Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 7 Dec 1937

Vol. 69 No. 12

Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Bill, 1937—Recommittal (resumed).

Debate resumed on the following amendment:—
In page 4, Section 5 (1), before paragraph (c), to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
(c) the day and hour (in this Act referred to as the expiration of the time forex-officio nominations) on and at which the period during which the Seanad returning officer may receive ex-officio nominations to the administrative panel shall expire.—(The President).

A number of matters were raised on this amendment. Two in particular were discussed because they were held to be incidental to this amendment. One was the exclusive right to nominate that, so to speak, was given to certain outside bodies which were mentioned: the General Council of County Councils and the Municipal Employees' Association. The other matter debated was the rather unsatisfactory position of the Seanad returning officer. I take it for granted that there will be an opportunity afforded me of raising this at a subsequent stage. I have not spoken yet on that particular matter. If I can be sure that I can deal with these matters where they actually come on, I am quite prepared to postpone any remarks that I may have to make at the moment.

One of the points raised by the Deputy must have been debated on amendment No. 66, but was discussed on No. 10. This other point will arise again on amend. ment No. 23.

The Chair, I take it, is not ruling the last day out of order.

I hope there will be no protracted debate on amendment No. 66. The Chair asked the House whether it was agreed to debate No. 66 and No. 10 together. There was no demur. Deputy McGilligan said he proposed to discuss those two amendments together. The other point mentioned by the Deputy will arise on amendment No. 23.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 54; Níl, 39.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Colbert, Michael.
  • Davis, Matt.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Dowdall, Thomas P.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Patrick J.
  • Friel, John.
  • Fuller, Stephen.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Kelly, James P.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Meaney, Cornelius.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Munnelly, John.
  • O Brian, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Tubridy, Seán.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Laurence J.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Conn.

Níl

  • Bennett, George C.
  • Benson, Ernest E.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Gorey, Denis J.
  • Heron, Archie.
  • Hogan, Patrick.
  • Keating, John.
  • Keogh, Myles.
  • Lavery, Cecil.
  • Lawlor, Thomas.
  • Linehan, Timothy.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Henry M.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finlay, John.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • McGowan, Gerrard L.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Minch, Sydney B.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Brien, William.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, John M.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Redmond, Bridget M.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Bennett and O'Leary.
Amendment declared carried.

I move amendment No. 11:—

In page 4, Section 5 (1) (c), to delete all words from the bracket and word "in" in line 28 to the end of the paragraph and substitute the words "on which and the place at which the Seanad returning officer will sit for the completion of the panels;".

The only point there is that it is provided now that the returning officer will hold a session just before the panel is completed.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 12:—

In sub-section (1), page 4, to add at the end of the sub-section a new paragraph as follows:—

(f) the address of the Seanad returning officer to which applications for registration, nomination papers, and other communications may be sent to him.

Similarly, this is a matter of machinery and deals with the question of the address to which communications should be sent.

Amendment No. 12 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

On Section 5, Sir, there is a clause there in which occurs the phrase "members of Dáil Eireann." I want to find out, when does a person become a member of Dáil Eireann? At what point, after a general election, does a person become a member of Dáil Eireann? Has that been decided?

I do not know that there has been any definite decision about it, but I take it that it is when he is declared elected—after the election. That is, immediately the result of the count is announced.

There is to be a period after which nominations to the panel of members of Dáil Eireann shall expire. There may be a very narrow point of time after a general election for these nominations to be received. There appears to have been some distinction as to membership of Dáil Eireann from the point of view of the receipt of salary or allowance of such members and that, apparently, is dated from the signing of a roll. Why is there such a limitation put to the beginning of membership of Dáil Eireann in that respect if, as the President tells us, one is a member of Dáil Eireann after the result of the election has been ascertained—after the count?

I will have to look into the matter. My view, at any rate, was that a person became a member of Dáil Eireann as from the moment at which he was declared elected.

I think if the President looks into the matter he will discover that a person is elected to Dáil Eireann the minute the poll is closed. Counting the votes only ascertains what is already a fact, and a person is a member of Dáil Eireann the minute the poll closes.

I can see that point.

The question of Deputy McGilligan arises on a statute which provides that payment only begins from the date of signature on a roll. That is merely by reason of a statutory provision, but I think that the matter of law is incontrovertible.

I can easily see that that can be held.

Would that mean that a nomination by a member of Dáil Eireann can be made as from the date that member discovered that he was elected?

Yes, from the date at which he was elected.

Otherwise the time, which was going to be narrow enough, might be very seriously limited if the Ceann Comhairle, say, determined some other day.

I might as well say at this stage that a number of dates mentioned in the amendments which will be in the Bill as it will appear after the amendments have been inserted, will have to be very carefully examined. At the moment, I suggest that we do not go too closely into the question of dates, because we will have to be very careful about these things. They are all drawn up as they are intended, but it is possible that amendments may be made. We are getting out the Bill in a clean from so that we will have a second run through it, and the dates may require some slight alteration. I asked about these dates and whether sufficient time is given, and I was asked, so to speak, to cease pressing until we had the Bill in a more complete form than it is at present, when we can see exactly what will be in it.

There is another point. As the section stood, there were provisions as to the expiration of certain periods in relation to what we call the general panel nominations and the Dáil panel nominations. There has been inserted a completely new item, that is to say, ex-officio nominations. These two points are taken up in sub-section (3), where it is stated that the date for certain things shall, where practicable, be prior to a certain other date. There is no such limitation with regard to the time in respect to the ex-officio nominations. There were originally two points covered by a balancing phrase in sub-section (3). It seems to me that there is a lack of a balancing phrase with regard to the ex-officio nominations.

What I propose to do is: when we have got the matter of principle, so to speak, dealt with, then the matters of details, such as dates, will have to be examined very carefully to see that sufficient time is given to do the work appointed to be done.

I gathered from the views tentatively expressed by the President as to when a person was a member of Dáil Eireann that he was to look into the matter. It appears that, after the poll is closed and the result is declared by the returning officer, a person is entitled to make a nomination. Is that likely to work in such a way that a person may have been declared elected by the returning officer and eligible to make a nomination for election to the Seanad, and yet may never, in fact, sit as a member of the Dáil, or discharge the functions of a member of the Dáil?

As I say, we will be only able to determine that when we get down closely to the matter of dates. It was not possible until we get to a certain stage to be quite certain about it. It will depend upon the amendments which may be accepted, and it did not seem worth while to change it a second time. If there is a desire on the part of the House to exclude the possibility of that, it would be possible to do it. We can, for example, take the provision which is in the statute relating to the payment of members.

The amendment is vague on that. We ought to know exactly the position of a person declared to be a member vis-á-vis the nominations.

The intention anyhow is that he should be a bona fide member of the Dáil, so to speak.

A person may be a bona fide member in that he may have secured a number of votes, but he may all the time have been disqualified from putting himself forward as a candidate, and the fact of that disqualification may not emerge until tested some time after he has been declared to be a member. Deputy Norton's point, as I understand it, is this: Will a nomination, signed by him in the interval before his disqualification is discovered, be a valid nomination, or will it lapse with his subsequent disqualification?

Common sense would indicate that it should lapse if the test has come before the ballot paper is issued, or before the final ballot paper is prepared.

Will the President consider the law bearing upon whether the proceedings are to any degree null and void when a member of a local authority sits and votes and is afterwards found to be disqualified?

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."

There is another point. The ordinary financial resolution with regard to a measure of this kind is generally taken before the Second Reading. Was that taken, and, if so, when?

It was taken at the time when we had the Special Committee. I think I mentioned one evening that it was necessary to do that.

Has it been taken at the proper time?

I understand the money resolution has been taken at the proper time provided.

At the proper time —that is what I am questioning.

My recollection is that it was taken immediately before the Special Committee sat.

Is that the procedure?

That is the procedure—before the Committee Stage.

It was not taken before the Committee Stage.

I think it was.

I am only raising it because at one time a resolution of the type was moved at the wrong time and the Chair, I think, then declared that the matter had been passed over because no point was made about it. I am now raising the question as to whether a financial resolution has, in fact, been adopted in the ordinary form, so as to make the matter legal and to make payment under it proper.

I am advised that the money resolution was moved at the proper time in respect of this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
8. (1) In this Act—
the word "panel" when used without qualification means a panel of candidates formed in pursuance of sub-section 1º of Section 7 of Article 18 of the Constitution;
the expression "the cultural and educational panel" means the panel required by the said sub-section 1º to contain the names of persons having knowledge and practical experience of the following interests and services, namely, the national language and culture, literature, art, education and such professional interests as may be defined by law for the purpose of this panel;
the expression "the agricultural panel" means the panel required by the said sub-section 1º to contain the names of persons having knowledge and practical experience of the following interests and services, namely, agriculture and allied interests, and fisheries;
the expression "the labour panel" means the panel required by the said sub-section 1º to contain the names of persons having knowledge and practical experience of the following interests and services, namely, labour, whether organised or unorganised;
the expression "the industrial and commercial panel" means the panel required by the said sub-section 1º to contain the names of persons having knowledge and practical experience of the following interests and services, namely, industry and commerce, including banking, finance, accountancy, engineering, and architecture;
the expression "the administrative panel" means the panel required by the said sub-section 1º to contain the names of persons having knowledge and practical experience of the following interests and services, namely, public administration and social services, including voluntary social activities.
(2) The professional interests for the purposes of the cultural and educational panel are hereby defined as—
(a) law, and
(b) medicine, including surgery, dentistry, veterinary medicine, and pharmaceutical chemistry.
Amendments 16 to 21, inclusive, not moved.

I am not moving amendment No. 22 at this stage.

Amendment not moved.

I move amendment No. 23:—

In page 5, before Section 8, to insert a new section as follows and group this section and the succeeding proposed ten new sections in a new Part to be entitled "Part II— Register of Nominating Bodies",—

"(1) A register (in this Act referred to as the register of nominating bodies) of bodies (in this Act referred to as nominating bodies) entitled to nominate persons to the panels of candidates for the purposes of every Seanad election shall be set up in accordance with this Act.

(2) The following provisions shall apply and have effect in relation to the register of nominating bodies, that is to say:—

(a) the said register shall be in such form as the Seanad returning officer shall, with the approval of the Minister, think proper;

(b) no body shall be eligible to be registered in the register in respect of any particular panel (other than the administrative panel) unless its objects and activities relate to or are connected with and it is representative of persons engaged in one or more of the interests and services mentioned in sub-section 1º of Section 7 of Article 18 of the Constitution in respect of that particular panel;

(c) no body which is formed or carried on wholly or substantially for profit or which carries on, as its sole or principal function, any trade or business for profit shall be eligible for registration in the said register;

(d) every body which is registered in the said register shall be so registered in respect of one, and only one, panel;

(e) except as otherwise provided by this sub-section, no body shall be registered in the said register save in pursuance of an application in that behalf made by such body in accordance with this Act;

(f) the following provisions shall apply and have effect in relation to the administrative panel, that is to say:—

(i) the Irish County Councils General Council and the Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland shall be registered in the said register in respect of the said panel without any application in that behalf under this Act, and

(ii) no other body shall be registered in the said register in respect of the said panel unless its objects and activities consist, wholly or substantially, of voluntary social services of a charitable or elemosynary character;

(g) the number of nominating bodies registered in the said register in respect of any particular panel shall be so limited that the full number of persons which may be nominated to such panel by nominating bodies shall not exceed fifteen."

This matter was under discussion in connection with amendment No. 10. It indicates the type of bodies that can be entered on the register.

I take it, Sir, that as far as possible we shall limit the discussion on this particular matter to the nominations. I do not know whether it would be possible to avoid reference to the electing bodies owing to the close connection between the nominating and electing bodies, but this amendment, I take it for granted, deals merely with the question of the nominations. We regret, despite the many opportunities that were given to the President and despite, I might say, repeated challenges, that he has, as yet, given us no intimation whatsoever either here or elsewhere, as to the type of body he has in mind as nominating bodies. There is just a slight reference in one of the sub-sections of this amendment. That is in reference to the two bodies which have been already mentioned in the course of the afternoon, the Irish County Councils General Council and the Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland. Otherwise, we are completely in the dark as to what the Government has in mind. If we were paying the slightest attention—far be it from me to ask the House to do anything of the kind—to the conduct and the proposals of the Government, we might say that they have no nominating bodies. I have listened to all the arguments in this House and I have come to the conclusion that the one view to which they would seem to be committed is that vocational organisation in this country is so unsatisfactory that a vocational Seanad, in the proper sense of the word, is out of the question. If it is so unsatisfactory, then I say we have no knowledge of what the Government means by their plans, though we are not now dealing with the vague abstractions that are strewn through the Constitution—and how vague it is we are beginning to discover every day that we spend considering these implementing Bills. We are not now dealing with the vague abstractions of the Constitution; we are dealing with implementing Bills. Here we have a provision regarding nominations and we are told by the President that the purpose of the provision is to lead practically, though in an indirect fashion, to election of half the Seanad by outside bodies, or, so that the President may not trip me up on any mere play of words, to give nominations so much to outside bodies and to make other provisions so as to effect that at least one-half of the people nominated by the outside bodies shall be elected on the Seanad. That is the purpose, I take it, of these outside nominating bodies and yet the House is completely ignorant as to what the Government has in mind. Never have they given us the slightest hint of the type of body they have in mind.

As early as the Second Reading the President was asked in this House to name in the Bill the bodies he had in mind for the first Seanad and then, by all means, to make provision for the annual revision of that particular set of registers of nominating bodies. But not merely has he failed to do that, not merely has he never addressed himself to that particular problem, no matter how frequently it is brought before his mind—I suppose that is what he calls keeping an open mind in the matter, letting it in in one ear and out on the other—not only has he not done that, but so far as this actual provision is concerned, he has not given us a single hint. As I say, the only bodies that were mentioned up to the present include one which, in its composition, is the most flagrantly political body in Ireland—the County Councils General Council—while the other is the Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland. These are the only bodies that are mentioned. As far as the various other panels are concerned, there has been no hint as to what the President has in mind. He cannot complain that he has not had opportunity enough to give us that information. At one time, as Deputies may see from the report of the Special Commission, there was a hope that we would know where we were but that hope, like most of the other hopes that were based on the aspirations of the Government, was doomed to complete disappointment. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, backed up by his colleague the Minister for Agriculture, promised us not merely the nominating bodies but the electing bodies. Yet, we are still here and the House and the country is completely ignorant of the type of body the President has in his mind for four out of five of these panels—the cultural panel, the agricultural panel, the panel for industry and commerce and the labour panel.

We may be referred to the Constitution, but surely that is not enough. A vague aspiration, or what the President would call a "hankering", expressed in the Constitution is not enough to tell us what he has in his mind. I do not ask him now what is here in the Bill but what is in his mind as regards these things. There is a reference in the Constitution to labour, organised and unorganised. What body does he propose, or what body has he in his mind, for the purposes of nomination, for the unorganised labour side of the labour panel? I presume that he had something beyond a mere abstract general gesture. He must have had something definite in his mind. He might enlighten us in that respect. Where are these bodies? We tried to put up proposals, at least for the purpose of discussion, in order to suggest to the House that they could proceed along these particular lines. We did not simply sit back and say: "Let somebody else do this." We realised that legislation was being proposed. Therefore we made proposals. We were quite ready to consider any amendments along the lines of a suggested addition to or deletion from the bodies that we put down in our amendment, but the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the President and other Ministers, with all the resources of the Government at their disposal, with all the information in the different Departments at their disposal, completely failed to give the slightest assistance in that respect. Members can see that from the report of the Special Committee. Therefore, we are now discussing a Bill, and we do not know what it means in reality. We know what it means in the abstract perhaps, but what it is going to mean in the concrete we still have no idea. As I say, the opportunity was there for the President to name those bodies. He has been months talking in and out and round about all this subject of vocational representation, and not an iota has been added to the information which the country has.

We did make a suggestion as regards the nominating bodies. We made a suggestion for both nominating and electing bodies. If there was anything at all in what the Constitution pretended to mean, or, to use the grandiose phrase of the President, in the general principles that were enshrined in the Constitution, if those principles were not so sacredly enshrined that they were too sacred to touch, we thought we might make some advance along the lines of those principles enshrined in the Constitution. Yet no effort to give any practical effect to the principles so enshrined has been made. We did make a proposal. We admit that our vocational organisation is not perfect. It is far from perfect. The President read out—why he read it I do not know, except perhaps to waste a little time—on the last day a long passage from the report of the Special Seanad Commission that he set up, showing that there was no necessity that those bodies should be perfect from the purely representative point of view. With every word that he read out we were in full agreement. We stressed all those things. There is no necessity that they should be perfect. There is no reason for it, as the President pointed out. In fact he would be very much opposed to the idea of their being fully representative in the sense of their being elected by all the different classes of people. Yet, when a definite proposal is made, he has nothing to say to it, and gives no information about his own concrete ideas.

We took the cultural panel; we proposed that you group people in various ways and let them nominate for the Seanad. Let them even elect for the Seanad, but that is a matter with which we can deal more fully afterwards when we are dealing with the question of election. He mentioned certain things which are in the Constitution and in his own original Bill. We showed how, at least in regard to that panel, a beginning could be made. We then took the agricultural panel. There again something can be done. The Minister for Industry and Commerce tried to prove that we were inconsistent, notwithstanding his strong attack on the President and consistency in a general way when he turned around to his Leader and referred to consistency as being the hobgoblin of little minds, forgetting, or at least not foreseeing, that in the course of that same debate the President was to spend most of his time proving how consistent he was. In practically all that speech on Thursday last we heard: "I was never against so-and-so,""I always stood for this." We heard "I, I, I" from beginning to end —he was proving how consistent he is. Possibly he has inflicted that on his colleagues in the Executive Council to such an extent that they cannot help occasionally breaking away from that principle of "I, I, I" on consistency. Whether or not he is suffering from "the hobgoblin of little minds"— to use the Minister's phrase—I will leave as a matter between the Minister for Industry and Commerce and himself.

We did make the suggestion that of the 11 representatives of agriculture six should be elected by the members of the county councils voting on the basis of proportional representation. The Minister for Industry and Commerce says we are inconsistent because we object to the power that is given to the county councils in this Bill. There is a drawback even from our point of view in the purely political character of our county councils, but may I point out that it affects only the election of six Senators, and having got no help from the Minister for Industry and Commerce or from the Minister for Agriculture as to the vocational bodies that might be used for that particular purpose, we suggested that method of electing six. We kept the President's own 11. We did not want a dispute on small points. We said: "Let six be nominated and elected by the county councils." In regard to other organisations interested in agriculture in the country—cattle organisations and other bodies—we proposed that they nominate and elect. Now, what bodies has the President in mind for the purpose of nomination to that particular panel? There is no indication. We are asked to give not merely to an entirely unknown body of men, but to an unknown set of societies, the practical power of nominating, and the practical power of electing half the Seanad. We are given no indication of the type of body which the President has in mind. The only thing we got from him the last day was that he would like those to be as few as possible. They are so few up to the present that he has not mentioned one in regard to four of the panels. Possibly he has something in his mind, but we are being asked to legislate in this vague way.

We then come to the labour panel. In the Constitution you have labour, organised and unorganised; you have got to have vocational representation for unorganised labour. I want to point that out. That is the aspiration; that is the hankering—vocational representation for unorganised labour; but you are not to give all unorganised labourers a vote, because I gather from another portion of his speech that if there is anything which the President would abhor and which would be entirely contrary to the principle of a vocational Seanad, it would be that all the people of a certain class should be collected together into a register and should vote. He has apparently some body in his mind that will nominate and ultimately elect that will unorganised labour. We are waiting to hear what it is. We are waiting to see the creation of a body that will not be organised, seeing that the idea of unorganised labour voting from a separate register has practically been ruled out already by the President. We come then to the industrial panel. Again I want to point out that no assistance whatever has been given by the Government. There are bodies; I understand that the President has been interviewing some bodies, and he has given to those men—apparently men of great faith—the impression that he is serious about a vocational Seanad. I know how the President, in action, entirely belies his impressions and words.

Again, if those bodies are there and if they are capable of nominating, let us know who they are. What type has the President in mind? Let him give us as complete a list as he possibly can. Let him not say, "It will be a matter for them to apply, and for the Seanad returning officer to decide as to their qualifications." That simply means: "I do not know what I mean, but I hope that a civil servant will find out I mean something and will try to find out what I do mean. My mind is open; in other words, my mind is empty on that particular matter. Therefore, I rely on an efficient civil servant to get me out of that particular mess." But surely, even if he does not want to put it in black and white, he ought to be in a position to tell the Dáil what he means and what, in the concrete, this proposal means? If these bodies can nominate so as to secure the election of half, they are good enough, in my view, to elect to the panel. Whenever the President professes any ideals I get very much afraid, as a result of experience, that they are not going to be carried out. It would seem that he is satisfied, as he was in the case of the Constitution, with a mere profession of ideals, but that he does not intend to give any reality to these professions.

There are several bodies indicated in the amendments. The President could have put before the House the type of body he has in mind for the purpose of nomination. He has failed to do so, and until he does so the Bill, to a person really interested in how it is going to work out, does not have its proper meaning. What we want is not a mere declaration of general principles, but of concrete proposals. We proposed certain things in a Schedule. We never said that that Schedule was complete. We put it forward and indicated ways in which it could be amended, increased and developed from time to time. Surely, that was the fairest way to treat the country and the Dáil? We are now asked to pass a measure and it remains the task of the returning officer of the Seanad, with a vague committee of 15, to decide what these bodies will be. If ever there was legislation in which important matters are thrust out of the Dáil, which ought to be the legislating Chamber, and put on the bureaucracy, this seems to be an outstanding case.

I am not now dealing with complicated questions of industrial administration or local government administration or anything of the kind, where simply you may have to satisfy yourself with laying down general principles and then saying that these will be worked out in details in the Department. It should be remembered that we are dealing here with the creation of one of the legislative Houses of this State, and matters such as I am dealing with ought not to be left vague. We ought to know what these proposals are. They ought to be set down definitely in the Bill. Months ago the President came before us with a Bill and we were told that the Government were to make the appointments of nominating bodies, the Government acting on the advice of the different Ministers. Supposing that this Bill were now the law, unamended, the Government would be in a position to name those bodies that they were originally going to name as the nominating bodies. In the circumstances, why did they shrink from putting them in the Bill? They shrank from putting them in the original Bill and they left it in the power of the Ministers to mention nominating bodies. They scrapped the old Bill and now they have introduced what they consider a better Bill, and still they refuse to give us any idea of what these nominating bodies will be like.

