Does the Minister intend to recommit the Bill for the purpose of the amendments?
Committee on Finance. - Presidential Elections Bill, 1937—Recommittal.
I understand that the whole Bill was to be recommitted. There are one or two points I should like to raise.
Very well.
I should not care to disturb the obvious harmony.
Bill recommitted.
It will not be necessary to go through the sections unless a Deputy desires to raise a point on a particular section. I take it there is no question prior to amendment No. 1?
I do not think so.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 4, Section 6 (1), before paragraph (c), to insert two new paragraphs as follows:—
(c) the day (in this Act referred to as the day for withdrawals) on which a candidate may withdraw from his candidature after the close of the ruling upon nominations, and
(d) the place at which the presidential returning officer will sit to receive withdrawals on the day for withdrawals, and.
We had a good deal of discussion on the question of the withdrawal of candidates and the time allowed for withdrawal. I think Deputy Brennan was particularly interested in this. This and other amendments later on will, I think, fully satisfy those who are anxious that further time for withdrawal should be allowed.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, Section 6 (1), to add at the end of the sub-section a new paragraph as follows:—
and
(d) the address of the office of the presidential returning officer to which nomination papers and other communications may be sent to him.
This deals with the same matter.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, before Section 6 (5), to insert a new sub-section as follows:
(5) The day for withdrawals shall not be earlier than the second nor later than the seventh day after the last day for receiving nominations.
There was a difference of opinion as to the interval of time which should be allowed. Three days was suggested by Deputy Brennan. I suggested two, and Deputy Dillon said he would like seven. I have tried to meet everybody's point of view by saying that "the date for withdrawals shall not be earlier than the second nor later than the seventh day after the last day for receiving nominations."
That leaves it exceedingly indefinite. I do not see how the Minister has met the point of view of those who wanted seven days. He does not meet that point of view by saying that it may be the third day, which it may be as the amendment stands. It does not meet the case put up for allowing a longer time. It leaves it to the Order to determine that. It may be the third day. There may not be sufficient time and you may have a useless contest—if the whole contest is not useless—precipitated in a case of that kind.
If there is any strong opinion about it, we can make it six days—there are six working days in the week.
From the administration point of view, it might be better.
I am satisfied to give a promise that that will go into the Order.
Very well.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In page 5, Section 8 (2), to delete all from and including the word "and", line 25, to the end of the sub-section.
There was a good deal of discussion on the subject-matter of Section 8 (2) and this amendment, and one which follows later, give effect to the opinion that seemed to be expressed here that the provision as to providing nomination papers should be in more definite terms.
Amendment agreed to.
The following Government amendments were also agreed to:—
5. In page 5, before Section 8 (3), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) The Clerk of Dáil Eireann and the Clerk of Seanad Eireann shall each be entitled to obtain from the presidential returning officer a supply of forms of nomination papers for the use of members of the Oireachtas.
6. In page 5, line 57, Section 9 (5), before the word "be", to insert in brackets the words "(unless shown to be forged or fraudulent)."
7. In page 6, Section 9 (7), to delete all from and including the word "regular", line 3, to the end of the sub-section and substitute the words and paragraphs:—
"which are regular on their face and relate to the same election, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) any two or more of such nomination papers which purport to be made in pursuance of resolutions passed on the same day shall be invalid, and every (if any) of such nomination papers which purports to be made in pursuance of a resolution passed on a subsequent day shall also be invalid;
(b) subject and without prejudice to the provisions of the foregoing paragraph, that one of such nomination papers which purports to be made in pursuance of a resolution earlier in date than any of the resolutions in pursuance of which the others of such nomination papers purport to be made shall alone be regarded and ruled upon at the ruling upon nominations, and the others of such nomination papers shall be invalid."
On Section 9, I am surprised and disappointed that, notwithstanding the discussion on the Committee Stage and the Minister's promise to look into this matter, he has not submitted an amendment dealing with the objection made to nominations by commissioners acting as county councils. I understood that the Minister undertook to consider the matter and I gathered that he was to submit an amendment which would satisfy the case that had been made. There was a good deal of discussion on this point and a rather strong feeling expressed by a number of Deputies that it was never contemplated, when county councils were given the right to nominate, that commissioners acting as such would have the same right. I think it was further pointed out that we have had cases where a certain commissioner administered the affairs of two county councils and that there was nothing to prevent such a commissioner administering the affairs of four county councils. He could, therefore, secure one nomination and he could, in fact, nominate himself. I understood the Minister felt the force of that criticism and would bring in an amendment limiting the right of nomination to elected county councils and depriving a commissioner acting as such from making a nomination himself.
