I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. The Bill proposes to make arrangements for the conduct of the Seanad election and for the preparation of the panel. It provides that the Minister will appoint at a suitable date, that is, prior to the 13th November in any year in which there is a Seanad election, a returning officer, that he will appoint a date for the issue of the ballot papers, and a date for the taking of the poll. The Bill arranges that the panel for the Seanad election will be prepared by the members of the Dáil, voting on principles of proportional representation, nominating as many qualified persons as there are members to go on the panel; by the Seanad, voting together on principles of proportional representation, selecting a similar number so that the panel shall consist of twice as many persons as there are vacancies to be filled, half of these persons being nominated by the Dáil and half being nominated by the Seanad. Paragraph 3 of the Report of the Joint Committee which dealt with this matter suggests that the panel of candidates set out before the Dáil and Seanad for the purpose of the Dáil and Seanad to vote members into the Seanad might be formed by a specially nominated college created for that purpose. It suggested at the same time that nominations should not be made exclusively from that college to the panel, that is, that the Dáil and Seanad should have a certain amount of power to nominate to the panel also. The Committee were unable to make recommendations as to how this nominating college might be got, and so far as the Executive Council are concerned, while this is a matter that long ago they gave a considerable amount of consideration to, they are not able to propose to the Dáil how such a nominating college might be set up, and in fact are not able, and do not recommend to the Dáil, that any better means can be got at the present time for putting up a panel for the Seanad election than by the Dáil and Seanad setting up originally the panel themselves. Exception may be taken to the fact that the Dáil is nominating to the panel simply the same number as the Seanad will nominate, but considering that the Dáil and Seanad will vote together on principles of proportional representation to make the actual election there is no material point in that. The Bill supersedes the Seanad Elections Act of 1925, and for that reason the Bill is complete in itself. Schedules 1 and 2 contain regulations guiding the Seanad returning officer as to the manner in which the elections shall be conducted, and as to the manner in which the counting shall take place. For the purpose of the selection of the names to appear on the panel the Dáil and Seanad will, as under the old arrangement under Article 32 of the Constitution, make their own regulations as to the way in which persons will be nominated and selected for inclusion on the panel. The Bill also proposes to meet Paragraph 4 of the Report of the Committee, which says that outgoing Senators as such should not have the right to be included in any panel of candidates.
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE. - SEANAD ELECTORAL BILL, 1928—SECOND STAGE.
On a matter of order. Is this Bill in order at all? Is it not contrary to the Constitution as it stands at the moment? I presume that the other Bill that has got a Second Reading just now is not law.
The Deputy is asking, as a matter of order, whether this Bill is contrary to the Constitution. That is not a point for me to decide. It is not a point of order.
It seems to me that this Bill has been brought in too soon.
That this Bill anticipates a decision of the House?
Yes.
In so far as this Bill is concerned, any of the Bills, the passage of which would be necessary in order that this Bill should properly become law, will precede this Bill in its discussion, both in the Dáil and in the Seanad. The different Constitution Bills that affect this Bill have all gone through at least a Second Reading stage here, and the House has expressed its will in regard to them. Having expressed its will with regard to any constitutional point that is involved in those, it is not unreasonable that the House would express its will to the same extent with regard to this particular Bill, which is necessary if the will of the House, as expressed with regard to the other measures, is to be implemented.
I submit that the House ought not to be asked to come to a decision on a matter that is purely hypothetical. The vote on this measure will be of no effect if, for example, the Bill that has just got its Second Reading does not go through.
You were nearly caught out on the other Bill a while ago.
I did not get notice of this point of order. Would the Deputy state the exact point?
The position is that this is in anticipation of a decision of the House, and that decision is the final passage, as far as this House is concerned, of the Bill with respect to the panel. This Bill anticipates legislation with regard to the panel. If, as a matter of fact, this Bill did not pass we would be thrown back to the other arrangements, which this Bill would not provide for at all.
If that point were to hold weight then I would say that it would be out of order for the House to deal with the other two Bills, because those two Bills anticipated that the House would take another step subsequently.
After they became law.
You have three different Bills dealing with this, each one amending to a certain extent.
If that point of view were accepted how could a Bill ever be brought in to amend the Constitution? An amending Bill to the Constitution, because of its very nature, is against the Constitution as it stands when such Bill is introduced.
How could the Constitution be amended except by a direct Bill to amend it?
You could never bring it in.
A Bill to amend the Constitution is in accordance with Article 50.
The point, of which I should have had notice, is, as I understand it, that this Seanad Electoral Bill is based upon the supposition that the Constitution has already been amended in certain particulars and that therefore the House should not now proceed to its Second Reading until these amendments to the Constitution have actually been passed into law. I have myself given some consideration to that matter, and I have come to the conclusion that the point is not one for a ruling from the Chair. It seems to me that the House is discussing this Electoral Bill with the knowledge that certain other measures that are before it have reached a certain stage in their passage through the House, and if the Seanad Electoral Bill was actually passed through all its stages in both Houses before certain other Bills had become law, it would, presumably, be a question of law to decide what the validity of the Act would be, having been passed. It is not for me to decide. From the point of view of procedure, it seems to me, as a matter of practice, it is desirable that at least a Second Reading should have been given to the Bill which makes provision regarding the panel before this Bill goes to its Second Reading. That is as a matter of practice, and the opinion is simply a personal one. But I am not clear that if it were put to me as a point of order before Amendment No. 9 Bill had received its Second Reading that the Second Stage of this Seanad Electoral Bill could not be taken, I would accept the view that the Chair should refuse to receive the motion. The matter might rather be for the Dáil to decide when voting on the Second Stage than one for a ruling from the Chair. The position is that certain Constitution amendments have been accepted in principle by the House, and the Second Reading of this Bill is now proposed. It seems to me that there can be no ruling from the Chair which would prevent the House from deciding whether the Bill should receive a Second Reading.