When we came to the administrative section, we thought that there the Dáil could nominate and elect. We did not lay down, as the President did, that no other body except a favoured few could be brought in for the purpose of nominating to the purely administrative side. I am not now referring to voluntary charitable organisations. Even if we did make the Dáil the nominating body, it was always open to add to it for nominating and electing purposes. The President, who is so shy and modest through the rest of the section, so absolutely dumb as to what he has in mind—I assume he has something in mind; I am most charitable in my attitude towards him —becomes suddenly vocal when it comes to getting a favoured position for the most strongly coloured body, politically, in the whole country, the General Council of County Councils. Of course he is innocent—I admit he is innocent; but the humour of the situation is increased by the serious face of the President when he tells the House that he is ignorant of the political complexion of the General Council of County Councils, and of county councils generally.

I am given to understand that at the final rally in College Green, on the occasion of the last local elections, the President dwelt on the absolute necessity of electing county councils of a particular colour. He was merely finishing the campaign which his Ministers had waged throughout the country, and now he comes here and tells us that he never knew what the result was!

That is a very free translation.

He tells us here that he does not know the political composition of the county councils. There is a certain well-known screen artist who makes his living by getting in and out of comic situations, keeping a serious face the while. In that way the President is very like Buster Keaton. He comes here and tells us, with a perfectly serious face —that is the amusing thing, the face is quite serious: "I really do not know what the political composition of the county councils is."

Neither does the Deputy at the moment.

It is a peculiar statement, for a man whose Ministers stumped the country to get them of a particular complexion. On the last occasion I think I indicated for the President the political composition of a couple of provinces. Perhaps it was one of the things that went in his one ear and out the other.

The Deputy referred only to some.

I admit I referred only to some, but what I am proving was that they were elected on a partly political ticket. I ask anybody to read all about that campaign in which the President took such a noble part, ending up in College Green by addressing a meeting, according to the Irish Press, of 8,000 persons. It is almost high treason for the “Press” to suggest that there were only that number present at the President's great rally. At that rally he solicited support for the Government candidates, and yet, notwithstanding that great campaign which he and his Ministers carried on all over the country, he now professes that he does not know the result, and he tells us that with a perfectly serious face.

We have here a proposal giving certain authority to one body, the political composition of which the President knows nothing about, is quite innocent of. When it elects representatives elsewhere, it is marvellous how that political body does happen to elect eight Fianna Fáil people to a certain body in which I am interested. Of course it was pure chance, and they were elected merely because they were the best educated that could be had; they were elected because they represent education better than anybody else in the country, and it was a pure accident that on several occasions they were all Fianna Fáil. The repetition of this accident is amazing, and the innocence of the President is simply astounding. We have had several instances of it at different periods of his career. The only panel in respect of which the President has given us any information about the type of body he has in mind is the fifth panel. There he chooses two bodies, and one of them is the most definitely-coloured political body in the whole of Ireland. He takes that body out and gives it special, honourable mention. Possibly he will say that he is more ignorant about the bodies for the other panels than he was about the political colouring of this body. Not merely does he single out this body, in his innocence of Party politics, but he says that no other body of that type will go on the list. The two bodies he mentions cannot be put off or added to after-wards—he legislates to that effect. If other bodies should crop up in future, it will not be possible to include them except by means of an amending Bill. He is giving a position of extraordinary preferment to this particular body.

When it comes to nominating bodies I think he should set them out in the Bill so that the House and the country may know where they are. If there is one thing the President does like to give, it is advice. When he was sending an envoy to Australia, I think, on one occasion, he told him to "Keep them guessing."

I should like to know in what document that appears.

The person concerned is, unfortunately, dead, but the President, I think, gave that advice.

He gave it to a U.S.A. delegate going to Russia.

It is part of his general tactics to "keep them guessing".

There is no guessing about this.

Can anybody tell me what the President means about the four other panels? That is the way he treats the Dáil and the country. We shall have an opportunity later of dealing with the prophecies—I do not like to call them threats—of the President. The President's threats are always prophecies. Deputies will notice that, at the end of his speech on last Thursday, he was merely prophesying. The worst of the President's case is that his aspirations, or "hankerings", as he calls them, never come true if they are any good, but his prophecies, which the ordinary man in the street regards as threats, have an unholy habit of coming true. The President often helps them to come true.

Here we are at this stage of the Bill without any information on the point on which the President was repeatedly pressed for information. We are asked to pass a blank cheque. To whom? To the returning officer, whoever he may be, supervised, but not controlled completely, by a Committee of this House. Unless his decision is turned down by nine members, it will hold good. That is what we are asked to do. And that, if you please, is democracy, according to the President. At this stage of the President's career, democracy has not once again been found out—yet. I have no doubt, however, that if the President finds that it is incapable of permitting him to govern as he desires to do, not merely will proportional representation go but it will go hard with democracy. He will not abolish it, but he will sadly prophesy that that will be the result. As we are dealing with nominating bodies, we should know where we are, and the President should name them in the Bill and make proper provision for amendment as regards these bodies as time goes on and as circumstances demand.

I made a few remarks before in connection with these nominating bodies. I am afraid I was not very fortunate in understanding the President's remarks about the way this country ought to be organised vocationally. Be that as it may, I suppose we have to face the situation as it is. Deputy O'Sullivan has been interested in the fifth panel. I should prefer to make a few remarks about the fourth panel, which relates to industry and commerce. As I understand, there are to be 15 nominating bodies allowed in and then the door will be shut. Apparently, there is no machinery for taking these bodies off the register if they become moribund, unless the returning officer acts. The selection will be absolutely at his discretion. I have tried to imagine the names that would be sent up—probably very soon after the list had opened—for Panel No. 4. I have put down in numerical order the following bodies:—(1) Royal Institute of Architects; (2) quantity surveyors; (3) civil engineers; (4) electrical engineers; (5) mechanical engineers; (6) chartered accountants; (7) incorporated accountants; (8) Bankers' Institute; (9) technical education; (10) Saorstát Federation of Industries; (11) Waterford Chamber of Commerce; (12) Galway Chamber of Commerce; (13) Dundalk Chamber of Commerce; (14) Limerick Chamber of Commerce; (15) Sligo Chamber of Commerce. I jotted these down after a few minutes' consideration. Having got these 15 bodies, I imagine that the returning officer will declare the list closed. I tried, then, to think of some of the people who might be left outside the panel. I am sure that Deputies will readily think of bodies who ought to be included in the fourth panel.

Amongst the bodies which would find themselves left out are the Chamber of Commerce, Dublin, and the Chamber of Commerce, Cork, and all employers' associations representing specific industries. I do not know whether the President has the idea that where such bodies are arranged in groups of employers in a particular industry they would be proper people to nominate to this fourth panel. If that is so, I can imagine some employers' associations being affected. You have some purely general associations dealing merely with labour questions, and then you have these specified in respect of industries such as building, breweries, distilleries, iron foundries and a host of other specialised industries which would presumably be shut out. I cannot think that that would lead to efficiency. It would lead, in my opinion, to tremendous discontent among the people who were omitted. They might have been late or somebody might have got in before them, but I presume that the officer responsible for compiling the register would require them coldly to get back, telling them that it was not in his power to take in more than 15. I think the President has complained about the remarks in this connection being too general, and I should like him to answer specific questions such as these I have put to him, as to what will happen when desirable bodies, which feel they ought to have the right of nomination, find themselves shut out. I suggest to the President that it would lead to the most awful discontent.

There is another aspect of this question, and it is that, when there is so small a panel, it will lead, I am afraid, to the lobbying of these nominating bodies in order to get particular individuals elected to represent the Government. It might occur to somebody that in the Chamber of Commerce in a particular town there was a very desirable person whom the Government would like to see nominated to the panel, and I am sure that representations would be made that such a person would be very acceptable and that if he were nominated, he would be almost certain of election to the Seanad, and that if he were not, they would just have to run a risk. I should like the President to deal with specific problems such as these.

This is a very difficult amendment to discuss because it undoubtedly raises the whole Government scheme of nomination, and in order to have that understood, a great deal more has to be investigated than the points raised by Deputies O'Sullivan and Dockrell. I do not pretend to be speaking in any exhaustive way of the proposals before the House, but I can summarise the main proposals in this way, that, first, there is to be a gentleman called the Seanad returning officer, and I want to put him in the forefront of this argument because I consider far too much power in the way of exclusion is being given to this person of whom we, as yet, know nothing. The only evidence given to the House in connection with this gentleman is that he is likely to be a civil servant. I regard that as most ominous, because, in any ordinary type of Government, a civil servant ought to be the person who could be most relied upon from the point of view of impartiality, but the procedure of the present Government with regard to civil servants is such as to induce a feeling of insecurity amongst civil servants, and the greater the feeling of insecurity induced amongst civil servants, the greater must be the feeling induced for that reason amongst people considering this Bill that the civil servant to be appointed to fill this very important post will be a person definitely obedient to the dictates of the Government.

A scheme discussed here recently was discussed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce entirely on the basis that, this being a small body, any single member of which could elect two people, they could elect their own brothers and sisters, and the whole of the scheme which fell for consideration in this House was debated on the lines that 22 people put on the electoral college were going to be of the type who would be guilty of the most blatant type of partisanship in regard to their own relatives. If that was proper in regard to an amendment which was very seriously and sincerely put down, and which should have been properly debated, I suggest that there is great reason to have the question of the Seanad returning officer discussed in relation to the Government's activities in connection with civil servants. There is no necessity to stress this point too far because the House is too well aware of what happened with regard to a particular civil servant—how he was dismissed, the reasoning, or attempted reasoning, given here to justify that dismissal, and the feeling of insecurity which has been left in the public mind with regard to the possibility of a civil servant hereafter being found who will act in an independent and impartial way.

We have it fairly clearly from the Government that the person to be appointed is a civil servant. We have no very clear statement of their point of view as to his position. It might have been, although a wasteful extravagance, something tending towards security from the angle of impartiality, if that man were to be appointed for all time to a post from which he could not be dislodged save in the way that, say, judges are dislodged, and his salary not to be interfered with except on similar lines. In that way, we might have, provided always that the first nomination were a proper one, reliance on this man conducting his duties in a way in which, under this Bill, he should conduct them, but we have no such security. We start with this point of view, that the Seanad returning officer may be a man who will have learned his lesson from the victimisation already put by the President and his Government on one very distinguished civil servant.

I objected on the previous day to the raising of this matter here. Phrases like "victimisation" are being bandied about when there is no question of an opportunity of replying to these statements. I suggest, Sir, that it is not in order.

I am not objecting to any reply that is necessary, but I am entitled, I say, once we have a person given the important position which the Seanad returning officer will be given, to canvas whether or not the conditions of his employment, and particularly in the circumstances of recent Government practice, are such as enable the civil servant so appointed to carry out his duties in an impartial fashion. I suggest they are not, and I suggest that the civil servant so appointed will have learned from the past, and will learn further from this. He will read this measure and he will see the whole objective—the getting together of a political body, and he will know that he is thrown in as one of the persons to help in getting a political body. That will be more or less the terms of reference to him. Let us consider what his powers are. Firstly— and here I skim over the details of the nominating system—bodies are to apply to get on the register of nominating bodies. The Seanad returning officer is given terms of reference which are not in the Constitution. Again I stress that. He is given terms of reference which are very distinctly narrowed down in relation to what is in the Constitution. He is given particular terms of reference in (c) of sub-section (2) of amendment No. 23. He is not to allow on a body "which is formed or carried on wholly or substantially for profit, or which carries on, as its sole or principal function, any trade or business for profit." Of course, he is not to allow on any body when he thinks it is ineligible, that is to say, if he rules that its objects or activities are not within the conditions set out in the Constitution. The Seanad returning officer has a great capacity for excluding, and he is tied by terms of reference that are not in the Constitution. Think of the terminology. He has to take into consideration a body which is formed or carried on wholly or substantially for profit. Apart from the forms and the objects of a body which is "carried on wholly or substantially for profit, or which carries on, as its sole or principal function any trade or business for profit," you have the vague words "its sole or principal function, any trade or business for profit". One man is given power to determine with regard to a given number of corporations whether these terms apply, and to rule them out. He cannot induce legislation. All he has to do is to lop off people who make application for nomination.

In addition, there is the point that Deputy Davin mentioned. He cannot allow more than 15. He has, at least, terms of reference of a numerical type. He is compelled to register in such a way that the full number of persons nominated shall not exceed 15. There is a later term which says that if there is more they are allowed to a point over one. He must close down when he gets 15. He may re-open later, because he can disqualify. Let us take it that the Seanad returning officer rules and disqualifies on the special terms of reference. There is then an Appeals Committee. Remember we are thinking of a political officer, and a political electorate in the background. What is the returning officer to do? He has to revise, and the type of revision is such that he cannot be reversed unless nine out of 15 vote in favour of reversing.

Think of the present Dáil. That means that unless the Government nominees on the committee vote in favour of reversing, the Seanad returning officer acts, and in the background there is the further body, the electorate. The Seanad returning officer excludes, so far as he thinks it wise, and a body excluded by him, on his reading of the general terms of reference, can only achieve reinstatement on the panel if the Government nominees on the revision committee allow it. The list is ruled. We were told that one of the objectives of this plan was that the Dáil on dissolution would drag down the Seanad with it, so that each Dáil on coming into being would be able to remake the Seanad. We found out that that was not the position under the last Bill, because the Minister had the right to restrict nominating bodies and could bind successors in office. What is the point here? On the 25th March in each year an annual panel is established in the same way as the first panel. The Seanad returning officer rules by excluding, a political committee of 15 is constituted, and unless nine vote against, a person who is put up cannot get on.

The list is ruled on the 25th March, and if a general election occurs in the summer, when the Dáil returns, if it wants a wider body nominated or a greater number nominated, or a group nominated so that they can vote for people emerging from the panel, they are tied by what their predecessors left them. A stage is reached called ruling the provisional panels, and I find certain contradictions in different amendments that were put down, because at one time the Seanad returning officer "shall prepare in respect of each panel a provisional panel," without inquiry into the validity of nominations and without regard to duplication, although we are told in Section 14 (3) that he is to have regard to duplication from nominating bodies. In Section 15 he is to regard duplication when it comes from members of the Dáil. In any event, he rules the provisional panel. Later on, the same returning officer examines nominations and rules on the validity of these nominations. Having done that, on the basis of the qualifications of the candidates, he determines in respect of each person whether that person is qualified or not, and deletes people who, in his opinion, are not qualified. Then we have the judicial referee, the President of the High Court, who is to sit and decide. What questions come before him? Look at the words of amendment No. 69:

(2) The Seanad returning officer may, on his own motion, and shall, if so requested by any person whose name is on the provisional panel for the time being under consideration or by the agent of any such person, refer to the judicial referee any question arising during the completion of the panels in relation to any nomination paper, the nomination of any person to a panel, the qualifications of any person for a panel, the statement by the Seanad returning officer of such qualifications or any other matter connected with the provisional panels.

In other words, the Seanad returning officer is the only answerable body if someone who has survived under the original panel raises a question as to disqualification of any person. Naturally, if the panels are closed, it is asking a little too much of a man who has survived all the processes of disqualification and invalidity to raise a question about the disqualification of person who is disqualified cannot raise it. The only person who can raise it with the judicial referee is the man who has remained on the panel. It is very difficult to know where we are, because I find that there are two stages of professional panels. I am not definitely clear that there is a stage reached in regard to the provisional panel, referred to as "ruling of the provisional panel" when the Seanad returning officer has cleared the list by the exclusion of those disqualified. The position appears to be that the Seanad returning officer has immense power and excludes effectively anyone he excludes.

It is easy to parade before the public that this scheme for a judicial referee does not rule the list, but if it is only possible to have a question of exclusion and the grounds involved raised by a person who has not been excluded, it does not appear to be a great safeguard. There is peculiar duplication. There is another amendment of the same type—amendment No. 70—where we are told that various questions can "be raised by the Seanad returning officer or by any person whose name is on the provisional panel for the time being under consideration or by the agent of such person." It appears that in order to get into the position of raising a matter when the judicial referee determines, one has to survive after the powers of disqualification in the hands of the Seanad returning officer have been fully exhausted. That is the position with regard to the Seanad returning officer. He is a person of considerable power. He excludes but, apparently, may not reinstate. He may close the list at a certain time. He is bound to close the list at certain times. He may be reversed by the Government nominees on a political committee. Remember, as far as that is concerned, that the nomination part never comes before the judicial referee. The nomination part is declared to be final and conclusive when ruled upon by a political committee. You have the situation that the list is closed down effectively after a political committee of the Dáil has had its say on it, and there can be no reversal of the Order unless the Government nominees vote in favour of it.

Deputy Dockrell has raised a point with regard to numbers. Apparently the greatest number of nominating bodies allowed to any panel is 15. Why introduce the element that "voluntary" is to be the operative word in ruling? In page 8 of the amendment sheet, amendment No. 26, sub-section 3, paragraph (b), there is a sub-section which reads:—

"Any body which appears to him to be representative of interests, and services the representation of which is adequately provided for by a body or bodies already registered in the said register or whose application for such registration he has allowed."

Let us consider two bodies that may be covered. There may be overlapping. They may have certain functions which are similar but their activities may relate to the same services. Society A, let us say, is not the better of two groups, but society A applies first. Society B comes along and has better qualifications to be on the panel but, as the panel of 15 is already filled up, the Seanad returning officer has no choice. If society B gives more adequate representation, still it must be ruled out because the panel is already filled, provided that the representation of particular interests that are not common between the two groups is adequately provided for.

We have already spoken of the administrative panel and so I will refer now very briefly to it. There are two panels which must be entered on the register. That registration is couched in very exclusive terms. Practically every act of the Seanad returning officer shall be final and conclusive subject only to such appeal as is provided for—that is, in respect of bodies of a charitable or eleemosynary character. Later on we find that it is possible to have nominations proceeding from the Taoiseach or President of the Executive Council.

The question as to the numbers to be appointed by the panels committee comes in at this point. This is set down in amendment No. 53, pages 16 and 17 of the amendment sheet. There, apparently, the numbers are to be ruled by considering the numbers to be elected. There is already a maximum of 15, but there is this additional provision:—

"If the number of nominating bodies entitled to nominate persons to such panel exceeds the number of members of Seanad Eireann to be elected from persons nominated to such panel"..."each such nominating body shall be entitled to nominate one person to such panel."

There is a descending scale in which they nominate as many as are to be on the panel.

Finally as regards this administrative panel we come to amendment No. 109 on pages 25 and 26, and we find that with regard to seven members to be elected, three are to be people from the nominated bodies, and four are people nominated to that panel by either members of Dáil Eireann or ex-officio nominees. I do not think it worth while discussing any longer what the President knows or pretends to know about the Irish County Councils General Council. It is a political body, and it is made as much a Party body as the present Government found it possible to make it. They have succeeded in making it a completely Fianna Fáil body. At the moment the Government have a right to appoint nominees of public bodies. I may be a member of a body in respect of which the General Council of County Councils have the right to make nominations. Not merely have they the right to make completely political nominations, but they have the right to distinguish between educated Fianna Fáil people in that group and less educated Fianna Fáil people. And they chose the worst persons possible from that body. The nominations which we have got on are completely Party nominations. No one can get nominated there unless he has a special Party complexion.

That is so far as this scheme goes. On the general principles of the scheme surely it is going on wrong lines to have limited nominations and a political electorate. If you are to have a political electorate why limit nominations? Why not have a political electorate composed of a number of men who think themselves fit to be considered in connection with the Seanad? Here you have a very definite limited nomination, and these are given a very definite power. You have the governance of the nominated bodies by a political committee chosen by this House, and you have an electorate reinforced in order to give extra Party strength to that elected body. Even if you are to have your electoral body a political body, what is the idea of limiting the nominations? Why not have any number of nominations allowed? It is not going to cause any great trouble to have a large piece of paper presented to us as a ballot sheet instead of a small one.

If it were thought proper to limit nominations there was the suggestion agreed to by the Special Committee to have a deposit. Having a deposit would not prevent a man standing who believed in his own qualifications. It would not prevent his risking £5 or £10 if he believed in himself. I can see no advantage in limiting nominations, but in this Bill nominations are limited. Not merely are they limited to a maximum of 15, but they are limited by the test to be applied by either a political officer or a political committee. If there is to be some limitation with regard to nominations, I would rather have it something applied to everybody, instead of having a test which is to be enforced by a man who is likely to be a political officer, whether he is or not. Whenever it comes to reversing what he has done, then one must get the assent of the Government Party or the Government Party's nominees before that can be done.

I understand it has been suggested by the Ceann Comhairle that, if this scheme with regard to nomination be passed, it will rule a number of later amendments in which I am interested, dealing with electoral bodies and not necessarily with nominations. In my scheme I am suggesting that it should be drawn up by the Seanad returning officer, brought before the House and debated as if it were an extra piece of legislation to deal with the machinery. If I am to discuss the whole question of the electorate on this, then a new series of arguments will have to be addressed to the House. The one question that I would prefer to discuss on this is that of nominations. I do not see why anything in connection with the electorate should not be left over until we come to amendments Nos. 90 and 91. My idea with regard to nominations is that that whole matter should be dealt with as a piece of machinery. Amendment No. 36 deals with nominations. The only piece of legislation that it requires, after a few definitions, is a clause stating that the bodies set out in the Schedule would have the right to elect the number of Senators set opposite the name of each body, and that, as far as the machinery is concerned, that is a matter which should be dealt with later by Order.

The idea is to put on the Seanad returning officer the burden of drawing up a scheme which would not be completely under his control or under the control of a political majority. The scheme would make provision for the various matters set out. It would be brought before the House and would be capable not only of acceptance or rejection but of being amended in any and every detail. As far as the nominations are concerned, I have no particular scheme down. From the point of view of myself and my colleagues we indicate by what we have done that nominations be made by members of Dáil Eireann. We do not care how many people are nominated. We give an unlimited right of nomination to members of the Dáil. If it be thought well, let there be the requirement that there should be a proposer and seconder, but let members of the Dáil propose and second until they are tired of the job. The only way that we wanted a closing down in that respect was by saying that any man who thought that his candidature was a fit one to be presented should back himself by making a deposit of £5 or £10, the deposit to be recovered only if his own view of himself was borne out by the people who elect him. In other words, that only successful candidates would get their deposits returned. The idea behind that was to keep a lot of foolish nominations from being brought forward.

