I am not prepared to ask the Dáil to agree with this amendment from the Seanad. There are administrative difficulties which it is unnecessary to go into. In fact I am convinced that while the franchise is on an occupation instead of a ratepaying basis it would be impossible to administer the law, as amended by this amendment, equitably. However that is not the vital point at issue, as the Ceann Comhairle has informed the Dáil he considers the amendment is out of order. I was under the same impression all along. When I introduced this Bill in the Dáil I introduced it as a machinery Bill. It was non-contentious and all Parties agreed to allow it to go through. It had nothing whatever to do with changing the franchise or with anything of a contentious nature. If it was contentious when I introduced it I might not have got it through before the Christmas holidays. The Seanad insisted on putting in this amendment which really amounts to initiating legislation. Under the Constitution the Seanad has power to initiate legislation. But this amendment changes the whole character of the Bill at a stage which deprives us of our Constitutional right, or of our right according to procedure, of amending or discussing the Bill on four or five Stages. Instead of that we are allowed only one opportunity of discussing this amendment. For that reason I think it would be seriously limiting the powers of the Dáil to agree to an amendment of this kind. After all we must remember that we are creating precedents and we have to be very careful and jealous of our rights.
DAIL RESUMES. - DAIL IN COMMITTEE.
I must say that I regret that the Minister did not address himself a little more to the subject matter of the amendment instead of devoting himself entirely to the fact that it was outside the scope of the Bill. I personally regret that it should be necessary for us to disagree with the Seanad and, I think, Ministers pro bably regret it; but, if we are to disagree with them, let us not do it on the ground that they do not understand the rules of order. That is the only reason the Minister has given: that they have inserted something which was not in order. That is not the manner in which we are likely to get a favourable settlement. If we simply send the amendment back to them saying that we consider it outside the scope of the Bill, in colloquial language, their backs will go up at once. I hope that some member of the Government will give some reasoned statement why this amendment is undesirable and why we should not agree with it, beyond the, mere fact that it is possibly out of order and possibly outside the scope of the Bill The Seanad, after all, are presided over by a high legal authority, and they have decided that it was in order. Therefore, I should prefer to deal with the actual subject matter of the amendment. The Minister said there were administrative difficulties. I think we should have heard what they are. I think we should make a definite case why this proposal—on which I have no very strong views one way or the other —would be inconvenient. I hope some member of the Government will give his views on that matter.
Under the old electoral law persons were——
I feel that it is possible I may be responsible for a certain amount of this discussion, but it is a matter of some importance and not merely a matter of order, that a Bill should go from this Dáil and that an amendment should come back from the Seanad which, had it been proposed in the Dáil, would have been out of order and which Deputies had, therefore, no opportunity of discussing. Before the President proceeds, I think the matter to be decided is whether the amendment is going to be considered by the Committee. If it is, then the merits of it can be gone into. If it is going to be disagreed with, on the ground that it is outside the scope of the Bill, that will not necessitate any discussion of the merits of the amendment. There are two different things. One is, that the amendment introduces new legislation and, therefore, is a matter for a new Bill, rather than something to be part of this Bill. The other is, that the amendment is to be considered and that it is to be considered on its merits. I would like to hear the President's views on that.
I was going to make just a short explanation of that. Under the old electoral law there were certain restrictions which were removed by a subsequent Act. We accepted the subsequent Act and one of the provisions of that Act was the fixing of a certain date from which the qualification would run. In this case, owing to circumstances, it was necessary to fix a qualifying date to regulate the new Act which would make for much more ease and simplicity and save a considerable amount of expense. The Bill was introduced as being strictly non-contentious and mainly with the view of fixing a date. That interpretation of the Bill Was before the Dáil. It was considered as such. I am positively certain that if the members of the Dáil considered the Bill a Franchise Bill, as such, that many amendments would have been brought forward from at least two sections of the Dáil, and possibly from a third, seeking to make what would be important amendments from the point of view of the Deputies and generally tightening up the law regarding the franchise for Local Government. The law with regard to the other franchise, I think, is clear. It is in the Constitution. But with regard to Local Government it is not, An amendment, such as this is not a fair amendment. I think the Seanad on reconsidering the matter will at once perceive that it is scarcely fair to characterise Bills differently from the form in which they left the Dáil, considering that they have passed the Dáil in a non-contentious atmosphere, and are for the purpose of providing machinery suitable for the special circumstances of the time.
