I beg to move the adjournment.
SEANAD RESUMES. - THE ADJOURNMENT.—MONEY BILLS.
I second.
I beg to bring under the notice of the Seanad a matter which greatly affects their rights and privileges in dealing with Bills. I refer to the fact that the Unemployment Insurance Bill has been sent forward certified as a Money Bill. Now, as an ordinary member of the Seanad, without claiming to have any legal knowledge, I was very much surprised to find a Bill of that description designated as a Money Bill, because we have hitherto dealt with Bills in which the sums of money involved were greatly in excess of the sums proposed to be raised under the Unemployment Insurance Bill. We have dealt with the Compensation for Damage Bill, which runs into millions, whereas this Unemployment Insurance Bill is confined to a few hundred thousand pounds. I have also ascertained that the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1920, which is called the Principal Act, was not treated as a Money Bill when it was going through Parliament, and this Bill merely proposes to amend that. It appears to me very strange that while the principal Act should not be regarded as a Money Bill, the amending Act should. Now, the framers of the Constitution evidently anticipated that from time to time differences of opinion would arise between the two Houses in regard to this question, and certain machinery had been provided for establishing a Court of Appeal, known as the Committee on Privileges, to decide these differences finally. However, the time limit for lodging an appeal is very short. Only three days are allowed after the Bill is passed by the Dáil, and there is rather a cumbersome process. The appeal has to be initiated by the members of this House. I believe twenty-four of them have to sign a certain notice to be addressed to you. Two-fifths of the members of either House are entitled to lodge an appeal. In the case of this Bill, although it was passed on the 16th of May, it did not reach this House until the 23rd May, and it does not take much effort to prove that it would then be impossible to take steps for lodging an appeal, which, I am sure, would have been done if time had permitted.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Some confusion appears to have arisen about this, Senator Linehan, because I find endorsed on the Bill by the Ceann Comhairle of the other House, his certificate, and the date of it is the 16th May, 1923. He also has appended a note that it was sent to this House on the 17th of May, but we have also from him a letter attached, informing us of the passing of the Bill, and that letter is dated the 23rd of May. So that apparently, although the Bill is certified, or stated, to have been sent to this House on the 17th, it was not, in fact, sent until the 23rd.
I suggest that we should pass a resolution stating that in our opinion it is not a Money Bill, and regretting that we did not get a certified copy of the Bill in sufficient time to enable us to lodge an appeal.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I could not receive the resolution in that form. I could receive a resolution expressing the view of this Seanad that some additional precautions are required with a view to giving sufficient notice to the Seanad in order to enable it to exercise its privileges, but I could not receive a notice of motion which would in any way contravene the Constitution.
I will leave the matter to the Seanad. What I want to secure is that in future Bills will not come before the Seanad at such a time that it will be too late for Senators to lodge appeals, should they think well of doing so.
On this matter I think a certain amount of misunderstanding prevails. Senators will remember that on the motion, I think, of Senator Jameson, this matter was debated here some time ago, and the Standing Orders Committee of the Seanad, which met the Standing Orders Committee of the Dáil, was asked to bring the matter before them with a view to seeing if some way could be found within the Constitution which would facilitate any desire that might prevail amongst members of the Seanad to challenge the decision of the Ceann Comhairle to the Dáil. That was done by the Committee, and the matter was discussed at a meeting of the Committee. The Standing Orders Committee of the Dáil pointed out certain difficulties and we did not reach any definite agreement, but the Ceann Comhairle said, in view of the way in which a definition of a Money Bill was stated in the Constitution, that until a Bill had reached a certain stage in which it could not be further amended he could not definitely certify it as a Money Bill, the reason being that while it might be a Money Bill when passing through the Second Stage, for instance, it might not be a Money Bill by reason of certain amendments by the time it reached the final stage. Therefore, until the Bill had passed through all its stages and was not capable of further amendment, the Ceann Comhairle would not be in a position to say whether it was a Money Bill or not. That being so, it seemed impossible within the provisions of the Constitution at present to have more than the actual period of three days in which the members of the Seanad could know definitely that a Bill had been certified as a Money Bill. The Ceann Comhairle said that he was prepared to facilitate the Seanad to this extent, that he would privately, at an earlier stage, say at the Committee Stage, give his opinion to An Cathaoirleach so that it might be generally known that this Bill would be treated as a Money Bill, but he could take no official action in the matter at that stage. To some extent, I think, the matter is met by the provision in our Standing Orders which, I think, Senator Linehan has not noticed or read carefully. We have made a provision by which any member of the Seanad can notify the Clerk at any stage that a Bill has been introduced in the other House, that in his opinion it is not a Money Bill, and at any period that notice can be taken by the Clerk of the Seanad. If 24 members of the Seanad so notify the Clerk, and if, in spite of that notification, he finds it is certified as a Money Bill, the Clerk will then have the necessary signatures, and whether the Seanad has met or not, he will take the necessary action within three days. That is the way which, pending any other arrangements which may be yet made, the Seanad can safeguard itself. I would suggest, in view of the fact that the matter will be again discussed by the Joint Committees, and also in view of the fact that it is hardly desirable to be introducing at this stage constitutional amendments, not to press the recomendation just now. Senators will be well advised, I think, not to pass any resolution now. If they have any doubt about any particular Bill that is introduced they can take advantage of their own Standing Orders and give notice to the Clerk. I think it would not be dignified for us now to pass the resolution in view of the fact that the matter is to come again before the Joint Standing Orders Committees. I do not think it would be desirable for Senators to urge at this stage an amendment which affects the Constitution.