We think that this electoral body we envisage should have as big a number of candidates as possible before it so that it will be able to make a proper choice. It may be said that the fact of a big number of people presenting themselves will cause a certain amount of embarrassment: that there will be a host of people clamouring for one's vote through the agency of canvassing. I suggest that the fact that there is a big number of candidates will lessen the impact of that appeal, and that in this matter there is a great deal of security in numbers. I do say that we ought to make the field as wide as possible. I do not see what virtue there is in this closing down of nominations.

At this point I would like to have a ruling as to whether it is imperative that I should now debate the question of the electorate. I have a scheme in amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 36. This question of the electorate is completely different from that of nominations which we are now discussing. I would prefer to have it left over until we are discussing the contrary types of electorate that are proposed.

Is there not a scheme of electorate complementary to this scheme proposed by the President?

There is one scheme that will be operated by a mixed body —candidates nominated as to one part by nominating bodies, and, as to another part, by members of the Dáil. There is the scheme that I contemplated of people on special registers. I deal with that in amendments Nos. 34 and 35, and in the amendment to the Schedule, No. 110. Then there is my amendment No. 36 proposing that the Seanad returning officer should draw up a scheme.

The Ceann Comhairle has ruled that the decision on amendment No. 23 will govern amendments Nos. 34, 35, 36 and 110.

If that is the ruling I do not think it can be a correct ruling because amendments Nos. 34 and 35 deal with the electorate and not with nominations, and what we are discussing on amendment No. 23 is nominations. I understand that, when we come to the matter of the electorate, Deputy Norton is to be allowed to move an amendment to amendment No. 90. His scheme is for election by the Dáil in opposition to the present scheme of election by the Dáil and the county councils. I cannot understand why my scheme of special registers must be discussed with the question of nominations.

The Ceann Comhairle has already given a ruling on this.

I suggest that the Ceann Comhairle be brought here so that we may have a further ruling. I further suggest that it is not a ruling which should be persisted in. Amendment No. 23 deals with nominations. Why should an amendment dealing with an electorate of one type be ruled as falling with an amendment dealing with nominations, while an electorate of a different type, such as Deputy Norton is proposing to move by way of an amendment to amendment No. 90, is to survive and be open for discussion?

I did not quite catch what the Deputy said with regard to Deputy Norton's amendment.

According to this sheet circulated by the Ceann Comhairle, Deputy Norton would be allowed to move an amendment to meet paragraph (b) of amendment No. 90.

My amendment, Sir, is amendment No. 80, and reads as follows: "In page 11, Section 19, to delete sub-section (1) and substitute the words `(1) at every Seanad election the electorate shall consist of the members of Dáil Eireann.' " It is at the bottom of page 21.

Leaving out of consideration for the moment this sheet sent around by the Ceann Comhairle, it is quite clear that there is a variety of proposals for nomination. We are discussing one of them. There are three proposals with regard to the electorate: one is Deputy Norton's, who desires to have the Dáil, and the Dáil only, the electing body. The second scheme is the Government scheme, which is that the electing body should be the Dáil plus members of the county councils in certain groups sitting together; and the third scheme is my scheme, dealing with the question of special registers for this matter of election.

The position is that Deputy Norton's amendment cannot be moved except in a certain contingency. The purpose of amendment No. 79 is to delete Section 19, and, if amendment No. 79 is moved and carried, it is obvious that Deputy Norton's amendment, the purpose of which is to substitute certain words for a sub-section of Section 19, cannot be moved.

But the ruling made on that by the Ceann Comhairle is to reserve to Deputy Norton the right to move an amendment to delete paragraph (b) of amendment No. 90, because amendments tabled by Deputy Norton for that purpose will fall if Section 19 is deleted as is proposed.

I take it that that right is to be preserved.

But it has to be moved before amendment No. 79.

That may be, Sir, but in any event it is possible to have amendments Nos. 34, 35, 36 and 110 passed over for the moment and brought into consideration. There are three schemes for the electorate, and why cannot they be discussed in opposition one to the other? The third scheme is for special registers. My scheme is a scheme for elections. I have no scheme for nominations.

Would the Deputy hold that his electorate would fit in with the scheme of nominations? I cannot see how it would.

It would. It may not be the most desirable scheme, and it is not the scheme I want, but I would rather have an electorate based upon the special electorate, voting even on the limited nominations contained in the President's scheme.

I should like to point out that, complementary to this scheme of nomination moved by the President here, there is a scheme of election which hangs on that scheme of nomination— it is a unit. Deputy McGilligan's scheme does not seem to me to be of such a nature as would fit in with the scheme of nomination outlined by the President, and the Dáil would be put in the position of stultifying itself if it were to have the two schemes of electorate—the President's scheme and that outlined by Deputy McGilligan.

The gist of amendment No. 34 is that people, who are set out in amendment No. 110—the Schedule—shall by direct election elect members of Seanad Eireann. Now, you, Sir, have ruled that the President's scheme of nomination and election hang together.

I want to find out how they do. The President proposes a system of nominating bodies on a register plus a system of nomination by Dáil members, and the two sets so nominated are to be elected by members of the Dáil and members of the county councils in certain groups sitting together. Deputy Norton has a scheme to the effect that, wherever the nominees come from, the electoral body is to be the Dáil. It is proposed to allow Deputy Norton to debate his scheme of election by the Dáil in priority to the President's scheme. I have a scheme to the effect that the election shall be carried out by people who are grouped together on special registers. That is a contrary scheme to either Deputy Norton's scheme or the President's scheme. I do not care where the nominees come from—I would rather have them come in a particular way— but that scheme of election can apply, and why should it not be debated?

I do not know anything about Deputy Norton's scheme, and I would not be prepared to say whether or not it could be moved. That would depend on a certain contingency, I take it. The position, however, with regard to the President's scheme is, that it is a unit and hangs together, and the Dáil would be put in a position of stultifying itself by having the two schemes—the President's and Deputy McGilligan's. The President's scheme has to be put as a unit to the Dáil, and Deputy McGilligan can discuss his scheme on its merits.

May I take it that the President's scheme of election is the only proposition that can be put if they hang together?

An intimation has been conveyed, through the medium of a document circulated by the Ceann Comhairle, that he would allow the question of reserving the electorate to the Dáil to be decided by means of an amendment moved extemporaneously in connection with amendment No. 90.

Well, I take it so.

What part is the Deputy referring to?

I am referring to (c). The point is, Sir, that my amendments were in before the President's amendments were circulated, and therefore I could not move an amendment to amendment No. 90. There is no amendment by me to amendment No. 90 because it is not possible at this stage. I submit, therefore, that, if I am to be allowed to move an amendment, it must be made extemporaneously.

I respectfully submit, Sir, that it is quite competent for the Dáil to accept the President's system of nomination and then to take Deputy McGilligan's scheme of election as against the President's scheme.

The Deputy can discuss that on its merits.

I am submitting this, with great respect, to the Chair clearly on a point of order. Apart from talking about discussing it on its merits, surely it is quite competent for the Dáil to accept the President's method of nomination and to reject his method of election and accept Deputy McGilligan's or Deputy Norton's method of election?

I submit that the Chair has to deal with the actual situation here. I say that, between Deputy Norton's electorate and the electorate proposed by Deputy McGilligan, in regard to the order, this method of nomination could work with Deputy Norton's proposed electorate, but I confess that I do not see—there may be some way of doing it, but I do not see it—how the other would work with this method of nomination here that I have. The difference is that Deputy Norton's scheme is simply a modification of the electorate I have been proposing, whereas Deputy McGilligan's is quite different. I do not see how nominations coming up in this form could, with any reason whatever, be submitted along with this.

That is a very good argument on the merits, but I submit that it is no valid submission in order that the debate should not take place. I think that, undoubtedly, if a debate is permitted on Deputy McGilligan's proposal for the electorate combined with the President's proposals for nomination, the President's contribution to that debate will be very much just what he has now said. On the merits he will urge the House not to try to combine Deputy McGilligan's electorate with his system of nomination because he will say it will not work. That is no valid point of order. The President must not think that, because he does not like something, it is therefore out of order. That would be a very great illusion indeed. I suggest to the President to subside for a while and let the debate proceed.

The Chair has no opinion on the merits of the various schemes submitted, but the ruling has already been given. My own opinion is that the scheme does not fit in with the President's scheme of nomination. But Deputy McGilligan can discuss at this stage the merits of the particular scheme he outlines.

I am invited to discuss a scheme of election on a proposal about nominations.

I shall allow the Deputy to deal with the matter now. If it is not done now, if this scheme of the President's is carried, it cannot arise afterwards, and I am giving Deputy McGilligan now an opportunity of outlining his scheme.

It is prevented from arising afterwards by the ruling. The ruling is because they do not hang together. What does not hang together? Let the President throw up any group of nominations he likes; I want consideration given to amendment No. 35, which is to insert a new section as follows: "The number of members of Seanad Eireann to be elected from the respective Parts of the Schedule shall be as follows..." That is applicable to a thousand types of nomination. It certainly is applicable to the type put up by the President in his amendment and to what is in the Bill. It is applicable also to my own idea in amendment No. 36. What reason is there for anybody to say that to have an amendment to the effect that certain named numbers set out shall be elected by particular people on particular registers is not applicable to any scheme of nominations? I suggest that it quite definitely hangs with it. My only difficulty is: I will debate this now; then we will debate a proposal which is mainly concerned with nominating bodies to the electorate; when he have finished with that, we will debate another electorate; and then, contrary to that, Deputy Norton's electorate would come in. I will not be allowed to raise the matter of the electorate on the debate, but the moment that debate is over and the section is put, I can raise the matter of the electorate once more. That is duplicating debate and putting it in the wrong place.

As I understood, the decision of the Chair referred to the question of order. The Chair has to order the business of the House, and, as I understood it, the idea was that there were certain nominations and electorates going together as a certain scheme.

Mr. Dillon interrupted.

The Chair does know what is the order made.

The Chair does not order the business of the House.

I understand that the President stated that the Chair orders the business of the House. My understanding is that the Chair does not order the business of the House—it enforces the Standing Orders, which is a very different thing from ordering the business of the House.

The Chair has to rule on the methods by which amendments are to be discussed with reference to each other and to the various sections; that is to say, that there would not be a duplication of discussion. I agree with Deputy McGilligan that a duplication is very undesirable and unnecessary. In this case what Deputy McGilligan wants to say as to his projected electorate should be discussed here. I shall allow him to make his points on that, because, if it is not discussed now, he will not have an opportunity of raising it afterwards. I want to give him an opportunity of making his points now on that electorate.

I submit that it would be completely out of order for Deputy McGilligan to discuss the electorate on the nominations amendment before the House at present.

The whole scheme that the President has proposed is under discussion.

I suggest that it is not. It is clearly not altogether under discussion, because I suggest that it is possible for the President's amendment No. 23 to be carried and yet to have a discussion and another decision taken on Deputy Norton's proposal about the electorate. Therefore, the President's scheme, so far as the nominations and electorate are concerned, does not hang together. It does not hang together in the sense that a vote taken now binds. If it is possible to have another system of electorate discussed, surely it is possible to have a third system of electorate discussed. The only objection made to that so far has been that my scheme of election does not fit in with the President's proposal with regard to nominations. I say it does. I have not found in what respect they fail to fit in. They were meant to fit in, but that is a different matter. There may be be a less meritorious fitting in with the scheme of nomination, but they fit in; the one does not preclude the other. There is no incompatibility between one and the other.

If Deputy McGilligan desires to discuss his scheme of an electorate now, he will be entitled to do so, but, on the ruling of the Chair as circulated, and on my own understanding of the position, I could not allow the matter to be raised after a decision has been taken on the President's scheme.

Does the Chair rule that if the House adopts the President's scheme of nomination we can mention no other electorate except the President's electorate?

It is not alone the scheme of nomination that is under discussion, but the entire scheme of the President.

Both nomination and election? Let us be clear on that. If that is so, Deputy Norton's other electorate is out.

No. I submit that my scheme of electorate is workable, even though the House may adopt the President's method of nomination.

I agree with that, and I suggest that so is mine.

I suggest that the Chair has not ruled on that question as the submissions made now were not made before.

The Chair did rule.

There were no submissions made to the Chair before that.

Under the head of nominations only.

The Chair ruled that amendments Nos. 34, 35, 36 and 110 fell.

Under the heading of nominations—because we move on, under the next heading, to the electorate. So far as there is anything in these paragraphs about nominations, it certainly falls. But how does that work forward to the electorate?

I will only allow Deputy McGilligan to discuss his electorate on the proposal of the President.

I will accept that if necessary, and adopt it now, but I want to protest vigorously that the ruling is completely out of accord with rulings previously given. I asked that the Ceann Comhairle should be sent for to give his mind on the matter, but that has not been done. I think it is a complete limitation of debate, and an unfair limitation of debate, and I protest as vigorously as I can inside the rules of order. I think it is a completely wrong ruling. I think it is a scandalous limitation of the right of debate, and scandalous, especially, in that it is pointed at one form of electorate and not at others.

The Deputy should be careful. I said nothing about the guarantee given to Deputy Norton.

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle founded a lot on the white paper sent round. In so far as there is any guarantee given, it is done in that sheet.

I also want to protest. I have had no guarantee of a personal or private character at all. I got this document, dated 1st December, with the signature of the Ceann Comhairle to it, intimating that he was going to permit my amendment on the subject of the electorate to be moved by me. That is the general ruling by the Ceann Comhairle. I have no special guarantee in the matter, but merely an intimation of the Chair's view.

I have a proposal for an electorate, in amendments Nos. 34 and 35, bound in with amendment No. 36, and getting back to the pure electorate in amendment No. 110. The scheme down there is that the members of the functional or vocational group or association or council set out in this Schedule should then, by direct election, elect certain members of the Seanad. In putting down the amendment, I am leaving the Article in the Constitution under which we are operating at the moment and I am going to the next Article—Article 19. Article 18 states: "The elected members of Seanad Eireann shall be elected as follows", and there follows a provision about the Universities electing members and that "Forty-three shall be elected from panels of candidates constituted as hereinafter provided". After that there follows a limitation with regard to the services and interests to be represented in the Seanad, and so forth. Article 19 then states: "Provision may be made by law for the direct election by any functional or vocational group or association or council of so many members of Seanad Eireann as may be fixed by such law in substitution for an equal number of the members to be elected from the corresponding panel of candidates constituted under Article 18 of this Constitution."

In fine, my scheme goes to the root of the matter by suggesting that the election of the whole 43 shall be done under direct election under Article 19 of the Constitution, instead of having these 43 elected under this system of panels. I want to make a jump immediately from Article 18 to Article 19 and to have provision made for direct election of the whole 43 of the people to be elected to the Seanad. If my proposal with regard to the electorate were carried out, the Bill would consist of nine clauses and the Schedule. We would have the seven clauses already in the Bill, mainly consisting of definitions, and after that we would have three other clauses, one of them saying that the bodies set out in the Schedule shall elect, a second clause saying that they shall elect members associated with the different parts of that Schedule, and a third part which says that so far as nominations are concerned and so far as ruling the date from which membership of the councils shall count, that is a matter of machinery that should not be debated at this point. I want to have a clear-cut scheme that would attract the opinion of people in this way, that they would see that all the Dáil was concerned with was getting a Seanad completely outside the Dáil, and that the way to do that was simply to say: "There is a group which will form a number of Electoral Colleges; let them vote and let them elect a certain number, and let this Dáil have done with it."

In so far as I had any other proposal in regard to the Seanad it was this. I was going to accept a point of view that is not my own. It is a point of view that was impressed upon me as having some value, although I personally did not see a great deal of value in it. That is, that in respect to nominations, we should make a distinction and we should allow certain people to be promoted as candidates by members of Dáil Eireann, and that we should allow outside bodies also to promote the candidature of certain people. Our idea was that the nominations should be as multitudinous as possible. We saw no virtue in restricting the right of nomination. Our idea was to let as many people as were considered worthy, and who were prepared to back their candidature with a £5 note or a £10 note, to present themselves for election. We focused on the electorate.

Now, with regard to the Schedule, it is not complete. It was never intended to be complete. It was not even expected that it would last for the first election without change. It was certainly never expected that it would last for succeeding elections without change but we felt that it was proper to put it down in as concrete form as possible, as an answer to those people who said that there were no functional organisations in this country. Looking at that part of the Schedule, one might easily say that there are many other bodies which should find a place amongst them. Since I put that down, I have had representations from a dozen different bodies. Half a dozen of them were bodies that one would accept immediately as people who should have the right to elect Senators. The mere fact that you can get a number of other bodies like that, bodies who, when they became an electorate, could be expected to send forward good Senators, the mere fact that that can be set down as the only objection, is the completest answer to those who say that there are not sufficient functional organisations to get a Seanad as completely as possible divorced from politics, having before you the objective of the avoidance of duplicating the Dáil. I preface any remarks I am making with the statement that I recognise the incompleteness of the list of bodies named in the Schedule. I regard the fact that suggestions can be made as to their incompleteness as proof of the soundness inherent in the scheme. If this scheme can be objected to, not because the particular bodies are not good bodies, but because there are others who should be associated with them in this election, then I think that is a further argument in refutation of the people who say that these bodies, in sufficient number and of sufficient variety, do not exist.

We are asked to find in Article 18— and it is by some indirect implication dragged over to Article 19—people who have knowledge and practical experience of the following interests and services—national language and culture, literature, art, education and such professional interests as may be defined by law. The professional interests that have been defined by law are, law itself, medicine, including surgery, dentistry, veterinary medicine and pharmaceutical chemistry. The first panel we have got to consider, therefore, is a group of people who might be expected to be good Senators, people who would be suitable as Senators and who would be elected by folk who were interested in, and who had a knowledge and practical experience of the national language and culture, literature, art, education, law and these medical groups. I suggest, in the first place, that persons who are entitled to wear the Fainne, and who have reached the age of 21, should elect one Senator. The point may be raised: why do I take those who wear the Fainne instead of, say, some body like the Gaelic League? I take them because you go further along the road to the promotion of the national language if you select a body of people who have attained some proficiency in the language and who have proved that proficiency, by seeking this particular sign. People who join an organisation, such as the Gaelic League, very often merely render a certain amount of lip service to the language and do not attain the same proficiency in the language. Other bodies may be added of course, but I first put on those who are entitled to wear the Fainne and who are over 21.

Then, we are asked to consider culture and education. We suggest that trained primary teachers, junior assistant mistresses, registered secondary teachers and recognised teachers in vocational schools should be grouped together, get their names on the register and that these people, as one special body, should elect one Senator. We bring that idea of education and culture still further and we say that the managers of primary schools, the principals of secondary schools and the members of county and county borough technical education committees should form another body for the purpose of electing a single Senator.

We are also asked to consider in this sub-head of Article 18 of the Constitution, people who have knowledge and practical experience of culture, literature and art. We suggest members of the Royal Irish Academy, Governors of the National Gallery and members and associates of the Royal Hibernian Academy as a group under that heading. That particular section may be added to it but we suggest that these people are a sufficient nucleus to form a body to elect one satisfactory Senator. Finally, comes the part of Article 18 which was ill-defined in the Constitution but which is somewhat better defined by the proposals in the Bill. We suggest that these last should be put on the register as one of the five classes of the cultural and educational panel, that a register may be easily formed of these people and that they, when it comes to voting, can give us one suitable Senator:

"Subscribing members of the Law Library, members of the Incorporated Law Society, members of the Institute of Journalists, Licentiates of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons and Physicians, Licentiates of the Apothecaries' Hall, and Members of the Pharmaceutical Society."

We deliberately dropped from that list certain people whom it might be thought were included under the heading of "medicine, including surgery, dentistry, veterinary medicine, and pharmaceutical chemistry." We know that there are certain people to be elected from the Universities. We know the composition of the University registers. We know that certain people from the medical, dentistry, and veterinary sciences will come on through those registers, and therefore we confine this list to those members who might be included under that general heading "surgery, dentistry and veterinary medicine," but would not have any opportunity of voting through the Universities. That is why there is included in the panel Licentiates of the Royal College of Surgeons and Physicians, Licentiates of the Apothecaries Hall and Members of the Pharmaceutical Society.

Let me take that panel as one. There is a requirement in the Constitution, as developed by this Bill, that five people should emerge as Senators; that they should be elected from candidates, and that the candidates should have knowledge and practical experience of interests, in this first heading mentioned in the way I have described— the national language, culture, art and so on. The proposal which is before the House is that, with a politically and very politically restricted right of nomination, a political body should sit down and select Senators who will represent the national language, culture, literature, art, education, law and medicine. We suggest it is possible to get a special register or a series of special registers. We suggest that there should be almost unlimited right of nominanation, a political body should sit down and select Senators who will represent the national language, culture, literature, art, education, law and medicine. We suggest it is possible to get a special register or a series of special registers. We suggest that there should be almost unlimited right of nomination, so that those people meeting as a seperate electoral college would have before them quite a big number of candidates whose qualifications would be in accordance with the Constitution, and that then those who are on those special registers would elect five Senators for the five divisions of which I have spoken.

What is the objection to the special registers? It is not going to be difficult to get them together. It is certainly not going to be difficult to get those under the headings (2), (3), (4) and (5). Those who are entitled to wear the Fáiune on a particular date may be a little more difficult, but it will not be very difficult. There is a register of those people. The only thing that is required in that is a ruling as to age. There is no difficulty about getting the register. Are they people who should be allowed to elect Senators? I suggest they are. Is it the objection that they are not complete? Can others be added? I suggest they can. Is it suggested that there are some people on that who should not be on it? I suggest there are not. If those people vote on a list of candidates, with the proper qualifications, presented to them—and I suggest that a big list of candidates with the proper qualifications should be presented to them—are they likely to give us better Senators than the Dáil plus the county councils voting on this politically ruled list, because it will be a politically ruled list when we have gone through the various devices that are in the President's scheme?

The objection, taken in principle, is that there are no vocational councils or bodies in this country. Here are a group; what is wrong with them? Do they represent education, culture, literature, art, the national language, law and medicine? I suggest they do. They may not represent them in a comprehensive way. There are other bodies which may be added. Let us add the other bodies. Are there any other bodies which are missing? If so, then this amendment has erred in one way, but it is a good way. It has called to the minds of people who think there are no such bodies the names of bodies that should be on that list. Let us have them. Let us relate them to the people here. Let us see what category they will fit into, and whether they will give us a better electing authority than what is there.

