ORDUITHE AN LAE—ORDERS OF THE DAY. - ELECTORAL (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL, 1927—COMMITTEE STAGE.
In this Act—
the expression "the oath" means the oath required by Article 17 of the Constitution to be taken and subscribed by every member of the Oireachtas before taking his seat therein;
references to taking the oath shall be construed as referring to taking the said oath in the manner prescribed by the said Article 17; and references to election include in the case of Seanad Eireann the choosing pursuant to Article 34 of the Constitution of a person to fill the place of a member of Seanad Eireann who has died, resigned, or become disqualified.
I move—
On page 2, to insert between lines 19 and 20 the words "the expression ‘Commissioner for Oaths' means in relation to an affidavit sworn outside Saorstát Eireann a person who is authorised by the law of the place in which such affidavit is sworn to administer oaths in that place."
A member, prior to the nomination, may be outside the country. This amendment enables an affidavit, required to comply with Section 2, to be made before a person in a country outside Saorstát Eireann, who is authorised to administer oaths in that place.
Amendment put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
(2) The affidavit required by this section to be delivered by a candidate to the returning officer shall be sworn by such candidate in the presence of a commissioner for oaths or a peace commissioner to whom he is personally known and shall be delivered to the returning officer by such candidate himself or his proposer or seconder, in the case of a general election, at any time after the date of the proclamation declaring the calling of the Oireachtas or, in the case of a by-election, at any time after the receipt of the writ by the returning officer, and, in any case, before the expiration of the time appointed for receiving nominations.
I move:
In sub-section (2), page 2, line 43, immediately after the word "Seconder" to insert the words "on his behalf."
This amendment is merely formal. The affidavit when handed in by the proposer or seconder of a candidate is handed in on his behalf.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 2, as amended"—put.
The Minister has made reference to the position of Commissioners or the substitute, Commissioner for Oaths, in the case of an absent Deputy, but it does not seem to me that that makes very much difference in the case of a Deputy who is absent and does not bring him within the reasonable possibility of being nominated as a candidate.
At the time of the Second Reading the Minister for Agriculture said it was a very simple matter to make provision for a person who was outside the country to be nominated as a candidate for the Dáil or Seanad. I have not been able to see how that can be done easily, or even with difficulty, and maintain the present scheme of the Bill. I think the question to be answered is whether it is desirable that we should enable persons who at the time of election, either a general election or a by-election, are not in the country, or easily available between the time of the declaration of a vacancy and the time of election, to fill that vacancy. I think if we make up our minds that it is desirable that a person who is away from the country during that time should be enabled to become a candidate we have to consider whether the proposition in the Bill will enable that to be done. I cannot see how such a person can become a candidate if he is any distance away from the Saorstát.
During the previous reading I think I instanced the case of Deputy Bryan Cooper and ex-Deputy Esmonde who last year were away in Australia. They left Ireland and I think were away for about five months. They left Ireland at a time when there was quite a possibility—I will not say a great probability—that an election might take place during the time of their absence. I ask the Dáil to consider the position of either of those Deputies or any other Deputy in similar circumstances at the time of election. They could not be nominated under this section because they would have to get an affidavit and have it presented to the returning officer before their nomination would be valid, and that is impossible. In fact one need not be in the Pacific Ocean but a very much shorter distance away from this country to make it difficult if not impossible for him to be nominated. You have declared vacancies for two constituencies in the county and city of Dublin. Conceivably a person not expecting a vacancy to be declared is away let us say on the continent of Europe. How is that person going to be approached to get an affidavit or is it intended that you shall make it impossible for such a person to be nominated. That is the effect of this section. I shall be quite glad to hear from the Minister that I am wrong and that it is possible for such person to become nominated in some other way than by making an affidavit and lodging it before the returning officer in time for the election.
I do not think the Deputy has quoted me quite correctly. On the Second Reading of this Bill, Deputy Johnson made the point which he has just made now. He asked how were Deputies who were outside the country to get nominated. My answer to that was not, I think, that it was easy to provide for these difficulties. I do not think I entered into the merits of the case at all, but I stated that so far as there were any difficulties it was essentially a Committee point. I did not express any views upon the merits of the point. I confined myself to saying that the Deputy's point did not go to the principle of the Bill, that it was essentially a Committee point. I did not say that there was any easy method of dealing with it. Supposing this Bill, with that amendment, passes, every Deputy or prospective Deputy must be expected to know that an affidavit must be handed in before nomination, and any Deputy or prospective Deputy should provide against any possibility of a General Election before going on one of these long journeys.
