There are no amendments to this Bill.
Public Business. - Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1933—Final Stages.
Cathaoirleach
Question put: "That the Bill be received for Final Consideration."
I regret that the responsible Minister is not present, because I wanted to ask a couple of very pertinent questions on this Bill.
Cathaoirleach
Perhaps we might take the Fifth Stage now, and it would then be more appropriate to have a speech.
I thought it was the Final Stage we were considering.
Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take the Fifth Stage now.
Question put: "That the Bill do now pass."
Before this ghost of Article 17 is finally laid, I want to inquire from the Minister if there are any other pale shades of the empty formula lurking in our statutes. This Bill, we were told, on the Second Reading, is consequential on the Removal of Oath Bill, and I gather from the Minister's statement in the Dáil, on June 27th or 28th, that a further consequential Bill, consequential on this consequential amendment, is to be introduced.
Cathaoirleach
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government is now here and is in charge of this Bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary may be able to give me the assurance I want. I gathered from that statement of the Minister in the Dáil that a further consequential amendment—consequential on this consequential amendment—is impending though it has not yet been introduced. The Minister further said:
"This Bill is merely implementing an Act already passed. If it be found necessary at any time to introduce further measures for this purpose such Bills will be introduced."
So that there looms ahead the prospect of further consequential Bills, consequential on a consequential Bill which has not yet been introduced, but which will be consequential on this, which is consequential on the Removal of Oath Bill, and, as it is apparent from the statement made by the Minister in the other House that neither he nor the Executive Council are very clear as to what the situation is as regards the constitutional position of this State, I think it is desirable that, on this Final Stage of this Bill, we should have some considered statement from the Minister on the point. On another Bill that was discussed in the Seanad, I drew attention to certain anomalies relative to this Bill, and I think it is well that we should give attention to this so that there will not be a repetition or a continuance of the somewhat anomalous and rather grotesque constitutional position which existed since 3rd May as a result of the lack of clear thinking and legislative impetuosity on the part of the Executive Council. I pointed out that, on 3rd May, in connection with the Removal of Oath Bill, a motion of enactment was passed which gave sanction to that Bill equivalent to the sanction of both Houses, and when that motion was passed in the Dáil on May 3, Article 17 of the Constitution ceased to have statutory effect. This Bill proposes to repeal the Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1927, in so far as it is unrepealed. That Act is law to-day, in so far as it is unrepealed. The other Act has been law since May 3, but in the Schedule of that Act a form of affidavit is inserted which is to apply to candidates for the Dáil and Seanad. It reads:—
"I ..................... of ..................... intending to permit or having permitted myself to be proposed as a candidate for election to 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 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."
That is part of the law to-day, though the Oath has been abolished and ceased to have statutory effect on May 3. This is where the culpability of the Executive Council is concerned, that this Bill, which renders void that Act was not introduced until May 24. Had there been a vacancy in the Dáil or the Seanad since May 3 the candidate for such vacancy would have to sign an affidavit or swear an oath that had been already abolished. I think that is an absurd position, and one calculated to bring ridicule upon the Oireachtas, and especially upon those responsible for presenting legislative proposals to this House. I would be lacking in my duty if, having cognisance of that, I failed to bring this strange anomaly—I think I might call it legislative irregularity —before this House. There was the statement made by the Minister on the 28th June in which he said:
"This Bill is merely implementing an Act already passed. If it be found necessary at any time to introduce further measures for this purpose such Bills will be introduced."
That was the Act for the removal of the Oath. It is obvious the Minister, and, I presume he speaks for the Executive Council in the matter, was not clear in his mind as to whether or not the proposal embodied in the Removal of Oath Bill has yet reached that full legislative implementation which is necessary in order to make it inoperative. In the discussion that took place on the 27th June, as to the effect of this Bill, which removes the circumstances by which the period of actual operation of membership begins, this discussion took place, according to the Official Debates, column 1287.
"Mr. Fitzgerald: 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?
Mr. O'Kelly: We are not dealing with that in this Bill. The law will be altered.
Mr. Fitzgerald: 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.
Mr. O'Kelly: That is so."
Having drawn attention to one anomaly existing since May 3, here we are confronted with another anomaly. Possibly on May 3 the Minister did not foresee that anomaly. Here the anomaly was foreseen, according to the discussion, but so far as one can judge, it is not proposed to make any provision to deal with it until some time before Christmas. I say that is most unsatisfactory. The whole procedure dealing with this matter has been irregular, and has shown a certain amount of slovenliness in procedure, in exact judgment in accurate knowledge of what is required. Judging by the Minister's statement which I read, he and his colleagues in the Executive Council are still in a state of bewilderment to know when and why the bugbear which has been a menace to their peace, and the anti-formula, has been got rid of. It is well that we should have some explanation, first about the irregularity and the anomaly to which I have drawn attention, and secondly some assurance that further anomalies, which seem to be hovering about will not be permitted to eventuate.
Can I propose now that the Minister be allowed to close the debate? I do not like the idea of this discussion continuing indefinitely, because something is sure to arise on the Minister's reply. The debate may then go on interminably. Unless some other Senator wishes to speak I suggest that the Minister should close the debate now.
Cathaoirleach
I do not think I could take such a motion. Each Senator has the right to speak once on this stage. It is improbable that any other Senator wishes to raise any point. If any Senator so desires it would be only fair that he should do so now.
If I understand Senator Milroy aright he said that anomalies existed, owing to the delay in introducing this Bill, which is merely a Bill to put certain matters in proper legal form as a result of a Bill that was passed, which is now an Act, abolishing the oath or declaration. The oath or declaration disappeared by law in the month of May, and this Bill was introduced in the month of June. It could hardly be introduced earlier.
The Act is still law.
This Bill was introduced in June, and in all the circumstances I doubt if it could be introduced earlier by anybody, even by a Minister who might be as active or as energetic as the Senator. This Bill is introduced to put the law into proper form, after the changes that were agreed upon by this House and by the Dáil. The Senator raised one other point with reference to the payment of members. A Bill to deal with that matter which, I respectfully suggest, is not urgent at the moment, is being prepared, and, I expect, will be introduced at the earliest possible date. I do not think any other point was made against the Bill. This is not a Bill of first rate importance. It is merely consequential on Bills that have been put through both Houses in order to make the necessary repeals and amendments in the law required, as a result of the legislation we have passed.
Question put and agreed to.