Would it not be possible to extend the time beyond three days? It might happen the Dáil is sitting and the Seanad is not sitting. Quite recently we did not sit for a fortnight, and during that period several Bills might have passed the Dáil and might be certified as Money Bills, and, possibly, might come to this House, which would not be sitting to consider them. It appears from what Senator Linehan said it was physically impossible for this House to consider whether the Unemployment Insurance Bill was a Money Bill or not, because it did not reach us within the three days specified.
It is not necessary to reach us. Once it passes the other House the requisite number of members of this House could send forward a requisition as to whether it was a Money Bill or not.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
We had this matter discussed very fully before. I do not think you were present, Senator Guinness, on that occasion, and I pointed out the very great difficulty this House is in in exercising the privileges conferred upon it by the Constitution. Evidently the fact was overlooked by the framers of the Constitution that neither the Dáil nor this House sits continuously, and therefore to say that three days after receipt of any Bill certified as a Money Bill action must be taken was practically to render the privilege of the Seanad nugatory, and this Bill affords a very strong illustration of this, because, assuming that we had got it on the 17th, that date was a Thursday, and the House was not sitting, so that it would not receive the Bill until the following Wednesday. So then Friday, Saturday and Monday would intervene, and by the time Wednesday was reached our three days are up, and the whole thing is unworkable, as we all realise in this House. The Seanad thought that it would be a desirable thing that the Committee on Procedure should discuss the matter with the Committee of the other House. The Ceann Comhairle of the other Chamber was very sympathetic, and so indeed were all the members of the Committee. They realised that the provision was practically unworkable in its present stage. The difficulty, as Senator Douglas points out, of attempting to tamper at this stage with the Constitution was apparent to all of us, and the matter was left there to see if some other way out of the difficulty could be arrived at. Meantime we have, to some extent, provided a remedy, however insufficient. As far as it goes it may be availed of in certain cases by any member who, before a certificate is given, if he anticipates a certificate is going to be given, can take objection by formally sending his name to the Clerk and the names of 23 other Senators, and action can be taken. But that is only at the best a very poor remedy, and I think it would be wiser and more prudent if the Seanad were to leave this for the moment in the hands of the two Committees on Procedure; but the question of arriving at a solution which would not involve very drastic changes or interference with the Constitution is one that can be considered.
I quite agree with your remarks; but I would like to ask are the three days, which seem to be the critical thing, obligatory in the Constitution?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Yes, they are fixed by the Constitution.
Why did a period of seven days elapse here?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I cannot understand it. The facts are as I told you. It appears from the document that I mentioned that the certificate was given on the 16th May, 1923, and then, in the handwriting of the Speaker, there is a further statement that the Bill was sent to this House on the 17th, that is the 17th day of May, but when the Bill reached this House it was accompanied by a letter from the Speaker stating he was sending it forward and desired our agreement to it, and that letter is dated the 23rd May.
Does the delivery of the letter to the Clerk entail the delivery of the Bill to the House? The House, I think, was not sitting on that date.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That is an interesting point, and I would have liked, as the Speaker said elsewhere, to have had notice of that question, because it is a very delicate and difficult matter, and all members of the Seanad understand that. In other places it has been the subject matter of considerable friction and trouble, and, therefore, we ought to proceed warily about it, and not rush the matter. Perhaps Senator Linehan would be satisfied for the present with the opportunity he has had of calling attention to it.
I am quite satisfied.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
This House now stands adjourned until 3 o'clock to-morrow.