I move that the Bill be read a Second Time. It is a Bill of a more or less formal character. Its purpose is to provide a seal for the President, and to arrange for the use of that seal, its authentication and its acceptance in evidence. It is really a Committee Stage Bill, and, perhaps, the best thing I can do is to take the sections in their order.
The first section says that this Act shall come into operation immediately on the coming into operation of the new Constitution. Sub-section (1) of Section 2 sets forth that the Minister for Finance shall provide a seal. Sub-section (2) states:—
The presidential seal shall be officially and judicially noticed, and every order, commission, warrant, or other instrument sealed with the presidential seal shall, if such seal purports to be authenticated in accordance with this Act, be received in evidence without further proof, and, in particular, it shall not be necessary to prove any signature affixed to such instrument for the purpose of such authentication or to prove the office or authority of the person whose signature such signature purports to be.
The purpose there is that the presence of the seal on the document shall be prima facie evidence that it is what it purports to be. The presumption is to be that if a document, purporting to be a document sealed by the President or by the commissions which will act instead of the President on certain occasions, is presented, the presentation of the document will obviate the necessity of proof that it is what it purports to be. If somebody should come forward and say that the document is, as a matter of fact, a fraud, I take it that this provision would not prevent the court from investigating that contention and that the court could, in fact, examine that question and see whether the document was what it purported to be. This sub-section simply dispenses with the need of proof but it does not say that, if objection were raised, that objection could not be considered by the court. The next sub-section is of similar character. A signed and sealed document is itself to be regarded as proof that all the things that had to be done have been done and that all the advice in accordance with the Constitution that had to be taken has been taken before the sealing of the instrument. It places the burden of proof on anybody who holds the contrary.
In Section 3, you have three, more or less, similar sub-sections—one dealing with the case where the President is himself in office, one dealing with the preliminary period when the commission in accordance with Article 57 functions and the other dealing with the case where another commission of a slightly different character would operate. The theory all the time is that the seal is the seal of the office of President and not the seal of the individual who holds the office. Therefore, when the individual is not in the office the commissions which will exercise the functions of the office will use the seal. Deputies are aware that the intention is to have a secretary to the President who shall be a permanent official, similar to the head of a Department, and who will not change with a change in the person of the President. In the case of the commissions, two signatures and that of the secretary are necessary to authenticate the seal. In the case of the President, the President's signature alone is sufficient. The seal can only be applied on the direction of the commission when the commission is functioning or on the direction of the President himself when he is acting. Section 4 is, more or less, similar to Section 2 and provides
(1) Prima facie evidence of any order, commission, warrant or other instrument issued or made by the President or by a commission exercising the powers or performing the functions of the President may be given in all courts of justice and in all legal proceedings by the production of a copy of the Iris Oifigiúil purporting to contain such instrument or by the production of a copy of such instrument purporting to be printed under the superintendence or authority of and to be published by the Stationery Office.
That is a provision similar to that which we have in the case of other documents of a like character. Under sub-section 2 of Section 4, it is provided that the Documentary Evidence Act, 1925, which provides penalties for the misuse or misrepresentation of documents of this sort, will apply in like manner as it applies to the misuse of Ministerial and other documents at present. That is all the Bill contains and I ask the House to pass the Second Reading.
