In Committee on Finance. - Constitution (Amendment) (No. 24) Bill, 1934—Committee Stage. – Dáil Éireann (8th Dáil) – Wednesday, 25 Apr 1934

In Committee on Finance. - Constitution (Amendment) (No. 24) Bill, 1934—Committee Stage.

Sections 1, 2 and 3 agreed to.

SCHEDULE

PART II.

AMENDMENTS OF PARTICULAR ARTICLES

Article	Amendment
18	The deletion of the words “either House” in both places and the substitution therefor in each place of the words “Dáil Eireann”; the deletion of the words “the House” and the substitution therefor of the words “Dáil Eireann”.
19	The deletion of the words “either House thereof” and the sub stitution therefor of the words “Dáil Eireann”; the deletion of the words “either House” where they secondly occur and the substitution therefor of the words “Dáil Eireann.”
20	The deletion of the words “each House” and the substitution therefor of the words “Dáil Eireann.”
21	The deletion of the words “each House” and the substitution therefor of the words “Dáil Eireann.”
22	The deletion of the words “each House” and the substitution therefor of the words “Dáil Eireann”; the deletion of the words “either House” and the substitution therefor of the words “Dáil Eireann.”
24	The deletion of all words from the words “and the date” to the end of the Article.
25	The deletion of the words “each House of the Oireachtas” and the substitution therefor of the words “Dáil Eireann”; the deletion of the words “either House” and the substitution therefor of the words “Dáil Eireann.”
41	The deletion of the words “or deemed to have been passed by both Houses” and the sub stitution therefor of the words “by Dáil Eireann.”
50	The deletion of the words “both Houses of the Oireachtas” and the substitution therefor of the words “Dáil Eireann”; the deletion of the words “or deemed to have been passed by the said two Houses of the Oireachtas” and the substitution therefor of the words “by Dáil Eireann.”
52	The deletion of the words “save that one of such other members may be a member of Seanad Eireann.”
63	The deletion of the word “resolu tions” and the substitution therefor of the words “a resolu tion”; the deletion of the words “and Seanad Eireann.”
68	The deletion of the word “resolu tions” and the substitution therefor of the words “a resolu tion”; the deletion of the word “both”; the deletion of the words “and Seanad Eireann.”

Mr. Cosgrave

I beg to move amendment No. 1:—

In Part II, in the second column relating to Article 41, to add after the word "Eireann" the words "the insertion after the words ‘Executive Council shall present' of the words ‘not earlier, in the case of Money Bills as hereinafter defined, than seven clear days, or in the case of any Bill other than a Money Bill, three clear days after the passage of such Bill.'"; the insertion at the end of the Article of the words—

"A Money Bill for the purposes of this Article means a Bill which contains provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects, namely, the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration or regulation of taxation; the imposition for the payment of debt or other financial purposes of charges on public moneys or the variation or repeal of any such charges; supply; the appropriation, receipt, custody, issue or audit of accounts of public money; the raising or guarantee of any loan or the repayment thereof; subordinate matters incidental to those subjects or any of them. In this definition the expressions ‘taxation,'‘public money' and ‘loan' respectively do not include any taxation, money, or loan raised by local authorities or bodies for local purposes."

This measure was introduced in order to take the Seanad out of the Constitution. The taking out of the Seanad would provide a fairly easy passage for Bills. Under the Constitution, so far, a Money Bill could be considered by the Seanad and recommendations could be made in connection with it. There is a period of 21 days after which, if no recommendations come from the Seanad, a Money Bill becomes law. This amendment provides that seven clear days shall elapse from the introduction of the Money Bill until it becomes law. The most important Money Bills of the year are the two Central Fund Bills. One is introduced some time in March and the other should be introduced and passed into law before 1st August. As the Bill that is now before us stands, it would be possible to introduce the Money Bill and get it through all stages here on the day of introduction and it could be signed that night. I put that point before the Dáil on the Second Reading. In the course of the President's speech on that occasion he indicated the intention to set up a commission and said that it was intended to amend the Standing Orders. I think that was merely trifling with the position. In fact, the whole procedure in connection with the introduction of this measure indicates a certain trifling with the Dáil.

It is really a major measure and it simply lops off portions of the Constitution which enshrined certain safeguards for the people. If it be not intended to have Money Bills passed through the House within 12 hours, then there should and there must be some consideration given to an amendment which would prevent any Administration from doing that. The 21 days provided in the Constitution to enable the Seanad to consider and make recommendations in connection with Money Bills were really a safeguard. This Bill, when passed, provides no such safeguard. Aftering the Standing Orders will be no safeguard. In the case of certain local authorities,, where they have Standing Orders, it is provided that they cannot be waived or suspended without a two-thirds majority. The Standing Orders here can be suspended by a majority of one. Altering the Standing Orders is simply begging the question. You could pile up Standing Orders here to the number of 1,000 and a majority of one would suspend them and enable the Ministry to carry through any legislation it pleased, as long as it possessed a majority, within any space of time that the resolution which they would put would confine the Dáil.

Money Bills are, perhaps, the most important things that could come before the Dáil or before a Parliament in any country. If we mean to make an effort towards having stable conditions we could only ensure stable conditions by letting the people understand that economic considerations, economic changes or taxation changes are not going to take place overnight. It is quite true that no matter what safeguard one provides in legislation an irresponsible Ministry, an unscrupulous Ministry, can evade or get over it. Notwithstanding that, it is necessary to ensure that we tax their ingenuity in that connection. If the desire is to achieve stable conditions, then this amendment or some such amendment is required in order to satisfy the people that no such intention is under consideration. In most countries under normal conditions taxation proposals are introduced at one period of the year. There have been departures from that in recent years, but recent years were not normal years.