Perhaps Deputy Johnson will admit that there is a certain radius inside of which the amendment proposed to Section 1 would be a help—to a person in Great Britain, France, or Spain. He will have a second string to his bow in Amendment 6, which is an amendment to the Schedule. An affidavit can be made at any time before an election, so that a Deputy going to Australia on any particular work, can leave with his election agent an affidavit duly made, which could be presented to the Returning Officer on his behalf.
Would the Minister consider the possibility of inserting at a later stage a provision that somebody on behalf of the intending candidate may enter into a money bond to complete the necessary formalities afterwards. A by-election may arise very unexpectedly, and somebody who had no intention of going forward might be prevailed on to stand.
I spoke on the introduction of this measure and disapproved of the prudence of introducing it now. I left the matter at that. But I would like to know from the Minister if we are not very well wasting time in debating this measure. A distinguished Irishman said at one time that you could drive a coach and four through any Act of Parliament. It struck me in looking over this measure that there never was a measure through which it was so easy to drive a coach and four and a tandem as this one. There is no doubt, and it is useless to conceal it, that this measure is aimed at a certain political party. What effect is this measure going to have on them? Is it going to prevent them making that declaration? They have in the past complied with the provisions of the Electoral Acts up to a point, and they can comply with the provisions of this measure and yet not take their seats, This measure is not going to solve the problem. The supporters of these people are not going to run away because they do not take their seats. The outcome will be that the bitter partisan struggle that is going on in this country will be continued. To my mind this measure is merely a waste of paper, more so than any other enactment that has been introduced.
I am in agreement with Deputy Johnson. I think there are possibilities that an individual whom people might want to go forward as a candidate, not an individual who himself might want to go forward, might be prevented from doing so. A representative in the Dáil or Seanad would take the precautions the Minister speaks of. He would leave an affidavit behind. Perhaps he would leave it behind him for twelve months. But the other type of man, who might be a much more desirable type, might have gone out of the country. He might get an invitation from a constituency to stand as candidate and he might be so far away that he could not make an affidavit and forward it in time. Sub-section (2) states: "The affidavit required by this section shall be delivered by the candidate or his seconder on his behalf."
I do not know if the affidavit could be handed in on behalf of the candidate in time, but as Deputy O'Brien says, it would not be possible to find a solution, because we cannot at the moment visualise a position arising where suitable candidates might not be in the country and might not make this affidavit. After all, this is going to be an Act that is to stand and, like Deputy McMenamin, I am convinced that this Act is not going to solve the problem. Accordingly, this problem will be with us for a considerable time. We will have to guard as far as possible against the possibility of the disadvantages under which prospective candidates might labour, because by accident or for some other reason a desirable candidate might be so far away from his base that he could not possibly have an affidavit made by him delivered in time. If there is any possibility of that happening we should guard against it in this section. I am not prepared to say how exactly that might be done, but I think if a reputable citizen were prepared to come forward and make an affidavit on behalf of the candidate, or his proposer or seconder were to come forward, it might easily be considered. There is the other suggestion of Deputy O'Brien that if a proposer or seconder were prepared to enter into a bond that the candidate going forward was prepared to comply with this Bill, there should be no objection to having such a provision inserted. Both positions would be amply safeguarded then.
I do not think the situation Deputy Baxter fears is likely to arise once in twenty years. Candidates who are away out of the country, who are not going to return for some time after the issue of the writ, who have not been mentioned and who were not thought of as candidates before, are not likely to be selected. The position of a man being selected as candidate who has never even been mentioned before is not likely to arise, and we are asked really to provide for a contingency, the occurrence of which, if it happens, will be very rare, so rare that it will not constitute a problem that requires to be provided for.
I think the Minister is making too little of this disability. It is quite against the spirit of freedom and the equality of citizen-rights that we are supposed to have safeguarded. He says that not once in twenty years is this likely to happen. That is a prophecy I cannot deal with. I think with the development of travel it is going to happen very much oftener than that, and it is not an easy thing to be sure of getting a message away, even to parts of Spain that the Minister for Local Government and Public Health spoke of. It is not very far away but one would scarcely be back again in a fortnight. A fortnight is not the maximum period, I think, which might be required. The Minister for Finance suggests that it is only those people who have foreseen the likelihood of their being candidates who have to be considered as likely candidates. This proposition is placing a disability upon citizens who may desire to become candidates in a particular constituency in particular circumstances. I think we should not place that disability upon any person. What is said in regard to candidates for the Dáil is equally valid in respect of candidates for the Seanad, and this is a disability which is entirely against the intentions of the Constitution which provided that there should be freedom and equality in those matters.