What the Deputy says as to the feeling expressed on this subject of commissioners administering the affairs of county councils and allowing them to use the power of county councils for nominating a presidential candidate is quite correct. It is also correct that I expressed myself as generally in agreement with the view given voice to on different sides of the House on the matter. The Deputy will also remember that there was a difficulty properly raised, I may say, in the House to certain amendments which were submitted. I have examined the matter very carefully with my legal advisers and we are forced to the conclusion that it is not possible to amend this Bill in that way. I have received positive advice that the only way to get over the situation is to amend the Local Government Act, 1925. I have a Bill drafted to amend that Act so as to secure that the power of county councils in this matter will not go to commissioners appointed to exercise the functions of county councils and I hope to be able to introduce that Bill tomorrow.
May I take it from that, that the Minister has got legal advice that such an amendment will be in accordance with the Constitution?
Yes. We have not discussed it as a constitutional amendment, but we have power to amend the Local Government Act, which gives the Minister power to transfer the functions of a county council to a commissioner—to transfer the powers in whole or in part—and we propose in the Bill, which I hope to introduce to-morrow, to eliminate the power of nominating.
Has the point that such a Bill might be in conflict with the Constitution been considered by the Minister's legal advisers?
It has.
Is not the purpose of the Constitution, if I might put it that way, to secure for the county the right of nomination? The purpose of the Constitution, I take it for granted, is to secure for the governing body of each county the right of nomination?
Yes.
Are we, either by administrative Order or by an ordinary Bill in this House, entitled to run counter to the direct purpose of the Constitution? I think a point of view that was urged the last day was that under this Bill we cannot amend another Act, on a side issue, so to speak, such as the ordinary Local Government Act. I think, however, there is this precedent, and I wonder if the Minister has considered it. One of the commonest things that happened with Bills of which I had charge was that when you had done something that was prohibited by another Act, by the Local Government Act, for instance—say to extend the borrowing powers given under the Act—you put in an amendment to the Local Government Act by saying: "The moneys borrowed under this particular Act shall not count for the purposes of Section so-and-so of the Local Government Act." Would not a similar amendment be in order here, providing that the power so conferred on the county council shall not operate so far as the commissioner is concerned or shall not be regarded as a power conferred on the commissioner under the Local Government Act. Therefore, I think we can achieve the desired purpose by inserting an amendment to this Bill. I wonder whether, if the House passed an amendment taking this power from the commissioner without amending this Bill, the commissioner would not still have the power under this Bill, when you take the purpose of the Constitution into consideration?
The Deputy might raise that point on the Bill to-morrow.
I want to raise it now, Sir.
It is not open to the Dáil to interpret the Constitution.
The Minister is certainly entitled to get advice as to whether a certain thing is or is not against the Constitution. I would ask him to beware of introducing an amendment deliberately overriding the purpose of the Constitution, which primarily is to give to each county the right of nomination. You give it to them through their elected bodies. Whether you can by an Act or an Order run counter to the very spirit of the idea is very questionable. If you can, you can do it in this Bill as well as in a separate Bill.
I think the Ceann Comhairle decided that it could not be done by way of an amendment to this Bill.
I suggested a precedent.
I am advised that the Bill, which I hope to introduce, to amend Section 72 of the Local Government Act of 1925 and to modify, for certain purposes, the powers of commissioners who are administering the affairs of county councils, is a proper Bill, and that it does not purport in any way to amend the Constitution. I am advised that we can achieve our purpose in that way.
I hope the Ceann Comhairle will agree with that.
It is not a function of the Ceann Comhairle to pronounce upon such matters. The House may come to any decision it wishes on any measure, whatever the Ceann Comhairle may think of the merits.
You may not decide whether it is counter to the Constitution, but apparently you can decide whether a certain thing implements the Constitution.
The Chair refuses to be drawn.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 6, line 36, Section 11 (1), after the word "papers" to insert in brackets the words:—
(whether the same are or are not regular and valid).
Amendment put and agreed to.
Before the Minister comes to Section 12, I take it that he is satisfied that he has met my objection by amendment No. 2. I raised an objection to Section 12 on Committee. Does the Minister consider that he has met that objection by amendment No. 2?