If you are going to rule in that way, that it is a matter of law and if you are not going to decide it as a matter of common sense, if there is to be any amendment, as I hope there will be, of the other Bill when it is before us in Committee, that will probably affect this Bill and affect our attitude towards this. My own personal attitude towards this would differ according to the question as to whether at any stage the number in the Seanad was to be dealt with. For instance, if the relative voting power of the Seanad were to be diminished my objection to this would not be as strong as it is at the moment. I think on the whole question it is quite clear that there is no urgency for this Bill, inasmuch as the other Bill has got to pass before this, and it is put off until October 10th. As a matter of common sense, it seems that there is no point whatever in discussing this Bill at this stage.
On the question of urgency, I would like to say that it is not a mere matter of rushing this Bill through in any way. The different stages that have to be gone through with these three Bills and the different steps that have to be taken before the Seanad election can be carried out are such that we figure out that we must get the Second Reading of this Bill, so that we shall not be further delayed after the House reassembles on October 10th. In so far as that time is laid out, it is essential that we should be able to take the Committee Stage of this Bill and the other Bills practically immediately after we resume, if the Seanad election is to be carried out in time.
On the matter of the length of time to devote to the Second Reading it may be nothing in comparison to the length of time devoted to it in Committee. It seems to me that once the main principle is decided, it is a matter chiefly of detail for the Committee Stage. That will take very much more time. I cannot see the urgency for it at all, and I cannot say that the excuse made by the Minister for Local Government impresses me.
If we have to wait for the Second Reading of this Bill until October 10th, then we cannot have the Committee Stage of the Bill in a week. It is essential that we should deal with the Committee Stage in the week that contains October 10th if we are to have preparations fully made for having the Seanad elections carried out in proper time.
Apparently the Minister is prepared, contrary to what I think is law and common sense, to put this Bill through. We are going to oppose it. We are opposing all these Bills, because of the fact that we think the Ministry has not given sufficient attention to the fact that the Seanad, as now constituted and as proposed to be re-elected, has powers which it is not right that any such body should have. The Minister for Justice, or one of the other Ministers, when talking here on one of these Bills laid a great deal of stress on the question of representative government. Now, it seems to me that this principle which has been introduced by Ministers, of giving a body which is not directly elected by the people a preponderating influence in the framing of legislation and in interference with legislation, is altogether against the principles of representative government. I could understand a person who was standing for representative government saying: "Very well, we must put aside the Referendum; we must put aside the Initiative." I do not say it would be wise, and I have opposed that on those Bills. I cannot imagine anyone who stands for representative government, in the sense of government by representatives of the people, elected regularly by the people, putting aside the Referendum and the Initiative on the one hand, by which you can go to the people, on the grounds that they would be interfering with representatives of the people in their actions, and then, on the other hand, standing for a body that is not elected by the people at all, and a large element of which is now nominated and will be entitled to vote to reproduce itself. Deputy Flinn a few moments ago pointed out in connection with another matter how slow the process would be of trying to change that with a large majority Party in this House, even if there was a two-thirds majority here, which would represent a very strong public opinion in favour of certain policies. They could not within this period of nine years anyhow change the Seanad and get a majority in favour of their views. The President may say that is a big assumption. Perhaps it is; but when we are dealing with matters of this kind we ought to consider the case of whether there is going to be later on a deadlock. Assuming that the present Seanad is opposed to these changes— and I think we have very good grounds for assuming that the majority of the Seanad are opposed to these changes, which I believe the people will ultimately agree to—supposing we had in this House two-thirds of a majority in favour of them, it would take a much longer period than nine years before they had a majority there to carry out the views they were elected to put into operation. The President says that they will not stand in the way. Then why is he putting up a barrier of that particular kind? I suggest he is doing it because he wants to strengthen his own particular side and for no other reason. He and his Party are not thinking in terms of the general good. They are, I suggest, in all these Bills thinking that they are going to have sixty votes added to their side, or the vast majority of sixty votes, and that it is going to give the Cumann na nGaedheal Party in these elections nearly sixty votes in addition to those they will get otherwise.
took the Chair.
The Deputy is a bit weak on the figures.
In what way? The President, when he nominated, was not weak on the section he nominated. The fact is that it would take, with the Seanad as it is composed at present, a two-thirds majority here, even if they were all voting consistently, over nine years to change the Seanad or to get a simple majority in the Seanad.
That is different from what the Deputy said—that I had nearly 60. That was an exaggeration.
Except in the case where the people at the last election did not vote as you expected them, you have the 60.
I have not even a number of those I nominated myself— there is one of them at least going to support the Deputy.
You need not talk about my being weak on the figures if you forget the number you nominated yourself.
He did of course.
I did not hear that intelligent observation.
It does not make much difference whether you did or not.
The President ought not to interrupt Deputy de Valera in his speech.
We are opposed to these Bills because we do not think they are being conceived in the public interest. Even from the point of view of a conservative body that would be anxious to have a directly representative House controlled, or at least a certain check put upon them, the proposals of the Government are not even consistent. They are, as I say, proposals that can only be explained to anybody who is thinking generally in terms of representative government, or a desire to get proper checks on legislation, on the ground that the President expects to have a vast preponderance of the Seanad votes on his side, and that all this talk about Thomas Davis and toleration is all so much nonsense when you begin to examine them in that particular light.