I suggest that this matter, which has been so vaguely and generally passed over with this phrase that we have not those bodies in the country, can be tested on this panel. It can be tested in the series of special registers suggested and indicated in this panel. I do not know whether when the Constitution was being drawn up, the people who promoted the Constitution knew what type of body they wanted associated with those elections, or knew what type of candidate they wanted promoted for election to the Seanad, whatever the electorate was going to be. If on that occasion they let their minds wander beyond mere phrases, they must have thought that there was no other field for getting good Senators in regard to education except the field that was enclosed and occupied by the bodies I have mentioned in this amendment. Have we left out of this matter any representative of art, law or medicine who should be brought in? I suggest we have not, and I further suggest that if there are to be people elected to the Seanad who will have practical knowledge and experience of the interests of law or medicine, always remembering that the universities are giving certain people already, you will not get them by any easier means than those referred to in paragraph 5 of the first part of this schedule. I pay a great deal of attention to this first panel, not because I regard it as of any greater importance than the four others, but because this whole question as to whether there are vocationally organised bodies can be best tested in that group. There is a group suggested; I want the defects of it exposed.

Let me go on to the third, which is, to my mind, only the second best suggestion. There are to be people elected from candidates who have knowledge and practical experience of this interest and service, namely labour, whether organised or unorganised. The first proposal which we had in connection with the registers was that there should be a special register to elect those 11 Senators, and that that register should be formed from all those people who were contributors to the national health insurance scheme. We felt that if a group had to be taken at this point there could be no better group, no more comprehensive group, from which you could get good Senators elected having knowledge and experience of labour organised and unorganised, than you could get by turning to the register of the contributors to that particular scheme. An objection was raised at once; it was a very numerous body. That in itself is no objection. I do not care how numerous a body is. I do not care what is the trouble that has to be gone to in order to get a suitable register. If we are thinking seriously of a Seanad that is going to be any use to the country in regard to legislation, then the mere question of some trouble that has to be gone to, or some expense that has to be incurred in getting the register together, is of very little account. But a more solid argument was advanced later in the course of our discussions and it was this: that if you had individuals who would like to have their own candidate promoted, and they had to put him before a body of half a million people, then the argument did occur, and with considerable cogency, that those people without an organisation behind them would find it very difficult to get their nominees properly before this huge electorate of half a million people. That particular objection has weight, and some means of overcoming it will have to be considered later. Without a doubt, the proper register for the election of labour Senators is such a register as that. It would be a register of those people who are contributors to that scheme. At the moment there is that objection, and, until some machinery of a State-aided type is discovered—and it can be discovered—and set in motion to help the candidature of people who have no great means of their own, then, with a big electorate, there is the objection that men of merit may fall by the wayside because they are not backed by organisations, and people of less merit, backed by organisations, will get in.

Now we turn to another proposal, and that is that those delegates accredited to whatever is the most recent trades union congress should be allowed to vote for the 11 labour representatives in the Seanad. While I put that forward as the second best, it is still good. It is not as satisfactory as the register form, but if we did get a list prepared in that way, those delegates could be accepted as being definitely of a representative type. They are people with knowledge and experience of a particular character. They have experience of certain matters which it would be well to bring into play. They are men with faculties sharpened by their experience, and we want those faculties brought into play in the Seanad. We feel that the men who would emerge after the test of a ballot would be Senators well able to give an enlightened point of view upon legislation, and they would be definitely associated with a type of specialised experience and knowledge, and that is what we are aiming at in this Seanad.

When we came to discuss the question of agriculture and allied interests and fisheries, we found ourselves in a corresponding difficulty to that which occurred in connection with labour. The obvious electorate for agriculture is again, I think, clear. The obvious electorate is to take all the landholders, those registered as being the holders of certain portions of land. If necessary, if it is thought desirable to weight the vote in any way, we could put down in each case the registered owner of the land, with the spouse of such registered holder. It must be accepted, however, that if you could get a register of the landholders, those people, by their votes, would be likely to give you the specialised representation of agriculture that you seek, better than any other organisation could. Again, there was an objection on account of the number. A suggestion was made that the register might be limited by dividing it, by allotting Senators to landholders according to the valuation of their holdings, or the acreage of their holdings. Again, the objection occurs that this register would be a big one, that it would be cumbrous and that it would entail a great deal of time and expenditure in getting such a register formed. If we were really serious about getting a Seanad properly composed, these arguments about delay and expense would not be of any great substance.

Just as in the Labour panel, a further objection came. It was stated that people who, in their own localities, might be considered very good representatives, might yet be men of not very great means if they were not backed by some organisation of a political type. Without such backing they might find it difficult to get their candidature properly promoted and they might fail to be elected, whereas if there were some provision made by the State in the way of free election literature, or something like that, it might help considerably to get such people elected. This objection was made and accepted, for the moment. It is one to which only a temporary acceptance must be given, because it involves a matter of machinery which could be dealt with if there were more leisure to have this matter discussed thoroughly.

As an alternative we may turn to what is in the second part of the proposal. It may be second best, but in so far as it contains special registers, it is good. In so far as the bodies set out are bodies the members of which might be expected to have a good point of view in connection with men supposed to have knowledge and practical experience of the interests of agriculture, then it is a better scheme, I suggest, than anything that has yet come before us. There is no pretence that it is comprehensive; there is no pretence that every association other than those here mentioned, should be excluded. If other bodies are mentioned possessing better rights, then clearly they should be accepted. If there are any bodies mentioned here not properly based on the words of the Constitution, then let them be excluded. It is only as a second best that this scheme is proposed.

We would give the members of the county councils the right to elect six Senators. We do not consider that, as at present brought together, the members of the county councils are the best possible people to elect those who have knowledge and practical experience of agriculture; but they will do for the time being. In so far as the members of county councils ought to be brought into this matter, they ought to be brought in in connection with a panel with which, in their representative capacity, they have some relation. We do not propose, as in the President's suggestions, to bring them in to vote on everybody, irrespective of the particular knowledge and experience they are supposed to have. We say that out of the 11 suggested for agriculture, six might be elected by the county councils, wherever the nominees may come from. The election would be by the members of the county councils associated together in the one register and voting as one body.

We believe that if we did give the county councils this right to vote for an agricultural group we would help, to some extent, to defeat the growing tendency of introducing party politics into the county councils; we would divert attention back again to the main interests. The county councils are supposed to represent the rate-payers and to be the rural representatives more than anything else. We believe that if we did wrap them by a most deliberate process of directing their attention to one point only, if we wraped them back to their original moorings, that they would help to get a better type of individual representing agriculture and allied interests on the Seanad than would be obtained under the President's suggestion.

We also suggest that the members of the Cattle Traders' Association, having their names classified in one register, should be permitted to elect one Senator; that members of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society and the Agricultural Committee of the Royal Dublin Society, as having a view of agriculture from one angle, might be properly associated and permitted to elect one Senator. I would like to see that group added to, because there would be a smallish register arising there and it may be that they would be overweighted in their particular influence if we give them one Senator. In the absence of any other proposal, we put forward that suggestion. It is meant to induce other proposals by way of addition to this scheme. We also suggest, as two groups that have achieved a certain importance in the country's life, that the beet growers and the grain growers should be allied on the one register and that they should elect one Senator. We suggest, finally, that those who belong to recognised fisher associations should be allowed to elect one Senator.

Again, I want to stress that all this is irrespective of and, in the main, indifferent to the scheme of nominations. The people who are nominated by a variety of processes may arrive on a list of candidates before these electoral groups. These electoral groups can operate on any list of nominees and the question of how the list of nominees is arrived at is almost a matter of complete indifference to this scheme of election.

The fourth panel to which we propose to direct election is described in this way in Article 18 of the Constitution:

"... the names of persons having knowledge and practical experience of the following interests and services, namely:... Industry and commerce, including banking, finance, accountancy, engineering and architecture."

When we first proposed a scheme in connection with this panel, it was definitely indicated that there were a couple of impediments in the way of having a comprehensive scheme. One was that any analysis we were capable of making disclosed no great difference between "banking, finance and accountancy". At the committee, we asked those who brought forward the Constitution to explain this matter to us. We indicated that, like most other people, we should know a banker if we saw him and that we knew what "banking" meant. We also indicated that we knew, with a fair degree of precision, what "accountancy" was, but that what "finance" was, not being banking or accountancy, we did not understand. On that question, we asked for enlightenment.

The only phrase given to us by representatives of the Government on the committee was that "finance" might include stockbrokers, who would not come under either "banking" or "accountancy". Another suggestion that was made—not quite seriously—was that it might include moneylenders. Excepting these two groups, none of the people who had promoted this Constitution seemed to know what the word "finance" was intended to cover in opposition to "banking" or "accountancy." I do not know whether the suggestion that stockbrokers were supposed to be brought in under the word "finance" was meant to be serious or not, but it was offered. Taking these phrases and not pretending to be comprehensive or exclusive, we find that nine members are suggested in the Bill for this division—industry and commerce. We divide the nine in this way: we give two to recognised chambers of commerce. That is to say, those who, on a certain date, were declared to be members of chambers of commerce recognised in our legislation were, on the principle of proportional representation, to elect two members. So far as industry was concerned, we took two bodies mainly spoken of in connection with industry. I think that merely to confine the election to these two bodies would be unwise. I do not think it can be asserted that these two bodies include all the people who are of importance in the industrial life of the country or all the people who can be regarded as having knowledge or practical experience of industry. But let us start with these two bodies. There is the body known as the Federation of Irish Industries and there is the body known as the National Agricultural and Industrial Development Association. There is some process of change or amalgamation going on between these bodies at the moment but, while they stand as separate bodies and until they merge in whatever their new formation may be, they are, I think, the best bodies that can be thought of in connection with industry. We suggest that, under a process of nomination to be achieved by legislation, they should elect three persons. Engineers are brought is as a special feature of the Article of the Constitution. We segregate them and say, "Let them elect one Senator." Architecture is given special mention in the Article of the Constitution. We segregate the architects and say, "Here are recognised associations of architects. Let that group, as one electoral college, appoint a Senator." Accountants are mentioned. There are quite a number of accountancy associations and societies in the country. We group them all together and we say, "Let this group give us one Senator in addition." Finally, we take "banking" and "finance" together because we have not been able to get any discrimination of a reasonable type between the two. We suggest that bank managers, members of the stock exchanges and chairmen of assurance societies, meeting together, form an electoral college for the election of another Senator. That completes four of the five panels.

Why may not these special registers be used, in whole or in part, for the election? We are told by everybody that the aim is to get a Seanad of a specialised type — persons with special knowledge and experience. Do you get these by way of these electoral colleges or by having the Dáil and the county councils operating in the way proposed? I suggest to anybody who has a sincere viewpoint in this matter that if you are aiming at getting a Seanad composed of people with knowledge and experience of a special type, the only way to get it is by having your electoral college built up as we suggest.

These lists may be attacked on a variety of points. It may be said that they are not representative. That is no vice in this matter. Once you get to the point of specialised education, knowledge and experience, you are definitely away from the idea of representation. The idea of representation has been abandoned right through the whole Seanad discussions. If you want representative democracy, then you should get back as quickly as you can to nomination by the Dáil and election by the Dáil. We will get filtration of representation in that way rather than by having nominating bodies and a political group passing judgment on them. The scheme of special registers is the only scheme which can commend itself to anybody who is seriously thinking of building up a Seanad of the type suggested in the Constitution.

There is one great difficulty, and that is in connection with the last panel. It is impossible to know what is meant by the phrase in the Constitution. We got some interpretations of it in the committee. The President, in discussing one of his amendments here, gave an entirely different interpretation. "Public administration and social services," the President says, must run together. He has put a special limitation on the provision in the Constitution by setting out that the "voluntary social activities" must be of a charitable or eleemosynary character. We do not know what the meaning of that is. I went through a number of organisations at the committee and asked whether these were the types of organisation contemplated. I mentioned the St. Vincent de Paul Society and the Indigent Roomkeepers' Association as bodies that should obviously come in. Then, there was the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, a type of body that might conceivably come in. You get into the zone of uncertainty when you think of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, because you do not know whether societies for the alleviation of pain and suffering in the case of animals, as opposed to human beings, are supposed to come in or not.

We thought it better, as a start, to found our effort on the public administration side. In that connection there is the question of the Civil Service. Civil Servants do play a very important part in public administration. Knowing there would be certain objections in connection with the mention of their name, we raised the question at the committee not by proposal but by comments on the proposal which were being examined. We asked whether it was conceived originally that civil servants would come in under this panel and we were told "No." But no real explanation was given as to why civil servants were ruled out. When we came to the Dáil on Friday we were told that if we start to think of the Civil Service we shall have to think of the army and the police. Is it considered that they are possible aspirants as nominating bodies or electors? I am not sure that they might not be brought in at the end. Some of the most recent constitutions of Europe make a special point of bringing in the army officer. Education of the type he has is considered so highly specialised and so vital that army officers are considered the most eligible in certain groups for election to Senates in other countries. Supposing the army and police are not to be brought in, that, I think, should not rule out the Civil Service because "Public Administration" would certainly include the Civil Service. Anybody who understands the phrase at all would think of the Civil Service, but it does not necessarily bring in the police and the army. Their type of experience of administration is somewhat narrow, somewhat limited, somewhat less useful than legislation that may be promoted before the two Houses. We did not bring in civil servants in this case because they are a debatable body at the moment. It is alleged that politics are being induced more and more into their ranks. They are certainly beginning themselves to engage more in political activities than ever before, and, for the time being, although I personally would hold that no panel supposed to elect people with knowledge of public administration is complete unless civil servants, as a body, have a say in the election, we decided to leave them out and to start with a proposal of a particular type and to have it discussed.

Deprived of the civil servants, and having given county councils a place in another panel, we decided that those who would best qualify as an electoral authority under the heading of "Public Administration" would be members of Dáil Eireann. Remember that is only the electorate; it is not the nominating authority. So far as our scheme is concerned, nominations may flow in from a variety of approaches; but we suggest simply that the people who might best pass judgement on those who were proposed to them as candidates having knowledge and practical experience of public administration would be members of the Dáil.

We recognise that there is a certain dual voting there because quite a number of the members of the Dáil are also members of local authorities, and they will be thinking, when voting, of the capacity they have observed in local administration, as apart from administration of the national services. It is possibly wrong to have left out the civil servants. It is with much less certainly to be said that there is anything wrong in leaving out the police or army. It may be said that we should have brought in these municipal authorities. It would be a wise enlargement to bring them in if they were compatible, as a voting college, with members of Dáil Eireann; but, in the circumstances at the moment, when we knew that objection of a political type would be raised to the inclusion of the civil servants, we decided to leave them out temporarily. Having made provision for the county councils in a very generous and open way, we decided that the best thing to do with regard to this panel was to say: "Let the electoral college be composed of members of Dáil Eireann."

Much more hostile objection may be taken to that last suggestion than to anything else, but, on the whole, when one sits down to think out—and we are not the first people to do it—whether there are any bodies capable of giving a Seanad with specialised experience, knowledge and so forth, one is not appalled so much by the dearth of these organisations as by the difficulty of discriminating between the numerous associations which will present themselves for election under any scheme of this sort. I do not see how anybody who has any knowledge of the country, or has sat down to survey a list of this type, can say, in conscience, that there are not bodies of sufficient number and of sufficient capacity to give an electoral authority of the type required here. The Oireachtas Commission that was established to consider the Second House of the Oireachtas did not go into the naming of these bodies in a detailed way, associating each with a particular number of Senators, but it certainly did give us all of these in outline. They gave us the majority of these, and there are ones which can be excised from their list, as possibly others can be excised from this list, and ones can be added, as we have added here, to the Oireachtas Commission's report. This is proposed as the only way in which the country will easily attain what everybody says he has before him—searching for a Seanad based upon some other principle than that of geographical democracy. They go further and say that the ideal is supposed to be held in common by everybody of a Seanad which is not a duplication of the Dáil and not based on the same principle, but having members with knowledge and experience, some sort of character and ability thrown up by practice of a particular type. It is definitely agreed that this can be got best through registers. Here are registers. Let us have them criticised from the point of view of their sufficiency or insufficiency.

There were a couple of matters raised earlier to which I wish to refer. Firstly, as to the powers of the Seanad returning officer, we have in the Civil Service a number of officers who are exercising functions of a more or less judicial character in respect of which they are given independence by law, and in respect of which they are the deciding authority. I want to know if it has been suggested that there is any interference by the Government with the action of such officers? I do not think there can be any suggestion that there is, or has been, and I regret to hear suggestions of that sort coming from an ex-Minister. With regard to the officer, however, lest there should be a suspicion of that sort, I am having examined—it is being examined at present—the possibility of having an officer who would be appointed specially for the purpose by the Dáil, an officer of more or less the same type as the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The difficulty in that respect is that such an officer must be a whole-time officer, and, if he is to be above such suspicions as those which have come from the opposite side, he must have a certain security of tenure. Again, I take as an example the Comptroller and Auditor-General. In addition to the duties he will have to perform as Seanad returning officer, there are other duties of an analogous character in regard to other elections, and if I am satisfied that the work under that heading would be sufficient reasonably to occupy him whole-time, I would propose the insertion here in connection with that official—it may not be necessary to make the amendment directly in this measure—some provision which would clearly envisage the appointment of an officer of that type. Such an appointment would remove him from the suggestion of being influenced by the Government as a whole, or by the Minister of a particular Department if he belonged to a particular Department.

With regard to his powers in general, I do not think they are excessive. There are two proposals. There is an appeal provided for. In one case it is to a committee of the Dáil, which, we must assume, will only act, and should only act, when it is quite obvious that he has performed his duty in a completely unsatisfactory manner from their point of view. If he is to be in a quasi-judicial position, I think it is reasonable that, if there is to be a reversal of his decision, it should not be by a simple majority of the committee, but by a substantial majority. In regard to the preparation of the final panel, there is a preliminary panel on which everybody who is entitled to be nominated is put. All such persons in that provisional panel are entitled to appeal. Any person whose name is removed from that panel by the Seanad returning officer would be entitled to appeal to the judicial referee. That meets the second point. With regard to the points which Deputy O'Sullivan tried to make—he asked why have all these names not been scheduled in the Bill— I freely confess that if they were definite bodies, standing out as definitely appropriate bodies, it would be the more satisfactory way of doing it, but there are no bodies that stand out so definitely above all others as to entitle them, without considerable examination, to be singled out. Time is necessary for that examination. Inquiries have to be made over a period, and I think we would be acting very improperly if we were to put down a list such as that which Deputy McGilligan has put here in his proposals. The fact that he is able to make a list of that sort is an answer to some of the remarks of Deputy O'Sullivan, that the House had no idea of the type of bodies we have in mind. In one or two cases there is a dearth. Generally the difficulty is not a dearth of bodies, but having too many bodies. As Deputy McGilligan found out, there are people who were found to be as well qualified for inclusion as some of the others. It is true that they may not be included, as Deputy O'Sullivan remarked, when replies are made to the returning officer. Deputy McGilligan's answer to Deputy O'Sullivan is a good one, namely, that you cannot possibly be completely comprehensive. You have only to take certain types of bodies such as the Associated Chamber of Commerce. The existence of that body answers some points that were made by Deputy Dockrell. He stated that 15 would be exhausted fairly rapidly, but in order to exhaust that number he took the Chambers of Commerce of Cork, Waterford and other places, and suggested that by a process of that sort one of these could be left out. Obviously, when you have a body like the Associated Chamber of Commerce, if the Seanad returning officer on examination is satisfied that it is fairly representative, it would be chosen and others would simply be neglected. That is what is meant by saying that he may refuse registration to a body of a character already well covered. It is suggested that 15 is restrictive. I admit that 15 is an arbitrary number. You might as well say 20. The way in which 15 was arrived at was this: if you look at the manner in which it is provosed to divide those who can be elected on each panel from nominations of outside bodies and nominations of the Dáil, you will find that the greatest number that could be elected from outside bodies is five. The idea was to have from nominations of outside bodies a panel of three times the number that could be elected. If there is an objection to that, make it four times.

I do not agree with Deputy McGilligan that it is immaterial if you have a big ballot paper. I think there should be some limitation, whether it is obtained by the method of compelling each candidate to deposit a substantial sum of money, or whether you limit it in the way we suggest. Our view is that by limiting it to 15 you will have a sufficient variety of organisations within that number to be reasonably covered, and, using the phrase that Deputy McGilligan frequently used, to enable you to "throw up" a suitable type of person to be elected to the Seanad. In the main the duty of the returning officer would be to see that you have a sufficient variety to enable that varied group of candidates to be "thrown up". As 15 is three times the number that can be elected, it does not seem unreasonable. Then you will have nominations from the Dáil. In regard to unorganised labour, and perhaps to a lesser extent to agriculture, so far as they would be got from bodies like county councils, you will have nominations from the Dáil, and an indication of that is given in the Constitution. It does not say that all those classes must be represented. The Constitution refers to the class of person that may be represented. If you make reasonable provision so that you will get people to correspond to that description, you fulfil any obligations laid down there. Deputy McGilligan's general scheme of electorate seems to me to be cumbrous. He admits that at the coming election it would not be possible to work the whole scheme out. I think that if you were to adopt a scheme of that kind you would have to have a different conception of the work.

Different from what?

Different from that of the vocational groups and organisations we have in mind.

Who has in mind?

The word "group" is used, and obviously if you have to work on the idea of vocational councils you would expect to have organisations other than those, and not merely allowing people to get on certain registers and having a much more complicated general election. That is what it would mean. As far as I can see, it would mean setting up registers all over the country and allowing people on these registers to vote. It would be another complication generally. We do not think there is any justification for that. I repeated several times the stand we are taking, that we are not sufficiently organised in a functional manner to allow the Seanad to be elected completely by functional bodies. This is a compromise, an attempt to meet the situation we have at present, to try to get the type of Seanad envisaged in what is called a minority report, with the means at our disposal. Deputy O'Sullivan said that was all in the air. The feeling in the House is that the existence of a body such as his colleague Deputy McGilligan put down is an indication that there are such bodies.

On the whole case there is a great deal of duplication.

As the President mentioned that point, perhaps he would indicate whether he is now satisfied that Deputy McGilligan's amendment speaks the Government's idea on that. Can we get some idea of what is the Government's idea?

There has been from the beginning a clear understanding. It was given already in the report of the Seanad Commission.

From the Government.