I believe so.
I grant that it has been partially met, but still it is a rather back-handed way of meeting it. There may still be confusion about the two places.
There is no place fixed for nomination. He is only sitting to receive withdrawals, not for nomination.
He has got to have an address to receive nominations.
A nomination may be handed to the returning officer anywhere. I move amendments Nos. 9 and 10:
In page 7, before Section 12 (3), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) Where the identity of the person purported to be nominated by a nomination paper is free from doubt, such nomination paper shall not be rejected or declared invalid merely because of an error in, or the incompleteness of, the statement therein of the name, address, or description of such person.
In page 7, Section 13 (4), to delete all from and including the word "provided," line 42, to the end of the sub-section.
Amendments agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In page 7, line 57, Section 14 (2), after the word "present" to insert the words "and entitled to take part in the proceedings".
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 12:—
In page 8, before Section 16 (2), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) On the day for withdrawals the presidential returning officer shall attend during the whole of the period (in this section referred to as the time for withdrawals) from twelve o'clock noon until two o'clock in the afternoon at the place appointed in that behalf by the Order appointing days, and any candidate who stood nominated at the close of the ruling upon nominations may withdraw from his candidature at any time during the said time for withdrawals.
The actual date and the place for withdrawals will be set out in the Order appointing the days. This arose out of points that were made as to the indefiniteness of the time and a doubt about the place. I think Deputy Benson was one of those responsible for raising, these points, and this amendment is introduced in order to clear up any doubts and to fix definite times and places for withdrawals.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13, which is consequential on amendment No. 12:—
In page 8, line 34, Section 16 (2), before the word "notice" to insert the words and brackets "or during the time for withdrawals (as the case may be)".
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 14:—
In page 8, before Section 16 (3), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) Where at the close of the ruling upon nominations two or more candidates stand nominated and during the time for withdrawals every such candidate except one withdraws from his candidature, the presidential returning officer shall, at the end of the time for withdrawals, cancel the adjournment of the election and declare such one candidate who did not withdraw from his candidature to have been elected as the President and send to the Taoiseach and publish in the Iris Oifigiúil a certificate in the form set out in the Second Schedule to this Act of such election of such candidate.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 15:—
In page 8, before Section 17, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Whenever at the close of the ruling upon nominations no candidate stands nominated or every candidate who stood nominated at the close of the ruling upon nominations subsequently withdraws from his candidature, all the proceedings in relation to the election shall be commenced afresh, and for that purpose the Order appointing days shall be deemed to be cancelled and the Minister shall make a new Order appointing days for the purposes of such fresh election.
(2) The appointment of a presidential returning officer for the purposes of a presidential election shall be deemed to extend to and include appointment for the purposes of any fresh election held in pursuance of this section in relation to such presidential election.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 16:—
In page 8, to delete Section 17 (1) and substitute two new sub-sections as follows:—
(1) The following persons shall be entitled to be present at the ruling upon nominations and (save as is otherwise provided by this section) to take part in the proceedings, that is to say:—
(a) the presidential returning officer and his assistants,
(b) the judicial assessor,
(c) the candidates,
(d) the authorised representatives (if any) of candidates,
(e) such persons as a candidate or the authorised representative of a candidate is authorised by the subsequent provisions of this section to bring to assist him.
(2) The following persons may be present at the ruling upon nominations, but shall not take part in the proceedings, that is to say:—
(a) witnesses giving oral evidence, but only while giving such evidence,
(b) one person brought by the judicial assessor to attend upon him,
(c) such other persons as the presidential returning officer shall think proper to admit.
This sets forth more definitely and clearly who are the persons who are entitled to be present at the ruling upon nominations.
I move amendment No. 17:—
In page 9, to add at the end of Section 17 a new sub-section as follows:—
(6) No person shall be present at the ruling upon nominations except the persons authorised in that behalf by or under this section.
This is consequential on amendment No. 16.
Amendment agreed.
I move amendment No. 18:—
In page 9, line 7, Section 18 (1), to delete the words "or any adjourned such ruling upon nominations" and also to delete all from and including the word "to," line 10, to the end of the sub-section and substitute the words "until the next subsequent day which is neither a Sunday, Good Friday, Christmas Day or a bank holiday, and shall if necessary further adjourn such ruling upon nominations from day to day (excluding Sundays, Good Friday, Christmas Day, and bank holidays) until such riot or open violence shall have ceased."