I am not quite sure whether the President is arguing in favour of discussing the merits of the amendment or not. It seems to me that we have to decide whether we ought to discuss the amendment on its merits, or rather try to arrive at an understanding as to the procedure which should be adopted in this matter as a precedent for future occasions when the Dáil may disagree with the Seanad on matters of order of this kind. I am inclined to think, having this warning, that we ought to take in to consideration at once Standing Orders relating to such a difficulty. It may arise occasionally, and seems to call for such a body as is defined in connection with disputes on Money Bills. While I agree that the amendment is really outside the scope of the Bill, we may take it, shall I say, that the Ceann Comhairle has not been strict in his ruling on this occasion and allows the Dáil to deal with the merits of the motion.
I do that for several reasons. I think that the whole position regarding disagreements of this kind between the two Houses should be considered more carefully than they could be on short notice and, further, I would like to have the views of the Dáil as to the merits of this amendment.
I do not think that anybody proposes to discuss the merits, but rather to make it clear that it is in the mind of every member that the Bill, as coming from the Seanad, comes back entirely different in character. It was sent as a non-contentious measure for a particular purpose, but it has come back as a contentious measure, and not for the same purpose exactly.
The President has, I think, convinced me that my first argument was mistaken. May I express regret that no Minister put the point of view before the Seanad when the Bill was discussed there so cogently as the President has just done?
I was in the Seanad, but unfortunately I was called outside by a Senator in connection with other business when this matter was under consideration, and I think that some of the Senators were closed out from voting.
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. 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 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.
As it is the view of the President that we should not discuss the merits of this amendment, but should discuss the question whether the Dáil is going to consider an amendment which the Dáil admits to be outside the scope of the Bill, in such a case, I imagine, no discussion is required, but that, taking it out of your hands, the Dáil decides that it is outside the scope of the Bill. Therefore it cannot discuss it. That is what the argument leads to. That is what the President desires, but I doubt his wisdom. We rule that the Seanad exceeded its authority.
No.
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. We must, in courtesy to the Seanad, and in accordance with our general practice, either decide to lay the amendment aside, expressing no opinion on it, or to agree with it, or to disagree with it. What I understood the Minister to move was that we disagree with it, because we consider the amendment as being outside the scope of the Bill. I do not think that there is any question of limiting the power or authority of the Seanad. The Seanad has full power and authority to initiate legislation amending any Act, in so far as such Act concerns the qualifications of Local Government voters.
Would it not be clear that where a Bill goes to the Seanad and the Seanad by amendment changes its entire character, the Seanad is in the position of having initiated legislation and Bill could not be dealt with here as amending legislation but as initiated legislation?
That is so.
I am not clear as to how the Attorney-General would, so to speak, implement it. Would he put a title and so forth to this particular section and discuss it-as a Bill passed in the Seanad?
No. When the character of a Bill has been completely changed it is not an amended Bill but a new one when it comes back. It is not the Bill that has been sent up.
That is my own personal view of this matter. In point of fact, some Deputies approached me with regard to amendments in this particular Bill. I pointed out, that the Bill was a machinery measure, that we were not concerned with the qualifications of voters, and that if we were to amend it the scope of the discussion would be very wide indeed. The Deputies in question, agreed with me. The Bill as it comes back from the Seanad might be argued to be a new Bill, but the difficulty is that we must have some machinery for dealing with the Bill that went up so that it can be passed into law.