But that is not the law. It is what will be in this Bill will be law, not what we have in mind. I indicated quite clearly a few moments ago that we are not in the position in which we can pick out one of these bodies to the exclusion of others that exist, in certain cases. You have the case of the administrative panel which of its very nature is clearly of a political character. You have bodies that are obviously to be chosen. If the Deputy wants to see the class of bodies that can be got he has only to read his own colleague's amendment, and he will see there quite a number. If he wants to go further and see what are the classes, he can go back to the report of the Seanad Commission, and he will find that under the cultural and educational panel they suggested such bodies as the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, the Secondary Teachers' Association of Ireland, the Bar of Saorstát Eireann, the Incorporated Law Society and the Registered Medical Practitioners resident in the Saorstát. That is the type of selection. It was to be left to the officer whose business it would be to make the necessary inquiry and to satisfy himself that he would get a group of bodies nominated for the various organisations that would fulfil the general conditions of giving to the electorate nominees of such a character that they would feel they would be able to make a choice.

If you take the Agricultural Panel, the suggestion in the report of the Oireachtas Commission was to take such bodies as the General Council of County Councils, the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society, and so on. Now in regard to the Labour Panel, there was a suggestion that a number of members should be elected by the Irish Trades Union Congress. For the Industrial Panel there was suggested the Federation of Saorstát Industries; the National Agricultural and Industrial Development Association, the Association of Chambers of Commerce in the Irish Free State, the Standing Committee of the Irish Banks, Cumann na nInnealthóirí, the Institution of Civil Engineers of Ireland, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, and the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland. These were the types of bodies that were mentioned in the report of the Second-House-of-the-Oireachtas Commission. It is that general type that we have in mind as a suitable type. These are only suggestions. You are to appoint an officer who will make the necessary further examination to satisfy himself on that subject, his decision being subject to appeal to a Committee of Dáil Eireann. I do not think there is anything else that is worth going into. In this matter the different Parties have all put up schemes. There have been three schemes before us. The Government believes that the scheme which it has put forward is superior to the others and, on that basis, it is going to pursue that scheme.

There is just one point more to which I want to draw attention; that is the reference to the judicial referee. That reference can be made by any person who is provisionally on the panel. Will the President look at page 19 of the amendments? There is amendment No. 68 (3) which reads: "At the completion of the panel the Seanad returning officer shall take the several provisional panels successively one by one and shall, in respect of each provisional panel...", and (b): "shall then examine the qualifications of each person whose name remains on such provisional panel after the said deletions aforesaid, and shall determind in respect of each such person whether he is or is not qualified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of Article 18 of the Constitution to be on the panel to which such provisional panel relates, and shall delete from such provisional panel the name of every person whom he determines not to be qualified to be on such panel." From that it will be seen that we get the provisional panel from which the names have been deleted. If the President will turn over to page 20 of the amendments, he will read in amendment No. 69 (2): "The Seanad returning officer may, `on his own motion, and shall, if so requested by any person whose name is on the provisional panel for the time being under consideration or by the agent of any such person, refer to the judicial referee any question arising during the completion of the panels in relation to any nomination paper, the nomination of any person to a panel, the qualifications of any person for a panel, the statement by the Seanad returning officer of such qualifications or any other matter connected with the provisional panels." Do I take that sub-section to mean that the provisional panel that is under consideration is the panel from which the name has been deleted, but without reference to that deletion?

That is not my interpretation.

The Seanad returning officer is "to delete the name", and then you are to have something under consideration and amongst the matters that may be referred to the judicial referee are the nomination of any person to a panel, the qualification of any person for a panel, and the statement by the returning officer of such qualifications. All these refer to what is left on the panel after the Seanad returning officer has made his deletions. It may not be the intention, but can anybody think of such an absurdity that after the Seanad returning officer has deleted the names, he is then to refer to the judicial referee the panel from which the names have been deleted?

I take the opposite meaning from that.

The judicial referee will sit with the Seanad returning officer.

But the Seanad returning officer has already deleted the names. Yet when we come to the question of the qualifications, the names of the people deleted will count. If that is the suggestion it ought to be in plainer language than that. What can anyone raise if the name is off the panel? The only man who can raise it is the man whose name was on the provisional panel. What must the Seanad returning officer do? He must, if requested to do so by certain people, do various things. Who are those people? People whose names are on the panel. But that is after the Seanad returning officer has deleted the names.

The Deputy is completely misreading the section. There is a provisional panel and according to sub-section (2) of amendment No. 68 in pages 18 and 19, you have this provision:—

When preparing the provisional panels in pursuance of the foregoing provisions of this Act, the Seanad returning officer shall not insert in any provisional panel the name of any person purported to be nominated by a nomination paper which is declared by this Act to be wholly void or which is received by him after the expiration of the relevant time for receiving nominations, but, with those exceptions, the Seanad returning officer shall prepare the provisional panels without considering or inquiring into the validity of any nomination paper or the nomination purported to be made thereby and without regard to any duplication of entries which may occur by reason of a person being nominated by more than one nomination paper, whether to the same or to different panels.

He is seized of all these particulars with the narrow exceptions. You have a provisional panel made and you can revise that.

And revise it by deleting.

Revise it in the presence of the judicial referee, and while that process is taking place, any person whose name he proposes to take out and who is otherwise on the provisional panel has a right to appeal to the judicial referee. That is my reading of it.

Will the President read where that is set out? He had better read before he talks—"shall delete from such provisional panel the name of every person whom he determines not to be qualified to be on such panel."

In the first instance you do a thing, and if there is an appeal to be made, the panel does not become operative and final until it is passed by the judicial referee.

"He shall delete." Then you get to the judicial referee. Who gets to the judicial referee? Anybody whose name is on the panel. If his name is deleted he has no power to come before the judicial referee.

It is purely a provisional power.

Is the Seanad returning officer told that he shall consider and put before the judicial referee the name of a person that he has himself determined not to be qualified and thereafter the judicial referee is given power to discuss the qualifications? I suggest that we are not to have these exclusions. May I raise this further point now? In the amendment, on page 19, the Seanad returning officer is told that he has only to take in as the first step the people nominated by nomination papers declared to be wholly void. I do not know anything that is wholly void except what is set out in sub-section (5) of Section 13. But I will let that pass for a moment. He is told that he is not to consider or inquire into the validity of any nomination paper. Is not that clear? He is told in paragraph (1), which is to come before Section 17, that he is not to have regard to any duplication; but in Section 14 in the Bill, which comes before this one, in sub-section (3) we are told:—

Where a person has been nominated to a particular panel by two or more nominating bodies, the name of such person shall be stated once only in the provisional panel.

Surely there is advertence in that to duplication; and the same thing occurs in sub-section (4) of paragraph 15. The phrase on page 19 is comprehensive. There it is said he is not to regard any duplication as evidence. At least, he has been already ordered to regard it in Sections 14 and 15. I think I know what has happened—that all this has not been properly dovetailed.

I am not quite sure, but we will have to be careful about that when we have the Bill completed. We will have to be careful to see that there is no contradiction of that sort. At the moment I am not able to say definitely whether there is a contradiction. At any rate, it is a small matter and I will have it examined.

Amendment No. 23.

Before the amendment is put, I want to raise again a few matters about the electorate. A peculiar ruling was given in your absence.

The Deputy, I assume, was attempting to revise a ruling of the Chair.

We are debating nominations. The whole scheme under discussion is one of nomination. There is a scheme of special registers which has to do entirely with election. That scheme of election can operate on any group of nominees. I was told here recently that my scheme of election, as opposed to Deputy Norton's scheme of election, would stand or fall on the President's scheme of nomination. I suggest that my scheme of nomination is open to debate whether the President's scheme or Deputy Norton's scheme falls. My proposal with regard to nominations is in amendment No. 36. I discussed in some detail the register because I was told this was my last opportunity of discussing it, although I would much prefer to have it discussed in contrast with the other electoral schemes.

Does the Deputy maintain he could move his amendment later, or desire simply to discuss the electorate in general?

Would not Deputy McGilligan be in order in moving it if the Government amendment were defeated?

Certainly, the whole question would, in such an event, be thrown open for discussion.

I understood that the position would be this: that the Government amendment would be moved. I think, Sir, you pointed out that for two reasons you were taking the Government amendments first— because it was usual to take Government amendments first, and because they had been handed in first. Then I think you took up the position that obviously if the Government amendment was carried we could not move our amendment, but I must maintain the possibility of the Government amendment being defeated.

The Deputy may then submit his scheme, as a new situation will have arisen.

As far as I am personally concerned, I think that we have a full opportunity of discussing the electorate. I deliberately, as you know, refrained from discussing the electorate this afternoon, because we were then on the nominating body. I made no reference to anything that occured in the recent past. I want to know whether I may discuss the electorate now.

A certain line of procedure was suggested by the Chair at the opening of this debate. That scheme was communicated to Deputy McGilligan, to the President and to others. There was no demur. On Wednesday last Deputy O'Sullivan raised certain points. The Chair explained the procedure, and, again, there was no demur. I suggested that there were two alternative schemes, and with that Deputy O'Sullivan agreed. As to the point raised by Deputy McGilligan, looking at these amendments I find amendments Nos. 34, 35, 36 and 110 to be obviously an alternative scheme to that proposed in Government amendments, No. 23 to No. 33. In those amendments, No. 23 to No. 33, there is a Government scheme providing for nomination by nominating bodies, and election by the Dáil and by what I may loosely call county councils. The scheme under amendments Nos. 34, 35, 36 and 110 provides for direct election by certain bodies as set out in the Schedule. That is obvious from the opening lines of amendment No. 34: "the members of the functional or vocational groups or associations or councils set out in the various parts of the Schedule" shall elect and soforth the members of Seanad Eireann. Furthermore, may I point out that amendment No. 36 (a) refers to the method of the nomination of candidates for election.

I have always held that amendment No. 36 must go on this nomination scheme, but nothing else.

What the Chair has suggested is that these four amendments are all one scheme. They are composite amendments. This debate has proceeded up to this—I do not know whether I should call it the sixth or eleventh hour—on the clear assumption, an accepted assumption, that this whole matter was being discussed and disposed of on amendment No. 23. It would not be right, having acted on that understanding—having allowed the debate to proceed so far on that basis—to now revert to some other procedure.

The memorandum which I got has three lettered paragraphs. The first refers to a scheme for a transitional Seanad and an electoral college. The second point in it is definitely under the heading of nomination. I am speaking now of the memorandum sent by the Ceann Comhairle to certain members of the House. "As regards nomination," it says, "Deputy Norton's scheme will be decided on amendment No. 7. If that amendment is negatived, the implementing amendments...fall consequentially..." The next point, and this is underlined, is that "the Government scheme of nomination will be decided upon amendment No. 23. ... If the Government scheme is accepted, the alternative scheme set out in amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 110 is ruled out consequentially." So far as these schemes have anything to do with nominations, I am in entire agreement that they should fall. Notably, amendment No. 36 falls, because it deals with nominations. But there is not a word with regard to nominations in either amendment No. 35 or amendment No. 110. There is not a hint in amendment No. 35 by itself, or in amendment No. 110 by itself, or, if taken together, of their being attached to any scheme of nomination. They are as capable of being discussed under the heading of election as Deputy Norton's scheme for election by the Dáil or the President's scheme. I may have been mistaken, but I understood the memorandum to be divided as follows:—(a) transitional Seanad and electoral college; (b) nomination; (c) the electorate; and (d) and (e) two small points. I suggest that the matter set out in the underlining is all directed to the question of nomination as against election. I do not know whether the meaning of it was understood correctly, but I am here as a member claiming my rights. I have down two amendments, Nos. 35 and 110, which have nothing in them except with regard to election—there is not a word about nomination in them—and why must they fall on a vote taken on the question of nomination? It is contrary to any ruling that has been made, so far as I know, and if such a ruling were made it was made without advertence to the fact that they can be separated from the other amendments. Surely it was not because the same two names appear at the bottom of each of the amendments concerned?

Perhaps I might be permitted to intervene. Is it not still possible to fit in this method of nomination with any of the three methods of election? As a matter of fact, there are four methods of election before the House. There is the Bill, and there are the Government's amendments, our amendments, and Deputy Norton's amendments. There are different methods of nomination before the House, and I suggest that all that is before the House now is the question of nominations. You will remember, Sir, that this afternoon I said I was coming in deliberately to restrict myself as much as possible to the question of nominations. So far as I could see, this particular amendment was quite capable of fitting in with any of the schemes of election, and I hope that we are not now deciding, by passing this, that we are to be bound by the Government's scheme of election.

No. There will be a vote to challenge that.

If we accept this method of nomination, which is quite capable of dovetailing into either of our amendments, the Government's amendments or Deputy Norton's amendments with regard to election, why is it to be only on the Government's amendments? Surely, so far as this amendment is concerned, they will all stand on the same footing?

But, looking at amendment No. 34 or amendment No. 35, I fail to see how the method of selection there proposed would stand with the Government's scheme of nomination by nominating bodies and subsequent election by the Dáil and, shall I say, the county councils.

Our scheme is of two parts—certain bodies nominate and certain bodies elect. They may be the same bodies but the process is different. Our system of election by these bodies cannot apply to any names which are on any panel nominated according to any particular system. That is my argument, Sir.

Still the two schemes are radically different. The scheme set out here in the Deputy's three amendments are surely an alternative to that proposed in the Government amendments.

What three amendments?

Amendments 34, 35 and 36.

Yes, taken together; but I am taking amendment No. 35 together with amendment No. 110. Are they not compatible with the Government's scheme of nominations? I think they are. I do not see how the election of a scheduled number of Senators is ruled out by the acceptance of the Government's scheme of nominations. If amendment No. 34 must be tied up with amendment No. 36, then amendment No. 36 will leave amendment No. 35 to destruction—it must go. I submit, however, that amendment No. 35 is not tied up with amendment No. 36, but that it is tied up with amendment No. 110, and both amendment No. 35 and amendment No. 110 may be harnessed to any scheme of nomination. There is not a word, from beginning to end, in amendments Nos. 35 and 110, about nominations, and they can stand together.

If the Government's scheme provides for nomination by nominating bodies, and this scheme provides for direct election, I fail to see how they could be reconciled.

It was by direct election. It was tied up to amendment No. 36 at one time, and it was suggested that the method of nomination of candidates should be left to the Dáil to determine hereafter—the Dáil could determine which of the thousand methods of nomination it would choose, but this question of election would then proceed, and I suggest that amendments 35 and 110, taken by themselves, may run definitely with the Government scheme of nominating bodies.

In drawing up these amendments, Sir, we had to bear in mind that we were bound by the Constitution to consider the matter of panels and then to consider the question of election. The easiest way to do that would be to say that certain bodies shall elect, but we could not do that because the Constitution provided that there must be nomination to panels. Therefore, we had to propose a clause dealing with the nomination of panels, and after that to deal with the question of the persons to be elected.

If the Deputy will look at the opening lines of amendment No. 34, he will find that it is closely bound up with amendment No. 110. They are inseparable.

Is not amendment No. 35 capable of being read with amendment No. 110? It must be. Is there any suggestion of nomination in amendment 110? There is not a solitary one. Why then must amendment No. 35 and amendment No. 110, which run together, fall with a scheme of nomination?

Amendment No. 110 goes expressly with amendment No. 34.

Yes. What we could have done in that case was to repeat the schedule. It goes with Nos. 34 and 35, but there is a different function in each case.

That is the trouble. Deputy Norton put in a definite amendment to delete the county councils, but the Deputy's amendments are composite. It is not for the Chair to decide which function of the different functions of the amendments applies to different parts of this Bill in each particular case. They deal with one composite scheme. It is perhaps possible that the Chair did not make this matter clear to the Deputies in my note, a note which was written hurriedly. If I did not express my proposals clearly I regret it; but I understood from the House, after preliminary discussion, that the assumption on which we were proceeding was clearly understood, and there has been no objection raised until now. Reasons were stated why, in certain circumstances, these amendments could not be moved. If the amendments fall for one purpose they cannot be re-submitted for another purpose at a later stage.

No. Amendment No. 34 has to refer to nominating bodies, and amendment No. 35, which deals with election, has to refer to electing bodies. It is quite true that amendment No. 34 makes no reference to amendment No. 110, but amendment No. 110 can stand, and would stand, if amendment No. 34 were never in the Bill. That is my point, Sir. Amendment No. 110 is independent of amendment No. 34. It can be there and would be there if amendment No. 34 were never in the Bill.

The Deputy might read the beginning of amendment No. 34 again. It refers to "the members of the functional or vocational groups or associations or councils set out in the various parts of the Schedule," and so on. If that is not laying the foundation for amendment No. 110, then I do not know the meaning of words.

Suppose I do this? Suppose I give notice of withdrawal of amendments Nos. 34 and 36, what about amendments Nos. 35 and 110 in that case?

The Deputy cannot withdraw an amendment which has not been moved.

I am only, in anticipation, saying that they will not be moved.

The Chair is still of opinion that amendments Nos. 34, 35, 36 and 110 taken together are part of an alternative scheme inconsistent with the proposals in amendment No. 23, and cannot be moved if amendment No. 23 is carried.

When the time comes, amendments Nos. 34 and 36 will not be moved, but amendments Nos. 35 and 110 can stand alone, and I defy anybody to find a single word about nominations in either of these two amendments, Nos. 35 and 110. Why, then, must they be ruled by a decision taken on a question of nomination?

Amendments Nos. 34, 35, 36 and 110 may not be moved.

Might I just point out that there was no statement given to me about amendment No. 36—it was left out.

I regret the misprint.

The note sent to me brought in amendment No. 33. Secondly, I suggest that they are under the heading of nomination, and that the underlying phrase is: "The Government scheme of nomination will be decided on amendment No. 23"—and that is underlined.—"If that amendment is accepted, the amendments implementing that scheme flow consequentially." Then we move on to another paragraph about election. If these amendments are to be regarded as dealing with nomination, are tied up with it and not election, I do not know what language means.

The amendments are Nos. 34, 35, 36 and 110.— There was a slight mistake in the note sent to the Deputy. But I maintain that those amendments cannot for one purpose be regarded as associated with a certain scheme at one stage and dissociated from it at another stage. The Chair associated them with one scheme, made that clear to the House, and that view was accepted. The question of the electorate may, of course, be discussed on amendments Nos. 90, 91 and 92. Deputy Norton's amendment was allowed because amendment No. 81 by Deputy Norton is an express amendment to delete the county councils. Owing to the deletion or possible deletion of that section to which the amendment was submitted, the Chair is allowing a similar amendment to be moved to delete paragraph (b) of the new Government amendment—amendment No. 90.

The situation arises that the scheme of special registers may be debated on the electorate proposal by the Government, and to be in order must be debated on the Government idea of nomination.

The Chair did not say it must be.

It has been debated and has been in order on the question of nomination, and will again be in order when the question of election arises. And that is the result we are led into!

I regret I did not see my way clear to save the Deputy's amendment, but it could not be done.

I cannot understand your ruling, Sir, but I accept it fully.

I do not expect everyone to agree with the ruling of the Chair.

So long as they accept the ruling you are satisfied. I understand now that we can discuss it on amendment No. 90.

I want to know, in dealing with the Government's proposed electoral bodies, whether we can discuss our alternative proposal as contrasted with theirs.

The Deputy should not ask the Chair to rule in advance. When amendment No. 90 is reached we will see.

Are we to discuss it now?

Better discuss it on amendment No. 90.

That is too late for me. I shall have lost this opportunity.

The Deputy may discuss it then.

His colleague has discussed it already.

Is this a new ruling — because a colleague has discussed it?

It is a submission to the Chair, and I will hear the submission first.

I want to point out that the present occupant of the Chair was not here when the Deputy's colleague discussed it. Clearly it was in order at the time and, therefore, there is no new point.

The President has not understood the point. I prefer to discuss this in connection with the electorate.

The Deputy will be allowed to do so. I think that is clear.

That is clear. That is all I want to get.

And satisfactory?

The President says that it is not the Government that legislates. Who ever said it was? Other Governments put before the House what they purpose by their proposals. What I objected to is that this Bill has been discussed up and down and the Government never gave an indication of the kind of bodies they wanted. They never gave an indication in this House. There was a report sent in, and the President took bits and left other bits. We never knew what was in the President's mind and we do not know yet. What he did put before us he read out from his refusal to be clear, he appealed to an amendment by Deputies on this side of the House. The President said: "If the Deputy will look up Deputy McGilligan's amendment he will find the type of bodies."

The Deputy suggested that he was very ignorant on all this matter.

I did not. I suggested that the President was.

Not at all.

Whatever you do in your all-embracing capacity, you do not embrace me.

The Chair deprecates the use of the second person in debate as it tends to degenerate into what is wrongly called a tu quoque argument.

I want to make it clear that any accusation I made was not against any Deputy on this side of the House. I suggested that the President did not know what these bodies were, or that he refused to tell the people. He had his opportunity on various occasions. We have got some extraordinary statements now from the President. I have attended the debates here and also the Special Committee, into the details of which, of course, I shall not go beyond what is published, although the President has let out something about it. But I do not know that he ever intimated the type of bodies he had in mind. We tried to get it both in the House and in the committee, but we have not got it. The President will not face this point. He brought in a Bill here—I am speaking of the Bill before us, not the Bill that is better than the best. He spent 12 months excogitating the Bill, and in one week he scraps the result of the 12 months' meditation. The President will remember the stone wall we were up against. The answer that he continually gave was: "There is no good trying; we have been thinking of it for 12 months; we have not thought of anything; therefore nothing can be thought of." And yet one week is enough to take over from the Minister for Industry and Commerce the idea about the county councils. Up to that he had not thought of it.

How does the Deputy know where the idea came from?

Because I heard it. I heard the Minister for Industry and Commerce say——

The Deputy pretends to state things accurately that he knows nothing about.

He said he stood for an expansion of the electorate.

We all did.

This is the scheme he puts forward as the result, not of a proposal, but a suggestion made in the space of about five minutes in the committee. I am taking the position as it was indicated by him. One week's consideration! Twelve months' consideration produces the Bill—the best Bill! And we were continually up against the obstacle that there was no good proposing anything in the way of a vocational Seanad because the Government had been thinking of that for 12 months and nothing came out of it so far as the vocational Seanad is concerned. Suddenly, in one week this is produced. What was the objection to the vocational system? Up to this evening I gathered that the strong objection was that the country was not sufficiently organised vocationally. Then I learned this evening that there are too many vocational bodies—that we suffer from a plethora, not a scarcity of such bodies. There is a different argument used for everything the President wants to strike down. For a man who boasts so much of being under the influence of the hobgoblin of little minds it is an extraordinary attitude to take up.

