Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1935 > Committee on Procedure and Privileges > Report and Proceedings - Ruling of the Cathaoirleach with regards to the Land Purchase (Guarantee Fund) Bill, 1935

REPORT

The Second Stage of the Land Purchase (Guarantee Fund) Bill, 1935, a Certified Money Bill, appeared on the Order Paper for Thursday, 12th December, 1935, as the first item of business. It was immediately followed by a motion, in the name of Senator Robinson, enabling all the stages of the Bill to be taken on the same day.

The Cathaoirleach ruled thereon as follows:—

“The Land Purchase (Guarantee Fund)Bill, 1935, the Second Stage of which is the first item on to-day’s Order Paper, was passed by the Dáil only last night. If it had not been certified by the Speaker of the Dáil as a Money Bill, the interval of three clear days prescribed by Standing Order 74 between its receipt by the Clerk and its appearance on the Order Paper would have applied. As it has been so certified, it was incumbent on me to have it placed on the Order Paper for to-day.

“It is reported-in all the organs of the public Press this morning that steps are being taken by members of the Dáil to challenge the certification of the Speaker in regard to this Bill, by demanding a Committee of Privileges under Article 35 of the Constitution. This report may be true or untrue, but it is an important fact of which I have to take cognizance. Under the Standing Orders of the other House, the members thereof have three days, of which to-day is the first, in which to take the appropriate steps. I have come to the conclusion, after the most careful consideration, that it would be improper for the Second Stage of this Bill to be taken before the expiration of this interval of three days, that is to say, before it is known whether or not a Committee of Privileges will in fact be demanded by members of the Dáil. A Committee of Privileges is a quasi-judicial body, presided over by the senior judge of the Supreme Court able and willing to act. It would be wrong for such a Committee, if set up, to have to decide the purely legal and constitutional issue in the light of their preknowledge that the Seanad had either passed or rejected the motion for the second reading.

“This is a matter of order not covered by the Standing Orders and it is incumbent on me therefore, under Standing Order 39, to decide it to the best of my ability. I accordingly rule, for the reason which I have given, that the Second Stage of this Bill cannot be taken until an interval of three days has elapsed and it is known whether or not a Committee of Privileges will be demanded. In so ruling I have also had in mind the fact that no Group or Party in this House can be pre-judiced by delaying the Bill for four days out of the twenty-one permitted to us.”

This ruling has been referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, under Standing Order 39, on a requisition dated 12th December, 1935, and signed by the following fifteen Senators:— Senators Boyle, Mrs. Clarke, Comyn, Connolly, Fitzgerald, Healy, Honan, Lynch, Colonel Moore, O Máille, O’Neill, Quirke, Robinson, Ruane and Mrs. Wyse Power.

The Committee find as follows :—

1. Under Article 35 of the Constitution, the time within which two-fifths of the members of the Dáil may require a Committee of Privileges in regard to a Money Bill is seven days, dating from the day on which the Bill is sent to the Seanad. But if the Bill is returned by the Seanad to the Dáil before the expiration of the seven days, the time limit expires when the Bill has been returned.

2. Under Standing Order 111 (1) of the Dáil Standing Orders, which purports to implement Article 35, the period allowed to members of the Dáil in which to demand a Committee of Privileges is three days after the passage of the Money Bill by the Dáil. It is obvious from this Standing Order that the Dáil does not contemplate the return of a Money Bill by the Seanad to the Dáil before the period of three days mentioned therein has expired.

3. Under the Seanad Standing Order 74, there must be an interval of three clear days in the case of an ordinary Bill between the date of the receipt of the Bill by the Clerk and its appearance on the Order Paper. An exception is made in the case of Money Bills. Though the Standing Order is not specific, it has been the practice to place a Money Bill on the Order Paper prepared next after its receipt.

4. The Bill in question was received from the Dáil late on the night of Wednesday, 11th December; and, as the Seanad was sitting on the following day, the Bill was placed on the Order Paper for that day for its Second Stage. In addition, as has been said, there appeared a motion in the name of Senator Robinson, the Government Whip, to enable the remaining stages of the Bill to be taken on that day. This motion lacked the notice strictly required by the Standing Orders, and could only have been taken by general agreement and with the consent of the Cathaoirleach, which are usually forthcoming when the House wishes to complete its business on a certain day and rise for a recess.

5. It may here be interpolated that for the Second Stage of a Money Bill to be taken by the Seanad the day after its receipt from the Dáil or for a motion to appear on the Order Paper to enable all the remaining stages to be taken on the same day (i.e. the day after its receipt) is an occurrence of extreme rarity. During the whole period of the Seanad’s existence, there have been 103 Money Bills (exclusive of the Bill which is the subject of this Report); but in only seven cases have all stages been passed the day after receipt and in only two others has even the Second Stage been taken on that day. If we omit the period 1922-1923, when the Seanad’s procedure had not become stabilised, the figures are more striking still. For the 12 years 1924-1935 there have been 93 Money Bills; in only two cases have all stages been passed the day after receipt and in two others only the Second Stage has been taken. Out of a total of 93 such Bills, the period within which members of the Dáil might demand a Committee of Privileges has been allowed to run in all but four instances.

