Article 37 reads:—"Every Bill initiated in and passed by the Chamber/Dáil Eireann shall be sent to the Senate/Seanad Eireann and may, unless it be a Money Bill, be amended in the Senate/Seanad Eireann and the Chamber/Dáil Eireann shall consider any such amendment: but a Bill passed by the Chamber/Dáil Eireann and considered by the Senate/ Seanad Eireann shall, not later than two hundred and seventy days after it shall have been first sent to the Senate/ Seanad, or such longer period as may be agreed upon by the two Houses, be deemed to be passed by both Houses in its form as last passed by the Chamber/ Dáil: Provided that any Money Bill shall be sent to the Senate/Seanad for its recommendations and at a period not longer than fourteen days after it shall have been sent to the Senate/ Seanad, it shall be returned to the Chamber/Dáil, which may pass it, accepting or rejecting all or any of the recommendations of the Senate/Seanad, and as so passed shall be deemed to have been passed by both Houses. When a Bill other than a Money Bill has been sent to the Senate/Seanad a Joint Sitting of the Members of both Houses may on a resolution passed by the Senate/Seanad be convened for the purpose of debating, but not of voting upon, the proposals of the Bill or any amendment of the same." The purpose of this article is to keep the power of the purse absolutely with the Lower Chamber, absolutely with Dáil Eireann. One might say there is not the same reason for doing so under our Constitution as under a Constitution where the Upper Chamber is not an elected body. But the power of dealing with Money Bills in the Lower Chamber, and the importance of it, is so generally recognised, that even with the comparatively democratic Upper House that we have under this Constitution, it has been thought best to reserve it. At the same time, it is agreed that you are likely to have in the Seanad men of considerable capacity and men of financial experience, and the discussion of Money Bills in the Seanad might be of considerable advantage both to the Dáil and the country. A Money Bill comes along to the Seanad, and for a period, which is stated here as 14 days, it may be discussed there, and it shall then be returned to the Dáil with recommendations. The Dáil is not obliged to accept all or any of those recommendations. It can pass the Bill in its original form, and when so passed it shall be deemed to have been passed by both Houses. It is thought useful that recommendations should come back to the Dáil from the Upper House. The last paragraph deals with Bills other than a Money Bill. "When a Bill other than a Money Bill has been sent to the Senate/Seanad a Joint sitting of the Members of both Houses, may on a resolution passed by the Senate/Seanad be convened." That is, the Seanad may ask for a joint sitting and there can be a joint debate on a Bill, but not joint sitting. Joint voting was pressed for by some of the people we met in London, but it was not conceded. There may be very weighty measures considered here and sent along to the Seanad, and there may be a discussion in both Houses, or, say, a selected team from the Seanad would put certain, views before the Lower Chamber, that might be of considerable advantage. The period for which the Seanad might hold up a Bill is 270 days. That is the extent of their power to check legislation. The nine months is obviously a compromise between twelve months and six months. Seeing that that is the chief purpose of a Second Chamber, it is intended as a check on hasty legislation. Nine months does not seem excessive, and in the ordinary way it will be found an Upper House will be slow to exercise that delaying power and will only exercise it where the matter is a gravely controversial one, and one on which there will be considerable difference of opinion through the country. In cases of that kind nine months' reflection or nine months' controversy may lead to useful amendments or perhaps to wiser counsels; but in any case, if cannot do any very serious harm. That is the purpose of that portion of the article.
DEBATES ON ADJOURNMENT. - ARTICLE 37. BILLS.
