Vol. 1 No. 16
I move Article 23.
"The Parliament/Oireachtas shall make provision for the payment of its members, and may, in addition, provide them with free travelling facilities in any part of Ireland."
That, I think, will procure a measure of uniformity. So as not to bind future Parliaments in this matter, there will be sn amendment moved to substitute the word "may" for "shall" in the first line of the Article.
I move the amendment that the word "may" shall be substituted for "shall" in the first line of Article 23. As the Article stands it is mandatory on the Parliament.
I think it would be better to delete the Article altogether, if it is to be interfered with in this way. An amendment putting it that Parliament may provide for payment of its members is hardly necessary. If it is going to be imperative it may be worth putting in the Constitution, but if it is going to be optional it is merely a matter any Parliament can decide for itself?
Would I be correct in saying, from the legal point of view, if the word "may" is substituted for the word "shall" the Article is none the less mandatory?
The reason for the proposed change was to meet the view of the Dáil. A committee was selected to deal with the question of the payment of members, and the result of the report was that only expenses would be allowed to members. It is to meet that point that the amendment is moved. It is open to the Dáil, and I would like a free vote. I would prefer myself the word "shall" but it is in deference to the report of the Committee, which was unanimously adopted by the Dáil, that the alteration is being suggested. I might say also if "shall" goes in, whatever payment is paid will be subject to income tax. I do not know if "expenses" is open to the same charge.
It does not matter whether it is for expenses or services, whether it is an honorarium or a gratuity, it is a payment of members.
Of course there is no reason why there should not be an absolutely free vote on this matter. It is now suggested if "may" goes in that the Article serves no purpose. Well, the constitutional right of Parliament to vote payment to its members might possibly be challenged in the near future, and then we thought as a headline or indication to future Parliaments that Article may have a useful place in the Constitution even with the word "may" inserted for "shall"; it does seem a strange thing to try to absolutely bind, or attempt to bind, future Parliaments upon a matter of this kind, which is so much a matter of discretion for each Parliament.
Perhaps I may make one explanation. The word "shall" was put in, in case at any future time it might happen that a Parliament would be induced not to make such provision, and, therefore, the members returned would be only those who could afford their expenses out of their own purses, and, therefore, representatives who could not afford their expenses would be automatically excluded. It is decided the Constitution should take the responsibility of stating that Deputies might be elected to the Dáil representative of all classes of society.
Perhaps the mover of the amendment might see his way to withdraw it.
There is no objection to the amendment being withdrawn.
The amendment was then withdrawn.
Article 23 agreed to and added to the Bill.