I am a little dubious as to the position. If a measure is brought into the Dáil with a short title and preamble and is then passed and goes to the Seanad is it competent for the Seanad to treat that as a blank page to write on it anything it wishes? It seems to me the intention, whatever the form of the constitutional relations may be, is that a Bill coming from one house to another must be considered in regard to its intention and purpose, and that the initiating house has the right to say what that intention and purpose is. If that is the fact and the Seanad introduces into any Bill, entirely different matter, I submit we have a right to say that they have exceeded their authority in regard to the Bill.
It does come forward as a new Bill, and they have not returned the original Bill with amendments to the Dáil. It is because I feel that raises a very important matter that I think it would have been better for us to have that argued over a joint sitting, or to appoint a joint committee to deal with such matter. I still think we will be less liable to get into a dispute if such a course as that is taken. We are practically admitting in this matter that the Seanad may add on to the Fisheries Bill almost a constitutional amendment, to take an extreme case. We are, I think, rightly contending that the scope of the Bill is defined in the preamble and the title, and that any amendment should be limited to that. It goes into the Seanad, and is taken on the first reading because it has been already passed by the other House. Similarly, if the Seanad introduced a Bill dealing with light railways, and if we were to deal with ocean-going steamships or fisheries, attaching them on to such a Bill, I suggest we would be going outside the limit of our authority. I consider we would be wiser to consult with the Seanad either in joint meeting or by a Committee on Privleges before we got at loggerheads. We are raising an issue between the Ceann Comhairle and the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad. The Ceann Comhairle decides, and we agree, that the scope of the Bill precludes consideration of electoral qualifications. The Cathaoirleach says it already includes questions relating to disqualification. Therefore, the amendment is in order. I think we ought to take an easy course in this matter. I do not know whether it is very urgent.
It is urgent.
I think we would be wiser to ask for a joint sitting or the appointment of a committee to consider the contention that this amendment goes beyond the scope of the Bill.
Are we in order in asking for a joint sitting? Is it not in Article 38 of the Constitution that only the Seanad has that power?
When the Cathaoirleach's attention is attracted to this matter, he may rule there in accordance with the rulings of this House. There is not yet any disagreement on the particular principle. I suggest the amendment should here be rejected by the Dáil on the grounds that it is not within the scope of the Bill, and the Bill should be returned to the Seanad. It may be if any attempt is made to reintroduce an amendment and so alter the Bill that the Cathaoirleach may take that view and there would be no disagreement. It seems a pity to invoke any big machinery or prepare for a big debate until we know that there is a big disagreement.
If I understand Deputy Johnson right he is not so concerned about this case as about the general situation which might arise in future. A joint sitting would rather be about a particular Bill, and the amendments to the particular Bill. If we are to have some agreement with the Seanad as to what is to happen when an amendment ruled out of order in one House would be passed in another House, that would be a more difficult case to deal with. A Deputy may move an amendment here which would be ruled out of order, and that amendment might be allowed in another place. In that case you would have more difficulty, because the two Houses would have adopted different procedure. While I do not think a joint sitting would help us, a consultation which has proved very efficacious in the past between our Committee on Procedure and their Committee on Standing Orders might, if the Dáil agreed, consider the general question. Whether the Bill can he postponed until then and whether the Dáil would agree to that is another matter.
I do not think any harm will be done by the Dáil rejecting this amendment. If there are matters in dispute there ought to be at least agreement on what is in dispute. In this matter I think the Seanad, on reconsideration, will see that this particular amendment to the Bill alters the entire character of it, and that in those matters the same things may occur again. We will possibly find some means of preventing differences of that sort. I do not think it is necessary to put up any elaborate machinery to deal with these cases. The joint sitting will bring out the causes of this disagreement. It was not the intention of the Minister that the Bill should be tinged with that particular colour. As I understand the case, the Minister for Local Government would prefer not to have the Bill than to have this particular clause in it. It is a bad principle to allow to grow up. Ministers may introduce a Bill here as being non-contentious. It goes to the other House; and comes back, altered entirely by an amendment of this sort, which would have been refused in good faith in this House if it were introduced here. I have no doubt when those matters are understood that some machinery will be arranged to obviate their occurring in future.