Mr. KEVIN O'HIGGINS:
Mr. G. GAVAN DUFFY:
Before Deputy Figgis moves his amendment, may I say something on the motion? I think the 270 days is a great deal too long a time, but this, I take it, is one of the things put in to satisfy the apprehensions of those whom we have known as Southern Unionists, and one is so anxious to see them coming in, and taking their proper part in the building of the Nation, that one is reluctant to stand on small points. Therefore, I do not press that, but I think it is a pity. I would, call the Minister's attention to two points that arise in this Article, which I would suggest are worthy of consideration for amendment before the next reading. You provide that a Money Bill must be sent to the Seanad for its recommendation and that at a period of not more than 14 days after the Seanad gets the bill, it must be returned; but you do not say what is to happen if the Seanad should be obstreperous and refuse to return the bill. That may not be likely to happen, but on the other hand it is a thing to bear in mind. You may have a row between both Houses over a particular bill, and a slight change in wording now would make it perfectly clear that the Seanad is not entitled to hold up the passing of a Money Bill by refusing to return it. If you provide that the Seanad may retain the Bill for not more than 14 days, whereupon the Dáil shall proceed, or something to that effect, instead of using the words "shall be returned," you get over the difficulty. There is another point. I think, in view of the provision in Article 46 for a referendum, which may be petitioned for within a period of 90 days from the day on which a bill is passed, or is deemed to have been passed, it is essential that one should be quite certain as to the date on which the bill is passed, or is deemed to have been passed. You will find in Article 37 that in certain events a bill is deemed to be passed by both Houses in its form as last passed by the Chamber. I suggest "deemed to be passed at such a date as the Dáil may decide," or words to that effect, would be more suitable. The same thing occurs in Article 39, and I think it would be desirable to make it perfectly clear exactly at what date a bill is deemed to be passed. Where a bill is deemed to be passed, unless you make your wording quite clear, nobody will know from what precise date the ninety days start running. I would like the Members of the Cabinet to look into this matter and to make these points clearer.
Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS:
My amendment is:—
"To substitute instead of the words ‘at a period not longer than fourteen days after it shall have been sent to the Senate' the words ‘at a period not longer than one calendar month after it shall have been sent to the Senate.' "
My reason for that can be very simply stated. There will be persons in the Senate who, if the Senate fulfils its hopes, will be of special financial corn petence, or, at least, the Senate may hold persons of special financial competence and there is no special advantage gained by hurrying the Finance Bill through one fortnight. There may be in the Senate some congestion of business, and it would be just as well to give every opportunity for getting as full consideration of financial matters as would be possible If the Senate is to be a cooling chamber there are few matters that require greater cooling, or where cooling would be of greater service than a measure affecting the expenditure of money.
Mr. T. JOHNSON:
I would like to say, not touching the amendment, but touching the Article itself, nine months of a delay in the Seanad may immediately be followed by another three months That is a considerable time for the Seanad to be allowed to hold up a Bill, unless there is very specific reason to be adduced. I think we should reduce that 270 days to six months, if that would meet with agreement.
I do not think, unless the Dáil particularly requests it, that there is much reason for accepting the amendment. If a Money Bill sent to the Seanad for recommendation does not take precedence of any Bill which may happen to be before them it cannot be of very great importance, and while it might be well in some cases to give very careful consideration to Money Bills, there are other occasions upon which it may be necessary to impose taxation, or something of that sort, immediately, and one loses a fortnight of valuable time. Fourteen days is a long time, and I think any Money Bill could be discussed in that time, even allowing for any other business on hands.
Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS:
Normally I do not imagine more than a fortnight would be required. A Money Bill might go to the Seanad dealing with some complicated question of finance, where a fortnight would not be adequate for its consideration and discussion. Normally I would imagine it would take under a week, or not more than ten days, but exceptional circumstances have also to be provided for. Clearly some financial question might be so complicated as to require more than a fortnight.
Mr. GERALD FITZGIBBON:
Could you not meet the view of Deputy Figgis by putting in the Bill "not more than fourteen days, unless the time shall be enlarged by the Dáil"? That would leave it in the power of the Dáil to make arrangements; if the Dáil came to the conclusion that another week would be necessary they could enlarge the time. It would take away the peremptory fourteen days. I am certainly of opinion that power ought to be kept in the hands of this Dáil.
Mr. O'HIGGINS:
Does that meet your point?
Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS:
Quite.
Mr. O'HIGGINS:
We can promise to insert the words conveying the idea that the Dáil can prolong the period if it thinks fit in certain cases. As to Deputy Gavan Duffy's point, I do not agree there is that vagueness which he suggests. The Article provides "and at a period not longer than fourteen days after it shall have been sent to the Senats/Seanad it shall be returned to the Chamber/Dáil. which may pass it, accepting or rejecting all or any of the recommendations of the Senate/Seanad, and as so passed shall be deemed to have been passed by both Houses."
Mr. GAVAN DUFFY:
The time I was referring to is earlier in the paragraph, where it is provided "not later than 270 days, or such longer period as may be agreed upon by the two Houses." There you have a very indeterminate period. I would also draw attention to Article 39.
Mr. O'HIGGINS:
Yes, we will look into that, and fix it more definitely. Subject to our looking into these points, if we get this Article passed as it stands with an undertaking to fix up any verbal looseness that may be in it we will be satisfied.
Motion made and question put: "That Article 37 stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.