While I agree that the law may impose disabilities, those disabilities are usually in the nature of a penalty or an obstacle placed upon certain people who cannot serve in two capacities with satisfaction to the country, but there is neither a penalty intended for any offence nor any disability imposed because of being unable to perform the duties satisfactorily or without prejudice to the State's interest. Neither of those conditions applies. I am speaking now of the disability respecting civil servants or soldiers, but in all other cases there should be a fairly general, in fact, a completely general, equality of rights of citizens to membership of the Dáil. Here an accidental or temporary absence from the country is going to be placed as a barrier against one of the important rights of citizenship. I frankly admit I see no way out. Deputy O'Brien makes a suggestion if it is satisfactory. It would probably meet 999 cases out of 1,000, but it is always possible that the bond would be forfeited. I am sure it would be a practical, effective method of arriving at what the Ministers desire. Certainly the proposition in this section is going to bar out people who have a right to become candidates for the Dáil.
It must be remembered that the Bill was introduced for a particular purpose—the safeguarding of our institutions here, of the Dáil and of the Seanad, in particular circumstances. Full consideration was given by the Executive Council to how the particular difficulties mentioned by Deputy Johnson and Deputy O'Brien might be overcome. It was considered whether a particular form of statement by a proposer or seconder and a bond might be allowed, but the decision was come to that in view of the particular circumstances that the Bill was called upon to meet we were allowing a sufficient opening for such cases as have been mentioned by providing that the necessary affidavit could be made outside the country in particular circumstances and by providing a form of affidavit of a nature, that the person who did intend to become a candidate for the Dáil or Seanad and who was leaving the country could take as a necessary precaution to ensure that his nomination would be in order. Amendments No. 1 and No. 6 were the only amendments that we were prepared to suggest in the Bill in order to meet the cases spoken about.
Question—"That Section 2 stand part of the Bill"—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 42; Níl, 32.
Tá
- Earnán Altún.
- J. Walter Beckett.
- George Cecil Bennett.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seán Brodrick.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Michael Davis.
- James Dwyer.
- Barry M. Egan.
- James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
- Denis J. Gorey.
- John Hennigan.
- Mark C. Henry.
- Patrick Hogan (Galway).
- Patrick M. Kelly.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Martin McDonogh.
- P. McGilligan.
- Mícheál Óg Mac Pháidín.
- James E. Murphy.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoidh.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus N. O Dóláin.
- P.S. O Dubhghaill.
- E.S. O Dúgáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- John J. O'Reilly.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Vincent Rice.
- Timothy Sheehy.
- William E. Thrift.
- Vincent J. White.
- George Wolfe.
Níl
- Richard S. Anthony.
- Patrick F. Baxter.
- P. Belton.
- Alfred Byrne.
- Michael Carter.
- James Coburn.
- Hugh Colohan.
- Denis Cullen.
- William Davin.
- Thomas Johnson.
- John Keating.
- Michael J. Keyes.
- Thomas Lawlor.
- Gilbert Lynch.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Daniel McMenamin.
- Michael Doyle.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Hugh Garahan.
- John F. Gill.
- David Hall.
- Michael R. Heffernan.
- Gilbert Hewson.
- Richard Holohan.
- John Jinks.
- Daniel Morrissey.
- William O'Brien.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Timothy Quill.
- William Archer Redmond.
- James Shannon.
- Jasper Travers Wolfe.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies and P. S. Doyle. Níl: Deputies Morrissey and Cullen.
Motion declared carried.
SECTION 3.
(1) Every candidate for election to Seanad Eireann shall, in the manner and within the time prescribed by this section, deliver to the Clerk of the Seanad an affidavit in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act duly sworn by him in accordance with this section, and, in the case of a triennial election, no candidate who has not so delivered such affidavit shall be included in the panel of candidates for such election and, in the case of a by-election, no candidate who has not so delivered such affidavit shall be voted upon by Seanad Eireann.
