Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Bill, 1937—Recommittal.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 91.
I think it is well to be clear on certain points. This is the stage we had reached last night. The Minister was quite satisfied that legally a council which was elected in 1928, dissolved say in 1930, and not re-elected in 1934, is still a council for the purposes of this Act. He is so convinced of that that he does not intend to have further inquiries made into the matter. The next thing that he is quite clear on is that the Corrupt Practices Act does not apply to those electors for the Seanad. He further stated—this is on his own authority and I have grave doubts about it myself—that the Corrupt, Practices Act does not affect members of the Dáil who are members of that electorate, but the House will remember that he is quite definite that so far as this other electorate is concerned the Corrupt Practices Act does not apply, and the Government has no intention of making the Corrupt Practices Act apply to the members of that electorate. That is the position as defined after a lot of trouble; that is the statement of the position we were able to get from the Minister last evening.
Thirdly, he was also quite clear on this point, namely, that any member of a dissolved county council, who had been a member at the dissolution of that body, but had subsequently been found guilty of offences that might have involved penal servitude, and who might still be in jail, is entitled to vote in this particular election, and on that also the Government intends to do nothing. There was no reason given why the Government should not make the Corrupt Practices Act apply to the members of the electoral body. That a member of the Dáil can receive bribes for what he does, it is new to me that that is not a corrupt practice. What is clear is, according to the Minister, that at least the 210, or whatever the number is, of these members cannot merely accept bribes, but can advertise in the paper that they will accept bribes. That is the position taken up by the Minister and he says he does not intend to remedy that position and the Government have no intention of doing it. The position then is that people who may be in jail owing to offences committed after the dissolution of the council, are to be entitled to vote. That was the position we got from the Minister after a great deal of trouble yesterday. Indeed, it was exceedingly difficult to get any answer from him, but at last he was induced to return categorical answers and they were of the kind I have indicated. That is undoubtedly a very pretty situation that he is asking the House to accept.
According to this whole scheme, I think any member of a county council can be elected as an elector and that person who is elected as an elector may be a Deputy, with the result that you might have a Deputy with two votes; he might have a vote in respect of being selected by the county council and in respect of being a member of Dáil Eireann.
I was not here during the previous discussion, but I am informed that that matter came up on a previous section.
The point with regard to a Deputy being also a member of a county council and being chosen by the county council and therefore having two votes, that matter was discussed and that is the position, that he will have two votes.
With regard to sub-section (3), which sets out that persons who originally belonged to dissolved county councils can be called together for a particular purpose, I should like to draw the Minister's attention to amendment No. 90, which we are supposed to have passed. Paragraph (b) of that amendment states: "the persons elected for the purpose by the councils of counties or county boroughs". The persons elected for the purpose mean the particular persons who will be selected as voters, selected by the councils of counties or county boroughs. When another piece of legislation was before the House, the Minister for Local Government was so convinced that all the powers, duties, privileges and obligations of a county council were reposed in a commissioner who was acting for the time being, that he felt obliged to bring in another Bill to indicate what the intentions were. The point I want to emphasise is that the commissioner is the council; he is acting as the council and the Minister for Local Government so held when he was obliged to bring in a Bill in order to clarify that particular position.
Now, if the commissioner has reposed in him all the powers, responsibilities and privileges of a county council, because he supersedes a county council and was appointed for the purpose of carrying out all the duties and privileges and responsibilities of a county council, I submit that equally he has them here and he has them under this particular sub-section just in the same manner as he got them from the Minister for Local Government in relation to a position where the county council had certain privileges with regard to nominations. If the county council has certain privileges in that respect and the Minister felt obliged to introduce a Bill in order to put that matter right, I submit we are in exactly the same position here. Anything we say in this sub-section here does not deprive the commissioner of the powers he has acting as a county council. I would like to know the Minister's opinion on that.
I think Deputy Brennan has raised a point that was not raised last night, a new point. The point is that, going back to No. 90, it would appear that if we say in a Bill that county councils have certain rights, that then the commissioner can claim to have the same rights. With regard to the amending Bill relating to the nomination of President, it was not held by this side of the House that there was any necessity for it; it was pressed by the Opposition, and, in order to remove any doubt, the amending Bill was brought in. We are inquite a different position here. Even if the commissioner could claim that right, it would be impracticable to apply it. For instance, the Bill sets out that two members of a county council must nominate and then the county council must select seven of their members. It obviously cannot apply to a commissioner.
I agree, but it does not get you out of the illegality of the position you are creating.
It is obviously impracticable that the commissioner could do anything under this Bill.
I quite agree with the Minister that he cannot, but that shows you the foolishness, if you like, of the measure and the peculiar manner in which it is drafted.
It is foolish, if the Deputy is right.