This, I think, meets the criticism of Deputy Dillon and others on certain portions of Section 18 on the last day.
Amendment agreed to.
In regard to Section 23, page 11, again I should like the Minister seriously to consider his machinery. I cannot now discuss the wisdom—I cannot even raise it—of having a President appointed in this way; that has been decided by the Constitution. I cannot even discuss the powers of the President. I am not going to discuss these things, but the Constitution having laid down that the President will be elected by the people, I think that in the implementing legislation we should see that this election is not a farce. It is difficult enough— as I pointed out to the Vice-President, and I think he will agree—to see that ordinary elections are properly conducted, that is, where there have been fierce election campaigns, where everybody's interest has been whipped up, where big Party organisations have been active, and have been trying to get agents to see that the elections are properly conducted. It is difficult enough, as I say, when there is all the heat and interest of a general election. Now, I take it for granted that the Government wants this to be a serious election, and not merely a farce, but, if the Government relies on the ordinary machinery to secure a proper election in this case, I do not think they will get anything except a farce. I do not know how many booths there will be throughout the country—possibly 6,000; it will be something like that in any case. Supposing we take it that there will be 6,000 booths.
There will be about half that—about 3,000.
There will be as many as there are for a Parliamentary Election? That is 3,000?
Yes.
That is quite enough. This election is for the purpose of electing a man who we are told will be, to a large extent, the ceremonial head of the State. From the Minister's experience of politics, and from everyone's experience of politics and elections, can it be argued that it will be possible to get proper election agents and polling agents to attend at those booths? It is extremely difficult to do it at the moment. I am raising this because it seems to me that unless there are very effective regulations to see that this election is properly conducted, then the election becomes a farce. The Minister himself pointed out that there were cases of personation, so he alleged, in the Seanad election—which many people would think more important than the election of a ceremonial head of State, the election of a man who, we are told, at all events, is largely to be a ceremonial head of State. We were told his other functions were comparatively slight. You cannot, in that election, work up the interest to get people to go and act as personation agents for individual candidates. You cannot prevent what may be an entirely sham election by the ordinary machinery that we employ under different circumstances at the time of a general election. We cannot discuss now the desirability of this method of election. That is settled, but at least I think, if we continue to retain this as portion of the Constitution, that much more effective machinery will have to be provided in order to make the election a real election. I do not think that under this machinery you will get anything except a sham election.
As the Deputy said, we cannot discuss the method of election. That has already been fixed for us. Good or bad, that is settled. On the question of personation agents and the desirability of having them, I am with the Deputy, but other than getting the Civic Guards to act I do not see how you can in this election make any further arrangements for having personation agents. You have to leave it to the good will of the people who want to see—and I am satisfied that Deputy O'Sullivan wants to see, and I know I want to see—a properly conducted election in this case. I am most anxious to see that it should be so, but I cannot see what machinery you can devise to get personation agents to act—machinery that would not be open to grave question from a political point of view. I said here on the last day—I said it on the Second Reading and on the Committee Stage—that the Gárda Síochána were entitled on their own initiative to arrest people for personation or for suspected personation. I will read for the Deputy Section 25, sub-section (4) of the Prevention of Electoral Abuses Act, 1923, which says:—
Any police constable may, without any warrant, arrest any person who is found by such police constable committing the offence of personation or who is believed by such police constable to have committed such offence.
If the police have reason to believe that a person is guilty, there is power there to arrest that person. I do not see what machinery—other than political appointments, which I do not think the Deputy contemplates in this case—is available for the appointment of personation agents. If the Deputy has any suggestion in mind, I should be glad to consider it. I am as anxious as anybody can be to secure that personation, where attempted, should be stopped, not alone in this election but in any other election. I do repeat what I said here before that I believe personation is not as common nowadays as it used to be. I think the activities of everybody concerned, the activities of political parties on all sides, and the further powers exercised by the Gárda Síochána and rigidly enforced by the courts, generally speaking, when persons have been caught, have reduced personation, at least as far as my observation has gone, in recent years to a very small degree indeed.
Personation may or may not have been reduced in recent years as a result, as the Minister says, of the activities of different political parties, but you will not get that same activity—you cannot expect it—in an election like that of the President. That is the matter to which I am really directing the Minister's attention. It is unreasonable to expect anything of the kind from political parties. Political parties find it difficult enough at general elections to provide proper election agents and personation agents. Personation may have decreased as a result of the activities of those political parties, but my whole point is that you cannot get your election agents for this election. The political parties will not be able to get them.