(2) The affidavit required by this section to be delivered by a candidate to the Clerk of the Seanad shall be sworn by such candidate in the presence of a Commissioner for Oaths or a Peace Commissioner to whom he is personally known and shall be delivered to the Clerk of the Seanad by such candidate himself or some person on his behalf, in the case of a triennial election, before the completion of the formation of the panel of candidates for that election or, in the case of a by-election, before the day on which such election is held.
I move:—
To delete sub-sections (1) and (2) and substitute three new sub-sections as follows:—
"(1) No person shall be nominated by Dáil Eireann for inclusion in a panel of candidates for a triennial election to Seanad Eireann unless, within such period prior to such nomination and in such manner as shall be prescribed by Dáil Eireann, such person or a member of Dáil Eireann who has taken his seat therein has delivered to the Clerk of the Dáil an affidavit in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act duly sworn by such person in the presence of a Commissioner for Oaths or a Peace Commissioner to whom he is personally known.
(2) No person shall be nominated by Seanad Eireann for inclusion in a panel of candidates for a triennial election to Seanad Eireann unless, within such period prior to such nomination and in such manner as shall be prescribed by Seanad Eireann, such person or a member of Seanad Eireann who has taken his seat therein has delivered to the Clerk of the Seanad an affidavit in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act duly sworn by such person in the presence of a Commissioner for Oaths or a Peace Commissioner to whom he is personally known.
(3) No person shall be elected at a by-election to be a member of Seanad Eireann unless, within such period prior to such election and in such manner as shall be prescribed by Seanad Eireann, such person or a member of Seanad Eireann who has taken his seat therein has delivered to the Clerk of the Seanad an affidavit in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act duly sworn by such person in the presence of a Commissioner for Oaths or a Peace Commissioner to whom he is personally known."
The section as it stands at present requires that every candidate for election to Seanad Eireann shall deliver to the Clerk of the Seanad an affidavit, and that, failing delivery of that affidavit, his name cannot be put on the Seanad panel. The Seanad panel is constituted of a certain number of persons nominated partly by the Dáil and partly by the Seanad, and the amendment is intended to obviate a situation in which the Clerk of the Seanad might find himself unable to put on the Seanad panel a person who had been nominated by the Dáil or by the Seanad because of his failure to deliver to the Clerk the necessary affidavit. The amendment requires that before a person can be nominated by either the Dáil or the Seanad to the Seanad panel there shall be delivered to the Clerk of the Dáil or the Clerk of the Seanad respectively the necessary affidavit.
Article 33 (b) of the Constitution deals with persons who are entitled to be on the Seanad panel, that is persons who have at any time been members of Seanad Eireann and who notify to the President of the Executive Council that they desire to be included in the panel. These people have an intrinsic right from the Constitution to go on the panel, and in view of the fact that they have already been members of the Seanad, it would require an amendment of the Constitution to keep them off the panel in the absence of an affidavit. People who are so entitled to go on the Seanad panel are not being required to provide an affidavit in the same way as a person who had not been a member of the Seanad and was not being put on the Seanad panel by virtue of Article 33 (b) of the Constitution.
It is quite interesting to hear the Minister explain why special privileges should be given to members of the Seanad as compared with members of the Dáil. A person who has been a member of the Dáil and has taken his seat in the normal course, and goes up for re-election is obliged to follow the course set out in Section 2. But if a person has been a member of the Seanad he is excused from that obligation under this proposal because, forsooth, it seems to run across a section of the Constitution. We have been hearing for some time that the Constitution should not stand in the way of any change in the law. It has been treated lightly enough in other matters, and it is rather surprising that the Minister should come along now and say we must take particular notice of this section of the Constitution because, presumably, it deals with members of the Seanad, that it affects their interests and they would not agree to have those interests touched by a proposition from the Dáil. Sub-section (3) of the amended section again gives a special privilege to the Seanad over and above the Dáil inasmuch as it will allow the Seanad to prescribe its own period within which the affidavit may be lodged. It may say twelve months so as to allow a foreign traveller an opportunity of returning. But the Dáil has no such privilege.