I never said toleration; I said justice.
That is not justice. Justice means equality. We are standing for justice, as far as any section of the community is concerned, that they are entitled to get, man for man, representation the same as any other section, but not entitled to privileges. I say that this whole idea at the start, the idea of nomination by the President and the Executive Council, was a bargain in order to give a certain privileged class a predominance, and the whole of the circumstances in which that was conceived even have been departed from.
No.
The President says no, but we all know that it is true, everybody here knows that it is true; that the reason for giving nominations to the President was that it was felt that the Unionist section of the country would not themselves, if there were popular elections, be able to get the number elected that would give them the privileges expected for them. As I said, there might be some reason in the circumstances that were envisaged and that were thought of at first, there might be some excuse for giving that section a certain predominance in the voting over and above that to which they were entitled, man for man. But the circumstances turned out very different, and the result was that they became in fact the dominating element. What was thought at the time was that in a united national Ireland, where you had not the division such as occurred, they would be a small percentage of the total. The fact is that their policy largely became the policy of a large section of the national party and, consequently, the protection under cover of which this nomination system was accepted was not necessary at all. However, although the need for it is gone, because it is useful to the President's Party, he proposes to continue it.
This Bill is based on the general assumption that the Seanad and the Dáil are to have equality as regards voting strength, the panel, and everything else. I say that that is altogether wrong; that when 60 members, who are not elected, are thrown in with 153 elected members, it is destroying the whole representative character of the electorate, and the principle of equality is such in this Bill that we object to it. We do not think the Senate ought to be given equality in the panel or in the voting. As a matter of fact, in the case of the election to the Senate, if you did go away from the people at all—there were good reasons for not going to the people in the matter; I accepted these as good reasons why it was undesirable —we certainly did not expect that there was going to be the further step of taking the election away from this Dáil. This Dáil could be regarded as representing the country, with the exception, as I have often pointed out, of those who were prevented from coming here by the political tests imposed. With the exception of these, the Dáil could be taken as the country in miniature, and therefore the election by this body would not in effect be very much different from what you would have by the more expensive method of referring to the country as a whole.
As I have said, we are against the Bill, first of all because we think the principle is wrong—that of equality; secondly, because, at this particular stage, we see no reason why it should be introduced. We want to see exactly what are the numbers in the Seanad; whether the Dáil would change its mind about the numbers in the Seanad. I hope that in Committee they will change their mind also about the period of office. All these things influence the question of how the panel is to be formed. Accordingly, as far as we are concerned, we are going to oppose the Bill.
I take it that the principle of the Bill is to provide a means for electing a Seanad. It is a bad principle. We are, therefore, opposed to the Bill, because we think that one of the easiest means by which the Seanad could be disposed of, with the least amount of trouble, would be to permit each electoral period to come and each group of Senators to retire, and provide no means for re-electing them. The Seanad would then gradually thin out, and, after a period of six or seven years, cease to exist. Therefore, because the principle of the Bill is to provide for a continuity of the Seanad, we are against it. But we are against it for several other reasons as well. I do not think that any Bill ever introduced into any legislative assembly by any responsible, or irresponsible Government, contained such amazing provisions as this Bill. Let us examine it. In the first place, in order to have an election, you must have a returning officer, and the returning officer for this election is appointed by a member of a political Party that would be putting forward candidates at the election. The returning officer is appointed by an individual who will be a voter in the election. That is a system of election that is new even in this country.
It is not.
I am very glad to hear that it has often been done before. as I often suspected it.
It happened in the the County Council elections, where the Fianna Fáil Party in Midleton appointed their own personating agents, returning officers and polling clerks.
I am very glad to hear it and I hope it will have good results.
Very bad results.
That is an argument against the Bill. I hope the Deputy will realise that, if it did work in Midleton, it will not work here.
Ask Deputy Corry.
The Deputy said that the returning officer would also be a voter in the election. That is not in the Bill.
I said the person who appoints a returning officer is a member of a political party and voter and would put forward his own candidates. The returning officer is the man in whose hands the conduct of the election is. Section 7 reads:—
"(1) A panel of candidates for a Seanad election prepared under this Act by the Seanad returning officer shall be conclusive as to the persons who are candidates at such election notwithstanding that any of such persons are dead or are not qualified for or are or have become disqualified for membership of Seanad Eireann and notwithstanding any informality or irregularity in their nomination."
This returning officer is nominated by a person with a direct political interest in the result of the election and is to have power to prepare a panel of candidates in any manner he chooses and any informality or irregularity committed by him does not invalidate the nomination.
The Deputy is talking nonsense.
Perhaps the Minister will explain how. The Minister himself in his introductory statement said he would have the appointment of the returning officer.
The Deputy should read the Bill as a whole.
I have read it as a whole.
Has the Deputy found out how the returning officer does make the panel?
Yes, but the point I refer to is that any informality or irregularity in the preparation of the panel does not invalidate it. Is not that so?
Yes.
If he acts irregularly, as Deputy Carey suggested some particular officer did in the County Cork, perhaps he will be proceeded against.
The Deputy is suggesting this means any informality or irregularity on the part of the Seanad returning officer. That is not so. The Seanad returning officer prepares the panel by associating the list he gets from the Clerk of the Dáil with the list which he gets from the Clerk of the Seanad and the qualification is "Notwithstanding any informality or irregularity in their nomination," whether in the Seanad or in the Dáil. It means if in the preparation of their lists there is any irregularity or informality in the action taken in the Dáil or Seanad that will not invalidate the list that is sent out by the Seanad returning officer.
