The Dáil has sent the following Message:—
"The Dáil has agreed to amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 made by the Seanad to the Local Government Bill, 1926, and it has disagreed to amendment No. 8."
Before the House takes up the consideration of the particular matter involved in this Bill, there are certain events that make it essential, in my opinion, that I should remind the House of what actually happened in connection with this particular Bill. I do so for two reasons: First, because I think it would be to the advantage of those members of the House who had not followed, very closely, the discussion, or those who may have been absent during the discussion of the actual procedure during the progress of this Bill in the Seanad. I do it, also, for another reason, and that is because I desire to call attention to what I consider to have been not only an unprecedented but an entirely unconstitutional attitude taken up by certain members of the Government in regard to the action of the Seanad in this matter.
The Bill came before this House on Committee Stage on the second of February. The first important discussion arose upon Senator Linehan's amendment to Clause 6. Senator Linehan moved to delete sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 6 of the Bill. There was a debate upon that motion of Senator Linehan, and in the result his amendment was carried. I will have to refer to that a little later on. Then arose a question on Section 11 of the Bill. Section 11 was stated by the Minister, and I think very properly, to be the vital section of the Bill. He explained that the object of the section was to amend Section 69 of the Act of 1925. Section 69 of the Act of 1925 gave a certain remission in rates on buildings which were erected or improved after the first of April, 1920, and completed before the 1st April, 1927. It gave, in respect of those houses, a relief as of one-third of the increased valuation for a period of seven years. There were two defects in that section of the Act of 1925, as developed by experience. In the first place, as it was confined to premises completed before the 1st of April, 1927, and as it did not pass until 1925, it only allowed two years for the section to operate. That was the first effect.
In the next place the allowance of the remission of rates of one-third of that new valuation might, I believe, and would, I believe, in some cases have resulted in loss of rates to the rating authority, and, to meet that, the Act of 1925 had practically decided that in the case of improvement as distinct from erection the Minister would reject any claims for relief unless the increase of valuation was at least 100 per cent. In operation, as the Minister himself said, that worked out unfairly and harshly in many cases and, accordingly, that was the second defect that Section 11 in the Minister's Bill as introduced into this House was intended to cover. It amended the first defect by extending the date from the 1st of April, 1927, to the 1st of April, 1930, that is to say, it allowed five years instead of two in which the Act could operate, but it left the other defect, that is, the defect which excluded practically all improved buildings save in case where the increase of the valuation was up to 100 per cent. without remedy.
Senator Brown applied his intelligence and experience to the matter with the result that he produced an alternative section to Section 11 in the Minister's Bill. First of all he proposed by that new section to extend the period from the 1st of April, 1930, to the 31st of October, 1930, the effect of which would be to include the summer of that year when, of course, building operations are brisker than in the winter. Then as regards the increase of valuation he applied that section to any increase of valuation, consequent upon erection or improvement, and he reduced the amount of the new valuation which was to be taken into account for the purpose of remission of rates to two-thirds of the total, and in that way, by an automatic rule, his proposal practically deprived the Minister of the power of leaving out certain cases because they did not come up to a certain percentage of the increased valuation. He substituted for the Minister's decision an automatic rule which would apply in all cases.
Now, this section of Senator Brown's was unanimously adopted by this House and the Minister himself expressed his approval of it, and, I may say, that in asking the consent of the Dáil to it he said it was undoubtedly a very substantial improvement to his Bill. I mention this for the purpose of showing the care and the trouble that the Seanad took in regard to this particular Bill.