The aim of a legislature should be to get to the normal conditions as quickly as possible. People in business realise the importance of knowing prices so that they can purchase their goods and do their business without the fear of a change taking place overnight. Nobody can question the fact that Money Bills, taxation and so on, are the most important business that Parliament can transact. In view of these considerations I am proposing this amendment.

Mr. Costello

Evidently we will have no reply to the points raised by Deputy Cosgrave. I pointed out on the Second Reading of this Bill that the proposal to abolish the Seanad has given rise to very considerable uneasiness, financial and economic, in the country. Since the Bill has passed its Second Reading that feeling has been gravely accentuated. Anybody moving around the city must certainly be aware of the very serious unrest and uncertainty that exists. It is not a matter about which we want to talk very much. This amendment in the name of Deputy Cosgrave and myself is designed to allay, in some way, that feeling of uneasiness and to show that there will be at least in this Bill when it becomes an Act some brake put upon hasty financial legislation, something which will enable people to realise whither they are going and what is happening them before the thing actually descends upon them as a matter of law. This amendment is a very serious consideration put forward from that point of view and it deserves equally serious consideration from the Government.

The President

I hold that no case whatever has been made for this amendment by the mover. We are told just now that there is considerable uneasiness abroad. Well, certainly, if there is not uneasiness abroad it is not due to the Opposition that there is not. This is a scare amendment. It can do nothing. It would be no help whatever if there was this unscrupulous or irresponsible Ministry which the leader of the Opposition said could exist and against whom there could be no safeguard. I have said that all the time. Everybody who considers the question of a responsible Government is satisfied that there is ultimately no safeguard for the public except in the integrity, the honour and the commonsense of the people's representatives. That is the position here.

What is the point in waiting for seven days? What is the point in waiting for three days? A Bill is passed, it is about to be presented. Is there any suggestion that within the three days it would be withdrawn? I have seen no case whatever put forward by the mover. It is the most surprising amendment to a Bill that has ever been put forward. We are told that Money Bills are most important. Yes, they are most important, we will admit it, but what is the Constitutional position at the present moment in regard to these Bills? Is the Seanad allowed to stop or curtail the will of the Dáil in the matter? It is not. A certain period is given.

I indicated on the Second Reading speech that in all probability the Standing Orders would be changed so as to give, perhaps, a somewhat longer time for the consideration of the Bill on the Report Stage. But these important Money Bills with the Constitution as it stands have to be passed in the form in which the Dáil wishes. There are 21 days' consideration allowed. Recommendations can be made. In the alterations which I expect will be made in the Standing Orders with regard to the special consideration of the Bill on the Report Stage, a certain period will elapse. But in all probability the recommendations, if there are any recommendations, can be put before the Dáil before it passes and can be made by the Dáil.

No case has been made for this amendment. What case is required to be made for it? It is admitted that a Bill can pass into law in the space of four or five hours. The banks close at 3 o'clock. The Post Office Savings Bank is closed at some hour in the evening—6 or 7 o'clock—and they cannot get out their savings certificates and so on. We want to ensure stability and to give the people every possible safeguard known to the law, and the answer is that no case has been made for this. What is their case at present? There are two Houses. Supposing, for a moment, that there was a corrupt majority in the Seanad, at the worst it will occupy two days before a measure passes.

The President

That is the suggestion behind it, and I say that if there are sound financial conditions in this country, and if there is stability, it certainly is not due to anything that the Opposition have done to bring about a situation of that sort, because the whole of their attitude has been to try and bring about unstable conditions. Every one of their public speeches has been aimed at that object. As I say, therefore, no case whatever has been made out for this, and we are not going to give way to the suggestion that there is going to be here, or that there is going to be elected by the people, an irresponsible Ministry of the type suggested.

Professor O'Sullivan

As usual, the President has only to get up to make a case for one of his Bills to persuade any person, who is not led away by his mere logic chopping and who looks at the full facts in the case, that the case he is making is unsound in itself and unsound for the country. No majority should be given the absolute powers that are proposed to be given here, and that the President thinks a majority ought to have. There ought to be some checks. I do not care what Party is in power, whether it be our Party or the President's Party, there ought to be some checks. Party despotism and Party bossism is very often worse than the bossism of one man. There ought to be every safeguard for the unfortunate people of this country to protect themselves from the powers even of a passing majority of that kind to do what they wish. What is the position of the President? The position is that nobody dare criticise him when he brings in mad measures undermining the stability of the country, no matter how deleterious to the country the measures may be, or no matter what damage they may inflict on the country, because by doing so you lay yourself open to the charge of undermining the stability of the country. In that way the President has tried again to down every criticism in this House and through the country. Everybody listening to him must be quite clear, not merely from what he says but from the way he says it, that the man brooks no opposition or criticism. His plea always is that any criticism, or any attempt to open the eyes of the country to the danger of the part the Government is pursuing is damaging the country.