6. But an occasion which, as we have seen, was virtually without precedent in recent years was rendered unique when, on Thursday morning, 12th December, it became known that steps were being taken by members of the Dáil to prepare a requisition for a Committee of Privileges under Article 35 of the Constitution and it was generally believed that the necessary 62 signatures would be obtained. In the nature of things, the Cathaoirleach could have no official knowledge of these facts. Before he could have such knowledge, the requisition would have to be presented to the Speaker of the other House, a motion (likely to be debated at some length) would have to be passed by the Dáil appointing their three members of the Committee of Privileges and the resulting message would have to be received by the Clerk. Actually, this message was so received at 1.45 p.m. on Friday, 13th December.

7. The Cathaoirleach was, therefore, faced with the following situation at the opening of Thursday’s sitting of the Seanad:—

(a) a Money Bill appeared on the Order Paper for its Second Stage that day, being the first of the twenty-one days allowed for its discussion;

(b) a motion appeared on the Order Paper which would enable all the stages of the Bill to be taken on that day;

(c) there was a likelihood, of which he could, however, have no official knowledge, that a Committee of Privileges in regard to the Bill would be demanded by members of the other House.

8. This unique situation was one not contemplated when the Standing Orders were framed. If it had been so contemplated, a Standing Order would doubtless have been inserted to deal with it. As there is no such Standing Order, the matter was one of order not provided for in the Standing Orders, and Standing Order 39 therefore applied to it.

9. In the whole history of the Oireachtas there has been no previous case of a Committee of Privileges being set up, or of an attempt being made to obtain the necessary signatures for a requisition to set up such a Committee. Precedents of the kind contemplated by Standing Order 39 were accordingly not available for the guidance of the Cathaoirleach, and he, therefore, had to have regard solely to the circumstances of the case.

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;

(c) to take the decision which he did in fact take, and to rule that the Second Stage could not be taken until the three days had expired within which a requisition for a Committee of Privileges could be demanded by members of the Dáil.

We proceed to consider these three alternatives.

11. The first alternative was 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.

It must be emphasised here that the Chair could have no regard to the probable outcome, in view of the relative numerical strength and political alignment of the various Parties, if he decided to leave the matter to the decision of the House. The only factor he can take into consideration in such a case is the theoretical possibilities. If he had made no ruling it would have been possible for the Seanad to have passed all the stages of the Bill on the Thursday. If so, the Bill might have been returned to the Dáil before the requisition for a Committee of Privileges could have been presented. In that case, the Dáil Standing Order which allows three days for such presentation would have been rendered nugatory and the spirit of Article 35 of the Constitution would have been violated. The Article normally allows seven days for the presentation of such a requisition, and it can never have been intended that the provision which shortens this period in the event of the Bill being returned by the Seanad to the Dáil within the seven days could have the effect of nullifying the possibility of setting up such a Committee of Privileges at a time when it was a matter of public knowledge that a requisition for a Committee of Privileges was proposed to be presented by Deputies.

12. The second alternative was to allow the Second Stage to be taken, but to disallow the motion for the remaining stages. If the Cathaoirleach had taken this course, it would have been within the power of the Seanad either to pass or to reject the Second Stage. The Committee agree with the view taken by the Cathaoirleach that the discussion by the Seanad of the Second Stage of the Bill might possibly prejudice in its decision any Committee of Privileges that might be set up. For example, if the Seanad rejected the Bill on Second Reading, the Committee would find its responsibility gravely increased by the knowledge that a decision that the Bill was not a Money Bill would have the result of killing the Bill.

In general, it may be taken as a sound principle that, whenever judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings are pending, any dealing with the subject-matter of those proceedings is to be deprecated. This is exemplified by the fact that, after a Committee of Privileges had, in fact, been set up, it was not suggested from any quarter that the Seanad should proceed with the Second Stage or any stage of the Bill until the decision of the Committee had been promulgated; though there is nothing in the Constitution or in the Standing Orders to prevent the Seanad dealing with the different stages of the Bill pending such a decision.

13. The third alternative was for the Cathaoirleach to take the decision he did in fact take. It has been shown that three courses were available to him, of which the first two were open to grave objection. The course the Cathaoirleach took is open to no such objection. The few days’ postponement of the Second Stage left the Government or the Opposition in no worse or better position than they were before, and it avoided prejudicing the Committee of Privileges in its decision.

14. We are accordingly of the opinion, for the reasons stated above :—

(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 (paragraphs 1-8, inclusive);

(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 (paragraph 9);

(3) that, in the circumstances, his ruling was justified (paragraphs 10-13, inclusive).

The Cathaoirleach’s ruling is accordingly approved by us.

15. We recommend that a new Standing Order be incorporated in the Standing Orders as follows:—

“98A.—(1) Whenever the Cathaoirleach has been informed in writing by the leader of any Group or Party in the Seanad that a requisition for a Committee of Privileges under Article 35 of the Constitution is in process of being signed by members of either House of the Oireachtas with respect to a Money Bill, the Cathaoirleach shall announce such fact to the House and all proceedings on such Bill shall be suspended until the period within which such requisition may be presented shall have expired.

“(2) Whenever a Committee of Privileges under the said Article 35 has been demanded with respect to a Money Bill, all proceedings on such Bill shall be suspended until such Committee has reported.”

We report accordingly.

(Signed) T. W. WESTROPP BENNETT,

Chairman,

31st December, 1935.