I would like to point out, as regards this provision of laying rules before the Oireachtas and the annulling of them, that in the case of the majority of the Bills which have been passed so far, it was provided that the resolution must be passed by each House, or both. That was done in the case of the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act, the Local Authorities Extension of Time Act, the Electoral Act, the Censorship of Films Act, the Army Pensions Act, and the Damage to Property Act. In the case of the Courts of Justice Bill, it is provided that before a regulation is made it may be annulled by the resolution of one House. It seems to me as regards this particular matter, that the provision as it stands should be allowed to remain. The regulation deals only with the matter of confining a particular examination to a special class of candidate. For instance, recent examinations were held for certain minor posts in the Customs and Excise, and in view of the fact that 20,000 men have been demobilised from the army, and that 10,000 more are due to be demobilised in the next few months it was thought desirable and proper to confine that examination—which was a competitive examination for which a large number of men entered—to men who had served in the National Army, and hence a special regulation was made.
This clause simply deals with the making of such special regulations. It seems to me that these are matters practically of administration, and matters where it is not desirable to hold up the making of appointments or the holding of examinations unless you can get a resolution of the two Houses agreeing to the making of such regulations. The regulation does not affect the ordinary citizen at all, in the way, for instance, that the regulations dealing with the Rules of Court would affect him. The regulation is not legislative; it is not legislating by regulation, but simply the carrying out of certain acts of administration, and providing for the ordinary work of Government machinery by regulation. It is not a matter that in any way affects the rights or the liberty of the subject or anything of that nature. If you provide that one House may annul such a regulation, you then provide the possibility of a deadlock. For instance, in a matter like this: Suppose it happened that the Government, with the support of the Dáil, felt it absolutely necessary, in the circumstances of the country, to confine these examinations to men who had served in the National Army, and supposing that, for some reason which might appear good to a majority of the Seanad, they decided to annul such a regulation, there would be no way out of the impasse. We would require to promote a new Bill; it would not even be a matter of allowing a certain time to elapse, but a new Bill would have to be provided.
Under a regulation of this sort it seems to me there can be no particular abuse. It will never be a popular thing to prevent a certain number of people from competing, and even with these competitive examinations you cannot ensure that any particular candidate will get an appointment. It is not a matter that can lead to any serious abuse, and it is not desirable that there should be any possibility of a deadlock which might be created by the adoption of this amendment. There is no doubt that if the Dáil passes or rejects an amendment, and it is the Dáil that is principally concerned with administration, the Minister responsible to it will almost certainly have to give way. He will have to give way, unless it is simply a chance or a snatch vote. In the case of legislation by regulation or by order, it is a different matter altogether. I submit that this is purely a matter of administrative detail and one in which no abuse can arise, and that the Seanad ought not to make an amendment that would provide the possibility of a deadlock arising.