Take the Bill as it is still before the House. The Ministers were to nominate to these panels. They were practically to nominate these nominating bodies. That is the Bill as it stands— not the Government amendments we have before us. Surely the Government knew the type of bodies they had in mind. As I said before, if this Bill passed this December, they would be up against naming these bodies within the next month. If they would be in a position to name them in a month's time from now, surely, after 14 months, they should be in a position to put them in the Bill? We are referred by the President to the report of the commission, some of which he rejects, some of which he accepts. We understand from the President, despite the protestations of other Ministers, that we are suffering from a plethora of vocational bodies, but that they are not satisfactory. In what sense are they not? They are not satisfactory in the sense that they are not all-embracing, that they are not fully representative. But these are precisely the qualities that the President does not want from them. May I call his attention to the passage he read out the last day from the report of the Special Commission, in which it is clearly laid down that you do not seek to have them complete in that sense? The argument I have been continually using is that if these bodies are good enough for the purposes of nomination, they are good enough for the purposes of election.

Quite pedagogical—Q.E.D.! The old mathematics professor! A statement from the President that he considers a thing absurd—that has been the argument all through, but he has never shown us why. The mere ipse dixit of the President is quite sufficient. Then with his great love of compromise—imagine the President as an apostle of compromise —he proposes a half-way house. That is his long suit, compromise when it suits him; otherwise compromise is unconditional surrender. I presume he quoted this passage with approval on the last day. Otherwise I do not see why he should quote it at all. He certainly did not criticise it, and we expressed our approval of it when he was quoting it. They pointed out that there was no necessity for them to be representative in the full sense of the word. If they can elect half the members of the House—because under the President's compromise they would command half the election—surely they can carry out the rest, instead of having this unfortunate method by which we leave it to bodies like the Dáil and the county councils organised on a purely party basis. I learned also to my surprise—I admit that one need not be surprised about anything the President has to say about his Constitution; it is not yet quite in operation, therefore, I may be permitted to refer to it as his Constitution, before it comes operative—that these rules were merely permissive. I did not think anything of the kind. They were binding on the Dáil and you are bound to carry them out unless you arrogate to yourself the right to violate the Constitution whenever it suits you. I fail to find, I must say, in the President's statement any satisfactory answer to the points I have raised. There was no attempt even to answer them. I cannot accept this particular amendment.

There is no use in saying anything further.

Quite right. It might make the thing even less clear than it is.

Amendment put: Tá, 55; Níl, 42.

Aiken, Frank.Allen, Denis.Bartley, Gerald.Beegan, Patrick.Blaney, Neal.Boland, Gerald.Bourke, Dan.Brady, Brian.Brady, Seán.Breathnach, Cormac.Breslin, Cormac.Briscoe, Robert.Carty, Frank.Colbert, Michael.Davis, Matt.Derrig, Thomas.De Valera, Eamon.Dowdall, Thomas P.Flynn, John.Flynn, Stephen.Fogarty, Patrick J.Friel, John.Fuller, Stephen.Gorry, Patrick J.Harris, Thomas.Humphreys, Francis.Kelly, James P.Kelly, Thomas.

Kennedy, Michael J.Killilea, Mark.Lemass, Seán F.Little, Patrick J.McEllistrim, Thomas.MacEntee, Seán.Maguire, Ben.Meaney, Cornelius.Moane, Edward.Moore, Séamus.Moylan, Seán.Munnelly, John.O Briain, Donnchadh.O Ceallaigh, Seán T.O'Grady, Seán.O'Reilly, Matthew.O'Rourke, Daniel.O'Sullivan, Ted.Ruttledge, Patrick J.Ryan, James.Ryan, James.Sheridan, Michael.Smith, Patrick.Traynor, Oscar.Tubridy, Seán.Walsh, Richard.Ward, Conn.

Níl

Bennett, George C.Benson, Ernest E.Bourke, Séamus.Brennan, Michael.Browne, Patrick.Burke, Patrick.Cosgrave, William T.Costello, John .Dillon, James M.Dockrell, Henry M.Esmonde, John L.Fagan, Charles.Finlay, John.Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.Giles, Patrick. Morrissey, Daniel.Murphy, Timothy J.Nally, Martin.Norton, William.O'Brien, William.O'Higgins, Thomas F.

Gorey, Denis J.Heron, Archie.Hurley, Jeremiah.Keating, John.Keogh, Myles.Lavery, Cecil.Lawlor, Thomas.Linehan, Timothy.McFadden, Michael Og.McGilligan, Patrick.McGovern, Patrick.McGowan, Gerard L.McMenamin, Daniel.Minch, Sydney B.Mongan, Joseph W. O'Leary, Daniel.O'Shaughnessy, John J.O'Sullivan, John M.Pattison, James P.Redmond, Bridget M.Wall, Nicholas.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Bennett and O'Leary.

Amendment declared carried.

As a result, amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 36 cannot be moved.

I move amendment No. 24:—

In page 5, before Section 8, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) Any body which desires to be registered in the register of nominating bodies in respect of any particular panel and claims to be eligible for registration in that register in respect of that panel may apply for that purpose to the Seanad returning officer in accordance with this section.

(2) The following provisions shall apply and have effect in relation to applications for registration in the register of nominating bodies, that is to say:—

(a) every such application shall be made in writing on an application paper in the prescribed form provided by the Seanad returning officer;

(b) the Seanad returning officer shall furnish free of charge on request to any body which proposes to apply for registration in the said register an application paper for that purpose;

(c) every such application shall be delivered or sent by post to the Seanad returning officer at his office on or before the 31st day of January, 1938, and no such application which is received at the said office after the said date shall be entertained or considered by the Seanad returning officer;

(d) every such application shall state the panel in respect of which the applicant desires to be registered in the said register and the grounds on which the applicant claims to be eligible to be so registered;

(e) every such application shall also state all such things in relation to the applicant as are indicated in that behalf in the prescribed form of application paper.

That has merely to do with the application and not with the decision?

It explains how the register is to be set up.

It deals merely with the application?

It deals with what the returning officer has to do with regard to receiving applications, and the type of information which he is entitled to get from those nominating bodies.

Amendment agreed.

I move amendment No. 25:—

In page 5, before Section 8, to insert a new section as follows:—

As soon as practicable after the commencement of this Act, the Seanad returning officer shall publish in every morning daily newspaper published in and circulating throughout the State and in such other (if any) daily newspapers as he shall, with the sanction of the Minister, think proper a notice in the prescribed form giving public notice that the register of nominating bodies is being prepared, and giving such information and instructions in relation to applications for such registration as the Minister shall think proper.

It is possible that the functions of the Minister would be altered in that respect, in case we are satisfied that you can have an officer in this respect somewhat like the Comptroller and auditor-General.

Is it suggested that the incorporation of this in the amendment in the first instance indicated the viewpoint that is behind this? Here are definite points in which he was to be under the control of the Minister?

That was the first viewpoint about him?

The point is that that is common in other Electoral Acts. You have the Minister doing certain things, and the Seanad returning officer doing certain things with the sanction of the Minister. This is not something new for this Act. It is a common form, so to speak.

But the novelty of having an independent person was not considered when this amendment was drafted?

The idea was there already, but we came to the conclusion that it would be difficult to get whole-time duty for this officer, and also there is the question that such an officer in the Department has functioned in the past and has functioned without any objection being raised by members of the House.

There is definitely a new situation since the late Secretary of the Local Government Department was dismissed.

Of course, there is not.

The President will talk to an unheeding public when he says that. There is definitely a new situation since, without any reason given that will commend itself to any person except a political partisan of the President, the late Secretary of the Department of Local Government was fired.

We were told the same thing about a Commissioner of the Guards on one occasion, and I think the public are quite satisfied.

The odium of that removal has not entirely departed yet, and the scandalous treatment of that particular Secretary of a Department——

That is not——

The President is quite agitated and very uncomfortable.

I am not uncomfortable, not in the slightest.

The President does not appear at ease at the moment.

It is because I do not think this matter ought to be introduced in this particular way in the House.

I am quite satisfied that we can learn from past experience and one thing is that the Government did take a certain viewpoint with regard to two individuals. The phrase used with regard to one of them, when the President was asked his reasons for getting rid of the Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána, was that if for no other reason, there was the fact that "he served for ten years with my predecessor, and that is sufficient."

These statements are likely to draw retorts and have this whole matter reopened. I allowed Deputy McGilligan on two or three occasions to advert to these matters. I have allowed him to go as far as it is desirable or necessary on an amendment of this kind. I suggest that the amendment could be dealt with on different lines.

I submit that I am speaking on this matter in a proper setting, definitely subject to the ordinary rules of order in the House. We are discussing the functions of a Seanad returning officer. We have asked further if he was going to be allowed to be independent in the discharge of his functions and we were told in a rather fumbling way that he may be a civil servant. We asked further if he was going to be appointed definitely to that position and left there, and we were told that he could be, as the President described it, seconded, and subsequently he would revert to his own Department. There is the scheme. A civil servant who will be selected ad hoc will be engaged temporarily on duties in connection with a most important matter, and I suggest that that man cannot ignore what undoubtedly has happened to other officers of the Department when they did try to do their duty impartially——

I deny that that is the situation. It is a complete misrepresentation of the whole position.

The President's interposition shows that he is raw and quite sore about it.

I am sore about the misrepresentation.

The misrepresentation is yours of that very eminent civil servant.

Misrepresentation— that is what it is.

I have no conscience in the matter; you have.

I allowed Deputy McGilligan to say certain things about any civil servant who may likely be put into this position; he warned the House with reference to certain things that might happen. I allowed him to say that, but I cannot allow him to go into detail with regard to the other matters he is endeavouring to raise.

You are moving with a willing horse in that respect. I have not attempted to discuss the details, but I have drawn attention to the lesson and it is a lesson that ought to be writ large for all people to read.

The Deputy has said that several times.

Surely I ought to be allowed to say it once without interruption?

The Deputy has said it several times.

If I have, I have not been conscious of it, because the President was interrupting and the President is angered, and you have interposed at the same time as the President. Is it possible to have this calmly and clearly considered? The point is that there is a civil servant required to perform a task that requires keen judgment and impartial consideration, and it is to be hoped that he will be put in such a position that he will not suffer the treatment meted out to the late Secretary of the Department of Local Government. It is now clear that although they might have benefited by the warning of their own past, that warning has not been heeded. The phraseology in the amendment indicated that the Seanad returning officer was going to be controlled by a certain Minister, that Minister being the Minister for Local Government, an odious name in this connection. When these amendments were couched in this phrase it was a clear indication that the view of the Government had not been altered in the direction of having an independent person selected for this position. If they decide even now to move away from that position, we ought to be thankful for it, and any civil servant who is selected as the Seanad returning officer ought to be thankful that a lesson has been drawn from the treatment meted out to Mr. McCarron.

Amendment 25 agreed to.

I move amendment No. 26:—

In page 5, before Section 8, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) As soon as practicable after the 31st day of January, 1938, and in any event not later than the 5th day of February, 1938, the Seanad returning officer shall prepare the register of nominating bodies and shall for that purpose—

(a) examine all applications for registration in the said register duly received by him, and

(b) disallow all such applications as appear to him to be irregular in form and all applications in respect of which he is of opinion that the applicant is not eligible for registration in the said register either at all or in respect of the panel to which the application relates, and

(c) disallow any applications which he is authorised by the subsequent provisions of this section to disallow, and

(d) allow and register in the said register all such applications as he does not disallow in pursuance of the foregoing provisions of this sub-section.

(2) The Seanad returning officer may require from any applicant for registration in the register of nominating bodies all such information relevant to the eligibility for registration of such applicant as he shall reasonably require for the determination by him of the allowance or disallowance of the application of such applicant, and the Seanad returning officer may disallow the application of any applicant which fails or refuses to give any information required of it under this section.

(3) It shall be lawful for the Seanad returning officer to refuse to register in the register of nominating bodies—

(a) any body which is a branch of or affiliated or subsidiary to a body which is already registered in the said register or whose application for such registration he has allowed, or

(b) any body which appears to him to be representative of interests and services the representation of which is adequately provided for by a body or bodies already registered in the said register or whose application for such registration he has allowed.

(4) The Seanad returning officer may, at his absolute discretion, allow an application for registration in the register of nominating bodies to be amended by the applicant at any time or in any respect.

(5) Not later than the 5th day of February, 1938, the Seanad returning officer shall send by post to every body which applied for registration in the register of nominating bodies (whether its application has been allowed or disallowed) a copy of the said register as prepared by the Seanad returning officer under this section.

(6) Whenever the Seanad returning officer has disallowed an application for registration in the register of nominating bodies he shall, on the request of the body which made such application, furnish to such body a statement of his reasons for such disallowance.

(7) The allowance or disallowance by the Seanad returning officer of any application for registration in the register of nominating bodies shall be final and conclusive, subject only to such appeal as is provided for by this Act.

This particular amendment does not lay down very definitely the things on which the returning officer can rule. There are a couple of matters I should like to raise. The previous section, which has now become a section of the Bill, seems directly or indirectly to limit the number of bodies. I take that as being the situation. Supposing there are 15 bodies already there, each with the right to nominate one Senator, what is the position when a new body comes on which seems to the returning officer to have a better claim than any of those already on the list, that seems to the returning officer to be in a position more satisfactorily to fulfil the duties of this panel? Has the returning officer any power on that ground alone to strike off one of the bodies already on and put what seems to be the better body on instead?

If the Deputy reads the amendment carefully he will see that the returning officer has all the bodies that claim nomination before him. He will have them all at the one time and his selection will depend on his appreciation of which will be the best body for the purpose.

Does it apply every year?

Yes, there is an annual revision.

Must application be made every year? I was under the impression that the position was different. There is in the Bill provision for striking off moribund bodies. The implication seems to be that if they are not struck off they remain on. I take it that it will be possible for the returning officer to revise on the following lines. I am putting the case that in the year 1940 there will be 15 or a sufficient number of bodies to exhaust the number that may be nominated to the panel. If there is a new body that seems to the returning officer to be in every respect better qualified than bodies already on, has he the power to strike off a body already on which is not moribund and which is adequate, so far as it goes, but is not as good as the one he may desire to put on?

That is my reading of it, that each particular time he has before him all the bodies, the old ones and the new ones making application, and he is able to put on the list those he thinks are most representative.

What is the meaning of 3 (b)—"any body which appears to him to be representative of interests and services the representation of which is adequately provided for by a body or bodies already registered"?

They are already on the register—that is my contention.

The point is that there will be objection made by a particular body as to why they were not on the list and the returning officer says that the reason is because he had on the list already bodies that in his opinion were quite representative.

I gather from 3 (b) that the list is already there?

No, he is making a draft list and, if there is objection raised, he has good grounds for maintaining that he has on it bodies which are sufficiently representative and so on.

He may come to a conclusion to allow a registration.

He will have come to a provisional decision.

"Provisional" is not there. This wording is there "whose application for such registration he has allowed".

this scheme is as clearly based as was the other. The Deputy apparently has not noticed where a similar point was raised before and it was made quite clear. I refer to the section which sets out that the Seanad returning officer shall have due regard to all decisions of the judicial referee on questions referred to him under this measure. There are provisions by which reference can be made.

What does that prove?

It proves that you have got a provisional list, and that before the list is made final the judicial referee, in the other case, was there and application could be made to him by the bodies that were not on the provisional list or which, in the first stage, the Seanad returning officer had eliminated. The Seanad returning officer will make a provisional list, and this sets out that it will be sufficient ground for refusal to put in any body that he has already admitted bodies which, to him, are sufficiently representative.

I do not see the word "provisional" mentioned in amendment No. 26 or in the Bill.

It is clear from the whole context that that is the basis.

look at amendment No. 31.

That has reference to the annual revision.

That is what we are talking about.

Unfortunately it is not.

According to sub-section 1(b), the Seanad returning officer is to disallow all applications which appear to him to be irregular in form. Under sub-section (4) the Seanad returning officer may allow an application to be amended by the applicant at any time. If he is compelled, in the first instance, to disallow an application because of some irregularity in form, can be revive that application under sub-section (4)? Is the intention that he must disallow the application in the first instance, and that he can then revive it. It might be because of irregularity in form that he would have to disallow it.

The Seanad returning officer gets an application that is not in due form. He must disallow that, but he can say to the people concerned, "Though I cannot accept this form as it is, if you amend it in a certain respect I can accept it."

The same would apply to a man stating his qualifications in such a way as to bring him inside the panel?

The question of qualification is a different question.

I can raise it on sub-section (1) (b). The mistake may have been in the statement of qualifications. Is the statement of qualifications amendable under sub-section (4)?

Which are you referring to?

I am contrasting the second part of 1 (b) with (4).

The question as to whether a person is or is not qualified would have to be determined in an absolute way. That could not be amended, but the manner of presentation of the qualifications might be amended.

That is all I am asking. That relates back to amendment No. 24 (2) (d), which states that every application shall state the grounds upon which the applicant claims to be registered. I take it that the grounds can be amended.

In regard to bodies. We have two different things to consider.

This is entirely in regard to bodies. Amendment No. 24 (2) (d) states "every such application shall state the panel in respect of which the applicant desires to be registered in the said register and the grounds on which the applicant claims to be eligible to be so registered." We go on to amendment No. 26 (1) (b). The Seanad returning officer is there commanded to disallow all such applications as appear to him to be irregular in form and all applications in respect of which he is of opinion that the applicant is not eligible for registration. The application will be related to the panel on grounds stated. The returning officer may turn down an applicant for registration in the panel of nominating bodies. May that particular body, under sub-paragraph 4 of amendment No. 26, amend the statement of qualifications? I suggest it may.

I should be inclined to say it could.

Will the President look into these matter?

I shall have examined any points which are raised in detail. The Bill will require very careful examination when it is in form, with some scheme agreed upon.

Some scheme passes.

We have now a new paragraph inserted in amendment No. 26, subject to certain interpretations which will be explained afterwards. There is to be a register prepared. We are told that this register is to be entirely on a provisional footing. That is not in the scheme. If that be the case, the expressions used in the Bill are very bad. Take Section 3 (a) which gives power to refuse registration to a branch or subsidiary of a body "already registered" or whose application for registration "has been allowed". I want that related to the provisional character of this whole matter. There is a distinction made between a body whose application for registration has been allowed and a body already registered. Yet we are told that the whole thing is provisional. These phrases do not suggest that.

I shall have the matter looked into.

On the substance of the amendment, this Seanad returning officer, being possibly a person under control, is told to examine applications and to disallow certain applications. One of the disallowances is based upon his view as to whether or not the applicant is eligible. This Seanad returning officer is going to determine whether an applicant for inclusion as a nominating body is aligible in accordance with the qualifications laid down in the Constitution or, more particularly, these qualifications as very seriously limited by the phrase used in amendment No. 23. With regard to that act of a judicial type by this man this phrase is used in sub-paragraph 7, "the allowance or disallowance by the Seanad returning officer of any application for registration in the register of nominating bodes shall be final appeal conclusive, subject only to such appeal as is provided for by this Act." We come down a couple of sections and we find that the appeal is to a political committee of Dáil Eireann. Taking the composition of the House as it is at present, the position is so weighted that unless the Government nominees agree to discharge the decision of the Seanad returning officer, it stands.

His main function up to date has been to disallow. There has been no question of his allowing or, rather, of inducing people to go on. It is a question of exclusion. There is a tremendrous number of exclusion and limitations and the whole process aims at narrowing the number of nominees who will be put up. There is a judicial determination: is an applicant for registration qualified in accordance with the Constitution or the special limitations, and from that, there is to be an appeal to a political committee of the Dáil. Sub-section (5) of the new paragraph, amendment No. 29, says that the decision of the appeal committee shall be final and conclusive. There is no nonsence here about a judicial referee. This delicate matter of determining whether a nominating body is qualified in accordance with the Constitution is to be left to a political committee of the Dáil. Any groups that survive that ruling of the Seanad returning officer is determined by the nine members out of 15. That is subject to a further examination with a view to their exclusion when the individuals come to be nominated and associated with certain panels, but at this point you stop short. If amendment No. 29 is discussed as based on the one we were speaking of, we leave behind us all question of reinstating on to the nominating bodies' panel anybody ruled off, but we bring in a judicial officer for all sorts of purposes afterwards. The one thing, however, which he cannot touch is the list of the nominating bodies. He may discriminate as between the people who are nominated by anybody who has survived on that list, but he cannot enlarge the list and there is no appeal from him. If this is regarded as in any sense a judicial determination, and if the judicial referee is ever to be brought in, why is he not brought in at this stage as well as at the other stage?

Is the Deputy suggesting that a judicial referee would be a better system at this point?

I object entirely to bringing a High judge into these proceedings at all and, in particular, to bringing in the President of the High Court, but if you are to get a judicial mind operating, why limit the operation of that judicial mind to the individuals who emerge from the list of nominating bodies and forbid it to operate on whether the nominating body has been correctly or incorrectly excluded from the list?

Because, obviously, there will be a question very largely of opinion. You get some responsible definite fact. You get some responsible officer in accordance with the general directions, he has got to examine the bodies that make application and say which are best suited for the purpose. That is his definite opinion and it is because you want simply to revise that opinion in case it is of such a character as to be obviously wrong, that you have to get some revising body, and it seems to me that a Committee of the House, formed on that basis, would be much more satisfactory than a judge. Again, you would naturally have a question of opinion as to whether these are the best suited bodies from the public point of view and there you will have a representative committee of Parliament making up its mind about it.

I am not talking about selection; I am talking about passing judgment on whether a body is qualified under the Constitution or not. That is one of the functions of the Seanad returning officer set out in the second part of Section 26 (1) (b). Under that section, he is to disallow an application in respect of which he is of opinion, not that the applicant is suitable, or less suitable, than any other applicant, but that he is not eligible for registration. How is the eligibility going to be discussed? Surely in relation to Section 23 (2) (b), in which the words are used "No body shall be eligible to be registered unless its objects and activities relate to or are connected with and it is representative of persons engaged in one or more of the interests and services mentioned in Article 18 of the Constitution." You are brought back through the test of eligibility to the Constitution, but what the President calls opinion is to be based on that in regard to the nominating bodies. Turn to the amendment on page 20, amendment No. 69, sub-section (2), which says:—

The Seanad returning officer may, on his own motion, ... refer to the judicial referee any question arising during the completion of the panels in relation to ... the qualifications of any person for a panel....