I submit that the commissioner has the same rights here as under the other Bill, but the Minister says he cannot exercise them. That does not get you out of the illegal position you are walking into; it does not at all excuse the position.
The serious portion of this amendment seems to me to be the kind of development that is possible under it, and unless the Minister changes his mind this morning as compared with the mind revealed last night, I think the House is going to put itself into a position in which it should not put itself under any circumstances. When we were discussing this matter last night, I put to the Minister a very definite case, and I would like to know from him what the Government propose to do in connection with that case. A certain county council elected in 1928 functioned until 1932, and then, because of municipal inefficiency and mismanagement according to the Minister for Local Government, the county council was suppressed and in its place was put a commissioner to administer the affairs of the county. Because of the fact that the commissioner was installed in 1932, and that the Department were not satisfied that a new election should take place so soon as 1934, the commissioner continued to function in 1934, and, in fact, there was no election for the county council in that year. In fact, those persons who were members of the county councils which were elected in 1928 ceased to be entitled to call themselves county councillors once there was a general dissolution of the county councils of 1934. In one case, certain members of a county council were, in fact, arraigned on a charge of municipal misfeasance, brought before the criminal courts, and sentenced to terms of imprisonment. I think that one of the charges against a councillor was that of selling his vote for a certain sum when a labourer's cottage was being allocated. Is it possible, under sub-section (3) of this section, that a person whose municipal misfeasance was discovered after the installation of the commissioner will be entitled to be deemed a member of a county council for the purpose of electing seven members to constitute the electoral college? Will it be possible for him also to be one of the seven county councillors who will, in fact, constitute portion of the electoral college for the purpose of constituting the new Seanad? Perhaps the Minister would answer that question.
When this point was raised last night, I said that, as the section stands, according to my interpretation, a person guilty of an offence since the council was dissolved would be eligible as an elector. When Deputy Norton asked me if anything could be done to prevent that, I said it would be extremely difficult because it would involve the getting of a police report on every one of these county councillors. Obviously, that would be a rather difficult thing to do even if it were not considered inadvisable. We might be able to provide a compromise scheme in this way—that if it was reported to the Seanad returning officer that a person had been guilty of an offence that person would be excluded. That, however, would not guarantee absolutely that the person entitled to vote for an elector would be free from any offence in the meantime. The matter will be considered before the next stage, and, perhaps, something will be put in by way of amendment to meet that particular case.
I should like to go back for a minute to the point raised by Deputy Brennan. If Deputy Brennan would read sub-section (3) of amendment No. 91, he would find that the case is very well covered, because that sub-section provides that, in the case of these dissolved councils, the electors shall be elected from amongst themselves by the surviving persons who were members of such councils immediately before dissolution. That would appear definitely to eliminate the commissioner for such a county. In his place, we have the surviving members in office immediately before the commissioner was appointed.
But you have not taken his authority from the commissioner.
I think we have by this section. In the other case we were accused of taking a constitutional right from him. Here there is no constitutional right. He has no right in this respect unless we give him a right by this Bill.
I say you are giving him a right. He has all the privileges of a county council and all the obligations.
I think I know a case where a person who was a member of a local authority which was suppressed is now a member of the Gárda Síochána. Is a member of the Gárda, who is normally not entitled to exercise his vote in a Dáil election, to be entitled to act in this case? Although I think that strong reasons could be adduced to show why, seeing he is liable to taxation imposed by the legislature, such a person should have a voice in the constitution of the legislature, the State says that there are reasons why he should not have that right. This man was a member of a local authority which was suppressed and, during the past few years when there was recruitment for the Gárda Síochána and when even persons who were over the normal age for recruitment were admitted, he obtained entrance to the force and is now a member of the Gárda. Is that person entitled to vote for the purpose of electing a new Seanad?
Is he entitled to be admitted to this meeting of the county council as a member of the Gárda? Is he entitled to be one of those who will elect seven persons from the county council, and is he entitled to be one of the seven who will constitute the electoral college for the purpose of electing a Seanad?
As the section stands, I think so.
Does the Minister intend to allow that to remain? Will a member of the Gárda be entitled to attend the meeting of the county council in uniform?
I have told the Deputy that we were examining the position to see if we could find any easy means of dealing with the case of a person who was guilty of an offence in the meantime. In fact, I think the amendment would take the form that, if he were ineligible for any reason to be a county councillor, he should be ineligible to attend this meeting. The case mentioned by Deputy Gorey would be an exception to that. County councillors who had gone out of office might have become contractors to the commissioner or county council since then. There is nothing wrong or illegal about that, and I think they should not be excluded. However, for other reasons, such as a criminal offence or becoming members of the Gárda or Army, I think they should be excluded, and we shall try to have an amendment submitted on next stage to meet these cases.
