Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 10 Oct 1922

Vol. 1 No. 20

In Committee on the Constitution of Saorstat Eireann Bill. - ARTICLE 62.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Article 62 reads:—"The Comptroller and Auditor-General shall not be removed except for stated misbehaviour or incapacity on resolutions passed by the Chamber/Dáil Eireann and the Senate/Seanad Eireann. Subject to this provision the terms and conditions of his tenure of Office shall be fixed by law. He shall not be a Member of the Parliaiment/Oireachtas nor shall he hold any other office or position of emolument." I move that Article.

The following Amendment was on the paper in the name of Cathal O'Shannon:—

To insert, after Article 62, new Article 63:—

No member of the Executive Council may be a member of the management or board of directors, or be a representative of any joint stock or limited liability company carrying on business for profit.

No member of the Executive Council shall perform the duties or receive any remuneration from any other office.

No Deputy or Senator may be a member or representative or agent of any company or undertaking which shall secure a contract for the supply of material to any Government Department.

No Deputy or Senator shall perform the duties or receive any remuneration from any other office or position of profit under the State.—Cathal O Seanáin.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Is oth liom a rádh go bhfuil an Teachta Cathal O Seanáin bréoite. Fuaireas leitir uaidh agus is mean leis go dtairgeóchaidh Liam O Briain an leas rún so. Deputy Cathal O'Shannon, in whose name the amendment stands, is unfortunately ill, and he has written to me to say that Deputy Wm. O'Brien will move the amendment standing in his name.

Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN

I formally move the amendment.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

We considered this proposed Article of Deputy O'Shannon's, and while we are in thorough agreement with a good deal of what it contains we think that it is rather a matter for legislation than for embodiment in the Constitution. We certainly could not simply accept it as it stands. Some of the clauses are much too sweepingly worded and might tie us up in an undesirable manner hereafter. In any case this question of disabilities and incapacity is rather one for legislation than to be set down explicitly in the Constitution.

Mr. JOHNSON

I understand the Minister has declined to accept this amendment, partly on the grounds that it is sweeping and partly that it is a matter rather for legislation than for the Constitution. I would hope, at any rate, that the Minister would give careful consideration to the question that is involved in this, apart from the merits of this particular phraseology—the principle that is involved, that the Members of the Executive Council should be precluded from being in private business and in business concerns which might be affected by contracts for the Government. It is so important that if it is not to be inserted in the Constitution it ought very early in the history of the newly Constituted State to be made a subject of legislation. Such a clause as this is, as a matter of fact, inserted in many Constitutions, and I do not see any good reason why it should not be inserted in our Constitution. I am not standing over every sentence of this Clause, but I would rather invite the Ministry to indicate their willingness to agree to the principle and to see if it is possible to insert some clause of this nature in the Constitution.

The PRESIDENT

In principle we would agree with the ideas that are embodied in this amendment, but the difficulty is as regards the practice. For example, "No Member of the Executive Council shall perform the duties or receive any remuneration from any other Office." I do not know that they have any other Office at the moment, but let us suppose for a moment that a professional man got into the Ministry and had an office or a surgery or something else of that sort, it would mean he would not be allowed to have anything to do with that business. I think that some consideration ought to be given to the matter before putting it in black and white. What are the restrictions in regard to them? "No Deputy or Senator may be a Member, or Representative, or Agent of any Company or undertaking which shall secure a Contract for the supply of material to any Government Department." Take that particular one. If through some mischance a man had shares in a Company, what would his position be? Would he be disqualified from being a Senator? He may have adopted a very patriotic attitude in investing in some Irish Company within the past few years; he might even have forgotten that he was a member of this Company. That would exclude or disqualify him for the office, so that you will see the practice to put down this amendment as it stands would, I think, lead to more difficulties than actually securing the object intended. In principle we all agree with the advisability of it. I was just putting one case in which an exception might have to be made, but generally speaking there is agreement in regard to the principle involved, and we consider it would be best effected by legislation, where it might get more consideration and steps might be taken to prevent it being abused or at some time an infringement of the rights of individuals.

Mr. O'BRIEN

Would the President consider the embodying of the main principle in the re-draft of the Clause for the next Reading without going into details?

The PRESIDENT

If we undertook to embody the principle of it in the electoral law, would that meet the case, as there is so little time now to consider the matter in such form as would be acceptable?

Mr. O'BRIEN

We will accept that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made and question put: "That Article 62 stand part of the Bill."

Agreed.