But now I come to the material stage in this matter. Senator Farren in the debate on Senator Brown's amendment, having an amendment down of his own to Section 11, which Senator Brown was displacing—Senator Farren naturally asked what was to become of his own amendment under the terms of Senator Brown's new section. Senator Farren's amendment was intended to include in the benefits of this new section houses erected under facilities afforded by the Housing of the Working Classes Acts. He made a statement, not exhaustive, but a clear statement at the time, as to the grounds upon which he supported this proposal. He did so in very persuasive and very fair and moderate terms, and I think he undoubtedly impressed the House. He pointed out that Senator Brown's new section included the sub-section of the old Section 11, to which he (Senator Farren) objected, and which he sought to have amended, and after some discussion I made a suggestion to Senator Farren with which he at once loyally fell in. But first I would like to call the attention of the House to what that suggestion was. This is what I said:—
"In regard to the important point Senator Farren has raised with reference to the Housing of the Working Classes it might be desirable to let it stand over for the Report Stage so that the Minister might look into it, because it is not very easy to arrive at a decision on a matter of this kind off-hand. Perhaps the House would be satisfied if the Minister looked into it in the meantime."
Senator Farren at once said that he was quite prepared to accede to that, and I added this so that there might be no mistake about it:—
"It is understood that the Government will look into and consider before the Report Stage this question, and, of course, Senator Farren will be at liberty to put down any amendment he may consider proper for that stage."
Now, so much for the 2nd February. The House met on the following day to take up this Bill on Report. At the outset Senator Linehan moved to delete sub-section (4) in Section 6. This was the same section from which he had already persuaded the Committee to delete sub-sections (5) and (6) and on Report Stage he moved to delete sub-section (4). His amendment was fully debated and was defeated. I then called the attention of the House to the position they were in. They had already deleted sub-sections (5) and (6) of the same section.
They refused to delete sub-section (4) which was part and parcel of the same machinery, and which had no sense or meaning left in it once you had got rid of sub-sections (5) and (6). Thereupon I suggested to the House that if they were not prepared to delete, on Senator Linehan's suggestion, sub-section (4), they might think it desirable to go back on what they had already done in Committee Stage, when they deleted sub-sections (5) and (6), because I pointed out to them the inconsistency of deleting two of the material sub-sections and refusing to delete another sub-section that depended on the operation of the two sub-sections deleted. I then suggested that perhaps the Minister might be allowed to have an amendment moved for the restoration of the two sub-sections deleted. I may mention the Minister did not take advantage of the power he had of giving notice for that purpose, and therefore he was not in a position then to do it Why he had not taken advantage of his power to do so I do not know, but he was not in a position to do it without the leave of the House, and the House was manifestly against leave being given when I put it to them. The House was then left in the difficulty that it had deleted two sub-sections of one section and refused to delete another. And accordingly, on the motion of Senator Sir Thomas Esmonde, it was agreed that the Bill should be recommitted for the purposes of Section 6.
Then we came to Senator Farren's amendment, which he was moving in accordance with the authority he got on the previous day. He went very fully into it again. He quoted a variety of figures in support of his contention that those houses erected under all those housing schemes should stand on the same basis as regards remission of rates as houses erected under utility schemes and matters of that kind. On this debate there was a very remarkable discrepancy between the figures supplied by Senator Farren and those suggested by the Minister. I want to be very particular and precise in my statement about this, and therefore I will refer again to the amendment moved by Senator Farren. I give it in his own words:—
Sub-section (3) of Section 69 of the Principal Act shall be amended by the deletion of the words "Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1919," and the sub-section as so amended shall apply as from the passing of this Act to any house erected under the aforesaid Acts."
The debate proceeded and, as I said, there was a very considerable difference of opinion between the Minister and the Senator, as to the exact figures in connection with the cost of erection of these various buildings erected under these various schemes.
In the result I again suggested to Senator Farren that as we were recommitting the Bill for the purposes of Section 6, it would be well in view of the controversy that had arisen to recommit it for the purposes of Section 11. Again Senator Farren at once complied. I emphasise this for the purpose of showing how willing the Senator was that every opportunity should be afforded to the House and to the Minister for considering and studying the effect and the nature of his amendment. Accordingly it was agreed that the particular sub-section he dealt with should be also re-committed. The re-committal stage came on the following Wednesday, that is, after an interval of six days, and on the re-committal stage, Senator Farren's amendment was again very elaborately and very fully debated, with the result that in the end it was adopted. It was adopted by this House.