I suggest to the Minister the purpose of this is to provide that any irregularity or informality committed by the returning officer will not invalidate the panel:
"A panel of candidates for a Seanad election prepared under this Act by the Seanad returning officer shall be conclusive as to the persons who are candidates at such election."
The plain meaning of the words is that that section is intended to provide in advance for irregularities on the part of the returning officer whom the Minister is going to appoint.
All the Deputy's suggestions are certainly in keeping with one another.
I suggest that if the Government were anxious to give the impression that they wanted a fair election for the Seanad they should have arranged perhaps that the returning officer for Dublin City for the constituency in which this House is situated, or the returning officer for one of the University constituencies, who has experience in conducting elections in this manner, should act as returning officer, but no, despite the fact that the Minister is as interested as any other voter as to who shall or shall not be elected—he is more interested, because as a member of the Executive Council and as a member of the executive of Cumann na nGaedheal he is more likely to be concerned with the election than an ordinary back-bencher of his Party—he wants to keep the nomination in his own hands. I suggest for the sake of common decency, to preserve whatever respect remains amongst the people for the electoral system, that section should be abolished and some other arrangement substituted. Also, the powers of the returning officer should be such that a candidate at this election would have the same rights as one at an ordinary Dáil election. There is more than that in the Bill. There are provisions in the Bill more amazing than that.
In a discussion upon one of the Constitution (Amendment) Bills which preceded this Bill reference was made to the advisability of having open or secret ballot in this election. The Ministers were strong and keen in their defence of this system of secret voting. Deputies on this side of the House argued that there was no need for secrecy, that if we could have an open vote our constituents could, and should, know how each one of us recorded our preferences, but the Ministry were against it. They wanted the secret ballot and wanted to preserve the secrecy of the vote. That is what they said, but they have not provided that. They have provided that the Opposition will not know, but the returning officer nominated by the Minister will send out ballot papers on each of which will be stamped a number. A similar number will be stamped on the counterfoil, and on the counterfoil, if you look at the First Schedule, Section 4, paragraph B, will be recorded the voter's number. Any person who turns up the counterfoil can find out how each individual member voted by examining the ballot paper containing the same number as that which appears on the counterfoil. The same system takes place in an ordinary Dáil election, and it is often suggested that it destroys the secrecy of the Vote, but commonsense says where there are sixty or seventy thousand votes recorded the task of sorting out ballot papers to see how each particular voter recorded his preferences would be tremendous, and could be done only with the greatest difficulty. That argument does not apply in this case. There are only some 220 voters, and it would be no difficulty to find out exactly how each voter marked his paper. It would be no difficulty for the returning officer. He is a nominee of the Minister. It would be no difficulty for the Minister, but the Opposition will have all the advantage of a secret ballot. They will not know. So long as the Government Whips know what does it matter? All the fine arguments we heard about the secret ballot work themselves down to this, that the Ministers may know, but no one else may know. This is the Bill the Minister says is so important that it must pass through its Second Reading in this session, because otherwise the Seanad could not be elected in time. Why not drop the farce of electing a Seanad at all? If we are going to have an election in this manner, it is only a pretence. Let the President, as he did in the past, nominate Senators. It will at least be an honest attempt at getting a Seanad that will be amenable to his wishes. A Seanad elected in the manner prescribed here will be a mere humbug. We have, therefore, in this Bill provisions by which the returning officer is nominated by the Minister. provisions by which any irregularity or informality committed by that returning officer will not be permitted to invalidate the election, provisions by which that returning officer may know exactly what ballot paper was sent to each voter and, when he gets it back, how each voter recorded his preferences.
We have more than that. It is provided that the method of the proposal and selection of persons for nomination under this section by Dáil Eireann and Seanad Eireann respectively for inclusion in the panel of candidates for the Seanad election shall be decided by Dáil Eireann and Seanad Eireann respectively. It is to be presumed that this section applies to qualified persons. A person must be qualified before he can be nominated. The qualification is that Seanad Eireann shall be composed of citizens who shall be proposed on the ground that they have done honour to the nation by means of useful public services or because of special qualifications or attainments they represent important aspects in the nation's life. The nomination is to be by the Dáil and Seanad. Of course we may as well recognise that that section of the Constitution is just a mere jumble of words, meaning nothing, because I think it could be argued that a person who becomes a member of Fianna Fáil has done honour to the nation by reason of useful public services, and it could also be argued that a person who joined Cumann na nGaedheal had special qualifications and represented important aspects of the nation's life.
Hear, hear.
Any person in the State who had reached the age limit will be qualified to be elected to the Seanad and we know that the only argument that will be taken into consideration by the various parties in this House when putting forward their nomination will be an argument which will have no relation to that section, but which will involve the internal peace of their party and nothing else.
What about your party—are you an exception?
No, certainly. This party has not yet decided that it will sufficiently degrade itself to nominate candidates at this election. Having discovered that it is possible for any person to be nominated for this Seanad, we then turn to this Bill; we find provisions made here for nomination. It was maintained in the course of a debate upon some of these Constitution Bills that it was proposed to divide evenly between the Dáil and Seanad the power of nominating and electing Senators. But when we get the Bill itself we find that in relation to the nomination of Senators it is proposed in fact to give to the Seanad double the powers of the Dáil. Twenty members or a number of members corresponding to the number of vacancies will be nominated by this Dáil and the same number will be nominated by the Seanad, although the Seanad consists of only 60 members while this House consists of 153 members.
That does not say that they will be elected.
