I move the Second Reading of the Expiring Laws Bill, 1924.
DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - EXPIRING LAWS BILL, 1924—SECOND STAGE.
Strictly speaking the Minister was out of order in moving the Second Reading of the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill. That is not the title of this Bill at all. If it were I should not be opposing it. This is not only a Bill to continue certain laws which would expire in the course of the next few months; it is a Bill to make permanent five Bills which were hitherto temporary. That is a principle we should be very slow to admit. How many Deputies have read these five Bills that we are asked to make permanent? One passed in the last Dáil, The District Justices (Temporary Provisions) Act, is, no doubt, familiar to Deputies. The others we have not heard a word about from the Minister. I wonder if he read them all himself? Can he explain to us what the Promissory Notes (Ireland) Act of 1864 is? If he cannot tell me I shall be pleased to tell him. It enacts that Notaries Public need not keep their offices open until 9 o'clock, but may close them at 6 o'clock. I fear that is a law more honoured in the breach than in the observance, as most of them are closed about 5 o'clock. Then we have the Locomotives Act of 1865. That is now to be put on the Statute Book for good. Does the Minister know anything about it? Does any Deputy on the Government Benches know anything about it? It is not one that I take much exception to. It covers many things, but it does not cover locomotives on a railway. It covers the use of traction engines and vehicles of that kind on the public road, and has some very useful and necessary provisions, such as forbidding a driver to let off the whistle or steam if there is a horse in sight. I think if we are going to make legislation of that kind permanent we should have it before us. It should not be smuggled through in a Bill of this kind. If the Minister should bring in a Bill, I should have no objection, in the case of the Bills I have mentioned, to make them permanent, but, I would like them made permanent as definite Government Bills and not as part of a Bill which, most people, looking at, would think was merely continuing these enactments for another year.
The other two enactments proposed to be made permanent are of a very much more serious and important nature. One is the Motor Car Act of 1903. That is an Act which governs the use of motor cars. I need hardly argue to the Dáil that an Act passed in 1903 dealing with motor cars is by now somewhat obsolete. The whole trade has been developed, and the whole business has become far more intricate and more widespread. In 1903 only comparatively rich men used motor cars. Nowadays every village in the Free State has probably a Ford car, which some young fellow keeps for hire, as a means of making a living. It is not only the rich who use motor cars now; they are used to a considerable extent by those of moderate means, even if they only hire them.
The basic principle of the Act of 1903 is challenged, and has been repeatedly challenged. The basic principle is that anyone may take out a licence to drive a motor car without qualifying by examination, or by any physical test of any kind whatever. A blind man may take out a licence to drive a motor car. A lunatic may take out a licence to drive a motor car. The hypothetical person whom the Minister for Justice invented on the Intoxicating Liquor Bill, the gentleman who joined at least three clubs so that he could get drink at any hour of the twenty-four, could take out a licence to drive a motor car. The Act of 1903 is also concerned with speed limits, and it might reasonably be argued that some of the speeds applicable to 1903 are not applicable now. Yet we are asked, without discussion, or without the possibility of amendment, to place this Act, amended slightly as it was by a later Act of 1920 — the Roads Act — on the Statute Book without having an opportunity of amending it, or of a proper discussion. I suggest that we should be very unwise to do so.
It is the same with the other Act, the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904. How much was known of wireless telegraphy in 1904 compared with what is known to-day? The whole development of wireless broadcasting has come up since 1904. I do not know if the Minister will tell me that this Act was modified in 1907. It was. I looked up the amending Act, and the only purpose of it is to continue the Act of 1904. Since then it has been continued in the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill, which in other Parliaments is an Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill, and not a machine to put, permanently, measures on the Statute Book. I propose, on the Committee Stage, to move the transfer of these two Bills from the First Schedule to the Second Schedule. I am not opposed to continuing them for a year. The Government have had a great deal to do, and might not have had time to draft permanent legislation on this matter, but I say that the Dáil would be very ill advised to let these measures pass out of its control.
When they come up again in a year's time, if we think the time ripe, we shall have an opportunity of pressing for permanent legislation on either of these subjects. They are both of considerable importance to the community as a whole. One governs the use of motor cars, and the other gives the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs all the powers that he is exercising in regard to wireless broadcasting. He collects moneys for licences under the powers given under this Act, which we are now asked to place on the Statute Book without discussion. I, therefore, most strongly deprecate the action of the Government in trying to get this Bill through in this manner, and I ask the Dáil not to agree to surrender its function of criticism and control by allowing such legislation to be made permanent.
I support the attitude adopted by Deputy Cooper, and I would urge upon the Minister the desirability of amending this Bill, or telling us before he takes the Second Reading that he will amend it so as to make all these enactments continue only for the succeeding year. I think the principle is a bad one, that we should be asked to make permanent, Bills, which we have accepted as yearly enactments, without having had a full opportunity of examining and discussing them. Since this Bill was introduced we had ten days, and during that time we were told we must not consider the business of the Dáil. We may have to go into the merits of all these Bills that are now to be made permanent. That might raise quite a lot of controversy. We may have to move amendments to suggest that in so far as certain things contained in those Acts are concerned, they should not be made permanent. We should have to alter the schedules considerably. That may be so if we find, on examining the Acts, that there are objectionable provisions. The method of perpetuating Acts of this kind is, I agree with Deputy Cooper, not commendable, to say the least. The reference in the Bill itself would, I think, show that there will be simply a perpetuation of the method of legislation by reference.