There is nothing to prevent them.
Except that they cannot be got.
That is open to question.
The President may know the difficulty that there is very often of getting suitable election agents, even at a general election. I suggest that even in the election of a man who is proclaimed to be mainly the ceremonial head of the State, you may not be able to get people to come in and act for the whole day and waste their time. It cannot be done. The Minister says he cannot think of any other machinery, but that will not prevent what I have indicated; the fact that machinery cannot be thought of will not prevent the election being a farce. That is the difficulty. I do not know what arrangements they have in continental countries for preventing personation. I have not heard much complaint in any continental country that I have been in on the question of personation. I admit their whole system of government is different and, therefore, there may be other modifications. All I am urging is that, as the provisions stand in this Bill, the election is going to be a sham. The Minister says he cannot prevent it, and possibly we are at one there. I do not put that forward as another argument against this method of electing a President. I merely submit that under this measure you are going to get a sham election.
As regards the Gárda Síochána, let us assume that the Guard arrests one personator. While that arrest is proceeding, what is to prevent any number of people coming in and carrying on personation? That is one of the difficulties. The Minister points out that the Guard has the right to prevent the offence of personation. I am not aware that it is set out as a specific duty. I can tell the Minister, so far as the country districts are concerned, that I have never seen it— that is, the right of initiative on the part of the Guard. In any election that I am familiar with, the initiative has always been taken by the personating agents who are there to represent the different candidates. They challenge the person, then the presiding officer may come in and then the Guard will act. All the personating agents I have spoken to in that connection have agreed with me on that point. I am not questioning the law as set out by the Minister, but I am telling him the practice that is in vogue. The general impression of the law is that the Guard can do nothing until the case is pointed out to him. That may be wrong in law, but then the general practice has given rise to that wrong view of the law. In this instance I submit you are not going to get anything but a sham election. The fact that the Minister says he cannot do any better will not prevent the election being a sham.
I am afraid the Minister is overlooking the high ideals that we had in mind at the beginning as regards this head of the State, this ceremonial officer. It was expected that we would be able to elect a man above politics—I think that was the expression used. Now, the Minister's only hope for this appointment lies in the political parties. That seems to be his only check, together with the Guards. I have had the view all along, and I venture to prophesy that this election is going to be a sham and nobody is going to bother his head about it. I do think, however, that we ought to try to avoid getting back to the rut of political parties. If the Minister can suggest anything along that line, we would welcome it. I do not know what means he can provide, but there ought to be some method provided if we are to have that ideal of a non-political head of the State, a ceremonial officer. There should be some method devised with regard to personating agents instead of having them appointed by the existing political parties. If we cannot do anything better than that, then I am afraid the high ideals given expression to at the beginning are going to go by the board.
As Deputy O'Sullivan pointed out, I do not think the public interest will be keen enough in those elections, even to secure personating agents. Just visualise some non-political aspirant being faced with the task of appointing personating agents in all the polling booths in Ireland. It would be a formidable task and no man could be expected to do it. In the end we will simply go back to the political parties and have an ordinary political battle over the appointment of the ceremonial head of the State, and that will not get us anywhere. Some effort should be made to avoid that.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 16, before Section 33, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Each candidate at a presidential election shall, subject to regulations made under this section by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, be entitled to send by post, free of any charge for postage, to every person registered as an elector in any register of electors for the time being in force, one communication relating only to the said election and not exceeding two ounces in weight.
(2) A candidate shall not be entitled to exercise, in relation to a presidential election, the right of free postage under this section unless or until he and at least one other person have been declared by the presidential returning officer to stand nominated as candidates at such election and such election has been adjourned for the purpose of taking a poll.
(3) The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs may permit a candidate at a presidential election to exercise the right of free postage under this section before he has become entitled under this section so to do upon his giving to the said Minister security to the satisfaction of the said Minister for the payment, in the event of his not becoming so entitled to exercise the said right, of the postage on all communications sent by him in pursuance of the said permission of the said Minister.
(4) Regulations made by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs under this section may make provision in regard to the post office or several post offices at which communications sent in exercise of the right of free postage under this section shall be posted and, in particular, may require that communications so sent to persons in a particular constituency or other area shall be posted at a specified post office either in or outside such area.