Supposing the Seanad does not take that view; supposing the Seanad does take the view that it has taken in the recent past and makes the election of a Senator follow very quickly upon the vacancy, how is the eligible person to have his opportunity to be elected? There is not even the fortnight or three weeks—that is the period in which in normal times a candidate for the Dáil can have an opportunity of having this affidavit and being sent forward. But in the case of a vacancy in the Seanad by death, and a by-election takes place there is a very quick election sometimes, and sometimes not quite so quick. But it is usually a comparatively short time from the declaration of the vacancy to the election of a successor. The class of person who is supposed by many people to be indicated in the constitutional provision regarding the membership of the Seanad is the class of person who would be likely to be travelling abroad. You are clearly setting a barrier there, unless the Seanad is going to make special provision under its own regulations, that "no person shall be nominated by Seanad Eireann...unless within such period prior to such nomination and in such manner as shall be prescribed by Seanad Eireann such person or a member of Seanad Eireann...has delivered to the Clerk of the Seanad an affidavit." So that the Seanad has power to make this period as long as it wishes by resolution. If it does not take advantage of that privilege, then persons are going to be mulcted and prevented, from exercising these citizen-rights, just as in the case of the Dáil electors. Again I think that provision is a bad one, and I shall vote against the amendment.
I think the Minister is acting unwisely, when putting this Bill through at all, in discriminating between probable candidates for the Dáil and Seanad. If a disability is to be placed in the way of any candidate for either the Dáil or Seanad, while it might be true that the candidate for election in the Seanad might be a type with whom there might be less trouble with regard to subscribing to the Articles of the Constitution, yet the knowledge of that fact does not justify us in placing such a candidate in what might be looked upon as a more favourable position than that of a candidate for the Dáil. The same treatment should be meted out in both cases. If there are to be barriers placed in the way, the same barriers should be placed in the case of a candidate for the Seanad as for the Dáil. I do not think it is justifiable that the Dáil should be asked to treat the candidate for the Seanad in a different manner from that in which the candidate for this House is treated.
The only difference is in the case of those persons who are already members of the Seanad and who come under Article 33 (b) of the Constitution, to this extent, that there may be put on the Seanad panel "such persons who have at any time been members of Seanad Eireann (including members about to retire) as signify by notice in writing addressed to the President of the Executive Council their desire to be included in the panel." Such people shall be put on. There does not appear any special reason why any change in that Article of the Constitution should be made.
Has the Minister taken note of the fact that this Article of the Constitution deals with persons who have been at any time members of Seanad Eireann? Ten years may have elapsed since they were members of Seanad Eireann, and they may have changed their political views completely in that time.
If another Public Safety Bill was necessary in ten years' time——
I understand now. The title of this Bill is wrong. It is another Public Safety Bill.
I had a recollection that Deputy Johnson called it that.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 42; Níl, 32.
Tá
- Earnán Altún.
- J. Walter Beckett.
- George Cecil Bennett.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seán Brodrick.
- Séamus de Búrea.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Michael Davis.
- James Dwyer.
- Barry M. Egan.
- James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
- Denis J. Gorey.
- John Hennigan.
- Mark C. Henry.
- Patrick Hogan (Galway).
- Patrick M. Kelly.
- Hugh A. Law.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Martin McDonogh.
- P. McGilligan.
- Mícheál Óg Mac Pháidín.
- James E. Murphy.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoidh.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus N. O Dóláin.
- P.S. O Dubhghaill.
- E.S. O Dúgáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- John J. O'Reilly.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Timothy Sheehy.
- William E. Thrift.
- Vincent J. White.
- George Wolfe.
Níl
- Richard S. Anthony.
- Patrick F. Baxter.
- P. Belton.
- Alfred Byrne.
- Michael Carter.
- James Coburn.
- Hugh Colohan.
- Denis Cullen.
- William Davin.
- Michael Doyle.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Hugh Garahan.
- John F. Gill.
- David Hall.
- Michael R. Heffernan.
- Gilbert Hewson.
- Richard Holohan.
- John Jinks.
- Thomas Johnson.
- Michael J. Keyes.
- Thomas Lawlor.
- Gilbert Lynch.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Daniel McMenamin.
- Daniel Morrissey.
- William O'Brien.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Timothy Quill.
- William Archer Redmond.
- Vincent Rice.
- James Shannon.
- Jasper Travers Wolfe.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P. S. Doyle. Níl: Deputies Morrissey and Cullen.
Amendment declared carried.
