That concludes the business of the day. I should like to get the views of the House with regard to the next day. I presume 10.30 would be equally convenient or inconvenient for the Senators.
ORDER OF BUSINESS.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I think the Constitution (Amendment No. 5) Bill should be put on the Order Paper for to-morrow. I do not see any reason for postponing it.
LEAS-CHATHAOIRLEACH
Some members understood that no business other than the Central Fund Bill would be taken on Thursday or Friday.
CATHAOIRLEACH
There are two formal Stages of two Bills, the Pilotage Bill and the Pensions Bill which we might take to-morrow. They are non-contentious and apparently no one desires to amend them. I suggest to the House that perhaps they were not altogether well advised in making that particular change in the Standing Orders dealing with their suspension. I think they would probably have been wiser in leaving it as it was or in giving a certain amount of discretion to the Chairman. I think in the case of non-controversial certified Money Bills there are reasons why in many cases it is desirable that they should be put through in a day. As a rule they are entirely non-contentious and under the Constitution we are only given a limit of 21 days from the day we receive a certified Money Bill to dispose of it through all its stages and if we fail to dispose of it in the 21 days it automatically passes from us and is treated as being passed by us. Therefore in regard to those Money Bills it might be well for the House to see later on when they are considering the Standing Orders whether it might not be desirable to give greater facilities with regard to taking one or more stages in the same day.
As a member of the Committee I may say that we were practically unanimous on that question and if there is any Bill for which time ought to be given it is a Money Bill which rarely comes before us. It is true that it went through in a few minutes yesterday but that does not prove that it is non-controversial. I think nothing is more controversial than a Money Bill and then as you pointed out we have 21 days to pass it. That is no reason why you should pass it in one day.
CATHAOIRLEACH
You are overlooking the fact that in the case of any other Bill you have the whole Session, but in the case of a Money Bill you have only three weeks, and during that three weeks you might be only sitting once. There might be an Easter vacation or something else intervening. In the case of those Money Bills it very often will necessarily occur that we have to put them through in the most rapid way. I only suggest that we lost sight of that limitation of three weeks when we were dealing with the Standing Orders.
I think the Committee on Procedure ought to reconsider the whole of our Standing Orders. There were quite a number of suggestions that could be made. Either there could be a discussion in the House first or the Committee could go into the whole matter and bring in a number of suggestions. Personally I thought there was a case for having a different procedure in the case of Money Bills. It is quite possible that a procedure, to give ample time for recommendations to the other House, should be provided in the Standing Orders. I do not think that is a reason, however, that we should make Standing Orders and revise them every other day.
While agreeing with you on the advisability of making stiff Standing Orders I think the greater the difficulty the Dáil finds in using this House as a sliding board for Money Bills the more it will make them, in considering amendments to the Constitution, inclined to allow us to amend Money Bills. I think it is a monstrous thing that a House which is supposed to consider and hold up Bills for graver judgment should be put off from amending Money Bills. The older I get the less interested I am in politics, and to me the only important thing seems to be the economic position of countries as compared with one another. I am opposed to crystallising ourselves and making our Standing Orders a shackle on the House. I think, in the interests of the Houses, when they are amending the Constitution it may be more easy for the Dáil to allow this House to consider Money Bills when they find they cannot slide them through the Seanad in a panicky way. We all complain of the haste in which Bills are pushed on us and we are now told that if Money Bills are not passed through the House quickly they will be useless. When they find Money Bills cannot be passed through in 21 days they may come to the conclusion that it may be better to have the House as a consultant.
CATHAOIRLEACH
No, that is not the position. It is that if Money Bills are not passed through this House within 21 days we lose all control over them.
Does not that mean that if we make recommendations on the 20th day they are ignored?
CATHAOIRLEACH
The position with regard to Money Bills may be absurd, but there it is in the Constitution. We are only allowed three weeks, and if we have not disposed of a Money Bill and made recommendations in respect of it within three weeks we automatically cease to have control of it. That is the existing provision of the Constitution. We must always be rushed into the consideration of Money Bills.
We are bound to do it in this case in three days. Surely there is no time. Three days is all that is allowed on this occasion.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Do you think it is consistent or would be to the credit or dignity of this House that we should have, on frequent occasions, to sit for five minutes and adjourn again? I do not think that is the way of discharging business. It is very desirable that that should be avoided.
That is altogether the fault of the Minister for Finance. We would have had ample time to deal with the Bill except for his haste.
CATHAOIRLEACH
You are up against this now, that unless he gets it through this week it is no use to him.
The fact is that the harder you make it to put a Bill through the easier it will be to amend the Constitution.
With regard to the twenty-one days, I do not know whether they mean calendar days from the date of the introduction of a Money Bill into this House to the passing of such Money Bill, or whether they mean twenty-one Parliamentary days.
CATHAOIRLEACH
It means twenty-one calendar days. If it meant twenty-one Parliamentary days then it might mean a year or six months, at any rate.
The point I make is whether twenty-one days means twenty-one calendar days or twenty-one days during which the Dáil sits.