With reference to the same sub-section, will it be imperative on the officer of such a county council to notify all the surviving persons? Suppose he omits to notify all the surviving persons, what happens? Suppose he leaves out a few, what will be the position?
I mentioned last night that a clause will be introduced on next stage to provide that an election will not be invalidated for any such reason as an officer not carrying out his duties.
That is not the point I am trying to make. I happen to know a member of a dissolved county council who has gone to America. He is a surviving member and is entitled to notice. If he does not get notice, what are his rights, or has he any rights? Has the county council any right to act without him? Have they a right to elect seven persons to act in his absence?
The secretary of the county council will send out these notices. If he duly sends out the notices, it is sufficient.
Suppose he has not the address of a member.
It is quite possible that a member of the Dáil would be in America and would leave no address. We would not invalidate the election because of that.
The Minister has told us that a member of the Dáil who is a member of a county council will have two votes. What will be the position of a member of the Dáil who is a member of a county council and a member of a county borough council? Will he have three votes?
I do not think there is any "so on".
There is a case in Dublin of a man who is a member of the Dublin Corporation, a member of the Dublin County Council and who, up to recently, was a member of the Dáil.
I want to see if I understand the position aright so far as it has emerged this morning. It appears to me that the Minister now takes up the position, in reference to those people who had at one time been members of a dissolved county council, that he is prepared to consider bringing in an amendment that they shall not be entitled to vote if they were subject to disqualification of certain types.
He is still going to allow the position that, while Deputies can be deprived of their votes for the Seanad election, if they suffer the disqualifications set out in the Electoral Act, 1923, the same law is not to apply to these seven nominees of county councils, and lastly, he is going to leave the position as it stands at the moment, that both Deputies of the Dáil and the nominees of county councils, whether dissolved or otherwise, are entitled in law to sell their votes for the Seanad. That appears to be the result of the discussion, and there is no intention to change that at any subsequent stage of the Bill. It is well that the public, thinking of this scheme, should realise that that is the position.
There is one other point I want to raise. I have already adverted to it in the remarks I made on the previous amendment about the electorate. Under the proposals as they stand, each county council and meeting of members of dissolved county councils has to nominate seven people, and these seven, when nominated, are to be the electorate. I directed attention to the fact that although the Constitution provides for secret postal ballot, the proposals in this amendment can be so operated as to nullify that constitutional provision. I want to know from the Minister what status these seven nominees have, what are their duties and what are their rights. Are they to be seven independent people once they have been nominated by the county councils and entitled to exercise this franchise entirely independent of the body that appointed them, or are they to remain subject to the control and directions of that body? In other words, are we going to allow the position that these seven nominees, before they are appointed, will have to give an undertaking to the members of the county council who are going to elect them that, if elected, they will vote in a particular way, or for certain candidates, or are they going to be allowed to be completely independent of the body that appointed them? If they are subjected, or to be subject, or allowed to remain in a position where they may be subject, to pressure from a county council after or before appointment, I think there is grave danger that the constitutional provision is going to be nullified.
I do not think there is anything in this Bill entitling a county council to bind its delegates in respect of their vote. They will be perfectly free to vote for whatever candidates they think best. With regard to the point raised by Deputy Costello as to the Corrupt Practices Act, the position is as I stated last night, that there is no reference to that Act; but I am told that the next Bill coming before the Dáil, that is, the Consequential Provisions Bill, may deal with that matter. It may revive—it is a matter of interpretation, I suppose—the provisions of the Act which applied to the election of the old Seanad and which would naturally apply to all electors to the new Seanad.
I do not think it will. What I want to get from the Minister, and what I think the public are entitled to get from the Minister, is a statement of Ministerial policy on this point. It is not a question of what may or may not be, if there is a doubt about it. I myself think there is no doubt that the position is that these seven nominees will be entitled by law to sell their votes. I am not sure about the position of Deputies, but I think it would be an offence at common law for a Deputy to sell his vote: but I think that these people are being created a new class to which neither the common law nor the Corrupt Practices Act applies. I think there is no doubt about the position, but whether there is a doubt or not, the public is entitled to know what is the Ministerial policy on this matter. Do they, or do they not, want these seven nominees to be in a position lawfully to sell their votes by public auction, private contract, or otherwise? What is the Ministerial policy on that point? In reference to disqualifications, I think we are entitled to have a clear statement of policy, irrespective of what the position may be. If there is doubt about it, if the position is not clear, do the Government intend to have it clarified, and, if so, in what direction—whether in favour of free sale or of the application of the Corrupt Practices Act?
I do not want to get into a discussion of the Consequential Provisions Bill, but the Government has no doubt about the matter. They are quite certain that it does apply, but that matter can be discussed on the next stage.