Not at all, but before a man can be elected he must be nominated. The Deputy knows that. But he cannot be nominated unless he gets someone in this House or somebody in the Seanad to propose him and he cannot get elected unless he gets a majority to vote for him. First he must have a majority necessary to include his name in the panel. The Seanad will, therefore, have much more power of nomination than the Dáil. The Deputy has grasped that?
That is no argument.
I intend it as an argument. It is quite obvious that if twenty vacancies are to be filled and if each House has the right of nominating twenty candidates that three votes in the Seanad will be sufficient to secure a nomination, but it will take seven or nearly eight votes in the Dáil to secure the nomination of a Senator. In that way it is clear that a Senator has more than double the power of a member of the Dáil. Has the Deputy grasped that yet?
Yes.
The process of education is proceeding. The fact remains, however, that the proposal contained in this Bill does in fact give to the Seanad, so far as the nomination of candidates is concerned, double the power that it gives to members of the Dáil. Why not go the whole hog? Why not give the entire power of nominating Senators to the Seanad? You have carefully made arrangements as to the manner in which the election will be held which will make it impossible for your opponents to get anyone elected. Why not now make similar arrangements to spike the guns in advance by insuring that only your friends can actually nominate candidates? Personally, of course, it is my opinion, and the opinion of members of my Party, that if there should be a Seanad—a thing in which we do not believe—and if there should be an election of Senators—a thing which we do not approve of—in such case the Senators should be elected from a panel of candidates nominated through this Dáil, and this Dáil only; that we should not give Senators the power to reproduce from their own assembly and to decide who was to succeed them in their office. We think that is a bad principle. Of course, the whole Bill is based upon a bad principle. What else could you expect? I wonder if Deputy Carey, who has been anxious to speak on this matter, has actually read the Bill? I doubt if he has.
Long before now.
I would ask him to turn to the first schedule. Has he read the first schedule?
It is the history of Ireland you want me to read, I suppose. It would be more in your line if you were to read it.
It is not quite as long, and certainly it is much more interesting. It does provide, first of all, that every candidate can attend at the issuing of the ballot papers—and, remember, each candidate can inspect the issuing of the ballot papers. He will know the number which goes upon the block, and he will know the number of each voter. He will be able to get a considerable amount of information which will help him in his canvassing. If he is a member of Cumann na nGaedheal he will be able to say a word to the returning officer which will do him no harm, because of course the returning officer will be a member of Cumann na nGaedheal also, and when the ballot papers come in he will be able to know whether or not the friends that he did a good turn to will let him down when voting or not, or whether he was high up in the list of preferences.
I am surprised that Deputy Lemass would make an insinuation of that kind. I think the Deputy ought to be more honourable than to make such an insinuation as that against a responsible officer. I did not think that he would descend so low as to mention that sort of thing.
We are glad to know he will be a responsible officer but there is nothing about it in the Bill. Deputy Sheehy has said that he did not think I would make an insinuation like that. Now this Bill contains a provision that the returning officer will be appointed by the Minister. I want to remind the Deputies that the present Minister may not always be the Minister for Local Government.
Mr. SHEEHY
He will be as long as we can make him.
I may be Minister for Local Government and Public Health and when the next election takes place I may be filling the position.
A terrible thought.
Mr. SHEEHY
Very doubtful indeed.
But if I am the Minister for Local Government and Public Health I will be able to appoint the returning officer.
Mr. SHEEHY
You are prepared to do away with the Seanad and if you had power to do away with the Dáil I doubt very much if we would be sitting here.
I may not be Minister, but Deputy O'Connell may be.
Mr. SHEEHY
The Deputy is not going to annihilate the Dáil and Seanad. He was out for both but he will fail.
The fact is that if this Bill is passed into law, it will be law for any Government unless they repeal it. If any responsible Government does succeed the present one it will repeal it. The returning officer for all time will be appointed by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, if this Bill is not repealed and no matter who is appointed or what Party he comes from he will be a member of a Party and will be interested in the result of the election.
That is not fair to me to make that statement. I might appoint myself.
Not fair to you? Oh, I see. It is of course quite possible that that might happen. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent it. The returning officer might be himself a candidate. I have been unable to see any section in the Bill which prevents a Minister from appointing a candidate as a returning officer and if such a section is not inserted is it not quite possible that an unscrupulous Minister for Local Government and Public Health—that is talking impersonally now—might make certain the election of a particular favourite by appointing him returning officer and give him the counting of the votes as well?
Surely, you would not do that.
No—I do not know; but I would remind Deputies that it would not be the first time that a returning officer exercised considerable influence in the election of a Senator. In fact, if rumours are correct—perhaps I had better go no further; but there was a certain amount of suspicion concerning the activities of some returning officer in relation to the last Seanad election. Now that we have the opportunity of altering the system of election, now that we are actually proposing to alter it, should we not, in the interests of decent democratic government, provide against any possibility of a repetition of these abuses? Certainly I think that any self-respecting Deputy in the Dáil who will read the Bill—and, mind you, that will be a minority of the Deputies—and who can understand—again a minority—the amazing provisions which it contains will, I think, be forced, even against the orders of his Party Whip, to vote against it. There is nobody in the Dáil who can possibly contemplate with pleasure the prospect of having to justify to his constituents the fact that he voted for a Bill which contained the provisions which this Bill contains— provisions relating to the appointment of a returning officer by the Minister; provisions relating to the powers of the returning officer and the general benediction which is given to his acts in advance; provisions which provide that there shall in fact be a means by which the returning officer and the Minister who appointed him will be able to get behind the provisions regarding the secrecy of the ballot and find out how each Deputy voted.
Of course, that is quite untrue.
Is it not a fact?
The Deputy has not read the Bill.