I now pass to what happened afterwards and I confess I do so with very great regret, but, nevertheless, having regard to the reputation of members as well as the dignity of the House it is impossible for me to ignore what took place in the other House when this Bill went down before them. There is an unwritten, sometimes a written, rule of every Parliament in the world, that I have ever heard or ever read of, that as between the two Houses the utmost courtesy is to be observed by members of the one House towards members of the other House, and more particularly towards the House as a whole. I need not quote authorities on that point. Anyone who is interested in it will find them fully dealt with and exposed in May's "Parliamentary Practice" and Bourinot's "Works on the Procedure of the Parliaments in Canada." The House may take it from me that the result is that it is well settled Parliamentary usage and constitutional practice that no member of either House—and that includes Ministers as well as ordinary private members—is entitled or is at liberty to impute improper or discreditable motives to any member of either House, and, above all, he is not entitled to attribute discreditable motives or reflect on the actions of either House as a whole.
When that Bill came before the Dáil the Minister in charge of the Bill took an extraordinary course. He asked the Dáil to agree to Senator Farren's amendment, but stated that he asked them to agree to it on the express ground that the amendment was so faulty in its drafting that it would defeat the very object Senator Farren had and therefore it would be no harm to the Dáil to insert it. In other words, he asked the Dáil to pillory the Seanad by putting on the Statute Book an amendment passed through the Seanad, which, according to him, defeated its own purpose and object. I confess I do not understand the action of the Minister in that respect, more particularly as he was present on the 2nd February, on 3rd February and on the 9th February. Never once had he suggested on any one of those days throughout the entire course of the debate until this Bill left the Seanad, that there was the slightest defect in Senator Farren's amendment. When challenged about that by a Deputy in the other House he stated that he had only himself discovered the nature of the defect the night before.
Now, let us see what the position was. A Senator in this House, in moving an amendment, had to depend entirely upon himself. We have no Attorney-General; we have no draftsman; we have no counsel to advise members of the House; we have no expert department, but the Minister had all the resources of an expert staff. He had his own experience as Minister of Local Government; he had the Attorney-General to fall back upon if he wished. With all these resources at his disposal he never knew or noticed when the Bill was going through this House that there was any defect or deformity in Senator Farren's amendment. I am not suggesting for a moment that that is to the discredit of the Minister.
Even in the best-regulated Governments mistakes of this kind must inevitably occur, but when I come to read of the terms in which the action of this House was described by the President of the Executive Council in the Dáil, you will realise, I think, that he might have reflected on the imputation he was casting on his own colleague and on the various other Departments of the Government, because if a defect of this kind in an amendment drawn up by a private member in this House without assistance escaped the ingenuity and the intelligence of the Minister and his Department, it is hardly to be wondered at that Senator Farren had fallen into error. I do not say he did; that remains to be seen, but I am assuming for the moment that he did.
How did the President of the Executive Council deal with the action of the Seanad in passing this amendment? I am very glad the President is here, and I would have greatly preferred that he made this attack on the Seanad in the Seanad itself where we would be in a position to answer him. We are not represented in the Dáil and have no power of defending ourselves there, consequently I am glad he is here to-day. I shall now read what he said:—
"I think it will not require very much study on anyone's part to realise the close proximity of an election in this amendment... This is a fool amendment, and it reflects no credit on the Seanad to send down an amendment of that sort... As I have said, it is the close proximity of the election—the fervid haste with which members of the Seanad sought to buy votes, because it is little short of that—that has resulted in the amendment being put down in that form. A certain well-known man rubbed his hands and said: ‘That is 2,000 votes as soon as it is passed.' That is not the way to do public business, and I hope, at any rate, that we will agree on one thing, and that is that issues should be put straight and fair."
Later on he goes back to the charge again and he says:—
"This is a fool amendment. It is no credit to the Seanad to send it down. I for one object to our Statute Book having such a discreditable sub-section in an Act of Parliament."
I say, with all respect to the President, that each and every one of these observations were unparliamentary and unconstitutional, and a distinct breach of the privileges of this House. There is no ambiguity about the language. It comes to this, that this House, after a particular, member has moved an amendment which the House passed, is influenced by a desire to buy votes.