It is our duty to tell the country whither the policy of the Government is leading and whither this particular policy is leading. It is usual to say, in connection with measures of this kind, that no matter what the Government may do there may be other Government that will abuse the powers that are proposed to be given. I am convinced that the present Government will abuse the powers now being given in every line of this Bill. They themselves were the first to oppose the granting of similar powers to a Government and, as Deputy Cosgrave has pointed out, no Government has so abused those powers as the men on the opposite benches. What guarantee have we that they, backed up by their followers, will pay the slightest attention to the wishes of the country or to the welfare of the country? Personally, I do not believe they will pay the slightest attention. It is usual to pay a sort of tribute that, though these powers are there and may be abused, they are sure that the present Government will not abuse them. I wish I could feel that way about it, but I am perfectly sure that the present Government will abuse these powers. Such powers as these should not be given into the hands of the Government—powers, as Deputy Cosgrave said, from night to morning to ruin the whole economic fabric of this country. There should be something that would make the Government pause, and up to the present the necessity for such a pause has been there.

I am not going into the question of whatever efforts are being made for the building up of the industries of this country and so on. That can be dealt with some other time, but I say that the very policy and politics of the head of the Executive Council are not giving a fair chance even to that policy of building up our industries. He is undermining, as far as any man can do it, the whole sense of responsibility and stability in this country, and when an effort is made to save the country from that mad policy he gets up here and tries to throw the blame on the other side. That dodge is time-worn by this time. That is the man who thinks he can tear up the Constitution and who removes one House of the Oireachtas altogether— a most fundamental change—and what is his attitude? He has to make no case. He can come in here and tear up fundamental Articles of the Constitution and it is not his business to make a case. When an effort is made, as this amendment tries to do, to put a limit to certain powers that this Bill gives into the hands of the Government, we have a tornado of had argument and abuse from the President.

It is time that the country should be allowed to see precisely where it is going. The plea of the President is that we are adding to the instability of the country, whereas our main purpose, in and out of office, has been to secure stability in this country for industry and everything else. The President, if he has his ears to the ground, must know that he is undermining any confidence that the people have in this country and its future. Now that the Dáil has accepted the principle of one House, I think we will be the only country in the world left with those supreme powers in the hands of the Executive, in the hands of one Party in a legislative body. I do not think there is in the whole of Europe—there may be in Russia, as is suggested here, but I cannot say the President possibly knows a great deal more about that than I do—any country in which such power is given into the hands of a majority in a single legislative Chamber as this Bill proposes. When an effort is made to ward off some of the damage that this Bill proposes to do we have to listen to speeches such as the President has given us this evening.

Mr. Cosgrave

There is another case which I have to make in this connection. I expected that there might have been an argument that a week was not sufficient time to give in connection with a Money Bill. I took the precaution of looking up the dates on which the Central Fund Bills were introduced into this House since the foundation of the State and the dates of their passage. In the year 1923, which is practically the first year, the Bill was introduced on 26th March; in the year 1924, on 27th March; in 1925, on 25th March; in 1926, on 25th March; in 1927, on 15th March; in 1928, on 20th March; in 1929, on 7th March; and in the remaining years on 7th, 18th, 15th, 15th and 7th March respectively. There was ample time in every case, with the exception of the first two years. That is the test in respect of our experience over 12 years—ample time with the exception of the first two years. On the question of time, can there be an argument made against this amendment that will stand, having regard to our experience? Out of the 12 years only the first two years would have been a day or two short, supposing that this were the law then. I am prepared to concede at once that while the Seanad had 21 days under the Constitution, the Dáil did not give them 21 days except, perhaps, on one occasion. Nevertheless, they never held up one of these Bills and nobody went short of his wages or salary by reason of a delay taking place in connection with one of those measures.

Let us understand exactly where we are. The two Appropriation Bills, which provide money for the expenditure during the year, should pass into law by 1st April and 1st August respectively. If there has to be a third one you can go down to 1st October or November, as the case may be. These are the only two occasions in respect of which any case can be made, regarding interference with the ordinary administration of State funds. On examination you will find that it was only in the first two years out of the 12 that the time would not have been sufficient. You may get a case in which in future a Central Fund Bill will be introduced on 31st March and passed that night. Normally, the representatives of the people here have a right to express their opinions upon the expenditure of public money. They are, one and all—no one more and no one less than another—responsible to people. They have been sent here by the people. They have to account for the money. It is not the Government's money. It is not money belonging to the Government Party. It is not money belonging to the various branches of their organisation or to any political organisation which returns a sufficient number of members to form a Government. There should be sufficient time for the discussion of the expenditure of public money. If this Bill passes into law, as I said the Central Fund Bill can be introduced on 31st March to be law on 1st April. They have a sledge-hammer over the heads of the members. If they do not vote the money, old age pensions cannot be paid; labourers in the service of the Board of Works, people entitled to pensions of one sort or another, even the humble office-cleaner, cannot get paid. You will have the option of saying whether you will vote it or have more discussion.

A case might possibly be made if it could be shown that even in recent years a week would not have been sufficient. But the President has not got even that piece of solid ground to stand upon in connection with this amendment. Other than that, the passage of this amendment would have no effect and no force by way of hampering the Administration in connection with the ordinary transaction of public business here. Everybody knows that the Government can to-morrow introduce tariffs and proposals for taxation into this House and, once the resolution is passed, it is operative the next day. That is not interfered with by this amendment. The safeguard, as I have said, with regard to this amendment, is that people will know that not overnight is the law of this country going to be changed, particularly with regard to the things that must matter most in these difficult economic times—public moneys and so on.