I do not think that the Minister has any right to consider, especially when he is dealing with two Houses, whether a Bill is contentious or non-cotentious. That is purely a matter for convenience, and not at all in the same category as the question under discussion. It is because this is so simple a can that I would prefer a precedent on it so that there would be little risk of very violent collision in this matter.
The issue is a simple one and I believe, with the President, that on reconsideration the Seanad will see the unwisdom of the amendment. But it is because of the simplicity of the case that I would like a precedent to be set for the future when, on very much more important matters, the Seanad would disagree with the Dáil in regard to the character of a Bill. If the Ceann Comhairle said, on re-reading the Bill with the amendments sent down by the Seanad, that his first judgment was faulty and he therefore ruled that it was in order to discuss the amendments, then we would be discussing the merits, but if we simply disagree now with this amendment because it is outside the scope of the Bill, we are, in fact, informing the Cathaoirleach that his judgment was wrong; we are telling him that he must re-consider his judgment. He may be a very easy-going gentleman and he may say: "I do not mind; please yourselves." He may be the other way and he may say: "I stick to my right in this matter," and the Seanad may also say: "We are going to stand by the amendment on its merits." Then we have 270 days to wait, or a referendum. The rule regarding references to a Joint Sitting undoubtedly lays it down that the Seanad will be the body which will call for it, but I think that might be agreed to if the view is taken that it is desirable to get over this little difficulty easily, and a Joint Sitting is the only course that I can see that is clearly laid down for us. It may be a Joint Sitting of a very small House, and it may not be deciding the issue. It Will rather be discussing it, and, therefore, the path may be made easy. The Committee on Privileges would only be set up ad hoc. I do not think it is laid down that we must have such as between the two Houses, and that can only be by agreement with the Seanad, but I imagine it is the line of least resistance, and would, I believe, possibly save very much greater difficulty at a future date.
Is the Deputy suggesting a Joint Sitting of both Houses or a joint conference of two Committees?
Of course, a Joint Sitting, under the Constitution, would have to be suggested by the Seanad. We might ask for a joint conference quite informally.
Of certain members or of all?
With those that would come.
I would urge that we do not really know yet, whether the Cathaoirleach has ever had his attention directed to this matter, or has given any positive ruling on it, as a matter of order. It might be that when attention was directed to it the matter might be quite simple. I suggest that the thing be sent back rejecting this amendment. The matter Will then be brought under the notice of the Cathaoirleach. There will be a ruling, and an opportunity for a discussion will or will not arise.
The Minister has already moved that the Dáil do disagree with, this amendment.
I would beg the Government not to press a decision on this matter this afternoon. It is quite evident that there is a considerable difference of opinion, and surely in a matter of this constitutional importance when, as the Minister for Local Government said, we are making precedents, we ought not to decide on the spur of the moment. If time were given to the leaders of the various parties to meet and talk it over, we should be in a very much stronger position to assert whatever we decide to be our rights, because then the Government will feel that they have behind them the support of every Deputy. Surely that is the position we want to be in. I would suggest that the President, move to report progress on this matter and give us time to go into it in greater detail and with somewhat less hurried judgment.
I have no personal objection to adjourning it to Tuesday, but I say that if the Bill is to be of any use at all to the Minister this year that time is particularly pressing. A date has been fixed, and it was anticipated that the Bill, from its non-contentious character, from the manner in which it was moved here, from everything in connection with it, would have been passed into law. Certain action has been taken, and a good deal of public money will have been expended in vain, unless accommodation is afforded to us by the Seanad. However, I move that we report progress and that we re-consider the matter on Tuesday.
Agreed.