was the underlying reason. His words were —I am subject to correction—"Possibly it was one of the underlying reasons," so that it may or may not be. I think the position ought to be cleared up as between the Dáil and the Seanad before we pass any motion in regard to the matter. It would be very well if the matter was referred back to the Dáil and if they were asked on what grounds, for the enlightenment of the Seanad, this deletion was made. We would then be in a better position to discuss the whole question. The whole thing is vague and indefinite; we do not know on what grounds they have made this deletion. I think it is absolutely essential that we should know what the grounds were before we would be in a position to come to a decision on the matter. The financial aspect of it may have had nothing at all to do with their decision.
I think if we consider the minds of the people in the Dáil, and if we consider the financial position of the country we will agree that the Dáil did not reject it because the Seanad inserted this amendment in the Bill, but that it was really on the question of expense that they did so. We agree that the Seanad has power to insert such an amendment, but the members of the Dáil, not wishing to spend money and wishing to curtail expenses, refused to accept the amendment—not on the point that we had not power to put it in. For that reason I think, on the merits of the case, we ought to agree with the Dáil.
There really can be no doubt whatever as to what was the motive of the Dáil in rejecting the amendment when one reads the report of the discussion on it. The Minister, in moving that the Dáil disagree with the amendment, quoted the amendment, and then went on to say: "That is a money clause, and that has been inserted in the amendment. I would suggest to the Dáil that sub-section (5) should not be accepted by this House, but that the House would accept this new Section 31 with the exception of sub-section (5)." There was no further discussion whatever on the matter, and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, who was in the Chair, then said: "The Minister is moving to amend the amendment by the deletion of sub-section (5)," and the Minister said "Yes," and the deletion of sub-section (5) was agreed to. That was the only point mentioned in the whole discussion, and we must accept that as the reason why the Dáil disagreed with the amendment.
I was quite of the opinion that this is not a matter that would necessarily lead to a conference between the two Houses, and I was going to point out that there was no means of obtaining the reason why the Dáil disagreed except by a conference of members appointed by the two Houses. Nobody can speak for the Dáil in such a matter as this except the Ceann Comhairle, because there may be 152 reasons as to why the Dáil disagreed with the amendment. But inasmuch as from what Senator Hooper has quoted, only one reason was given by the Minister in charge, I think that that makes a distinct change in the position, and I am now inclined to the view that we ought to have the position defined and seek a conference as provided for in 92B of the Standing Orders, which says: "In the case of disagreement between the Seanad and the Dáil in regard to any Money Bill, the Seanad may propose a conference between members representing both Houses for the purpose of discussing the points of disagreement." I think the very fact that we have called for that conference, if we do so, will be sufficient to maintain our rights in the matter, and I do not think that the Dáil would insist, particularly as it is a view very widely held in the Seanad, that on its merits the amendment we have inserted is not very important, and need not be insisted upon, but that we are establishing the right of the Seanad in this matter (in view of the discussion which Senator Hooper quoted) through the medium of a conference between members appointed by the two Houses, and that we should send a message to the Dáil in accordance with the procedure contained in 92B of the Standing Orders.
Cathaoirleach
The motion is that the Seanad do not insist on sub-section (5) of the proposed section.
Is Senator Johnson proposing a motion?
Cathaoirleach
I take it that he was speaking in criticism of the motion before the House and nothing more.
If Senator Johnson proposes another amendment—that there should be a consultation with the other House—would it take precedence of the motion?
Cathaoirleach
I will take such a motion if it is moved, but I think it is quite unnecessary. I was asked for my opinion; I have ruled as my predecessor ruled, that it is quite competent for the Seanad to insert in a non-Money Bill a clause of the nature that we inserted in this case, That is my considered opinion; that considered opinion has not been challenged, and when it is challenged it will be time to have a conference.
Does the reason that was given to us by the Minister for the rejection of our amendment not show us that the other House disagrees with that ruling?
Cathaoirleach
That has not been put to me. Senator the Earl of Granard has suggested that on the merits this portion of the amendment be not persevered in. That is the position at the moment.
I submit that when that question was asked in the Dáil, when what Senator Hooper has quoted was stated specifically by the Minister as his reason for opposing the amendment, and when the House seemingly acquiesced—there was no further comment made—that that does amount to a challenge of this principle that has been laid down.
Cathaoirleach
I have given my opinion, an opinion that has always been maintained and was never effectively challenged. When it is challenged I think that that will be the time to set up a conference to discuss the matter fully. That is my considered opinion.
In the event of this House insisting upon this amendment, does not a conference between the two Houses arise automatically?
Cathaoirleach
No. The matter would go back again to the Dáil.
In view of your advice, might I suggest that Senator the Earl of Granard should draft his motion in a form which would specifically safeguard the position of this House—in some way that there should be embodied the view and intention and will of the House, that notwithstanding that we held that view we were not insisting upon our rights?