I draw the Minister's attention to Section 9 (3):—
"The ballot papers shall be in the prescribed form and each ballot paper shall have a number printed on the back and shall have attached a counterfoil with the same number printed on the face, and every ballot paper shall at the time of issue thereof be marked on both sides with an official mark either stamped or perforated."
You are skipping your lessons.
I have read the whole section, and paragraph (b) of Section 4 of the First Schedule says:—"The elector's said number shall be marked on the counterfoil of the ballot paper." Paragraph (a) of the same section says that "the number, name and description as stated in the electoral roll of the elector to whom the ballot paper is to be issued shall be called out." Then the number shall be marked on the counterfoil.
Has the Deputy read paragraph 21 of the First Schedule?
Plus paragraph 24, plus paragraph 25, plus paragraph 26.
Paragraph 21 sets out:—"The Seanad returning officer and every of his assistants taking part in any of the proceedings under this schedule or the counting of the votes, and every candidate attending any of the said proceedings or the said counting shall, before so taking part or so attending, sign an undertaking in the prescribed form to preserve the secrecy of the voting." Deputy Esmonde knows what that section is worth. Every Deputy in the House knows what it is worth. Every Deputy who went through an election sent in the prescribed form a declaration of secrecy, but when he visited the polling booth he was not above taking a hint from the personating agent as to who had or had not voted, for the purpose of sending out a car in case certain voters had not arrived.
There is no question of violation of secrecy in that.
If you read the declaration of secrecy in the prescribed form you would be amazed at all the provisions contained in it, and you would be amazed at the number of times that you broke them. I am prepared to admit that a returning officer who is conscientiously anxious to carry out his duties properly would be able to preserve the secrecy of the ballot; but we have no guarantee that such a returning officer would be appointed. We have, in fact, the knowledge that the returning officer will be appointed by the Minister and that the Minister is an interested party in the election. It is well to state frankly and clearly that there have been abuses in connection with elections in the past. I have here, for example, a ballot paper issued in connection with the last General Election in Dublin County Constituency. You will remember it was stated in the Press, and I can personally vouch for it, that a very large number of ballot papers was found in an old drain in the slobland near Merrion or Booterstown. How did that large number of ballot papers get there? The returning officer was responsible for their safe custody and the matter was never cleared up. There were other instances.
What does the Deputy mean by saying that the matter was never cleared up?
Never satisfactorily cleared up—no satisfactory explanation was offered.
A statement of the plain facts was publicly made.
The returning officer said they were probably dumped there by some person in his employment and they were probably found there after the election was over. Under the Electoral Act he was responsible for putting them in a sealed box and returning them to the Government or to the Clerk of the Dáil. The point in connection with this Bill is that if the method of appointing the returning officer was different we could have confidence in him. I am sure Deputies who know the returning officer for Dublin City would have every confidence in him if he conducted the election. If it was understood that he was the returning officer, the objections that I have raised would have no weight. If it is provided that the returning officer for one or other of the university constituencies, who has had experience of the manner of conducting elections by post, as this provides for, there would be no objection. But the proposal to have the returning officer appointed by a Minister who has a direct and party interest in the election is one which cannot be, I think, justified. There are very few sections in the Bill which can be justified. The whole Bill itself cannot be justified. The Seanad cannot be justified and the action of the Government in seeking to perpetuate the Seanad cannot be justified. Consequently, the existence of this Government cannot be justified.
We are opposing this Bill because in the first place it is part of the machinery by which the election of the Seanad is taken away from the people.
That is the first plank in our opposition to this measure. We have given our reasons on previous occasions as to why we preferred, if and while we have a Seanad, that the election should be carried out by the votes of the people. I do not propose to go into that point again. The Bill, judged even from the point of view of an electoral machine, is bad in several places. We strongly object to the provisions of Section 5, whereby the Seanad has a right to nominate an equal number with the Dáil. I have heard no justifications from the Minister for that provision. The only statement he makes is that it does not matter very much, because when the election comes on they will be voting according to proportional representation, but when a man gets on a panel of forty members he has made a very big step forward in the election. He has got a considerable distance on the way to election. I cannot see why three Senators can secure the election of a man to the panel while it takes, at least, seven members of the Dáil to do the same thing. No justification has been offered for that. As it is to be done according to the system of proportional representation, nomination to the panel ought to be proportional to the numbers in the Dáil and Seanad, if the Dáil and Seanad are to make the nominations.
That is the clause that is open to serious objection and for which there is no justification offered and, so far as I can see, there can be no possible justification for it except to placate the Seanad in some way or to attempt to show that in these matters it is equal to the Dáil and has the same rights as it has. That is the only possible excuse or justification for it, the placation of the amour proper of the Seanad. We object to that and will oppose it at every possible stage. With regard to the whole elaborate system of election I do not think that it is necessary to go to all these rounds. I think the whole system is copied from the system known as the postal voters system in a general election, where voting papers are sent to soldiers on active service and where they have to go round to get identification papers signed by their commanding officer, or a local peace commissioner. I do not think that it is adding to our dignity by having to be identified by a local peace commissioner before we can vote. These are the provisions in the Bill. It is a matter of two hundred votes. Imagine our Senators getting voting papers and going to a local peace commissioner to get themselves identified.
They will have to come from London to do that.