We are going to bring in a judicial person to decide whether a person is qualified for a panel, but when it comes to a question as to whether a body is eligible as a nominating body under the Constitution, whether its activities are those set out in Article 18, we leave it to laymen in this House.

No; there are different classes of persons named. There are people of classes which are eligible for each of these panels. The question of nominating bodies is mechanism introduced and which originates here in an Act of Parliament. There is no definite reference in the Constitution, except a general description, to the classes of persons who are to go on to certain panels. We are implementing that by getting bodies of such a type that they would naturally give that type of candidate.

Is it the contention of the President that it is a question of opinion whether or not a body claiming a right to nomination does conform to the provisions of the Constitution and a question essentially of law whether an individual satisfies the requirements of the panels?

Until we make definations with regard to this Act.

Is it essentially a matter of opinion whether or not a body is qualified to nominate, but is a matter essentially of law whether a person put on a panel, and claiming to be put on a panel, should be on the panel? Is that the distinction the President draws between this section and the subsequent section where there is a judicial assessor?

My distinction was drawn through a reference made to the Constitution. Nominating bodies, as such, are not referred to in the Constitution at all. We are dealing with a section which talks about certain bodies and whether they are of a type that entitles them to be nominating bodies or not, and we are indicating in the Bill what are the types.

Does it, then, because it is not laid down in the Constitution and is merely laid down by law, cease to be a matter of law and become a matter of political opinion?

I have not said so. I have said that it would be very largely a matter of agreeing on what are the bodies. You take the formation of the list and you have certain bodies rejected and certain bodies on it. In general, the determination as to whether that list is the best that can be got is a matter of opinion, and in so far as there is to be any appeal from that opinion, it seems to me more appropriate that the appeal should be to a committee of Parliament, so to speak, than to a judge.

Taking the standard of the electorate, which will be that of politics, there is no doubt that what the President says is right, but will the President remember what he has said—that where the determination is to be which of certain groups is the best suited, that is a decision for that political body. Maybe, but that is not the decision that has been referred to here. The decision in respect of which an appeal is granted is the allowance or disallowance by the Seanad returning officer of an application for registration. Why may he disallow? Under 1 (b), he must disallow any application in respect of which he is of opinion that the applicant is not eligible. What is eligibility? Look at amendment No. 23 (2) (b): "No body shall be eligible unless its objects and activities relate to ...", and then follow the words of the Constitution. If the President says that all he wants to put before the Dáil Committee of 15 is the mere matter of selection amongst bodies, all declared to be qualified, he might have some support for that—he will certainly have support for it from the people who want political consideration brought to bear on this matter—but that is not what the appeal is about. The appeal is against the Seanad returning officer striking off or putting on, on the ground that he is not eligible, and the only appeal given on that is to a body of laymen. I suggest that that is a matter that should be judicially determined, and is on the same standpoint as the eligibility of the individual.

If that was the only question that had to be decided, something might be said for the Deputy's contention. The returning officer will have to consider quite a number of things in this connection, and on this particular one, no matter what the Deputy may think, the returning officer will be acting in a judicial capacity in the first instance, and, as well as that, he will be in a position to give the best opinion, either for his action in one respect or the other. Then there is this appeal. The idea that the appeal should be ruled by a substantial majority is based on the idea that this officer will act independently and normally. I expect the appeal will not be often made use of. It will be only wanted as a safeguard. Normally we may take it that this will be an officer whose judgment will be approved of generally by Deputies. If it is possible to do it in the way under consideration, he will be completely cut off from any suggestion of political influence.

Do I understand the President to say that he will be appointed by the House?

Yes, I hope so.

Where is that?

I told the Deputy I had under consideration the question of getting full-time work for him, and this would be part of the work of that officer, whose position and tenure would be somewhat comparable to that of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. There is other electoral work being done by an officer in the Department, and if we could get sufficient work to warrant the appointment of an officer of this sort I think we will do it. That will meet some of the objections, which I think are without any real justification. However, if it is regarded as more satisfactory, I am inclined to pursue that line. If it can be done I will be better pleased. The only trouble is that it is not easy to get sufficient work dealing with elections to the Dáil and with local elections to satisfy me that an officer appointed in that way would have sufficient work to justify a whole-time appointment.

May I point out that I am puzzled? What I was dealing with was what was before us. I was rather surprised to hear the President say that that officer was to be appointed by the House. I then raised that question and I got what I might call rather an indication that there was some lack of vision on my part. To satisfy me, I take it that the President has under consideration that possibility.

That does not carry me very far, as far as legislation is concerned. I am sorry that the President raised this painful topic of the independence of the Officer. I understand now. I do not want to go into the question again, though I do not see why I should not. To me it seems a rather important question. He referred to the judicial character of the office. I understand the President is going to consider whether he can get a man to fill that independent position. That is how we stand at present. To have under consideration the possibility of doing a thing is indefinite. I hope something will come out of this rather than the vague indication of what is in his mind.

Has there been anything said yet about nomination by the House?

Of this officer?

That is the phrase I was commenting on.

In the early part of the debate I pointed out to Deputy McGilligan what I was doing in this matter. It depends on our ability to find sufficient work of a character which will justify the appointment of a whole-time officer for this work. It seems to me, in regard to the Dáil and local elections, that it would be advisable to have an officer in that independent position dealing with them. It is only a question whether, from the financial point of view, the work he would have to do would justify a whole-time appointment. I cannot go any further than saying what I did. I think it is an accurate phrase, that we are considering it.

I am not denying the accuracy, but it commits the President less than he ever committed himself.

I could not commit myself at this stage. The Deputy will have an opportunity before we finish with the Bill. When we have the scheme generally adopted by the House we will have to go carefully over the complete reprint, and when that is presented to the House there will be an opportunity to raise this point. If I have not an amendment to deal with it at that stage the Deputy can say that it is not in the Bill.

Unless I am deaf or half-witted I have missed something. I asked twice about the phrase used "an officer nominated by the House."

Appointed by the House.

Appointed by the House. Take any phrase as long as the words "appointed by the House" are brought in close conjunction. Anyone knows that that must give an indication that the Dáil will have a say in the appointment.

I have never heard that suggestion. Is it not clear that if the President can get work for a whole-time officer the scheme will be that he will be an officer nominated and appointed by the House?

Appointed by the House.

The closest we got to it was something in the nature of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who is not appointed by the House.

His position and tenure.

Is that what is meant, that the President will appoint him and he will be then in such a position that the House cannot dislodge him?

No. I have no objection to the appointment being made by a vote of the House. The name will be put forward.

That will certainly be a debate for which we can reserve ourselves. We are going to have an officer who will be a whole-time officer with certain functions at the main Dáil elections, at local elections, and for the Seanad. Just as a forecast of what may be said, may I outline his duties? In regard to the Dáil gerrymandering, in regard to local elections postponement, and in regard to the Seanad to work as much political influence as possible.

Then the Deputy would not have it one way or the other.

Is not that the scheme? I want to get back to the point about the nominating officer. Is it not absurd to have somebody to determine whether or not an application for position on the nominating panel is eligible or not? There must be someone to rule on eligibility, and that is being given to the Seanad returning officer. On that there is an appeal to 15 members, and from that appeal the judicial referee is excluded. We look forward to a few of the other amendments, and we find that someone will have to determine whether candidates are eligible or ineligible. After the same test as the nominating body, someone must rule. We are told that the Seanad returning officer will rule provisionally, but that finally the decision will be by the judicial referee. The President's point of view is ruling eligibility. Eligibility is to be just a matter of opinion. Is that right?

What is the distinction? Why not allow appeal on eligibility of a body to go before whatever judicial referee is appointed?

Because it is sufficiently complicated as it is.

Why not simplify the matter by not having anyone rule on eligibility of the Constitution? I do not mean the President to make a mockery of the Bill. It is rather a pleasant task.

Look at the complications we would have if we accepted your proposal.

Possibly not. I do not run away from the complications. The President likes complications when there is a certain mask. There is a political objection behind this. The grand judicial referee, the President of the High Court, is brought in to rule in relation to a test of the Constitution, but we have previously narrowed the whole field of nominations. We have limited the group of nominations by giving to an individual, subject to the control of a political committee, the right to rule out bodies by applying the same test. I am quite prepared to take the President's point of view as being more or less a test of his attitude on the Bill, to rule that question of eligibility, and the question of a nominating body as a matter of opinion. I am against Section 26 for that reason.

There is no use repeating what I said.

I am against Section 26. It is absurd to allow that contention to run without a different point of view.

Question put and declared carried.

I move amendment No. 27:—

In page 5, before Section 8, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) As soon as practicable after the commencement of this Act and in any event not later than the fifth day on which Dáil Eireann shall have sat after such commencement, Dáil Eireann shall elect a committee (in this Act referred to as the appeal committee) consisting of 15 members of Dáil Eireann.

(2) The appeal committee shall be elected by the votes of the members of Dáil Eireann (or of such of them as may think proper to vote) voting on the principles of proportional representation.

(3) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this section, Dáil Eireann shall regulate the procedure for the election of the appeal committee.

(4) Subject to the express provisions of this Act, the appeal committee shall regulate its own procedure.

I want to know the purpose of this new section. Let us assume that the returning officer is all the President says he is and all that we hope he will be. Let us hope he is as independent as we should like him to be. What is the purpose of this revising committee, for its decision will be on purely political grounds, not on the merits at all? Can this committee fix its own procedure?

Sub-section (3) of this new section says: "Subject to the foregoing provisions ... Dail Eireann shall regulate the procedure for the election of the appeal committee."

Who can fix the question of a quorum?

Subject to the expressed provisions of this section, the Dáil shall regulate the procedure.

Who will form the quorum?

I take it the committee will fix it up themselves.

Therefore they can fix 13, by a majority, as the quorum. Therefore no decision can be come to unless there are 13 out of 15 present.

Surely the quorum can now be fixed. It is possible for eight out of the 15 to say that 13 will be the quorum, and if 13 can be got together any decision of the Seanad returning officer can be reversed. That, I suggest, is possible.

It seems to be possible.

It should be prevented.

It should be prevented by stating what the quorum should be.

All right; I will look into it.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 28:—

In page 5, before Section 8, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) Any applicant for registration in the register of nominating bodies whose application for such registration has been disallowed by the Seanad returning officer may appeal in accordance with this section to the appeal committee against such disallowance.

(2) Any applicant for registration in the register of nominating bodies in respect of any particular panel (whether its application for such registration has been allowed or has been disallowed by the Seanad returning officer) may appeal in accordance with this section to the appeal committee against the allowance by the Seanad returning officer of the application of any other applicant for such registration in respect of the same panel.

(3) Every appeal under this section to the appeal committee shall be made in writing and shall state the grounds on which the appeal is made and shall be delivered or sent by post to the Clerk of Dáil Eireann on or before the 15th day of February, 1938, and no such appeal which is received by the Clerk of Dáil Eireann after the said date shall be entertained or considered by the appeal committee.

(4) Every appeal under this section shall be open to inspection at all convenient times by the Seanad returning officer.

This amendment deals with the question of appeals.

Yes, this is what we have been discussing already.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 29:—

In page 5, before Section 8, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) As soon as conveniently may be after the 15th day of February, 1938, the appeal committee shall consider every appeal duly made to it under this Act and shall, in respect of each such appeal, either reverse the decision of the Seanad returning officer which is the subject of the appeal or disallow the appeal.

(2) No decision of the Seanad returning officer shall be reversed by the appeal committee unless at least nine members of that committee vote in favour of such reversal.

(3) The Seanad returning officer shall give to the appeal committee such information and assistance as that committee shall reasonably require of him.

(4) The Seanad returning officer shall be entitled, if he so desires, to be heard by the appeal committee in respect of every appeal considered by that committee in pursuance of this section.

(5) The decision of the appeal committee on any appeal to that committee under this Act shall be final and conclusive.

I want to put a question to the President. If the returning officer has the status the President says he has, what is to be gained by an appeal from him to the body that is purely a political body? What has the President in mind— what are its merits?

The point is that there might be some objection raised by any member of the House or any Party in the House who have an opinion in regard to a certain matter. The decision, for instance, of accepting a certain body as representing a number of other bodies and so on. If objection is raised this matter can be tried by the committee. After all, it is a question of how the Second House should be constituted, and all Parties here in this House will have a natural interest in that. Therefore, there is this safeguard. In the first instance, you have not an absolute and final authority and it has not the safeguard that there is in appeals. Secondly, the matter can be thrashed out by the committee of this House, which is the most appropriate authority we can get.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 30:—

In page 5, before Section 8, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) If no appeal is duly made to the appeal committee, the Clerk of Dáil Eireann shall, on the 16th day of February, 1938, inform the Seanad returning officer of that fact and the Seanad returning officer shall thereupon sign and publish in the Irish Oifigiúil the register of nominating bodies prepared by him under the foregoing provisions of this Act.

(2) If any appeal is duly made to the appeal committee, that committee shall communicate, to the Seanad returning officer their decision on every such appeal and the Seanad returning officer shall thereupon make such (if any) amendment in the register of nominating bodies prepared by him under the foregoing provisions of this Act as may be necessary to give effect to such decision and, when all such appeals have been decided and the decisions thereon have been communicated to and dealt with by the Seanad returning officer, the Seanad returning officer shall sign and publish in the Irish Oifigiúil the register of nominating bodies as so prepared and amended (if at all) by him as aforesaid.

(3) The register of nominating bodies as published in the Iris Oifigiúil in pursuance of this section shall be final and conclusive and shall not be open to review by any court and shall be in force for the first and every subsequent Seanad election, subject only to such annual revision as is provided for by this Act.

This is of the same kind, the completion of the publication of the register, more machinery.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 31:—

In page 5, before Section 8, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) The Seanad returning officer shall, on or after the 1st, but not later than the 15th day of January in the year 1939 and every subsequent year, publish in at least two daily newspapers circulating throughout the State and in such other (if any) daily newspapers as the said officer shall, with the sanction of the Minister, think proper a notice in the prescribed form giving public notice that, on the 15th day of February next following or, if that day is a Sunday, the 16th day of February next following, the Seanad returning officer will proceed to revise the register of nominating bodies, and giving such information and instructions in relation to applications for insertion, deletion, or amendment of entries in that register as the Minister shall think proper.

(2) Any body not registered in the register of nominating bodies, which desires to be registered in that register and claims to be eligible for such registration, and any body registered in the said register which desires to be removed therefrom or desires that the entry in respect of it in such register should be amended in any way, may apply to the Seanad returning officer in writing during the period beginning on the 15th day of January and ending on the 15th day of February in the year 1939 or any subsequent year, for such registration, deletion, or amendment, as the case may be.

(3) On the 15th day of February or, if that day is a Sunday, on the 16th day of February in the year 1939 and every subsequent year the Seanad returning officer shall revise (in this Act referred to as an annual revision) the register of nominating bodies by—

(a) allowing and registering in the said register all bodies which have duly applied under this section for such registration at such annual revision and appear to him to be eligible for such registration, and

(b) deleting from the said register the registration of every body which appears to him to have ceased to exist or to have ceased to be eligible for such registration, and

(c) making all such amendments in the said register as appear to him, by virtue of applications under this section or otherwise, to be requisite or proper.

(4) The Seanad returning officer may make such inquiries as he shall think proper for the purpose of any annual revision of the register of nominating bodies and may, at any annual revision, make all such deletions from and amendments of the register of nominating bodies which appear to him, in consequence of such inquiries, to be requisite or proper, but the Seanad returning officer shall not make any such deletion or amendment without giving notice thereof to the body affected thereby or without giving such body a reasonable opportunity of making representations in regard thereto.

(5) Every allowance or disallowance by the Seanad returning officer of any application under this section for registration in, deletion from, or amendment of the register of nominating bodies, and every deletion from or amendment of the said register made by the Seanad returning officer at an annual revision otherwise than on an application under this section, shall be final and conclusive, subject only to such appeal as is provided for by this Act.

This is dealing with the annual revision spoken of already. It is not for all time. Each year there is to be a revision, and when that revision is taking place the returning officer is as free to deal with the whole situation as he would be in the first case.

That is not what the President said before when I raised this matter. On reading the section what occured to me is as follows: there is a register in existence. There may be additions to or deletions from that register but there is not a complication of the new register every year. There can be an amendment of the register. It says: "any body not registered in the register of nominating bodies..." That assumes that the register is there already and on that the returning officer is to "delete" or "add." He can only delete on certain grounds. Therefore, the case I raised still comes in. The grounds are given here on which he can delete. (Sub-section) (3) of amendment No. 31 read.)

Then it goes on in sub-section (4):—"...may make such enquiries as he shall think proper..." But sub-section (4) does not amplify his powers of deletion. He is empowered to make all such amendments requisite or proper. But that must be within the ambit of the section. That does not mean that he can do what he likes. It must be read in connection with the section as a whole where you have the words "add" or "delete", where deletion is definitely defined as only making such deletions as are provided for.

"Making all such amendments in the said register as appeared to him ... to be requisite or proper."

I read that to mean that he cannot expand.

I think I am right in saying mine is the correct reading. At the time of the deletion there are certain names on the register from the time of the preceding revision. These can be accepted, I take it, as being amongst, so to speak, the applicants. In the first instance, they are in as part of his new provisional register. He gets in the other applications, and, taking the register as a whole, he can delete by virtue of these most comprehensive words: "making all such amendments in the said register as appear to him, by virtue of applications under this section or otherwise, to be requisite or proper." He has this list, and he gets in new applications. He can amend and make all the changes that he thinks proper. He is given power to delete from the register the registration of every body which appears to him to have ceased to be eligible for such registration. Therefore, he can take off any of these and put in new ones by virtue of the new applications received. Paragraph (c) makes the position perfectly clear. I cannot think of any more general words that one could find than the words used there.

If the power to delete is included in paragraph (c), in the wide way that the President says, then I do not see what the purpose of paragraph (b) is, because the deletion there is made compulsory. What the President says may be his intention, but it does not seem clear to me in the section as drafted. However, if he is satisfied with the drafting that, I suppose, will do.

That is my reading of it.

It is the President's funeral, not mine.

If there are any flaws in the Bill I shall be very glad to have them pointed out to me by Deputies.

I think the President should bear in mind what Deputy O'Sullivan has said. If the President is anxious to have what he says expressed in the clearest language, perhaps he could find some happier phrasing than that used in the section.

I do not think one could say in a more direct way what it is intended to do than in the words that we have there.

I do not think that the President has allayed our fears with regard to sub-section (2) of amendment No. 31. He tells us that a body that is on the register need not make application. The next point is about the people who are asked to go off it. Then there are the others, who have not been on the register before and want to go on. I think sub-section (4) is limited by sub-section (2). Sub-section (4) provides that "The Seanad returning officer may make such inquiries as he shall think proper for the purpose of any annual revision of the register of nominating bodies and may, at any annual revision, make all such deletions," and so on. Our argument is that that is governed by sub-section (2), namely, that he can only put on those he thinks are suitable to go on, and take off those who have applied to come off. I hope the President will make that clear.

There is another point, and here we are back again to the number that can go on the panel. Apparently, only 15 can go on. I had in a rough and ready way made out a list of about 25 bodies that, I thought, would be suitable to go on the panel. I am sure that number could be doubled if one gave a few minutes' consideration to the question of suitable bodies and their number. Will the President say how a satisfactory register, composed of new bodies, is to be got in view of the very limited number of vacancies that will be on that body, and in view also of the fact that the only bodies that can be put off are those that apply to be put off?

Not "apply to be put off." He can put off those that cease to exist, or, when amending it, he can put off any body that he thinks is not suitable. His powers at the revision will be as full and complete as at the beginning. The Deputy was not present when, on the previous amendment, I was dealing with the number of 15. He mentioned, for example, a number of seperate chambers of commerce— Dublin, Cork, Limerick, and so on— and totted them up, trying to make the number large. It is clearly indicated in the general instructions given to the Seanad returning officer that he shall proceed in such a way that if he gets a body to which those bodies are affiliated, then the one body will be sufficient. In that case, the associated chambers of commerce would be the one body, instead of a number of those other bodies. The point is that you try to pick the body which is representative rather than a number of sub-bodies. The reason why I read out the passage from the report was because I approved of it, and wanted to draw the attention of Deputies to a point that they seem to be losing sight of, and that is that we are not suggesting that the Seanad should be representative in the sense that this House is.

I refrain from making suggestions to the President about this. Do I gather from him, if we take sub-section (3) (b), that deleting is compulsory? I think he told me that.

I am re-reading it to see if by any chance it is.

Is allowing and registering compulsory?

No, not in that section.

And it is clear, in black and green, on the face of this Bill, that one is compulsory and the other not?

No; they are both governed by the words "which appear to him."

So he is now, bound to put on everybody?

No—"bodies which appear to him," and so on.

I am speaking of paragraph (a)—"allowing and registering in the said register all bodies which have duly applied under this section for such registration at such annual revision and appear to him to be eligible."

Therefore, if they are eligible, he must put them on.

There is a certain process——

Excuse me. I understood the President to say that (a) and (b) are both compulsory.

Well, then, one is compulsory and the other not?

No. They are both based on the phrase "which appear to him". That is, his judgment is the primary factor.

When I asked the President to distinguish between (b) and (c), he pointed out that the returning officer was compelled to delete under (b) and (c).

I am afraid I borrowed that.

The position is that my argument is overcome by borrowing. The President overcame my argument by saying that one was compulsory and the other a matter of discretion, and I asked him whether these distinctions were plain in black and green on the face of this Bill.

It is quite obvious that this is an omnibus clause, so to speak, completing the other two.

There is another question I should like to ask. Here there is, undoubtedly, a kind of hang-over, namely, these registers are completed in January; there is a Seanad election in September. They are completed, and, partly owing to the interference of members of this House, there are representatives of a particular complexion on panels which may bear the colour of that political majority happening to be the Dáil at the time, and they bind the Seanad that the President is anxious to form, not on the old Dáil, but on the new Dáil that has come in. Does the President think it better that, in the case of an election, there should be a revision of the panel?

No; there is an annual revision.

On the question of paragraph (a) of sub-section (3), I understand that the register is limited to 15. It says that the returning officer shall revise the register by allowing and registering in the said register all bodies which have duly applied under this section for such registration at such annual revision and appear to him to be eligible for such registration. If 40 bodies appear to him to be equally eligible, what is he going to do? What will be do about it? He is limited to 15 by one section, and paragraph (a) here says that he shall allow and register all bodies that appear to him to be eligible for registration. Well, then, if 40 bodies appear to him to be eligible, what is going to be done?