Mr. Costello

The President has suggested, in the first place, that no case has been made out for this amendment and, in the second place, that the whole object of the amendment is to throw contempt on the idea of representative Government. I should like to recall to the President that it was the mover of this amendment who gave representative Government to this country in the teeth of the opposition of the present President of the Executive Council. To suggest that the mover of this amendment, after the service he has given to the State, is bringing in an amendment for no other purpose than to throw contempt on the fabric of the State that he himself helped to build up and gave to the people of this country is an unworthy suggestion, to put it at its very mildest.

No case has been made out, says the President, for this amendment. Perhaps not, but he made out the best case for this amendment by his own words and by the attitude he adopted towards it. He relied on the fact that he had stated to the House on Second Reading that he proposed to amend, or to have amended, the Standing Orders of this House to enable certain delay to take place between the various stages of controversial and important Bills. Is that not making out a case for this amendment? Is it not admitting the very reason at the back of this amendment proposed by Deputy Cosgrave, that there must be some delay, some chance for the people to get breathing space and time for consideration? When the President admits, as he admitted in his Second Reading speech, and as he has admitted to-day, the necessity for delay between the various stages of a Bill, is it not just making the case for this amendment, the whole fundamental reason at the back of which is the necessity for delay?

It would be, if it were behind it, but it is not.

Mr. T. Crowley

Militant public opinion?

Mr. McGilligan

The President

I would like to know how this is relevant to the amendment?

Professor O'Sullivan

Might I suggest that the President may be answered? He brought in all these things here deliberately.

An Ceann Comhairle

The history of 1922 and 1923 is not relevant to the amendment before the House, neither is the agricultural policy of the Government.

Mr. McGilligan

If I am not allowed to discuss the President's attitude towards democracy in the light of his own past, I will bury it. If I could bury him, I would be pleased. The President has spoken of instability being caused. By what? By this amendment? Does anybody here say that there is no possibility that a Government at its wits' end with regard to taxation and unable to get a loan will commandeer? In the circumstances of a Government harassed by its inability to impose further taxation, because the exaggeration point has been reached, and by its inability to get a loan because of its policy, is there any reason to suspect that there might be measures of the rather forcible loan type introduced? Is it harassing the Government to say that, having regard to those things, Money Bills should be subject to a particular delay, and that other Bills should be subject to a certain abount of delay? Will the passing of such a clause make for stability? Will the failure to permit such a clause to be discussed even moderately and calmly not make for instability.

If you allow me, Sir, I am answering the precise arguments of the President, in which he pointed out that our amendment is devoted towards doing away with democracy. If you remember the arguments of the President, I am pointing out what they mean. Not merely would they mean that in theory, but I am convinced they are going to mean that in practice, so far as Money Bills and so far as interference with the property of the people is concerned, I am quite convinced that he will get his tame majority. If he does not he will dispense with it. He is chosen; they are not chosen. They are merely elected to support him. If there is any foundation, or if there is any genuine belief in the arguments he urged, that this amendment is put forward merely to cause uneasiness, let him accept it, and the uneasiness will disappear to a large extent. Why can he not do that when he knows perfectly well that the amendment is justified? That is the reason he is not accepting it. The President's whole line is that he is the chosen of the majority, and, therefore, the majority is right. The argument does not go the other way round, as the President knows. He has proved that in the past. He was always in favour of majority rule. He told us so. God help majority rule in that case. We know now what he meant by the majority rule that he prated about, that he was always in favour of, and we can only hope that he will not be as favourable to it in the future as in the past. If so, it is a poor look-out for the majority in this country, and a poor look-out for the people, if they can trust that he will not abuse, and grossly abuse, the powers given here. It is not by any means necessary for democratic Government that the whim of a majority should be given immediate effect to, without the people being allowed to express an opinion. I have not yet read of any country where that is the conception of democracy. The steps the President took suggest that. Therefore, that has become a democratic gospel and he puts forward this particular abuse of opponents on a complete misunderstanding. It is quite obvious that he is not going to allow criticism of any measure once he has support. That is much more fundamental than any law of morality, of the Church or of anything else.

The President

I can only repeat what I said at the beginning, that there has been no case whatever made for the amendment. There were suggestions of delay, and a general case for the advisability of delay, but there was no case made for the amendment we are discussing. I asked Deputies to look at what was proposed. It proposes that every Finance Bill that passes the Dáil should be suspended for seven days, before it can become law; not one introduced here in the morning and passed at night, but that for every single financial measure passed by the House there should be given to the Opposition seven days in which they can do everything they may think will serve their purpose as a factious Opposition. I suppose Deputies will say that such things are not conceivable, that there are no such things as factious Oppositions, that are ready to oppose everything the Government does. There are factious Oppositions and irresponsible Oppositions that have to be guarded against, just as carefully as irresponsible Governments. I suggest that Governments have responsibility, that they have something to sober them, but that there is nothing to sober a factious Opposition. This amendment, if accepted, would give a factious Opposition at any time seven days in which they could do everything they wanted to stir up panic and to create this militant feeling. I did not have to wait until now to be told the meaning of the word "militant." Of course, we are all babies, and we have to be lectured on simple English words. We have got to be told the meaning of the word militant. The Professor of English is going to tell us what it means at this hour of the day. What did the ex-Attorney-General suggest? He suggested that this action would compel an Executive that got a majority of the Dáil in favour of its measures to give up because of the trouble that would be created by a factious Opposition. That is the meaning I take of this. I am not prepared to put such a weapon into the hands of any factious Opposition. That is a thing we have to expect with every finance measure passed here, and some few other measures. There are three days or seven days, as the case may be, in which the Opposition can do their utmost to try to create opposition; people without any responsibility who want, as some members on the other side said, by every means in their power to put the Government on the rocks. Irresponsibility would damage the country as a whole. I, for one, and this Executive Council, am not going to put such a weapon into the hands of such a factious Opposition. We have not yet adverted to the second part of the amendment, that referring to the new definition of a Money Bill. It is no harm to see what would be the effect of that part of the amendment. It deletes the word "only" from the definition of a Money Bill. That means that in future any measure under which any one of the powers indicated would be taken, makes such a Bill a Money Bill.