Mr. O'CONNELL
No, they can get somebody in London to do it. We are liberal enough to take the identification of someone who can administer an oath over there. I cannot see what objection there is to the method adopted when the first election of Senators took place under the Provisional Government. I think that that would be a much more preferable system in comparison with the proposal in this Bill. As Ministers and Deputies who were here on that occasion will remember, the voting was carried on by those who attended here for that purpose. The Ceann Comhairle was the Presiding Officer, and each Deputy marked his paper and placed it in the ballot box on the Clerk's table, and that was all about it. If there is to be voting by the Dáil and Seanad I believe that that system could be carried out, and would be much more preferable to that set out in the Bill. It would, I believe, get rid of a good many of the difficulties suggested by Deputy Lemass. In any case, it would not leave grounds for the many suspicions which can be discovered in this Bill by anyone who sets out to discover them. I think it would be a better system than that contained in the Bill, but my main objection to the measure is not what it contains, but that it should be there at all.
One would have expected when the Minister for Local Government was introducing an important Bill of this description, which takes away from the people the right of electing Senators, that he would have gone into greater detail than he did and have explained the various sections of the Bill. Evidently he believes that he will be able to bring up his reserve forces from the Library and Committee Rooms to carry the Second Reading. I think that the Minister was much too brief and manifested far too much haste. I believe that the Government manifested too much haste in introducing this legislation. It should not have been introduced in anticipation of the fact that legislation which is before the House has not been completed. I believe that the Minister had a certain reason in rushing this legislation, as he knows that the fifteen Senators who were nominated in 1922 will go out of office on the 6th December next, and unless the election takes place prior to the 6th December these fifteen Government supporters would not be able to vote at this particular election. We, on these benches, believe that it is most undemocratic that nineteen outgoing Senators should have votes in the election, and that the Minister realises that if the election is held after the 6th December fifteen of these Senators who were nominated by the President would not have a vote in regard to returning them. There are nineteen Senators to be elected. I believe that the principal reason of the Executive Council in introducing legislation of this description taking away rights from the people, which no democratic Government would do, was that they knew that, according to the numerical strength of the various parties, so far as the Labour Party is concerned it will be able to elect approximately two Senators.
Taking into consideration the approximate strength of Fianna Fáil that party will be able to select six, but taking into consideration the strength of those who support the Government, together with Senators, they will be able to return eleven. The Executive Council know that if the rights of the people were not taken away and if the people were allowed to vote as they should, the Government Party would not be able to return that particular number. Reference has been made to Section 5. So far as that section is concerned it stipulates that the Dáil shall nominate as many candidates as there are vacancies, in other words, nineteen candidates. The Seanad can nominate the same number, although out of sixty Senators sitting in the Seanad only nineteen were elected by the votes of the people. We are against this system altogether. We believe, if you are going to have a Seanad, it should not be elected either by the Dáil or the Seanad. We believe it should not be elected by the Seanad, because only nineteen Senators were elected by the people and, while Deputies were elected by the people, they received no mandate from the electorate throughout the country to return Senators. Consequently I hold that this is an undemocratic Bill. There is one very strange peculiarity concerning the Bill. It stipulates that candidates can attend in the place where the returning officer is sending out the voting papers. Candidates can attend when the votes are being counted, but cannot attend here when recording their votes. It will be a system of postal voting entirely. The returning officer will send out the ballot papers by registered post, but there is no stipulation that they are to be returned to him by registered post. I believe that that is open to very grave abuse.
I remember, in connection with an election in the Six Counties a short time ago, one party alleged that he posted the ballot paper of a certain candidate, but the Six-County Government denied receiving it. I am not saying that the same thing will happen here, but what is to prevent it? There are no provisions in this Bill to prevent it. I agree with what Deputy Lemass said, namely, that the word "secrecy" is written all over the Bill. We agree that, so far as the votes in this House or in the Seanad are recorded, the public should know what is going on. They should know for whom Deputies or Senators are voting. There should be no secrecy, but while the Government on the one hand hold that there should be secrecy, they are prepared on the other hand to put a number on the back of every ballot paper and a corresponding number on the counterfoil. They will thus be able to ascertain for whom Senators and Deputies voted. If they want to have a secret vote let it be secret, although we believe that there should be no secrecy about it.
Section 7 provides that if, after the panel is formed, any candidate whose name is on the panel dies it is to be put on the ballot paper and the candidate would have to be announced as having been returned if elected, but in the First Schedule there is a stipulation that if a petition is made by a candidate against the result of the election the court can call on the returning officer to produce all the documents in regard to the election. Deputies will remember that in the North Dublin City election recently, owing to blundering in the draughtsmanship of the Electoral Act, a bankrupt could get nominated, but could not get elected. I can see the same thing happening here. If any candidate is dissatisfied and appeals to the Court, the court may decide that the returning officer should produce the documents. If he should die in the meantime, as he may, unless the Government is prepared to inoculate this one official with monkey glands, I can see a crux similar to that which arose in the North City arising. I ask the House to reject the Bill. It is undemocratic. I believe that the principle of democracy has been sacrificed on the altar of economy. I believe that there will be some economies in regard to the Bill. If there is to be any economy, what becomes of the money saved as compared with the cost of the other system of election? It will be a big amount. I hope that the Minister will accept the suggestion that the saving effected by this new method of election will be brought forward by way of Supplementary Estimate for the relief of unemployment and passed before the Adjournment of the Dáil.
