Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 27 Jun 1933

Vol. 48 No. 10

In Committee on Finance. - Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1933—Committee Stage.

Section 1 agreed to.

With regard to Section 2, I think the Minister undertook to consider the question I raised about the possibility of there being an abstentionist party. He said that the Minister for Finance was considering that matter. As this section now stands, there is nothing to ensure that seats will be taken in the House. The Minister may recollect the phrase "as soon as practicable after the result of such election is declared."

I remember the Deputy raised the point on Second Reading. It is possible, as he said, that an abstentionist party could arise. There will be no payment, however, to a Deputy who does not take his seat. The deposit, of course, would be returned when a Deputy is declared elected. We are anxious not to have any political test, or any reason given to anybody, to fancy that there is anything in the nature of a test that would prevent him taking his seat. There is no penal clause suggested against anybody who does not take his seat.

The Minister and his leader have often suggested that there is no conscience test and there is now no reason why anybody should not take his seat. After all, the dignity of Parliament demands that members should assemble here in the House. Of course, the Minister can realise the value of being outside this House for four or five years, the various promises that can be made regarding the improvements that could be brought about from the point of view of taxation, public expenditure, and so on, and how easily it could be said at an election "a vote for an abstentionist member will not upset the balance of Parties in the House." Is there not, in practically every Parliament in the world, some arrangement whereby Deputies should take their seats? The provision here was that a deposit would be returned as soon as the person elected took his seat. It may be the likelihood of the loss of the deposit was an inducement. We all have had experience, of course, of even that inducement being resisted for a number of years. It is a loophole which, I understood on the last day, the Minister was going to look into. I think it is inadvisable to allow any such possibility to arise and I think it might easily be safeguarded against.

I did look into the matter and was satisfied that what the Deputy anticipates is not likely to arise. If it does, I think the House could very quickly deal with it.

Can the House only deal with it by way of legislation?

I imagine so.

Some phrases used by the Minister now seem to imply that to ask a person who has been elected, to sit in this House, is to apply a political test. In view of the current statements made on public platforms and elsewhere about the non-legitimate position of this House, I think that if the Executive Council have considered this matter and if what is in the Bill is a complete statement of their policy on it, then one must despair of the political wisdom on the benches opposite.

The Minister stated that any Deputy who is elected, but who does not take his seat, will not draw a salary. Will the Minister explain that? If it is an unjust and inequitable thing that a man who, because he does not want to come into the House, should forfeit his £100, why should there be any difference between that and a man forfeiting £360 a year? Apparently, these heroes outside who stand so rigidly on principle must not suffer any financial loss. They proceed to go up for election and the Minister is horrified at the thought that these noble people should lose £100. If a person who is elected comes in he will get £360 a year. If he does not come in he will not get that money. Will the Minister explain what is there to prevent him getting the £360 under this law if it goes through as it stands at present.

The question of salary or allowance does not arise under this Bill.

The Minister actually mentioned the matter to which I refer.

I did not say that it arose on this Bill. I said I took it for granted that a person elected, who did not take his seat in the House, would not be paid the allowance.

By virtue of what?

By virtue of—I do not know whether it is a Standing Order——

But the Minister knows that the present law is that payment begins from the moment the elected person takes the oath. The law up to the present is that payment begins at a specified moment. The Minister is altering all that, and surely there must be something to indicate when a man is eligible to draw his allowance. The Minister has not explained that.

We have not altered or proposed to amend the Payment of Members Act. It is on the Statute Book and it has not been altered. I take it that no person elected to sit here would be paid if he did not attend.

That is not the case at present. All a person elected to this House has to do is to attend before the person prescribed by his Excellency the Governor-General, and then he can walk out and need not come back any more. The Minister will remember that, in his own time, a man was elected Lord Mayor of Dublin who never took office. If there was no provision for the person then in office to continue until his successor took his place it would be a nice position.

I take it that, as the law will be when this Act is passed, there will be nothing to stop a Deputy drawing his pay whether he attends or not. Why does the Minister say he cannot?

We are not dealing with that in this Bill. The law will be altered.

But when we pass this Bill a man can draw his £360 a year without ever coming into this Dáil—until such time as the Dáil itself legislates a change.

That is so.

And then we will be told that that would be a conscience test and cannot be done.

Question put: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Tá: 57; Níl: 23.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Browne, William Frazer.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Cleary, Mícheál.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Corkery, Daniel.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Daly, Denis.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Doherty, Hugh.
  • Doherty, Joseph.
  • Donnelly, Eamon.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Hales, Thomas.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Kehoe, Patrick.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Dowd, Patrick.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Pearse, Margaret Mary.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).

Níl

  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Burke, James Michael.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Daly, Patrick.
  • Dolan, James Nicholas.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Keating, John.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Minch, Sydney B.
  • Morrisroe, James.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Redmond, Bridget Mary.
  • Roddy, Martin.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Traynor and Smith; Níl: Deputies Bennett and The O'Mahony.
Question declared carried.
Remaining sections and Title put and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Report Stage ordered to be taken tomorrow.
Top
Share