It does not provide for any court or any person to determine whether it is or is not a Money Bill. It places on the Executive Council the responsibility of saying whether or not the measure is a Money Bill. If it were a Money Bill, it would be held up for seven days. If it were not a Money Bill, it could be put through in three days. If the Executive Council decided that it was not a Money Bill and presented it to the Governor-General for signature within three days, then the question of whether the Executive Council was right or not would have to be determined, by the courts if the Opposition decided to contest the matter. That would bring about an almost impossible position. I have not referred to it before, because I should oppose this amendment, in any event, on account of the first portion. It would equally have to be opposed on account of the second portion because of the unworkable position which would be created by it.

Mr. McGilligan

It is rather interesting to follow the President's reasoning. It is necessary to prevent a factious Opposition—and there may be factious Oppositions—from doing certain things. Let us consider that argument from another angle. Is it necessary to prevent an iresponsible Government— and there may be irresponsible Governments—from taking certain courses of action? The President said that the Government had something to sober them. They have also, at the moment, a great deal to intoxicate them. Many men—and I suppose Governments— have been driven to drink by despair. Where is irresponsibility more apparent at the moment? Compare recent history, compare records or anything you like on any subject akin to this— the question of the liberty of the subject. Who has been the more irresponsible, the Government or the factious Opposition? Let us take the line of reasoning the President has adopted. He is not here to be taught the meaning of simple English words. There were—if we were allowed to go into history we could show this—many simple English words of the correct meaning of which the President clearly had no idea until force taught him what the meaning was. Force, operated by a Government functioning in the name of the people, gave him an appreciation of the meaning of English words and other things. It may be that the President does not want to be told the meaning of these words. He knows what the meaning of the word "militant" is, but there is to be a variant and gloss put upon the whole thing. What did the late Attorney-General suggest? What a field is open to the imagination when one is allowed to think of what the President suggests any time he even attempts to speak plain English. The late Attorney-General, according to the President, suggested that this factious Opposition would do all they could and then, with a few more fumbling words, we are brought to a stage of panic, in the President's imagination. He speaks of "the panic that has been created." What precisely can the Opposition do in the circumstances suggested? They may hold meetings. They may engage in what, in their opinion, is the education of the people regarding the dangers inherent in some measure that has been passed. Is that wrong? If it is, say plainly and openly that freedom of speech is going to be put down, that the right to assemble peaceably, to hold meetings and join associations within the law is not going to be allowed. We suspect that is coming. The right of free speech and the right of peaceably and in an orderly manner to assemble can be put down on foot of the same arguments used here tonight, because you can import into a plain phrase like "getting a militant public opinion" all the suggestiveness the President has introduced regarding the late Attorney-General's use of this phrase about the seven-day delay in the case of one type of Bill and a three-day delay in the case of another.

Does the President think that it is open to him to talk about the Government as if nothing could be alleged against it when we have present to our minds the memorable phrase that it pleased him on one occasion to serve out gall and wormwood to his opponents. Suppose the Minister for Industry and Commerce wants to serve out gall and wormwood to those people who were not foolish enough to subscribe to his colleague's National Loan. That was the phrase that was wrapped round one measure. That was the mentality behind a particular piece of legislation. We are told that the President is not going to allow the Opposition to operate even in the seven-day delaying period against the Government because somebody used the phrase that the object was to "put the Government on the rocks." Whoever used that phrase had not much appreciation of English words, because the Government is there already. Has not the cry gone out during the past few months that it is the duty of everybody to come and man the pumps. The ship is rammed home on the rocks, leaking badly and everybody has been called in to man the pumps. A big leakage may possibly occur hereafter in a part not yet broached—the financial part— and all that is required is that the people should know, over a period of seven days, what is happening and be allowed to do what they may do in that period. The President thinks, with all the suggestiveness he has read into the proposal, that it is an attempt to create a panic. The country has survived many things. It will even survive the present Government. Its credit will even survive the failure of the last National Loan and the way in which that was brought about. It will get over those things——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has referred three times to the alleged failure of the last National Loan. The last National Loan is not relevant to the question under discussion.

Mr. McGilligan

If you say distinctly and clearly that it is not relevant, I shall bow to your ruling but I must say I was under the impression that, when we were discussing what might happen a Money Bill under this measure, a big, pronounced financial failure like the failure of the last National Loan would be relevant to the discussion——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has repeated something which the Chair has ruled out of order.

Mr. McGilligan

If you say it is out of order, I shall say no more about it.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 49; Níl, 68.