We will find in future legislation certain references to part of the Act as contained in Part 2 of the Schedule which has been repealed and part of which has been made permanent and so on. That does not seem to me to be satisfactory. We are asked to make permanent Section 9 and Schedule 3 of the District Justices (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923. I do not know what Section 9 refers to, but this method of making permanent an Act is certainly unsatisfactory. I would urge the Minister to agree to place all those Acts in the single schedule of enactments which are to be continued, and to give us an opportunity during the next year either by Private Member's Bill or by Government measure to introduce those Bills as new Bills so that we may discuss or amend them according to present conditions.
May I call attention to the fact that there are not twenty Deputies present?
Twenty Deputies not being present, the sitting was suspended from 6.15 p.m. to 6.19 p.m., when the necessary number of Deputies were in the Chamber.
Deputy Cooper, I think, is by way of being a purist in parliamentary procedure. I am sorry I cannot agree with him that there is anything wrong in making permanent Acts of this nature, some of which have been enforced since 1864, 1865 and so on. The real thing requiring defence is the continuing of legislation like that from year to year. It is, in effect, permanent. It would not be possible for the Dáil to refuse to continue those Acts and thus leave the country without suitable legislation for any length of time. It leaves the Dáil no lever for pressing for fresh legislation. If I had doubts about this Bill they would rather be whether we should continue Acts for another year rather than make them permanent. I do not know how the practice arose. It arose in the British Parliament. It seems to me absurd to have Acts for a long period renewed from year to year and never made permanent. There are some provisions of these Acts which I will certainly stand for making permanent, such as that in Part 2 of the First Schedule. That is an indemnity clause in a Temporary Act. The district justices were appointed in a way which was, perhaps, somewhat irregular. They functioned as district justices. We indemnified them. That indemnity must be permanent. It would not do to let it fall and let people take proceedings against the justices because the indemnity fell with the Temporary Act.
But when we are continuing for a year only so many Bills, I would not press, except in that particular case, for continuing in the first part of the Schedule any Act that there was a strong feeling should not be continued. I would not make it a mere matter of a majority in the Chamber. If there was a strong feeling in regard to any particular Act, I would not try to push it through. On the other hand, I do not think there is anything wrong in this practice and I would not undertake to proceed to remove all the Acts in, say, the first part of the First Schedule, into the Second Schedule, except some case were made and some feeling shown in regard to these Acts. I do not want to deal with the individual Acts here, because it is really a matter for the Committee Stage. I am prepared to give a short explanation of each of them, and if any section of the House really feels that a particular Act should not be made permanent, I would not force it through.
Would the Minister promise to submit a schedule showing the nature of these particular Acts, so that we may deal with them in our private moments, away from the Library of the Dáil?
Does the Deputy mean the complete text of the Act in each case?
If we are asked to make permanent a particular Act, we should have the text before us. At present we can only have the text by taking the Act down in the Library. That is not possible for every Deputy. When we are passing legislation of any kind, we are supposed to have the text of the law before us. Will the Minister, before the Committee Stage, promise to let us have the text of these various Acts, which are to be practically new Acts?
I am afraid I could not promise that. The expense would not be justified. If Deputies feel serious doubts about a particular Act and the advisability of making it permanent, they can object.
The Minister said it was absurd to keep on passing, from year to year, Acts that were very old. I think it is equally absurd to attempt to make permanent Acts that were passed in the very infancy of the matter to which they refer. Acts that were eminently suitable at the birth of the matters to which they refer, become equally ludicrous years after that stage has been passed.
I agree with Deputy Cooper in most of what he says. I would ask the Minister to recognise that we are comparative novices in Parliamentary matters here, and a little more information as to what we are asked to do on these Bills would be very valuable. I think the Minister for Justice, in his Department, has recognised that, because, generally, in his Bills, he has explanatory notes which are very valuable, as a ready means of ascertaining what the contents of the Bills are. It does seem to me that to make permanent the Motor Car Act and the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1904 is inopportune. It may be that there is nothing in the Bill that we would object to making permanent. But there, again, is the difficulty. Some component parts of the House have not got the elaborate political machinery necessary to analyse all these Bills as they come to hand, and if the Minister would recognise that and give us any assistance he could in forming a judgment on these matters, it would be very helpful. There is a whole string of Acts here to be made permanent and it would be a biggish job to examine in detail all these Acts. For an individual member, or even for a member of a small Party of two, it would be a difficult task.
I will undertake to circulate to Deputies a fairly complete statement of what the provisions of each Act are.
Will that be before the Committee Stage?
Yes.
Question put:—"That the read a Second Time."
The Dáil divided:
Tá, 21; Níl, 17.
Tá
|
Earnán de Blaghd.Seoirse de Bhulbh.Séamus de Búrca.Sir James Craig.Máighréad Ní Choileáin BeanUí Dhrisceóil.John Good.William Hewat.Eoin Mac Néill.Seoirse Mac Niocaill.Liam Mag Aonghusa. |
John T. Nolan.Peadar O hAodha.Risteárd O Conaill.Séamus O Dóláin.Séamus O Leadáin.Fionán O Loingsigh.Séamus O Murchadha.Seán O Súilleabháin.Andrew O'Shaughnessy.Patrick W. Shaw.Liam Thrift. |
Níl
|
John J. Cole.Bryan R. Cooper.David Hall.Tomás Mac Eoin.Risteárd Mac Fheorais.Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.Risteárd Mac Liam.Patrick J. Mulvany.James Sproule Myles. |
Tomás O Conaill.Aodh O Cúlacháin.Seán O Duinnín.Mícheál O hIfearnáin.Seán O Laidhin.Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).Patrick K. Hogan (Luimneach).William A. Redmond. |
Motion declared carried.
Third Stage ordered for Tuesday, 25th November.