I move that the Bill do now pass.
Charities Bill, 1957—Fifth Stage.
Deputy McGilligan raised certain matters on the previous Stage and asked that this Fifth Stage of the Bill be postponed for consideration today because there was a further matter which he wished to have brought to the attention of the Oireachtas. In his unavoidable absence he asked me to direct the attention of the Dáil to it. Article 37 of the Constitution lays down the constitutional requirements for judicial proceedings and carefully preserves to the courts certain fundamental rights in relation to judicial proceedings under our system of law. It appears in several sections of this Bill that there is legislation amounting substantially to an equation of the functions of the board set up under this Bill—the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests—and the courts. It is right to direct the attention of the Dáil to the fact that these provisions ought to be very carefully reviewed in order to be certain that they do not conflict with Article 37 of the Constitution.
The closest analogy that I could offer the Dáil is the case determined by the Supreme Court recently in connection with the Solicitors Act, Passed by this House, and which was determined by the Supreme Court to be in conflict with the Constitution. The result was that we had to pass another Act in order to meet the Supreme Court view. I would suggest to the Government that the text of this Bill be further considered between now and the time it is submitted to the Seanad with a view to determining whether similar objections do not exist in the text of this Bill as it is clearly nobody's desire, in consolidating legislation of this kind, to have it rendered nugatory by Supreme Court proceedings which might evoke a decision that some parts of the Bill were in conflict with the Constitution.
All I desire is to repeat the welcome I gave to this measure on the Second Stage. What Deputy Dillon is referring to is not too clear to me and I do not propose to deal with it. My main reason for rising is to repair an omission. I had intended, but I forgot, to echo the remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary on the Second Stage in saying how deep our appreciation should be of the devoted service rendered to this country by the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests. They perform not only a useful but an important service and they do it without pay of any form or description. Service of that type is only too rare in the modern world. I do not want to elaborate the point at all but I want it to go on record that we do appreciate this distinguished service. It is appropriate that work in connection with charity should be a labour of love and it is very pleasant to find it being carried out in that way.
The Deputy has overlooked all the people concerned in charitable work in this country without pay, such as the members of the Protestant Orphan Society, St. Vincent de Paul and all the others.
I do not see one of them referred to in the Bill.
There are more people working for charity in this country than the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests.
It is not within my competence to attempt to suggest how the Supreme Court might or might not decide on any particular issue that might come before it. I am surprised that Deputy Dillon should make this suggestion at this stage. He has not pointed to any one single example which would lend support to his suggestion of unconstitutionality. It seems to me that the Charitable Commissioners are almost exclusively concerned with administrative work. In so far as they have to act judicially or semi-judicially, they do so in a limited way. It would require considerable stretching of words to conclude that the functions they perform are comparable with those to which the Supreme Court took exception in the case of the Disciplinary Committee of the Incorporated Law Society. In any case, I think it is not in this House that constitutional issues should be settled. I am quite happy in my own mind that there is nothing unconstitutional in this Bill. I should be grateful if Deputy Dillon would give me a particular instance of what he has in mind.
I shall arrange to have that information given to the Parliamentary Secretary before the Bill goes to the Seanad.
As Deputy Sheldon has mentioned the matter, I should like to express my appreciation and, I am sure, the appreciation of the House for the valuable work done by the Charitable Commissioners down through the years. Deputy Sheldon is quite right when he says that that is a devoted type of work, quite arduous and carried on with great skill, tact and discretion. When one thinks that these men give their services voluntarily I think that the House can readily express its appreciation of that service. I have nothing more to say except to thank the House for the consideration given to the Bill.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary consider saying to the Leader of the Opposition that the matter he has raised will be reconsidered and re-examined? Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that Ministers have been fully positive that Bills they were standing over were constitutional and that these Bills were afterwards found to be not constitutional? Would the Parliamentary Secretary not consider it a very valuable service that he be asked to look into the matter?
As I have indicated, I cannot say whether the Supreme Court would regard any provision as unconstitutional. All I can say is that in my opinion there is nothing in the Bill that would render it unconstiutional. If the Leader of the Opposition would supply me with a case which causes him to think that the Bill's constitutionality is questionable, I will certainly have it examined.
Question put and agreed to.