Tá

Anthony, Richard.
Beckett, James Walter.
Belton, Patrick.
Bennett, George Cecil.
Bourke, Séamus.
Broderick, William Joseph.
Burke, Patrick.
Byrne, Alfred.
Cosgrave, William T.
Costello, John Aloysius.
Curran, Richard.
Daly, Patrick.
Davis, Michael.
Davitt, Robert Emmet.
Doyle, Peadar S.
Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
Fagan, Charles.
Finlay, John.
Fitzgerald, Desmond.
Fitzgerald-Kenny, James.
Good, John.
Holohan, Richard.
Keating, John.
Lynch, Finian.
MacDermot, Frank.
McDonagh, Martin.
McFadden, Michael Og.
McGilligan, Patrick.
McGovern, Patrick.
McMenamin, Daniel.
Morrisroe, James.
Morrissey, Daniel.
Mulcahy, Richard.
Murphy, James Edward.
Nally, Martin.
O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
O'Leary, Daniel.
O'Neill, Eamonn.
O'Reilly, John Joseph.
O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
Redmond, Bridget Mary.
Rice, Vincent.
Roddy, Martin.
Rogers, Patrick James.
Rowlette, Robert James.
Thrift, William Edward.
Wall, Nicholas.

Níl

Aiken, Frank.
Bartley, Gerald.
Beegan, Patrick.
Boland, Gerald.
Boland, Patrick.
Brady, Brian.
Breathnach, Cormac
Breen, Daniel.
Briscoe, Robert.
Carty, Frank.
Doherty, Hugh.
Donnelly, Eamon.
Dowdall, Thomas P.
Everett, James.
Flinn, Hugo. V.
Flynn, John.
Flynn, Stephen.
Geoghegan, James.
Goulding, John.
Harris, Thomas.
Hayes, Seán.
Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
Houlihan, Patrick.
Jordan, Stephen.
Keely, Séamus P.
Kelly, James Patrick.
Kelly, Thomas.
Keyes, Michael.
Kilroy, Michael.
Kissane, Eamonn.
Lemass, Seán F.
Little, Patrick John.
MacEntee, Seán.
Maguire, Ben.
Concannon, Helena.
Cooney, Eamonn.
Corish, Richard.
Corkery, Daniel.
Corry, Martin John.
Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
Crowley, Timothy.
Daly, Denis.
Derrig, Thomas.
De Valera, Eamon.
Maguire, Conor Alexander.
Moane, Edward.
Moore, Séamus.
Moylan, Seán.
Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
Norton, William.
O'Briain, Donnchadh.
O'Doherty, Joseph.
O'Grady, Seán.
O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
O'Reilly, Matthew.
Pattison, James P.
Rice, Edward.
Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
Ryan, James.
Ryan, Martin.
Ryan, Robert.
Sheridan, Michael.
Smith, Patrick.
Traynor, Oscar.
Victory, James.
Walsh, Richard.
Ward, Francis C.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Bennett; Níl: Deputies Little and Traynor.

Amendment declared defeated.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move amendment No. 2:

In Part II, in the second column relating to Article XLI, to insert after the word "Eireann" the words "the insertion after the words ‘Executive Council shall present' of the words ‘not earlier than three clear days after the passage of any Bill'".

I do not want to see it! I do not get into the turn of reasoning the President has. I would like the President to expound the difference between the agitation that may be raised to a measure after it has passed Fifth Stage with the three days' delay, and the agitation that may be raised to a measure between Committee and Report Stage. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, a most factious Opposition, with none of that responsibility that a Government have or that even the present Government had when they were in Opposition. Where is the difference? The President has forgotten to make any comment upon that at the moment there is delay. We are moving away from that without a case being made for avoiding it. There is a minimum delay of three days between the passage of a Bill by the Dáil and the taking of it by the Seanad. What is the case for doing away with this minimum three days?

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

The Deputy has rightly assumed that the President has despaired of explaining the matter to him. I am a little bit more optimistic. In any case, I think that with a little effort we may make the Deputy understand the precise difference, as he states, as regards delay between Committee and Report Stage and after a Bill has passed its Final Stage. If there is any case for agitation, any ground for public concern, or any need for amending a measure, at what stage is it desirable that that fact should become known? Surely, while the measure is still before the Dáil when amendment can be made to it. If there is delay between Committee and Report Stage, and any interest outside the Dáil wants to draw attention to the fact that it is being prejudicially affected by a particular measure and wants amendments inserted, the time in which it can make its wishes known is surely when the Bill is before the Dáil when amendment is still possible. After a Bill has passed, amendment of it is not possible. Now that is the precise difference between the two proposals. Deputy MacGilligan says that he cannot understand that. He probably can, but he is arguing for the sake of argument.

We have heard a very amusing speech, indeed. This Bill is not a Bill dealing with the principle of delay. The principle of this Bill is to have a one Chamber Legislature, to get rid of the Seanad as at present constituted. The intention at the present stage anyhow is to have a one Chamber Legislature. In that connection I said we were quite ready to listen to any argument that might be put forward against it. I said on the Second Reading that the responsibility for putting forward arguments as to why there should be a Second Chamber rested on those who believed in it. The ordinary idea of representative government does not carry a Second Chamber with it at all. I said that historically it had no connection with it, that so far as reason and commonsense were concerned, and the whole idea of representative government was concerned, a Second Chamber did not come into it. One argument was put forward from the other side with regard to delays. I said that if that was the only point showing any justification for a Second Chamber, delay could be provided for in the Dáil itself, that it was quite consistent with the main idea of a Single Chamber Legislature. I indicated also that we expected our Second Chamber was going to hold up this Bill as it held up others, that it was not going to vote its own demise and, therefore, that the question of changing the Standing Orders could only be properly approached when the Dáil has signified by a majority its desire to have a Single Chamber Legislature. I said that when the Dáil has so indicated its desire, the question of the Standing Orders that would be consistent with a possible revision in relation to the period between the Committee and Report Stages and providing for a delay could be examined.