CATHAOIRLEACH
It has nothing to do with the sitting of the Dáil at all. The twenty-one days refers to the sittings of this House. This House is to sit within twenty-one days and dispose of a Money Bill or otherwise it passes out of our control.
On the general question, the control of the public purse is the most important matter for the citizens of this country. It is well that they should know that this House has very little control over it.
SENATORS
None.
Practically none; but whatever little facilities we have, in the shape of this arrangement for discussing matters, I think we should be very slow to part with them. Whenever the question of the Standing Orders comes up, I think we should discuss the matter here in the Senate in Committee of the Whole House. There are very important constitutional questions, economic and social questions, which may be related to these Standing Orders, and the Senate should see to it that it does not lose any more control over these questions than it can help.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Of course you are touching on the fringe of a very big question when you speak of the intervention of the Second Chamber in money matters. We know how very limited not only are our powers, but the powers of the British Upper House and also the Senates in nearly all of our Dominions. Their powers with regard to Money Bills are very drastically curtailed. This is a very big question, and one that we could not go into now.
We could discuss the position of the French and the American Senates.
CATHAOIRLEACH
If you could persuade the Executive to follow that example you would be a more successful man than I contemplate. However, that is another day's work. What I was coming to is this question of our business for next week. So far as I can see, there is no business of an urgent character for next week, and certainly no business to occupy us for more than one day, and the question is whether we should meet next week for one day. Our business would be the Committee Stage of the Jurors Bill and possibly the Committee Stage of the Constitution (Amendment) No. 5 Bill.
I also understood it was possible that we would have the Second Stage of the Intoxicating Liquor Bill.
CATHAOIRLEACH
So far as I can gather, that Bill will not be finished and printed in time to give us the three days necessary before taking it into consideration. It is not possible that it will be available next week.
If we do not meet next week we would have to meet on two days in Holy Week, which may not be desirable.
The Constitution (Amendment) No. 5 Bill is a Bill to which I attach very great importance, and I think it might possibly be well for the Seanad to discuss it in some detail. I would suggest that we should discuss that Bill on Wednesday next. That would give us something to do on that day.
CATHAOIRLEACH
We would also have, if the House is agreeable to take it, the Committee Stage of the Jurors Bill, for Wednesday next. I think I had better take it that the House, at any rate, wishes to meet on Wednesday next for the purpose of the consideration of these two Bills. To-morrow, I take it, there will be no objection to put in, in addition to the Final Stage of the Central Fund Bill, another Stage of the Pilotage Bill, which is a non-controversial measure, and another Stage of the Pensions Bill, which is also a non-controversial measure.
When are we likely to have the further Stages of the Industrial and Commercial Property (Protection) Bill?
CATHAOIRLEACH
I have not heard anything further about that since the last day. The Minister stated that there were one or two other matters that would have to be further amended, and he is making inquiries, and he has asked the House not to hurry him in the matter.
Is not the Pensions Bill a very big Bill to put through to-morrow?
CATHAOIRLEACH
We have had the Bill for a week; it was not discussed on Second Reading, except that Senator Farren said some words commending it to the Seanad, and it appears to be non-controversial. Of course, I am entirely in the hands of the House. I shall put it on the Order Paper, and when we come to it, if any Senator wants it further discussed, we can further postpone it. Unless there is some desire on the part of the House to oppose it, there is no reason why it should not be put through another Stage.
Might I suggest that it should be put down for Wednesday.
CATHAOIRLEACH
With what object?
Because Senators have not had time to consider it in all its bearings.
CATHAOIRLEACH
How long have you had it? For over a week, have you not?
No, not for a week, I was away for a while.
I make the suggestion that for the future the Committee of Procedure or the Cathaoirleach, in consultation with the Clerk, should arrange the business for subsequent days. I think it is most unseemly that every day we should be engaged in a sort of irregular confab for nearly twenty minutes as to what we should do the next day. I would far prefer to submit to a benevolent dictatorship in fixing the order of business. I would prefer to have someone or other lay down the Order than waste time about it in the manner we do.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Under the Standing Orders the matter devolves upon me, and I am afraid I am largely to blame for what the Senator describes as an unseemly discussion, but I only raised the matter for the convenience of the House.
I am afraid I have some slight responsibility in the matter, too.
CATHAOIRLEACH
We share it, Senator. If the House prefers it, I shall assume a vigorous dictatorship in the matter and frame the Agenda for myself for each sitting. I will try that for a while, but I am afraid it will not last long.
On account of there being no Ministers here, the Committee on Procedure could lay down rules. It is rather grotesque to meet for five minutes and then to spend twenty minutes more talking about what we will do the next day before the public and the Press and turning ourselves into a laughing stock. These discussions crop up every day, but they never occur in the other House.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I am afraid my readings of the proceedings of the other House do not agree with that at all. I have hardly ever seen a day's discussion in the other House in which there was not discussion as to what particular days and dates would suit them for the next business coming on.
Yes, but that discussion is not so much out of proportion to the amount of work they do as it is here.
CATHAOIRLEACH
The House stands adjourned until to-morrow at 10.30 a.m.