Question—"That Section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
(1) The oath shall be taken by every member of the Oireachtas elected thereto after the passing of this Act within whichever of the following times is the longer, that is to say:—
(a) two months after his election to be a member of the Oireachtas, or,
(b) one month after the first day on which the House of which he is a member sits after his election to be a member thereof.
(2) If any member of the Oireachtas elected thereto after the passing of this Act fails to take the oath within the time limited in that behalf by this Act he shall at the expiration of that time be disqualified for continuing to be a member of the Oireachtas and shall thereupon cease to be a member thereof.
(3) Every person who becomes under this section disqualified for continuing to be a member of the Oireachtas shall for five years after becoming so disqualified be disqualiled for being elected or sitting as a member of the Oireachtas.
I wish to draw attention to the effect of this section. The period that is given, two months, appears to me to be unreasonably short. the section provides: "The oath shall be taken by every member of the Oireachtas elected thereto after the passing of this Act within whichever of the following times is the longer"— two months after his election or one month after the first day on which the House of which he is a member sits after his election to be a member thereof. There is a provision later which allows the House to which the member belongs to make extensions of the period, which shall not exceed in the aggregate six months. Supposing the House does not make any such extension, that member who actually intends to take his seat, who has no objection to taking this oath or any other oath, may be taken ill. The illness is thought to be temporary, one that would be over in a week or two, but it extends, and he may be quite unable to take the oath. He may in fact be out of the country, he may be in England, and the House of which he is a member may not be sitting part of the time. The position of that person, who is required to take his seat within two months, is that he may easily be precluded from doing so by this penalty and, if so precluded, the penalty is that for five years afterwards he is disqualified from membership. That may happen no matter how willing he may be to take the oath. I am instancing a case that may clearly arise. In fixing the period of two months the Dáil is making the period entirely too short; it should be six months. That would make it almost certain that the House would be sitting at some time in that period, and it would allow the person concerned to know, at least, the likely length of his sickness. Two months does not give him that opportunity. This section may well be an injustice to people who are acting in perfectly good faith, who have an intention of taking the oath and of carrying out the requirements of the Constitution.
I am convinced that the time in this section is not sufficiently long. I think it would be better to put into the section a longer period and so avoid what will have to be done in the next section, should the successful candidate fail to put in an appearance within the specified time. I have in mind at the moment a man who was a candidate at the last election, two months ago. I am aware that that candidate was then ill. He is yet ill, so that even if he had succeeded he would be unable to come to this House and subscribe to this Article of the Constitution. The procedure would then be that we would have to go into a discussion as to why this candidate did not put in an appearance and ask the House to pass a resolution extending the time. I do not think that is a desirable course to take.
I do not think the Bill would be weakened by extending the period from two months to six months. If a man is elected in perfectly good faith to come and take a seat in this House he should be given that opportunity. I think that it is not the kind of thing that the candidate would desire himself, nor is it the kind of thing that the House should be asked to do, to pass a resolution extending the period in which the candidate might subscribe to the particular Article of the Constitution, when possibly every member of the House, and outside it, knew that the only thing preventing this man coming forward was the fact that he was ill. On the other hand, if you are thinking of dealing with the people who are outside now, and whom we might anticipate would be prepared to come forward and make the required declaration, which declaration they were not prepared to act up to, I do not see, even in dealing with them, that it might not perhaps be an advisable thing to give them longer than two months. If this Bill had been in operation, Deputy Belton, for instance, would only have escaped. We do not know what may yet happen in the next four months. I think in all the circumstances, the Minister would be well advised to reconsider this particular section. By extending the time he will save the House from a rather delicate situation at a later period.
As far as the last matter that Deputy Baxter refers to is concerned, there is certainly full and complete notice for any party or individual, and further notice is not required. In the case of a person in normal circumstances and health after election to the Dáil two months is not too short a period in which to ask him to come and fulfil his obligations with regard to taking the oath. Where there is a case of illness, Section 5 makes ample provision for extension being granted.
AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE
Does the Minister take account of the possibility that the Dáil or Seanad may not be sitting? In that case how can they pass the resolution?
They must sit within a month of the election.
A by-election I was thinking of. You are simply making it impossible. For instance, there are by-elections for the County and City of Dublin. These will take place within three weeks, and the Dáil is adjourned. Is the Dáil to be obliged to assemble for the purpose of allowing such elected persons to take their seats?
That case is fully covered in Section 4, where a person is required to take his seat within two months after election, or one month after the first day on which the House sits, whichever is the longer.