If the idea is that there should be delay, then I said that this was not the point at which delay should be introduced. After all, those who put down an amendment are responsible for it. In this instance I am refusing a specific amendment which has been introduced by the Opposition and I have given my reasons for voting against it. That is all I intend to do. That is all that is germane or appropriate to the debate. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has pointed out what, I am sure, Deputy McGilligan could quite easily see for himself—the difference between meeting opposition at the stage when amendments would be possible and meeting it at the stage at which amendment is practically impossible. I would remind Deputies that further consequential changes of the whole Constitution would have to be introduced if this amendment were passed, in order to make it effective at all. As it stands at the moment, if the Seanad disappeared, we could not withhold from the Governor-General a measure that had passed the Dáil. Suppose the Opposition were such that it was deemed advisable to make a change, all that could be done would be to introduce an amending measure. That is the only way in which the thing could be met. Consequently, I say there is no case whatever made for the amendments tabled here.

Mr. Fitzgerald

The President makes an extraordinary proposition. When a Bill is introduced here for the purpose of making some change, it is everybody's duty to examine the conditions that are likely to exist when that Bill becomes law. The President seems to me to dodge the question as to whether the condition that will be created if this Bill passes without this amendment, will be a desirable condition. He does not commit himself to any promise but he suggests that if this amendment is passed he will have the position examined, thus admitting that to pass the Bill without this amendment is going to create an undesirable situation in this country which will require to have something done to remedy it. The Government has carefully jumped on one possible advantage to be got by this measure and they have assumed quite illogically that there can be no disadvantage.

It does seem to me that that is quite an important matter. The Government at this moment has power and uses it to change the law of the land at a moment's notice and without notification to the public. They meet in the Council Chamber and they state that in their opinion a certain organisation is an unlawful association. When they have done that the people who have not heard of it are actually breaking the law though they are not aware that they are doing it. The Government has made use of that power to wreak vengeance on a specific citizen of this State. They made an Order and before there was any opportunity in the case of one man at any rate of getting out of the position——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

How is this relevant?

Mr. Fitzgerald

I am going to show this is relevant because I am going to point out that one thing necessary is that the Government are not to pass laws making anything a penal offence without the people, first of all, having an opportunity of knowing about it. Will you allow me to develop the point? What the Government has done is this: it passes an Order in the secrecy of the Council Chamber and by passing that Order it puts the Military Tribunal in the position of having to accept, as full conclusive evidence, the statement by the Government that that Order has been passed. They made use of that when they put a man against whom they had personal spite into prison against all justice.

The Government may introduce a Bill at three o'clock and have it passed by six o'clock making something that was previously legal, illegal. They may introduce it on Wednesday and it may take some time going through. A person may be doing a perfectly legal thing but the Government are putting themselves in the position of depriving that person of the right he has under the Constitution, depriving him of the right to what is perfectly legal. If the Bill is passed this House makes it illegal for a man to wear the clothes he wears so that he will have to spend money on new clothes. The citizen has the right to expect that there is no possibility of such injustice being inflicted on him. Until this Bill is passed this cannot be done. He will have three days in which to know that the Government are desirous of outraging justice. He has three days in which to save himself from the operation of the law. But when this Bill is passed the Government, in the secrecy of the Council Chamber, can make an Order to have that man brought before the Military Tribunal and the Military Tribunal must find him guilty.

In the mind of the Government that is perfectly compatible with justice. The Government say they have a right to pass legislation creating anything an offence, but the citizen has a right to expect that the Government will not pass legislation creating new offences which will inflict hardship on the people. The people should not be asked to change their manner of living until the Bill has actually passed this House. In these three days the people will be able to save themselves from victimisation by the Government by putting themselves within the law. At the present time there are all sorts of Bills. The Government pretend that they are not wishing to act tyrannically. They do not wish to create a dictatorship. Not merely now do they want not to have the Seanad but they want the full power to pass a law and to have that law imposed upon people before the people have any time whatever to adapt themselves to the law.

Professor O'Sullivan

I am sorry that I missed portion of the President's speech. As I was just coming in he caused me great amusement when I heard him repeating an argument of the old sophists. I never expected that the President of the Executive Council would repeat that argument in this House, but it gave me great pleasure to hear it from him. It is characteristic of the man and of the whole manner in which he approaches this question. He is now fond of the saving formula by which he can trample on his opponents. That saving formula is "factious opposition." What is factious opposition? All those who disagree with him are guilty of factious opposition. If you agree with him, that is constructive opposition. Now we all know that is the way he will apply it.

He does not believe that himself, but everybody knows that is what the President means by factious opposition. Factious opposition is the opposition that dares to disagree with him. Once a Bill becomes law it cannot be amended. Agitation for its amendment is treason. That is the line taken by the Government of late. The sovereign Executive Council has spoken. What business have people to criticise the Government? Is not the decision of the Executive Council that a certain thing is good enough for the nation, good enough for all? Is not that argument enough for it? Is not that the whole contention of the President here every day—that certain things are good for the nation? When he says they are good for the nation, therefore, they are good for the nation. Any criticism of that is factious opposition. Any criticism of that is treasonable. The only business left for the people of this country is to say ditto to the President, and throw up their hands in admiration that they have such a wise man to look after all the business of this country. It is a fine saving clause to enable him to trample on the people of this country to say they are a factious opposition; they are interrupting him and, therefore, interrupting the nation. He is the nation and the nation is him——

Mr. Cooney

The nation is he.