We have not had any explanation yet as to why the Seanad should have, roughly speaking, two and a half times the voting power of the Dáil. I think we should have some explanation of that. There also seems to be a point as to whether Senators who are absent from the country may attest before a Notary Public or some official on the other side. It would not be necessary for them to appear at all. I do not know whether it would be necessary for them to appear at any time. They appear very seldom at present. We will require some explanation as to why they choose to give that extra power of nomination. It is not sufficient merely to say that it is equal when obviously it is not equal. I do not want to go into it very elaborately, but apparently it is a case of taking it or leaving it. While I am on the point I would like to say that the calculation which I made in the early part of the debate in relation to the time it would take to alter the Seanad under this scheme was wrong. I made a mistake. I left out the fact that the Senators who were elected by the Dáil would themselves be voting, and to that extent that calculation is wrong. I want to make that apology. Apart from that, I do think that we ought to be treated somewhat more seriously than we have been, in relation to some justification as to why they choose to allow the Seanad this power. There may be some reason. I do not know. Frankly, I find it impossible to formulate any reason as to why 60 of the Seanad should be allowed to nominate as many Senators as the Dáil. I ask some reasonable explanation of that.
Exception was taken by Deputy O'Connell to the election being carried out under the postal system. The question of having direct polling or having voting on the postal system was very fully considered, and it was thought more satisfactory for all concerned to adopt the postal system. The Seanad and the Dáil might not be meeting on the same day or might not be meeting at the time at which the election would be held, and it seemed undesirable to bring the two Houses of the Oireachtas together simply for the purpose of having an election when it could be satisfactorily carried out by the postal voting system. If it is thought that the system can be made more satisfactory by having letters returned by registered post, as well as sending them out in that way, that can be considered, but it will probably be found that there are reasons why persons should be allowed to post in the non-registered form. Deputy Lemass challenges the bona fides of the system, basing his challenge on the fact that the Minister for Local Government appoints the Seanad returning officer. Under the Ministers and Secretaries Act the Minister for Local Government is made responsible, among other things, for the administration in connection with elections of both Houses of the Oireachtas. There is no person who could or who should appoint the returning officer in cases where both Houses are voting together other than the Minister for Local Government.
He may appoint the returning officer for North or South Dublin, or for County Dublin or for the University, but I suggest that normally he would appoint a Civil Servant to carry out the work. It is only playing with the different kinds of suggestions to say that because the returning officer is appointed by a person who is a politician that the control of the elections is in the hands of that particular politician. There was a suggestion, too, that the secrecy of the ballot in this particular case will not and cannot be kept at any rate from the Minister who has the appointment of the Seanad returning officer. To say that is simply to make light suggestions for purposes that are not purposes applied to the practical carrying out of the work and the practical settling of how this election should be carried out. If Deputies will refer to Section 4 they will see that at every stage of the proceedings from the sending out of the ballot papers to the fixing up of the receptacles for the reception of the ballot papers when they come back and the counting of the votes, the candidates are fully entitled to be present on all these occasions. Under Section 24 it is provided that "upon the completion of the counting of the votes the Seanad returning officer shall seal up in separate packets the counted ballot papers and the ballot papers rejected as invalid." These sealed packets will be retained for six months and subsequently destroyed, but as long as they are retained they can only be opened on the order of an election tribunal set up to deal with any particular claim that there may be. It was suggested by Deputy Lemass that under Section 7 (1) arrangements are made to give an indulgence beforehand to irregularities on the part of the Seanad returning officer. That section and sub-section are there in order to prevent the Seanad returning officer interfering in any way with the different sections for the formation of the panel sent up to him from the Dáil and the Seanad. If the Seanad puts on its panel that goes up to the Seanad returning officer the name of a person who is not qualified to be on the panel, then Section 7 (1) secures that the Seanad returning officer shall not interfere, good, bad or indifferent, but that he shall place the name on the panel that goes out. The fact of a person being disqualified in any way will only affect him when the count is taking place, but if Deputies refer to Section 15 they will see that it makes provision by which non-compliance with the rules contained in any of the schedules to this Act shall not be a reason for declaring an election void where the tribunal dealing with the matter considers that it did not affect the result of the election. The position is that the Bill, in a sensible way, makes provision by which small errors will not give rise to inconvenience or trouble in connection with the election.
In so far as exception is taken to the Dáil and Seanad having equal powers of nomination that, as I said in introducing the measure, is a minor matter. You cannot lose sight of the fact that the electorate in this case is practically the same body that puts up the panel, and that there is very little object in setting up, by means of the Dáil and Seanad, a very large panel when there are only a limited number of people who can be elected. If it is desired either to increase, if that seems to be good, the numbers who should be put on the panel from the Dáil, or to reduce to some extent the number of persons who can be put on the panel by the Seanad, that is simply a matter for discussion, but in the actual working out of the vote of the Dáil and Seanad together the question as to whether you have a panel of thirty, forty, or fifty is not likely to affect the actual result of the vote very much. That has to be borne in mind when we are discussing the numbers that shall be put up by the Dáil and Seanad.
It is not so much a question of numbers. It is that the actual personnel will be very gravely affected by who resigns.
I am concerned entirely with numbers, and if the Deputy further considers it he will find that it is a question of numbers too.
Of number one.
Exception has been taken to the brief explanation given of this Bill. The Bill is simple and very explanatory, and Deputies who read it will not require an elaborate explanation of it. I beg to move the Second Reading.
The President stated here that he has not at all times had the support of his own nominees. I would like him to explain what he meant by that. Is it a fact that he nominated these people on a definite understanding, and have they broken this undertaking? What did he mean when he charged them with failing to answer the Party Whip in the Seanad on occasions?
I got no undertaking and I asked for none. Any explanation I could give in the time at my disposal would be beyond the capacity of the Deputy to understand.
Tá.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margaret.
- Conlan, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cooper, Bryan Ricco.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Davis, Michael.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thomas Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Hassett, John J.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
Níl.
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Coburn, James.
- Colbert, James.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Holt, Samuel.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killane, James Joseph.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Reilly, Mathew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipperary).
- Smith, Patrick.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.