Before resuming the debate on Senator Sir John Keane's motion, I understand there is a report from the Conference on the Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1942, which Senator Hayes will present to the House.
Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1942. - Report of Conference.
I was made chairman of the conference and I, therefore, present the report and proceedings. The report is:
The conference recommends that the Seanad do not insist on its disagreement with the amendments made by the Dáil to Seanad amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to the Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1942.
I move:
That the report and proceedings do lie upon the table and be printed.
Agreed.
I move:
That the report be now considered.
Agreed.
These were formal motions. I now move the main one:
That the Seanad do not insist on its disagreement to the amendments made by the Dáil to amendments Nos. 1 and 2 made by the Seanad to the Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1942, and now agrees to the amendments made by the Dáil to the said amendments.
The position briefly is this, that the Seanad made a number of amendments to the Intoxicating Liquor Bill, dealing particularly with the hours of opening and closing on Sundays and week-days in the county boroughs and outside the county boroughs. At my suggestion the Minister embodied all the hours in one section of the Bill. My own view is that we should accept the position as the Dáil has now left it, and I state that, although, as a personal matter, I believe, in the question at issue, my opinion is contrary to the opinion of the Dáil. The question at issue is the hours of opening on week-days in the county boroughs—Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford—during summer time. The Dáil passed an amendment, to one of our amendments, which meant that public houses in these boroughs would be open until 10.30 p.m. and, therefore, in conjunction with another part of the amendment that the closing hour for normal trade all over the country every week-day in summer time would be 10.30 p.m. I believe that there is no demand for that, and I think there is no good case for it.
I am rather in favour of the 10 o'clock hour for closing, particularly on Saturday; but despite that view, it appears to me that we must recognise certain facts. This House has limited power. It has power to make amendments, and these amendments go to the Dáil. The Dáil, as in this case, agreed to the majority of the amendments embodied in the new section—practically to all the amendments made by this House, and then made the particular modification I have mentioned. I think, while we are entitled to express by our votes our particular view, when the matter has gone this far, we should not disagree with the Dáil on a point of this kind. That is to say, we should not endeavour to hold up the Bill and have the penal provisions of the Constitution put into operation in the other House on a point which is not of considerable importance. Taken in relation to the general provisions of the Intoxicating Liqaor Bill, I think the point of disagreement is not one of major importance.
We had an interesting discussion to-day, I think I may say, at the conference, and no compromise on this matter appeared possible; that is to say, no compromise which would be recommended by the Dáil members to the Dáil and which would result in agreement. Therefore, the conference eventually agreed to recommend that the Seanad should not insist upon its disagreement. I am, therefore, moving now that we agree with the Dáil—that is what the motion really amounts to.
Having explained to the House the position on the immediate question at issue, may I now offer comment on the situation envisaged by the Minister for Justice in the other House, a situation which might have arisen eventually in the case of this Bill.
On the 24th March the Minister in discussing the proposal for a conference is reported—column 1385 of the Dáil debates—as saying:
"The alternative is,"
that is the alternative to our agreement with the Dáil,
"that I will put down a motion that the Bill be deemed to have passed both Houses; that will mean, I understand, the unamended Bill."
It appears, therefore, that the Minister considers, and I presume is advised, that the position under the present Constitution is that when the two Houses disagree the Minister can move in the Dáil a motion which, after a certain period, gives the Bill the force of law in the form in which it first left the Dáil. Now, Sir, if that is a correct statement of the position, it is an extraordinary state of affairs. It is contrary to the position which most people thought obtained under the Constitution, and it is contrary to the procedure which obtained under the previous Constitution. Surely, what should happen is that when the Dáil and Seanad had come to agreement on certain amendments to the Bill, these amendments should be inserted in the Bill, but that if there was some point of disagreement, the Dáil could insist upon its point of view.
That was the procedure explicit in the constitutional position previously, that the Bill should become law in the form in which it originally left the Dáil, but with the addition of the modifications certified in a certain manner to which both Houses had agreed. That provision was explicitly stated in Article 38A. There is no such provision in the present Constitution—its omission is significant I suggest—and it would appear, therefore, that the Minister, if I may say so, was correct in the opinion he expressed, and which I have quoted. If that is a correct exposition of the position the situation is one that needs looking into with a view to authoritative interpretation. The Minister's statement discloses what I suggest is a rather important flaw in the Constitution. It is not the first one that has been discovered in it, and I am sure it will not be the last. In regard to the position of this House it is a matter of importance that when we have made amendments to a Bill we can be confronted with this situation: that if we insist on our opinions on a particular point the Bill will become law with none of our amendments not even those on which agreement had been reached between the two Houses. I do not know if that position was contemplated by the framers of the Constitution. It certainly is not a position which this House would desire to have. Having drawn attention to the matter, and stated my views I now move that we do not insist on our disagreement to the Dáil amendment.
I second. Will the Senator define for us what periods constitute summer and winter time?
That is defined in an Act. The Minister for Justice answered that question by saying that the expression "summer time" has a statutory meaning. I think it has.
I raised that question before. The definition in the previous Intoxicating Liquor Act is that the expression "summer time" means the period appointed by us under the Summer Time Act of 1925 to be the period of summer time. Therefore, we have a period of summer time at present.
At any rate it is susceptible of legal definition.
The period is settled by Order made by the Government, I understand.
Question: "That the Seanad do not insist on its disagreement to the amendments made by the Dáil to amendments Nos. 1 and 2 made by the Seanad to the Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1942, and now agrees to the amendments made by the Dáil to the said amendments."
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
I move: "That a Message be sent to the Dáil acquainting them accordingly."
Question put and agreed to.
Message to be sent to the Dáil.