A Deputy

Draw them out of the hat.

The Deputy forgets that we have limited the number to 15.

No. I mentioned that you have limited the number to 15.

Well, then, the 15 would be eligible, clearly.

But, under paragraph (a), if 40 appeared to him to be equally eligible, he is bound to register them.

He is bound to make his decision as to which of them should come within the 15.

But if there are 40 bodies which are equally eligible, what is going to be done? I see no explanation, good, bad or indifferent, for that position.

As I understand it, it would appear that allowing is optional, deleting compulsory, and allowing and registering semioptional. And that is clear on the face of the Bill!

It is quite clear that there is a position in which the returning officer accepts applications, puts them on a list, goes over each of them, and makes his decision.

Surely the President will admit that the question of eligibility comes in there, and that is defined in the Constitution. We have not anything to show that the returning officer will have any discretion to vary the meaning of the words in the Constitution and to say that although certain people are eligible others are more eligible. There is nothing to show that he has discretionary power in that matter. The question of eligibility alters the whole thing, and I think the President could find happier words to settle that matter.

Well, the Parliamentary draftsman is an experienced draftsman, and he has thought differently. The point is that the drafting of any complicated Bill is a very difficult business, and when we are told about getting happier expressions I should like to get an indication from the Deputy of what he has in mind. I can only say at the moment that, until we have got this Bill completed, have decided on the definite scheme. and got a complete new reprint, a number of matters will have to be more or less left over, because it is not easy to get all the devetailing in order to make quite sure that it is perfect. What the general scheme is intended to do, and what I believe it does, is to enable the returning officer to get applications, in the first instance, in an annual revision, to get the old bodies and the new applications, to go through the list and delete those he thinks have already gone out, and decide on the most suitable. That is a matter for his judgment, and there is no appeal from that judgment except through the appeal committee provided for in the Bill. That is the intention. To be eligible, a body has to fall within all the conditions of the Act.

Hear, hear! We all agree. However, on the question of getting happier words, all we are endeavouring to do is to point out that that is open to a certain interpretation which is not at all clear. The President ought not to be asking me for a happier suggestion. He might point out to his draftsman that there is a certain—not ambiguity, if you like, but a certain danger where the returning officer, according to that particular sub-section must allow certain people to go on the register if they are eligible, and the question of eligibility, as the President points out, arises under the Constitution and is governed there by the words in the Constitution, which will entirely guide him.

And he has not any discretion to say if there be 40 societies or organisations eligible that one may be more representative in character than another. He has no discretion there. It is a question that they are all eligible.

This only means putting down a preliminary list to go over, and the returning officer has to reduce the list. First of all, he has to bring it down under 15 and make a selection. In addition to that, if he is able, for instance, by doing what I have suggested could be done, in regard to the chambers of commerce, to take such a body as the Associated Chambers of Commerce, that would enable him to have a larger number. If, on the other hand, they were small bodies, he might think it better to take the individuals instead of the amalgamated body. These are suggestions, and if there is any word or phrase here which would seem to apply to the complete register instead of the provisional one, I will look out for it. I shall have these remarks of Deputies here in mind when we have got a complete Bill.

But I am not accepting the Deputy's statement without further examination, anyhow, that the form of words here is not suitable or that a happier form could be found. I pointed out to him that there are available to the Government officers particularly skilled in this type of work and that I should hesitate to say that the form of words they use is less suitable for our purpose than that which might be suggested either by him or some other Deputy. But as to the fundamental thing that has been raised, that there is the possibility of some ambiguity, let us say, that will be examined when we come to the closer examination of the Bill which we will have when we have decided on the principles. What I had hoped was that this debate would run along the lines of definitely selecting the basis of the Bill as a whole and, when we had got to that stage, that we would go into it in greater detail.

Let me give a concrete case of what is in my mind in regard to eligibility. Suppose there was an organisation known as the farmers' union which applied for registration and, say, a farmers' federation and a farmers' something else, which also applied for registration and the right to nominate to the agricultural panel. They would be all clearly within the Constitution. What would be the discretionary power of the returning officer in a case like that? They would certainly all be eligible if they had a certain membership, possibly all equal or nearly equal. The case would arise as to whether they were eligible. What would be the position of the returning officer? This sub-section states that he must, if they are eligible, register them without using any discretion.

There is a question of provisional registration running through this—putting them on his list for registration and for determination one against another as to which body is to be retained, if any of them are to go off.

There is no provision as to what he must do.

This paragraph must not be read in isolation. It must be read in connection with the whole scheme.

Do I understand that (3) (a) throws a number out?

It allows them on his list for examination.

Under what provision does he put them out?

When he comes to make his final register, according to his judgment he eliminates the less suitable ones.

On his proposed list under (a) he will only take 15, according to what you say. Then surely he is not going to reduce it to nine and then go back and pick six or seven?

He might very well take nine, at first sight, and then he might consider that three were sufficiently representative and say: "We will only have three." If it will shorten the discussion, I might tell the House as to any points about construction or phrasing or anything else that we will have an opportunity at another stage of going into them in detail. At the present time I want Deputies to indicate if they are not satisfied with certain points, and then I will examine these points to see what is in them. I can only say at present that I do not see the force of some of these points. I do not think they are points we will have to meet, even in the ultimate revision, but I will take note of them and examine them. I am not at this stage interested in the particular phrasing, but in getting the House to adopt a scheme which will be the basis of a fresh reprint. When we get that and have the whole picture before us, with all the parts of it together, then if there is any question, such as those raised to-night, I will argue them out.

I should like to get a ruling from you, Sir, on that matter. The President states that he wants to get a reprint of the Bill and of the scheme carried by the House, and that at a further stage we can go into detail on the matter. I should like to get from you, Sir, whether there will be a further Committee Stage of this Bill.

That is not for me to say, but my understanding was that this stage would be followed by the Report Stage, on which, possibly, the Bill would be recommitted for the purpose of amendments.

I want to get this clear. If there were only a Report Stage, with the Standing Orders which applied to a Report Stage in operation, we would not be able to go into the details that the President talks about. I should like to get it clear now that what the President desires to do will be possible when the time comes.

I do not think there will be any difficulty from the point of view of order. We can recommit the Bill, surely, if necessary.

There may be a point, say, in Section 31 to which there is no amendment moved. First of all, if there is an amendment moved on the Report Stage, no matter how often a person is allowed to speak, it is only the amendment that can be discussed. Possibly, if the amendment is carried, the section as amended can be discussed. I am not sure about that. Anyhow, no section can be discussed to which there is no amendment moved. In Report Stage proper, we can only discuss the amendments put in. Am I not right in that? Therefore, there will be no opportunity, if the next stage is the Report Stage, of discussing the Bill section by section.

In the nature of things we have had to recommit this Bill. We have had a Special Committee and we have had to recommit the Bill. I foresaw all the time, on account of the different schemes being put up here and the different parts of the Bill going with different schemes, that in the first run through in Committee we would decide upon what I might call the basis of the Bill, the general plan of the Bill, and that then we would have to bring before the House a new reprint. When that stage was reached, if it were considered desirable, I thought, and I still think, that it would be possible to recommit the Bill again. Therefore I have always felt that we had a reserve to meet Deputy Morrissey's point.

I want to get the point clear, and I do not want to come up against a difficulty later on. When this Bill passes its present stage it will correspond to an ordinary Bill passing its Second Reading. It will be practically a new Bill, and it will be absolutely essential, I submit, if the matter is to be examined in detail, that we should have another Committee Stage, and I want to have the matter made clear.

It might be raised elsewhere.

I submit, notwithstanding the authority of the Minister for Finance, that this is the place to raise it.

Why on this particular amendment?

The President talked about the details we can go into afterwards, and said he only wanted to get the scheme adopted now; that he was not going into details and the amending of certain words or of alleged ambiguities.

I am glad to have Deputies point out anything in this, because we will have a reprint. I do not know yet what amendments may be accepted as we go ahead, but I anticipate that we shall have a new reprint, and Deputies will be clear on everything that is proposed in the Bill. They will be able to study the Bill much more carefully, or at least much more easily, than can be expected at the present moment. All I am anxious to do is to avoid going into small detail at any great length, but I should be very glad if any Deputy would point out anything that appears ambiguous to him at the moment. I may not agree with Deputies on points raised by them, but the fact that I do not agree with a Deputy does not mean, and is not to be taken as meaning, that I shall not examine the points raised. I think it right that in passing this legislation it should be made as perfect and as unambiguous as we can make it.

Any objections that are raised from the point of view of construction will be carefully noted. If there are any points of construction, to meet which we think the Bill should be changed, I shall myself bring in amendments to meet them. I have felt that if amendments are necessary we should move for a recommitment of the Bill, and that would give us all the room we would require for any type of discussion. Therefore I have not been worried about the order in the matter because I felt that these matters would not be ruled out. I would be anxious to do that, if there is a clear necessity for it.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 32:—

In page 5, before Section 8, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) Not later than the 1st day of March in the year 1939 and every subsequent year, the Seanad returning officer shall—

(a) inform every body which applied for registration in, deletion from, or amendment of the register of nominating bodies at the annual revision in that year whether he allowed or disallowed such application and, in the case of disallowance, his reasons therefor, and

(b) communicate to every body affected by a deletion from or amendment of the register of nominating bodies made by him at the annual revision in that year otherwise than on an application by such body the particulars of such deletion or amendment and his reasons therefor.

(2) Any of the following persons may appeal to the annual revision appeal committee against such of the decisions of the Seanad returning officer as are hereinafter specified, that is to say:—

(a) in the case of a disallowance of an application, the body by which such application was made,

(b) in the case of an allowance of an application for registration, any nominating body registered in the register of nominating bodies,

(c) in the case of a deletion from or amendment of the said register made by the Seanad returning officer otherwise than on an application under this Act, the body affected by such deletion or amendment.

(3) Every appeal under this section to an annual revision appeal committee shall be made in writing and shall state the grounds on which the appeal is made and shall be delivered or sent by post to the Clerk of Dáil Eireann on or before the 15th day of March in the year in which the decision appealed against was given.

(4) Every appeal under this section shall be open to inspection at all convenient times by the Seanad returning officer.

This deals with the question of appeals to the annual revision appeal committee.

In this amendment, it appears, the right is given to certain registered bodies to appeal against the registration of other bodies. The maximum number of registered bodies which the returning officer should have is 15. Is this giving to one of 15 the right to object to any other group amongst the 15? Sub-section (2) (b) states: "In the case of an allowance of an application for registration, any nominating body registered in the register of nominating bodies." It may appeal against the registration, apparently, of some other body. It does some peculiar if we allow one of the 15 groups to appeal against the registration of another of the 15. Are we supposed to have 15 or less than 15?

Yes, you can do with less than 15.

In sub-section (3) of the amendment, it is provided that the appeal shall be delivered or sent by post to the Clerk. Would it not be safer to provide that it should be sent by registered post?

I shall have that point examined. It is sometimes provided that documents of this character should be sent by registered post. I shall examine the Deputy's suggestion to see if there is any substance in it.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 33:—

In page 5, before Section 8, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) If in any year an appeal to the annual revision appeal committee is received by the Clerk of Dáil Eireann within the time limited in that behalf by this Act, Dáil Eireann shall, as soon as conveniently may be, elect a committee (in this Act referred to as an annual revision appeal committee) consisting of fifteen members of Dáil Eireann.

(2) The provisions of this Act in relation to the election and procedure of, the hearing of appeals by, and the decisions of the appeal committee shall apply to the election and procedure of the hearing of appeals by, and the decisions of every annual revision appeal committee so far as such provisions are not inconsistent with the express provisions of this Act in relation to annual revision appeal committees.

(3) Not later than the 20th day of March in the year 1939 and in every subsequent year the Seanad returning officer shall revise the register of nominating bodies in such manner as may be requisite to give effect to all decisions given by him at the annual revision in that year against which no appeal to the annual revision committee has been made within the time limited in that behalf by this Act, and every revision so made shall come into force on the 21st day of March of the year in which it is made.

(4) The Clerk of Dáil Eireann shall communicate to the Seanad returning officer every decision by an annual revision committee on an appeal under this Act to such committee, and the Seanad returning officer shall forthwith make such (if any) revision of the register of nominating bodies as is necessary to give effect to such decision, and every such revision shall come into force on the day after the day on which it is made.

This deals with the final stage of the revision.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 36 not moved.

I move amendment No. 37:—

In pages 5, 6 and 7 to delete Sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 and make Sections 12 the first section in a Part to be entitled "Part III—Formation of Panels."

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 40 fall, but they may be moved in an amended form on amendment No. 109 or on Report Stage. The section is inserted in a slightly different form in amendment No. 109.

I take it we shall be permitted to move it without notice when we reach No. 109?

On this stage?

Yes.

Sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 ordered to be deleted.

Amendments Nos. 41 to 47, inclusive, not moved.
SECTION 12.
(1) At every Seanad election, any person may be nominated in accordance with this Act by not less than 25 members of Dáil Eireann to any of the panels constituted for that election.
(2) No member of Dáil Eireann shall join in the nomination under this section of more than one person to any one panel constituted for a particular Seanad election.
Amendment No. 48 not moved.

I move amendment No. 49:—

In page 7, line 32, Section 12 (1), to delete the word "twenty-five" and substitute the word "two."

In these Bill as originally drafted it required 25 members of the Dáil to nominate. Now that number is changed to two.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Does Deputy Dockrell propose to move amendment No. 50, in view of the proposals in amendment No. 66?

I shall leave it over to amendment No. 66.

Amendment No. 50 not moved.
Amendment No. 51 not moved.

I move amendment No. 52:—

In page 7, lines 36 and 37, Section 12 (2), to delete the words "to any one panel constituted for a" and substitute the words "at any".

Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 13.
(1) At the following times, that is, to say:—
(a) as soon as practicable after the Government has made the first nominating bodies order, and
(b) within ten days after every dissolution of Dáil Eireann,
the Seanad returning officer shall send by post to every nominating body a form of nomination paper and also a notice in the prescribed form informing such body of its right to nominate persons to a specified panel and of the number of persons which such body is entitled so to nominate and giving to such body such information and instructions in relation to the making of the nomination as the Minister shall think proper to prescribe.
(2) Every nomination of a person to a panel by a nominating body shall be made in accordance with the following provisions, that is to say:—
(a) such nomination shall be made in writing on a nomination paper in the prescribed form;
(b) every nominating body which is entitled to nominate two or more persons to a panel shall nominate all such persons by one and the same nomination paper;
(c) every nomination paper shall contain the particulars required by the prescribed form of nomination paper to be stated therein and shall be signed by the nominating body making a nomination thereby;
(d) where the nominating body is a body corporate, the nomination paper shall be signed by such body by affixing to such paper the seal of such body in the manner and with the counter-signatures required by the constitution, articles of association, or other regulations of such body;
(e) where the nominating body is not a body corporate, the nomination paper shall be signed in the name of the body by some person having authority to sign in that name.
(3) Every nomination paper which purports to be sealed with the seal of a body corporate which is a nominating body and to be countersigned shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to have been so sealed in the manner and with the counter-signatures required by the constitution, articles of association, or other regulations of such body.
(4) Every nomination paper which purports to be signed in the name of an unincorporated body which is a nominating body shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to have been so signed by a person having authority to sign in that name.
(5) Where a nominating body purports to nominate by a nomination paper more persons to a panel than such nominating body is entitled so to nominate, such nomination paper shall be wholly void.
(6) The Seanad returning officer shall furnish free of charge on request to every nominating body such number of forms of nomination paper (in addition to the form which he is required by the first sub-section of this section to send to such body) as such body shall reasonably required.
(7) Every question as to the validity of a nomination of a person to a panel by a nominating body shall be decided by the Seanad returning officer whose decision shall be final.

I move amendment No. 53:—

In page 7, before Section 13, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) At every Seanad election, every nominating body which is registered in the register of nominating bodies in respect of any particular panel shall be entitled to nominate to such panel such number of persons as is provided in that behalf by this section.

(2) The several nominating bodies entitled to nominate persons to a particular panel shall each be entitled to nominate the same number of persons to such panel and that number shall be ascertained as follows, that is to say:—

(a) if the number of nominating bodies entitled to nominate persons to such panel exceeds the number of members of Seanad Eireann to be elected from persons nominated to such panel by nominating bodies, each such nominating body shall be entitled to nominate one person to such panel;

(b) if the number of nominating bodies entitled to nominate as aforesaid exceeds one-half, but does not exceed the whole, of the number of members of Seanad Eireann to be elected as aforesaid, each such nominating body shall be entitled to nominate two persons to such panel;

(c) if the number of nominating bodies entitled to nominate as aforesaid exceeds one but does not exceed one-half of the number of members of Seanad Eireann to be elected as aforesaid, each such nominating body shall be entitled to nominate three persons to such panel;

(d) if only one nominating body is entitled to nominate as aforesaid, such nominating body shall be entitled to nominate to such panel a number of persons exceeding by one the number of members of Seanad Eireann to be elected as aforesaid."

Is there any explanation of this amendment?

It gives the right to registered bodies to nominate to panels and it sets out how the nominations are to be effected. The idea in that is to try, as already indicated, to arrange so that we would finally have 21 members who would be elected by outside bodies, and 22 by members of the Dáil. I think I had better take each sub-section and explain it. The first sub-section gives the number that is possible. The second sub-section says:—

"The several nominating bodies entitled to nominate persons to a particular panel shall each be entitled to nominate the same number of persons to such panel and that number shall be ascertained as follows".

The nominating bodies are given equality of nominations.

Irrespective of their strength?

Yes; that is independent of their strength. The number that each of the bodies will get is related to the total number of bodies which are registered. The sub-section goes on to say:—

"If the number of nominating bodies entitled to nominate persons to such panel exceeds the number of members of Seanad Eireann to be elected from persons nominated to such panels by nominating bodies, each such nominating body shall be entitled to nominate one person to such panel."

We will finally have some number of nominating bodies. Fifteen is the greatest; it might come down perhaps to two, let us say. The scheme in the Bill makes provision in the following way: First of all there are five members altogether to be elected from the cultural and educational panel, and those five are divided as follows: Four of the five are to be elected by the nominating bodies. In regard to this section, if the number of bodies which are on the register is greater than the number, four in this case, on the cultural panel, then they would be allowed to nominate one each; that is, if we had in the cultural panel registered more than four bodies, then each body can nominate one. If on the other hand we had only say two bodies, then each one of them would be entitled to nominate two. The idea would be to get at least one more than the total number which could be elected; to make sure that one more than this would be nominated, so that you would have a definite selection.

In regard to the agricultural panel I will give the figures to the House now. Eleven is the number that is set down as the total number of members that are to be elected. The number to be elected from the total nominating bodies in that case is five. Those are the numbers which members of the House will have to keep in mind when reading this particular part of the amendment. In the case of the labour panel the number to be nominated by nominating bodies is five, and the number to be nominated by members of the Dáil is six. In the case of the industrial panel, four is the number to be elected by the nominating bodies, and five by members of the Dáil. In the administrative panel, you have three to be elected by outside bodies —those that are indicated in the section dealing with the administrative panel—and four to be elected from ex officio nominees of the Dáil. It will be seen, therefore, that the numbers which it is important to bear in mind in connection with this paragraph are four for the cultural panel, five for the agricultural panel, five for the labour panel, four for the industrial panel and three for the administrative panel. Those are the numbers which are referred to when we say: "If the number of nominating bodies entitled to nominate persons to such panel exceeds the number of members of Seanad Eireann to be elected from persons nominated to such panel by nominating bodies". In order to understand the section, you will have to put down the numbers: Four for the cultural and educational panel, five for the agricultural panel, five for the labour panel, four for the industrial and commercial panel and three for the administrative panel.

The point I was raising in regard to the matter is the right of the nominating bodies to make nominations to the panel. We will assume for instance that in any particular panel there is a number of nominating bodies which are entitled to make nominations to the panel. The number of nominations they will make will depend on the number made by the Dáil on the one hand, and on the number of nominating bodies which are registered as nominating bodies for a particular panel. Is not that so?

This settles the number of nominations which can be made by each of the nominating bodies in each of the panels. First of all, you have to make your register of nominating bodies. The only number we have in that is 15.

And each of them nominates one, or more than one if there is a lesser number than 15 in the panel.

You have to relate it to those numbers which I have read out, namely, four for the cultural panel, five for the agricultural panel, five for the labour panel, four for the industrial panel and three for the administrative panel.

That is what I said.

You have to relate it to those numbers, and then if there are more than four bodies on the register for the cultural panel, they will get a nomination each. If in the agricultural panel there are more than five, they will be given one apiece.

I am clear on that. The point I want to make is whether, when considering the right of a body to make nominations to the particular panel, there is to be any advertence to the representative character of the body. A situation may develop where for instance there is a body on a particular panel representing quite a large number of people, and another body representing only 5 per cent. of the number represented by the larger body. Is the position to be that the smaller body, representing say 1,000, is to be entitled to make the same number of nominations as the body representing 20 times that number?

Clearly, the returning officer will have circumstances of that sort in mind when he is fixing up the register of nominating bodies. Knowing that he has got roughly to give them equal powers of nomination, he will try if possible—I say if possible—to get bodies that would be entitled to equal treatment. Here again remember we are not trying to get definite proportional representation or anything of that sort. What we are trying to get are bodies which will be of such a character that we can depend upon them to put up for election people who have the qualifications that we have in mind in the Constitution and the Bill.

I suggest that, where there are three or four bodies in a particular panel entitled to make nominations, and where one of those bodies represents by itself a membership which exceeds in the aggregate the membership represented by all the other bodies in the panel, it is patently unfair that that body should not have the right to make nominations to a greater degree than the smaller bodies. If such a body is not given that right, you will create a situation whereby a body representing a very large number of people will be entitled to make only the same number of nominations as a small body.

That is clearly the proposal here.

But the point about the matter is that that will be one of the circumstances which the returning officer will have clearly in mind when he is fixing up his final register of bodies.

But once he knows it?

Once he knows it, then that has to be so, because otherwise you would be setting almost an impossible task, namely, to apportion between them the number of nominations to be made.

Under this scheme you will be setting an impossible task.

You will be setting a very invidious task, but it can be done politically.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again on Thursday.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until Thursday, 9th December, at 3 p.m.
Top
Share