I did not see that point.
Question: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
(3) The time limited by this Act for taking the oath may in the case of any member be extended under this section more than once but such extensions shall not in the aggregate exceed the period of six months.
I move:—
"In sub-section (3) to delete all words after the word `once' in line 47 to the end of the sub-section."
A member of the Oireachtas may be seriously ill for longer than six months, but if sick longer than six months he shall thereby become disqualified from becoming a fully effective member of the Dáil. That, to my mind, is quite unreasonable. There is nothing to justify that whatever. Surely the Dáil and Seanad are to be trusted to make extensions in respect to their members' sickness as often as they think necessary. If the future Dáil is not concerned whether people take their seats or not, why should we tie them up like this? You say in this Bill that no person should be allowed to be a member of the Dáil unless he has taken his seat within six months and that even sickness will not be an excuse. Supposing this Dáil thinks that way, are we entitled, in all reason, to lay a similar obligation upon succeeding Dála, that they may not have the opportunity to make extension in respect to any individual, no matter what doctor's certificate may be submitted? The effect of my amendment is to allow the Dáil or the Seanad in the future to be masters of their own membership so far as this matter is concerned. Even if they decide that they are not going to disqualify, it can only be on account of sickness; on account of unavoidable absence or illness. The Dáil must be satisfied and the Seanad must be satisfied that the person is prevented from attending by illness or unavoidable absence. These Houses should be capable of repeating that leave of absence owing to sickness or some other unavoidable cause, just as often as they are convinced it is necessary. We should not seek to tie up the discretion of future Dála.
I can visualise a successful candidate suffering from illness that might necessitate the candidate leaving the country. It is customary for many of our people to go to Switzerland for treatment for a particular complaint. That treatment is dependent on the person being able to remain in that climate for a certain rather lengthy period. As Deputy Johnson points out, surely the power should be left to the Dáil itself to declare whether or not the period should be extended. After all, I cannot imagine the Dáil agreeing to an extension of the period unless there is good and sufficient reason.
There appears to be two questions raised in this amendment. The first is: should there be any time limit, and the second is, if there is a time limit what should that be? I think there should be some time limit, but I am not sure that a time limit of six months is reasonable. You might have a case where a Minister for Defence is ill and has not been able to take the oath within two months of his election. He might have to go away and convalesce and exceed the six months limit. I think a longer period is needed, and I hope Ministers may make that concession so that the extreme limit should be a year or eighteen months. I think there must be some time limit. You might let a Deputy run on indefinitely saying "I have lots of time and I will take my seat some time." I think Ministers might, before the Report Stage in about eight hours' time, reconsider the exact limit there is to be.
I would like to support what has been said, and I can cite an actual case that happened here. Ex-Deputy McCurtain was prevented for three years from taking his seat. That was a perfectly genuine case, and the situation in respect of the payment of members' expenses was met in a particular way when the Ceann Comhairle issued his certificate. I suggest that that would strengthen the case very much. It is inconceivable that any case would come under consideration except a perfectly genuine one. Here is a case in which a Deputy was prevented from taking his seat for a period of three years.
I expect a case like that of ex-Deputy McCurtain is not going to occur again. The fact that it did occur does really open the point where Deputy Johnson suggested a completely open period. It might be more advisable than a period of even twelve or eighteen months. I would be inclined to bring up an amendment on this point on Report; but, perhaps, it might be better to end the matter by accepting Deputy Johnson's amendment now.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
(1) This Act may be cited as the Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1927.
(2) This Act shall be construed as one with the Electoral Acts 1923 to 1927.
(3) For the purposes of collective citation the expression "the Electoral Acts 1923 to 1927" shall include this Act.
I move amendment 5b:—
To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"This Act shall come into force as on and from the 1st day of February, 1928."
I put this amendment down as a continuation of certain remarks made in the Second Reading debate. At the same time I regard it as of a tentative character and as an attempt to express what I wish. It served the purpose of bringing the matter up for review and having a definite decision arrived at in connection with it. There are two points I want to clear up. One is that this new law shall definitely apply to the next general election and the other is to secure that it shall not apply to what I might call the near and immediate future. I tried to draft an amendment of an alternative character that would satisfy these two points but I was not successful in satisfying myself and I put down this to make the Act operate as from the next General Election. If you put a longer period or six months I am not satisfied we are paying sufficient attention to what is a possibility, namely, that a General Election may take place at an earlier date, and it seems to me that the essential thing is that this law should be established before the next General Election.