The last time we were discussing this Bill the question was raised, I think by Deputy McGowan, about giving the privilege of free postage. That was not provided for in the Bill as originally drafted. This amendment proposes to give that privilege under similar terms and conditions as are given in the Dáil elections.
Sub-section (3) of the amendment sets out:—
The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs may permit a candidate at a presidential election to exercise the right of free postage under this section before he has become entitled under this section so to do upon his giving to the said Minister security ...for the payment, in the event of his not becoming so entitled to exercise the said right, of the postage on all communications...
I think that is a very dangerous precedent. It would be very dangerous to give these powers to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs or to anybody. You have here a provision which gives a certain right to a wealthy person, because no other person could do that; no other person could give that guarantee that he would pay, and possibly if he did give that guarantee the Minister would not accept it. So far as the candidates are concerned, whether they are wealthy or otherwise, they ought to start from scratch, and I do not think there is any disability placed on a candidate by having that done. If there is more than one nomination, then let the free postage start from that particular date. Setting out that any person is entitled to free postage before there is a second or third candidate nominated, if that person gives a guarantee that he will refund the money to the Post Office if there is not a contest, to my mind gives an unfair advantage to someone and I am definitely opposed to it.
I do not think there is any advantage given to anybody. It is possibly a power that may not be called for; the Minister may not be called upon to exercise it; but it is, from the practical point of view, a useful power to give to the Minister if we consider a contested election in which there might be a number of candidates. If each of three or four candidates had a right to send out 2,000,000 letters, because there are almost 2,000,000 voters on the register, taking the country as a whole, some arrangement would have to be made so as to have the system operative. There would have to be some understanding as to when these letters and circulars would be accepted and delivered. They could not all be accepted at the one time and delivered at the one time. It would help the Post Office and make things smoother and easier to have some system of free postage, where persons would give a guarantee of a refund in case they were not entitled to exercise the right of free postage. It would be all the better if persons were allowed to use these facilities at an early date. The time would be short and, if there were four candidates, that would mean 8,000,000 postal packets to be delivered and that would be a big proposition for the Post Office.
I think it would be much fairer if there was an arrangement made between the candidates. That might be arranged easily enough. Personally, I think it is not fair to give facilities to a candidate who can furnish the security for the repayment of those moneys. It would be unfair to give him an opportunity of sending out his letters at an early date. Perhaps there may be candidates who would prefer to send them out late. There is a certain advantage in being able to do a thing like that. I do not agree with the Minister that it is not conferring an advantage on a candidate. If a man has security enough to offer to the Minister, he can have certain facilities, whereas another man may be prevented from doing that. The Minister has not given us any real reason why this sub-section should go in. So far as the postal arrangements are concerned, these can be arranged between the candidates at any time and I think it would be much fairer than giving a person with wealth and able to offer the security the right to send out these things in this way.
The Minister may remember that concurrently with that point about free postage I also drew attention to the fact that there was a section in the Dáil Electoral Act providing for the free use of certain halls and buildings under the control of certain bodies. I would like to know from the Minister if he contemplates granting the same facilities to candidates in the presidential election.
Does the Deputy mean the free use of school buildings?
Yes.
All the election expenses would be borne by the Exchequer. The hire of these schools and halls is borne by the Exchequer.
Under the Dáil Electoral Act I think that candidates for election to Dáil Eireann are entitled to hold certain meetings. They are entitled to the facilities for holding them in schools and other buildings. Is the Minister prepared to grant the same facilities to candidates for the presidential election?
What answer does the Minister give to that?
It is not proposed to give the same facilities as for the Dáil elections. It is hardly likely that they would use many of the schools all over the country.
Their agents might.
Their agents have no right to do so.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 20:—
In page 29, Second Schedule, before form No. 7 to insert an additional form as follows:—
Form of certificate of the result of the election where, after the ruling upon nominations, every candidate except one withdraws.
Presidential Election.
...day of..., 19...
I hereby certify that, at the close of the ruling upon nominations, ................... of .................. and ... other candidate(s) stood nominated and that (all) such other candidate(s) subsequently withdrew from their (his) candidature and that I therefore declared the said............to have been elected President of Ireland.
......................................
Presidential Returning Officer.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Question —"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Fifth Stage fixed for Wednesday, 17th November, 1937.