I ask the House to adopt the following motion:—
That it be an instruction to the Committee on Procedure in revising the Standing Orders of the Seanad to make provision for the appointment of a Standing Committee whose function it shall be to examine all orders and regulations made by Ministers of State which are required by statute to be laid before the Oireachtas, and when they deem it necessary to report to the Seanad respecting the purpose and effect of such orders or regulations.
This is a matter which I referred to in the course of another motion. That was a motion made a year ago, but it was at that time associated with a wider and more comprehensive proposition. I was advised then that had I dealt with one subject alone it probably would have been adopted without question. The Seanad will be aware of the fact that in the course of British legislation, and also in the course of Free State legislation, it is provided that to carry out the purpose of certain enactments Ministers may make orders and regulations. In some cases orders and regulations must be laid upon the Table, and before becoming effective must receive approval by a positive vote of both Houses. Those cases are rather few. In the great majority of such cases, where orders take the place of enactments, it is required that such an order be laid upon the Table, and if within a given period, usually twenty-one days, under Free State legislation either House passes a resolution annulling or disapproving of such order, such order shall be no longer effective. The importance of these orders varies very greatly. The great majority of them are purely formal and deal with Departmental matters, and I think would be quite out of the range of ordinary statutes.
Some of the orders that are capable of being made by Ministers do, in fact, alter the statutes and make very serious changes in the law. To give an instance of that, I may say that we are living since 1923 under the Local Government Temporary Provisions Act. I have referred to this before, but it is worth repeating. It was intended that that temporary Act should be supplanted by a permanent Act within a year. It is now 1929, and this Act passed in 1923 is still a temporary Act. It will be re-enacted, I suppose, before the end of the year. Under the provisions of that Act the Minister has been enabled by orders to alter the whole law relating to the relief of the poor and to a considerable extent the law relating to local government. Those alterations have been effected by orders laid upon the Table.
Both Houses of the Legislature and each individual legislator have had the responsibility of disapproving of them. In order to do that the legislator should bring before the House at least some reason why any order of the kind should be disapproved of. I am not passing any comment as to whether these orders or regulations are good or bad. I am drawing attention to the fact that statute law may be altered by the exercise of the Minister's powers. The Minister makes that alteration by order to be laid upon the Table. The Defence Forces Act is alterable, or I should say the administration portion of it is alterable by the orders laid upon the Table. It is true to say that the original Act of the National Health Insurance has been entirely altered and would not now be recognised as being the law prevailing to-day. The alterations therein have been effected by orders laid upon the Table.
This question has had a good deal of publicity lately as part of a very much wider question through the publication of a book by an eminent judge. I am not at all asking the House to make any comments—bad, good or otherwise— upon the question raised in the recently published book of Lord Hewart. But one aspect of the question is an aspect that I am asking the House to deal with and that is to say where the statutes allow of orders to be made by a Departmental Minister, which orders have the force of law, and where such an order is laid upon the Table thereby imposing upon the Legislature the responsibility for seeing that its intentions are not violated, that this House at any rate should depute a number of its members to exercise a special supervision and examination of those orders.
Responsibility to-day is equally placed upon the sixty members of the Seanad and, I suppose, the 152 members of the Dáil. But because it is so diffused I think I am not exaggerating when I say that that responsibility is not given effect to. These orders are not examined. Nobody knows whether they carry out or depart seriously from what the individual believes to have been the intention of the Legislature. What I seek to have established is that a Committee of the House shall have the very special duty placed upon them to examine these orders as they are laid upon the Table. As I have already said the vast majority of them are formal, and will not occasion any difficulty. Some of them may occasion difficulty. And I think that the Committee would obviously have the right of seeking advice and information from the Department concerned as to the intention and purpose. If it appears entirely innocuous or merely departmental, the Committee will have no need to take any further action. But if the Committee is of opinion that certain important issues are raised it would be incumbent then upon the Committee to report to the Seanad of the purport and possible effect of the order. Then if the Seanad desires it can take action. If the Seanad thinks there is nothing requiring action to be taken, the order would pass without any further comment.
What is aimed at in this resolution is that some special responsibility should be devolved upon a Committee of the House so that the orders made by a Minister which have the force of law should have, to a greater extent than at present, the consent of the Legislature, or at least this House of the Legislature, and that closer examination would be made of these orders so that possible departure from the intentions of the Legislature by order should not be made without such matters being reported to the Seanad. I do not think it is necessary to go into greater detail. The matter is extremely important and I think it is right and proper that this House should take upon itself this function whether the other House does it or not. It would I think answer some part of the indictment that is made against the parliamentary system and against that alleged defect in the parliamentary system which allows executive authority to legislate without the practical sanction of the Legislature. I beg to move the motion.