I am prepared to accept the Deputy's amendment, and I will consider between this and Report Stage whether it is necessary to add such words as from the 1st day of February, 1928, or from the date of the next dissolution of Dáil Eireann, whichever is earlier.
Might not the words "this day twelve months" be a more settled date?
I am prepared to accept the amendment as it stands.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
THE SCHEDULE.
FORM OF AFFIDAVIT.
ELECTORAL (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) ACT, 1927.
I, of being a candidate for election to Dáil or Seanad Eireann in accordance with the Treaty, the Constitution, and the Law, do hereby make oath and say that if I am elected to be a member of Dáil or Seanad Eireann I will duly take my seat therein as a member thereof, and for that purpose will duly take in the manner prescribed by Article 17 of the Constitution and within the time limited by law for so doing the oath required by that Article to be taken and subscribed by every member of the Oireachtas before taking his seat therein.
Sworn before me this..................... day of...........................................19...... at........................................................ by the above-named........................ who is personally known to me.
I move amendment 6:—
On page 4, to delete all from the word "being" in line 18 to the word "Eireann" in line 19 and substitute the words "intending to permit or having permitted myself to be proposed as a candidate for election to Dáil Eireann or for nomination on a panel of candidates for election to Seanad Eireann."
This amendment will help the absentee candidate to have his nomination either to the Dáil or Seanad properly carried through in his absence.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:—
To delete in lines 19 and 20 the words "in accordance with the Treaty, Constitution and law."
My sole reason for moving this amendment is that these words are not necessary and have no value. To be consistent, if we are going to connect up the Treaty, the Constitution and law, we should go further and say the Standing Orders of Dáil Eireann, because the Standing Orders provide for a certain contingency following the election, and prescribe that the oath shall be taken. It is not complete without reference to the Standing Orders, and yet it is complete without any reference to the Treaty, Constitution and law. They add nothing whatever to the schedule. I put this forward as a reasonable proposition, and I suggest to the Minister that there is some justification for the deletion of these words. Can he tell us what strength they add to the Schedule? I think they add nothing whatever to it.
Very full consideration was given to the type of declaration that ought to be taken in particular circumstances, in which this Bill is introduced, and we came to the conclusion that this was the most satisfactory form that in the circumstances could be taken.
Amendment put and negatived.
I draw attention to the last line of the Schedule, "Who is personally known to him." This is not practical when dealing with the case of an affidavit sworn by a person in another country before a person who occupies a position equivalent to that of a commissioner for oaths. I am advised that it would not be an affidavit at all, unless the person making it was personally known to the commissioner. I do not know whether that is so in strict law. It may be true in regard to our Peace Commissioners. Supposing the proposed Deputy is travelling, and he is advised that an election is taking place, and he is quite prepared to take an affidavit, what is his position in the foreign country that he is passing through? He has to go to a commissioner. How can that commissioner possibly say that the Deputy is some one personally known to him? It is a technical point. I do not know how it can be remedied. I simply draw attention to it, and if there is anything definite in it it can be remedied.
The possibility of its being a disability has not been taken into consideration. In actual practice it is felt that that disability will not really arise and that the process of being personally known is a process that will have all kinds of different shades of meaning. The Dáil, at any rate, will be assured that the affidavit will not be made before a person who is indifferent to the person making it.
It means that the Commissioner must know the deponent.
Question—"That the Schedule, as amended, be the Schedule to the Bill"—put and agreed to.
THE TITLE.
An Act to require candidates for election to Dáil Eireann or Seanad Eireann to make before nomination a declaration on oath of intention to take their seats therein and to take the oath required by Article 17 of the Constitution to be taken by members of the Oireachtas and to prescribe a time within which members of the Oireachtas shall take the said oath after election and to make provision for the failure of a member of the Oireachtas so to take such oath.
There is just one small point in regard to the title. Is it not possible that the acceptance of Deputy Johnson's amendment may necessitate some change in the title?
I will have the matter looked into and considered before the Report Stage.
Question—"That this be the Title of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be reported with amendments.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Bill reported; Fourth Stage this day at 11 a.m.
Dáil adjourned at 3.50 a.m. until 11 a.m. this day (Thursday), 4th August.