Professor O'Sullivan

That is pedantic. That is exactly like what your master might say. If it came from the President I would not be surprised, but I am surprised to hear it coming from a back bencher. The nation and the President are identical. He has spoken, therefore the nation has spoken. That is really the whole case he has put forward. He could not even on this Bill give a straight statement of what this Bill stands for. He still pretends it is "for the abolition of the Seanad as at present constituted." He could not even at this hour refrain from trying to throw dust in the eyes of the people. This Bill is a Bill to abolish the Seanad. It is abolishing the Second Chamber. It is to prevent any delay for three or four days, or any number of days. That is the purpose of this Bill.

To make it quite clear, democracy for him means not that the people of Ireland or the settled will of the people of Ireland shall be triumphant, but if he gets a chance majority he will be triumphant. Why is it that no democracy in the world has found it necessary to take these powers? There are countries with Second Chambers. I asked the President to name them. Let him name them. He is not slow to go to other countries for precedents.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is a Second Reading speech.

Professor O'Sullivan

I would be very slow to make a Second Reading speech on this Stage, but I should like to point out, Sir, that the question of the Second Chamber was introduced by the President when debating this amendment, and I am now replying to the statement made by him, and showing what the purpose of the Bill was. I have suggested to the House what the purpose was. He has not justified the purpose of the Bill. He said in his speech here that it was the business of the Opposition to justify the existence of the Second Chamber. The experience of all democracies in the world is in favour of Second Chambers. To what does the President appeal? His reason? We know what kind of reason that is. On the question of delay he says he is willing to give delay, but even on the last amendment he was hedging on that question. On the last amendment we debated, he said he was prepared to amend the Standing Orders. If there is necessity for delay he will amend the Standing Orders. This is the great Constitutionalist. He thinks one of the most fundamental matters in any Constitution in the world—whether there is to be one or two Houses—is of the same moment as the Standing Orders. This apostle of democracy, this apostle, lately awakened to the virtues of democracy, comes here and puts the fundamental alteration of the Constitution on a level with the Standing Orders of this House. That is his idea of the settled will of the people. There are many reasons why delay is necessary. Every effort should be made to see that the people are given an opportunity of realising what the Bill is about. I have seen measures passed through this House in the period during which this and the last Government have been in power, and they were passed into law before the people woke up to know what they meant. It was then they began to become critical and to see what they were let in for. Deputy Fitzgerald has made the point that that may mean a very serious thing so far as the liberties of the people or of the country are concerned, and it is not a mere possibility, but an absolute certainty that abuse of that will be made by the present Government. There is every reason why this amendment should be accepted.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister for Industry and Commerce has asked for concrete examples of what might be done in the three days after a measure became law. Then he got personal. Let me retort that it would give him an opportunity of saying, as he usually does, that this was the best measure ever introduced and far better than any measure ever introduced by their predecessors. If it were a measure dealing with the question of sedition or treason, it would afford an opportunity to the Minister for Industry and Commerce to tell the House that he knows more about it than the Attorney-General. If it were a Finance matter, it would give him an opportunity to say that he knows more about it than the Minister for Finance, although he might admit that he was a fool about the fourth National Loan. No matter what the subject might be, the Minister would take it as an opportunity of showing his superior knowledge and saying "The more I say it is good, the better it is."

Mr. Lemass

Is not that an argument against the amendment?

Mr. McGilligan

It is an argument the Minister should accept. If I were to accept it, I would have to get something that would suppress the Minister as well as the Seanad. Will the Minister give us his reasons for saying that there is some necessity for delay on Report Stage? There is no delay after it. We are not asking for an alternation of delays. It is still being assumed that all Bills are not going to be forced through the House, and that there will be the ordinary delay as between the Second Stage and the Committee Stage of a Bill and between the Committee Stage and the Report Stage; but, in addition to all that, at the moment the situation is that there is a minimum period of three days except in very special circumstances, and then only by agreement. The onus is on those who are seeking to remove that to make a case. We have not got it. The Minister holds that it is an objectionable thing to give any period to an Opposition to raise even public opinion against a measure once it is passed. The Minister did not always hold that view, nor was he always so obedient to the law or such an admirer of representative Government and democratic Government. I remember the time when he was thrown out of his position of Chief of Staff and he questioned whether Acts ought to be re-enacted or whether he had to get any legitimisation as to what he had done, although he was acting contrary to the wishes of the people at the time. He is going to use the law now because he thinks it is in his favour.

Mr. O'Kelly

Ask some of your wide-awake colleagues.

Mr. Cosgrave

We have had the Second Reading and the Committee Stage now of the 24th amendment of the Constitution and we have not yet had the Second Reading of the 23rd Amendment Bill. This decree-Ministry, this Ministry which is afraid of opposition, which realises the case made against such a measure, which realises the weaknesses which have been pointed out, have not the moral courage to correct them.

Mr. Lemass

Mr. Lemass

Who tried to find holes in it—the Seanad?

Mr. McGilligan

The present Government, when in Opposition, tried to find holes in it and they could not get them, but it is an old saying that the best way to learn anything is to make mistakes. They will be a well-educated Government after a while.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again to-morrow.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, April 26.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 25 Apr 1934

In Committee on Finance. - Constitution (Amendment) (No. 24) Bill, 1934—Committee Stage.

Tá

Níl

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 25 Apr 1934