I assume that, as this is an Act to continue for a limited period certain expiring enactments, we might consider the justification or need to bring in a Bill of this sort in order to continue these particular enactments. The two which I have particularly in mind are the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, and the Corrupt Practices Commissions' Expenses Act, 1869. The explanatory memorandum states that the two Acts relate to the trial of election petitions and should be continued pending the publication of the electoral law. I am moved to ask, by reason of the terms of the explanatory memorandum, when any effective steps are going to be taken to codify the electoral law. When I was responsible for the local government of this country I devoted a great deal of study—as much, perhaps, as a layman could—to the position of electoral law in this State. I came to the conclusion that it was in a state of utter confusion and that it would be quite impossible for a court of this land to determine what the electoral law was unless it was prepared, itself, to act as a sort of law-making authority. Because of that, and after a great deal of trouble, I secured the necessary Finance sanction to set up a body of lawyers to review the whole position, to review the whole corpus of law relating not merely to corrupt practices and election petitions but the whole body of the electoral law, with regard to the practices that might be legal and justified in the case of an election.
The purpose of that was that we should eventually submit to the House as a whole a report setting out the present state of the law and ask both Houses of the Oireachtas to set up a joint committee to consider the problem and to make recommendations for its solution. The legal committee for this purpose had been appointed. I do not know whether it still continues to function or not. From my own personal knowledge of work which was carried by the particular officer in charge of that section of the Department, by reason of the exceedingly limited staff available to him and the many other demands, all of them exceptional, which were from time to time made upon him, I know it would have been impossible within the ordinary resources of the Department for that investigation to be made.
I consider that it is essential and urgent that we should have this whole question of the position of the law relating to the constitution of this House reviewed as a matter of urgency. The Acts which are referred to here relate to quite a different system of election, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows. They were enacted before the system of proportional representation was invented. They give the courts no guidance as to what would ensue if an election petition were to be successfully sustained against any member of this House. In such circumstances, and particularly if the petition ensued upon a general election, would the seat be vacated and would somebody else succeed without having a new election or would there have to be a new election? There is no guidance in the Acts in relation to these two vital matters but there is a whole body of voluminous files enumerating other doubtful points and also a great deal of deadwood which is embodied in our present electoral code.
I am raising this matter to try to impress on the House the fact that there is an urgent need for a review of this position. I hope, since the memorandum states that we are to continue these two Acts in operation pending the codification of the law, that steps are being taken to have the law codified. It is not the sort of task that can be undertaken in a summary fashion. It is not the sort of task that can be completed within a short time. It is going to need, in the first place, a very careful review of the existing law, a very careful redaction of the existing provisions of the law, so that the joint committee of the Oireachtas, the committee of the two Houses of the Oireachtas which I hope will eventually be set up, might have as clear a picture as it is possible for human learning to lay before them.
It is in that connection, I may say, that the position is full of anomalies. For example, if my recollection after the passage of two or three years does not mislead me, some part, perhaps not a very important part, of our electoral provisions dates back to the days of Queen Anne. Others, I think, are largely determined by an Act passed in the reign of George IV, and, of course, Queen Victoria dominates the whole position. We have had a change of régime here since 1922, that is 27 years.
Though we have had the Electoral Act of 1923, and other Acts regulating the election to the Seanad, we have never had any comprehensive review of the law by which election to this House is controlled and regulated. I think that this matter is becoming one of extreme urgency. We have been lucky enough, perhaps, in this way— that election petitions, and so forth, have gone out of date. But there are other things. There are disqualifications from membership of this House, I think, embodied in some of the Acts. It is time these matters were subject to review. It is time, first of all, to decide whether we should determine that a person who has been convicted of a serious offence should or should not be a member of this House. I think he should not be. But if we come to that decision I think we should provide ourselves with machinery whereby that fact will be brought to the notice of some officer of the House who will call the attention of the House to it and the House should now, when there is no immediate case in the offing, set up well considered machinery to deal with that situation. It will be too late to deal with a situation of that sort when the event occurs because you will hardly get in such circumstances the right approach. It is unlikely that it will be dealt with in the same calm detached way as it can be dealt with now. Would we, for instance, say that a person who is certified to be of unsound mind should be a member of this House? I think most of us would agree that he should not, even though we may have doubts——