Cathaoirleach
That will be quite clear from to-day's proceedings. The question was specifically asked by Senator Miss Browne and I answered it.
Might I point out, as a matter of form, that the proceedings will appear in the Report, but they will not appear in the records—the Journal? I would like something to appear in the Journal.
If that could be done I think it would meet the difficulty.
Would Senator Johnson suggest some form of words which he thinks would meet the point at issue?
It seems to me that there is a tremendous amount of needless alarm about the rights of this House. I do not think that the words quoted from the Dáil Report are a definite challenge to the ruling which you have given and which seems to be the understanding upon which this House has acted. The words quoted by Senator Hooper were: "That is a money clause and that has been inserted in the amendment." Following that, the Minister said: "I would suggest to the Dáil that sub-section (5) should not be accepted." It is not made clear and it is not even implied, in my opinion, that that is the reason why the Minister suggested disagreement in the other House, and I think we are making a mountain of a molehill if we try to create a kind of constitutional precedent at the present time. If there is anything in the position that is not clear it is bound to arise at some future time, and if we think that this right which, according to your ruling, we exercise, is being challenged, it will be quite within the competence of this House on the occasion of some future Bill to act in such a way as will get a definite response from the Dáil as to what its exact attitude is. Personally, I think it would be a mistake to precipitate a situation which, according to your ruling, is not either existent or imminent.
Might I suggest this to Senator the Earl of Granard? I think it covers the various points: "Waiving any question of this amendment being a money amendment as between the two Houses, this House does not insist on sub-section (5), on its merits and not for the reason given in the Dáil—that it was a Money Clause."
I suggest something like this: "That this House does not insist upon amendment 6, sub-section (5)." That is, on its merits and not for the reason given in the Dáil—that it was a Money Bill, or something like that.
Cathaoirleach
That would do, but I have tried to point out what I thought would be more decorous for us, as we were given no reason in the Message from the Dáil why they rejected part of the amendment. Certain reports were quoted, but in the message to us there was no reason given for refusing to accept part of our amendment.
There was the Minister's statement.
Cathaoirleach
There was no reason given in the message from the Dáil. I stated to Senator Miss Browne that I was was not conversant with any reason, having received none. The Minister comes along and says: "Yes, this was a money clause." But we felt we had full power in the case of a non-money Bill. I stated that; it was reiterated by various Senators; I think anything we do will not make that opinion of ours stronger, and that by taking the step proposed we will have got all that is needful, and will have preserved the rights and privileges of this House.
As I raised this matter at some length might I express my view that, having regard to the whole discussion, it might be just as well, and perhaps more dignified to pass Senator the Earl of Granard's motion without any explanation? I think that explanation would be undignified and would not really help the matter. What I personally wanted to achieve was that amendments would not come back to this House just for the reason that they happened to be money amendments. I believe that no matter what we have said now, this may happen again. If it does happen I believe that Senator Johnson's suggestion— to ask for a conference—would be the right course. Apparently the House does not wish to do that now, and I think the best thing is to pass the motion; but I certainly think that if such an amendment came up again in similar circumstances a conference should be held before and not after.
I think that the Cathaoirleach speaks with authority for the Seanad on points of order, and when he has made the statement that he has made, it ought to be accepted as the view of the whole Seanad. He is not the first who made it; his predecessor made exactly the same statement, and on one or two occasions we insisted on that and carried our way. After all, it does not seem necessary to pass a new resolution; we have only to rely on the decision of the Cathaoirleach that the matter would be in order if we did choose to insist on it as far as the money was concerned.
I suggest the following amendment: "Notwithstanding the acquiescence of the Seanad in the deletion of sub-section (5) of amendment 6 nothing in that acquiescence shall be taken to mean that the Seanad is not competent to insert money amendments in ordinary Bills."
Cathaoirleach
I think that would meet the point suggested by many Senators, but at the same time I think that we ought not to enter into the question of reasons when no reasons were given us in the official message. No reasons were given to us in the official message and I do not think that we ought to deal with the reasons until the reasons are given and until our position is absolutely assailed by the other House. It is not so assailed now.
I think that we should take the advice of the Cathaoirleach on the subject.
Cathaoirleach
The proposal is that the House does not insist on sub-section (5) of amendment 6 that was passed by the House.
If this House is to act with a degree of reasonable consistency it will throw out Senator the Earl of Granard's motion. I think it was Senator the McGillycuddy who introduced this amendment. The matter was debated and a reasoned case was put forward for the insertion of the amendment. It was inserted in the Bill by a majority vote. I voted against it. I think in the absence of any reasons put forward by the Minister or by the other House for the deletion of the amendment, that the Seanad, if it is to be in any way consistent at all, should absolutely stand for the continuance of that amendment in the Bill. That is the only way in which to bring the matter to an issue. I do not see why we should run away from the question. No reasoned case has been made by anybody as to why those Senators who voted for the insertion of that amendment before should run away from the opinion they then voted for. I see none whatever. I will vote for Senator the Earl of Granard's proposal, but the one thing for those who voted for the insertion of the amendment to do is to vote against that proposal.
