I move that the Report be adopted. The first question involved in the Report is the most important one, and is also a rather complicated one. Perhaps I may be allowed to state, very shortly, the circumstances under which the question arose and the reasons for the findings of the Committee. I am taking it directly from the Report of the Land Purchase (Guarantee Fund) Bill, which was certified by the Ceann Comhairle as a Money Bill. It was received from the Dáil late on Wednesday night, 11th December, and it appeared on our Order Paper, on the 12th, for Second Stage. There also appeared on the Order Paper a motion in the name of Senator Robinson to enable the remaining stages of the Bill to be taken on that date.
Before the House sat on Thursday, it came to the knowledge of the Cathaoirleach—the mode being stated in the report—that steps were being taken by members of the other House to request the reference of the question whether the Bill was, or was not, a Money Bill, to the Committee of Privileges which, under Article 35 of the Constitution, came to be constituted for that purpose.
In these circumstances the Cathaoirleach was faced with a very difficult question. There was no Standing Order of our own which applied to this particular case. We had always been in the habit of treating, as far as our procedure was concerned, a Money Bill in the same way as a Bill that was not of the nature of a Money Bill. The only section that applied to the procedure at that time was the one which applied to Bills which were not Money Bills. The Cathaoirleach was, therefore, bound, there being no Standing Order of our own on the matter, by our Order 39 which provides: "In all matters of order which may arise and are not provided for in these Standing Orders, the Cathaoirleach shall rule as to him seems right, having regard to such precedents as may have been established, and to the circumstances of the case." But a case of the kind had never arisen before and, therefore, there were no precedents, and the Cathaoirleach had to do what he deemed to be right in the circumstances. The circumstances with which he had to deal are set out in the Report and will be found in paragraph 10.
The Cathaoirleach had three courses open to him:—
(a) to make no ruling in the matter, but to allow the Second Stage and the motion to take all stages to be taken, if the House so decided;
(b) to allow the Second Stage to be taken but to disallow the motion for the remaining stages.
Therefore, he could allow the Second Stage to be taken and disallow the motion for the other stages of the Bill, or (c) he could take the decision which he did, in fact, take, and rule that the Second Stage could not be taken until the three days had expired within which a request for the Committee of Privileges could be demanded by members of the Dáil.
I may mention that it is a curious fact that, under the Article of the Constitution dealing with this question of reference as to whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not, there are seven days allowed for a request for that Committee of Privileges, but under the Standing Orders of the other House only three days are allowed to members of that House in which to demand such a committee. It is further provided in the Constitution that if a Money Bill is returned by the Seanad to the Dáil within the seven days, the power to demand a Committee of Privileges is at an end as soon as the Bill has been returned. Now it is easy to see how, if the Cathaoirleach had made no ruling, this position could have arisen. If the Cathaoirleach had adopted the first alternative, that is, to let the Order Paper stand as it was, and if both the motion for the Second Reading and the motion in the name of Senator Robinson had been taken, the Seanad might have passed the Second Reading of the Bill and also the motion in the name of Senator Robinson. In that case this House would have deprived the members of the other House of the right which they had to refer this to the Committee of Privileges under Article 35, and so the Cathaoirleach rejected the first alternative. If he adopted the second alternative and allowed the Second Stage only to go on, disallowing the motion of Senator Robinson, the decision of the Seanad on the Second Reading might very seriously have prejudiced the decision of the Committee of Privileges under Article 35 of the Constitution for reasons which are set out at length, and which seem to be conclusive, in paragraph 12 of the Report. The Cathaoirleach, therefore, rejected the second alternative also, and adopted the third one. He ruled that the Second Stage of the Bill could not be taken until the expiration of the three days and allowed the members of the Dáil, under their own Standing Orders, to require a reference to the Committee of Privileges. Now, that ruling having been made and carried into effect, it was questioned under our own Standing Orders in the ordinary way and duly referred to our own Committee of Privileges. It came before them on the 18th December. There were eight members present, including the Cathaoirleach, one member being indisposed at the time. The question was fully discussed, and the majority, as appears from the schedule to the Report, was 5 to 2. The opinion of the majority of the Committee is stated in paragraph 14 of the Report:
We are, accordingly, of the opinion for the reasons stated: (1) that the subject matter of the Cathaoirleach's ruling was a matter of order not provided for in the Standing Orders, and that Standing Order 39 therefore applied to it; (2) that, the case being unique, no precedents had been established in regard to it, and that the Cathaoirleach, in accordance with Standing Order 39, had to have regard solely to the circumstances of the case; (3) that, in the circumstances, his ruling was justified.
The Cathaoirleach's ruling is, accordingly, approved by us.
The Report winds up:
We report accordingly.
I now move the adoption of the Report.