I will vote against this proposal, but I will do so for reasons entirely different from those which have been suggested by Senator O'Hanlon as what should influence us. He seemed to me to suggest that because the Dáil did not send us reasons for their action we should consequently not agree with their action.
I did not say that.
I understood the Senator to say that because the Dáil did not put forward any reason for the rejection of the amendment we should insist upon it.
On a point of explanation. Because the Dáil did not send us any reasons, and because no reasons were advanced to us in this House.
There was a reason advanced in this House by the Minister when he told us what he believed the motive of the Dáil was in rejecting this part of the amendment. What we want to make clear is that we do not think we should stand over any demand that the Dáil, when sending back the amendment, should give reasons for their action. That is not the position we ought to take up. I want to make it clear that, subject to that, I propose to vote against Senator the Earl of Granard's motion.
Will you take a very simple amendment?
Cathaoirleach
I would like to hear it first, Senator.
I move: "That the action of the Dáil be noted," and that we should leave it there.
Cathaoirleach
I do not think that that would do.
Senator O'Hanlon tried to create the impression that when an amendment is carried here on a vote, come weal, come woe, no matter what happened in the Dáil, that that amendment should be insisted upon—at least, that was the inference I gathered from what he said. Last week we had a message from the Dáil dealing with the National Monuments Bill, stating that some of our amendments were agreed to and that some were dissented from. No reasons were given, so far as I could make out, why the Dáil dissented from certain amendments, but certainly a majority in favour of these amendments was registered in this House. If we were to act according to Senator O'Hanlon we should last week have insisted upon our amendments for precisely the same reasons as he adduced in regard to this. We did not do so, and I think the same procedure holds just as good to-day as it did last week in regard to the other amendments.
With the greatest possible respect, I think that my attitude is slightly different from what has been stated by Senator Milroy. If Senator Milroy's attitude is that the will of the Dáil must always prevail, even in respect of the deliberations and decisions of this House, then I must disagree with him. I do not follow the line that when we have inserted an amendment we should take it out because the Dáil tells us we must do so. We have certain rights and prerogatives and, following what Senator Douglas has said, we should strive to maintain them. No case has been made, either in this House or outside this House, against the decision arrived at by the House in respect of this amendment. If the House is to be consistent, in the absence of any case, surely the House will insist upon the retention of its amendment in the Bill?
That is merely consistency, and I think it is an honourable and a fair practice. I do not want to refer to what Senator Hooper said. He said that no reason had been given in the Dáil. There was a reason given in the Dáil. There is the suggestion that if we give way on this, it means in an inferential way that we were partly whittling down our powers in this House. I object to any such suggestion as that.
Would a form of words such as this meet the situation: That this House do not insist upon their amendment on its merits, but not for the reason given in the Official Report of the proceedings of the Dáil?
Cathaoirleach
I am afraid that would not meet the case.
Apart from the other issue that has been raised, did I understand the Minister to say that he was legally advised that the provisions of the amendment were not necessary—that the powers which it proposed to give already exist?
I cannot say that I was advised legally. I expressed my own opinion:
That is what I meant.
Question—That the Seanad do not insist on their amendment—put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 13; Níl, 23.
Tá
- Miss Kathleen Browne.
- Alfred Byrne.
- Sir Thomas Grattan Esmonde.
- The Earl of Granard.
- Right Hon. Andrew Jameson.
- Thomas Linehan.
- Seán Milroy.
- Sir Walter Nugent.
- Joseph O'Connor.
- M. F. O'Hanlon.
- L. O'Neill.
- James J. Parkinson.
- Richard Wilson.
Níl
- William Barrington.
- Caitlín Bean Uí Chléirigh.
- Michael Comyn, K.C.
- Joseph Connolly.
- The Countess of Desart.
- James G. Douglas.
- J. C. Dowdall.
- Michael Fanning.
- Thomas Farren.
- Thomas Foran.
- Sir John Purser Griffith.
- Henry S. Guinness.
- P. J. Hooper.
- Thomas Johnson.
- Cornelius Kennedy.
- Patrick W. Kenny.
- Seán E. MacEllin.
- James MacKean.
- Colonel Moore.
- John T. O'Farrell.
- Siobhán Bean an Phaoraigh.
- Séumas Robinson.
- Thomas Toal.
Motion declared lost.
I move:
That it is desirable that a Conference be held between members of the Seanad and the Dáil upon amendment No. 6 made by the Seanad to the Game Preservation Bill, 1929, to which the Dáil has agreed with an amendment, viz., the deletion of sub-section (5) of the proposed new section, and upon which the Seanad has decided to insist in its original form:
That five Senators represent the Seanad at the proposed conference:
And that a Message be sent to the Dáil acquainting them accordingly and requesting their concurrence.
I second.
Motion put and declared carried.