I want to make one last remark and it is positively the last remark I shall make on this matter. The Government say that they have no doubt about it, but, last night, the Minister agreed with me that it was quite clear that the position was going to be that these seven nominees were entitled to engage in corrupt practices.
I said there was no doubt that in this Bill there was nothing referring to corrupt practices.
It is quite clear that there are two possibilities of scandal here—one, the scandal of selling votes, and the other revealed by the Minister last night, when he took up the attitude that these people were entitled to sell their votes and gave as an excuse for that that the Dáil members were so entitled. He was asked did the Government intend to do any thing about it, and he said no. Since then, this man who is in charge of the Bill, has been told that possibly certain provisions may be revived by a Bill that is still to come. There were two scandals—the possibility of selling a vote, and the attitude of the Minister last night when he definitely stated that he accepted the position that they were entitled to sell their votes and that the Government had no intention of preventing it.
I do not think the Deputy is quite fair. I said there was no doubt that this Bill contained no clause with regard to corrupt practices, or the other matter mentioned by Deputy Norton as to members of dissolved councils who had since committed some crime. That is undoubtedly the position so far as the Bill is concerned, and I do not see why we should insult the electors on county councils by putting in the Bill anything about corrupt practices, while leaving Dáil members out.
That was not the attitude of the Minister last night. There was no reference to this Bill last night.
Surely we were discussing this Bill last night?
We were discussing the operations of other legislation, such as the Corrupt Practices Act. The Minister said it did not apply and that the Government had no intention of making it apply. It was not that anybody accepted this Bill as dealing with the matter, but the Minister was asked definitely if the Corrupt Practices Act applied, and he said no. When asked if the Government intended to remedy that state of affairs, he said no. They were quite definite answers which he gave last night.
There are two aspects of this Corrupt Practices Act which require consideration. It may be held that it does apply in the case of persons who are at present members of a county council and who may be elected as part of the seven who will constitute the electoral college, but will the Minister say in what manner the Corrupt Practices Act will apply in the case of a person who has ceased, since 1934, to be a member of a county council and who is now just an ordinary citizen? In what manner is he tied by the Corrupt Practices Act or prevented from selling his vote? This question of the sale of votes in connection with this Bill is a very important matter. We ought to know definitely whether it is possible for those who will constitute the electoral college to put an advertisement in the newspapers in these terms: "County Council: two votes for sale. What offers? Best offer over £20 accepted." One is a member of the county council and one is the member of the borough corporation. Is that possible under this Bill? That is a simple question. We should know definitely whether it is possible. It seems to me that it is possible unless you bring these people under the Corrupt Practices Act.
It is possible, but it is not permitted under the Constitution Amendment Bill that is coming on next.
I do not want to discuss that now. It will be discussed later. I believe it is Section 12.
How can we pay any attention to what the Minister says? Ten minutes ago he said that the Consequential Bill might deal with it.
I did not say "might". I said there was some doubt about it.
I took down the words, "may revive." Now he is absolutely certain that it does revive, when subjected to criticism. He will not discuss the matter, and we are asked to pass this section without knowing what will be revived. Surely that is relevant to this Bill?
It does not add to our information for the Minister to say that another Act makes it unnecessary to meet the position under this Bill.
Would the Minister explain Section 10 of the Bill, which he referred to, and show how that meets the situation?
I suggested yesterday that the Minister should withdraw this proposal. It is evident, according to the statement made to-day, that he considered it probable that he will have to introduce an amendment on the next stage to meet irregularities that might occur. Would it not be better to withdraw the section now and on the next stage insert a provision necessary to remove the element of doubt? Remember that this is a Bill over which the State will have to stand. We should not have anything dirty or shabby in connection with our legislation. It should bear criticism.
I am concerned with an aspect of this matter that is raised by the section. It does not affect people who have since the dissolution of county councils committed an offence, but, in fact, by taking part in the deliberations of the reconstituted county councils they will, under the section, be leaving themselves liable to prosecution. The matter was referred to last night. I addressed remarks to the Minister, and he said that persons who were formerly members of county councils which were dissolved, and who have contracts with their successors in title, would be entitled to come forward and take part in the deliberations of county councils so reconstituted, for the purpose of electing seven electors at the Seanad election. Up to the present, and until these county councils are reconstituted, persons who may have contracts with local bodies would not have committed any offence, but it is quite possible that, in the condition of the law as it is, they will have committed an offence, and a very serious offence, in taking part in such deliberations. I refer the Minister to Article 36 of the Application of Enactments Order, 1898, made under the Local Government Act, 1898. While it is no offence for a member of a local body to have a contract with that local body, at the same time he is, pursuant to that enactment, disqualified from acting. Once he acts he commits an offence, an offence for which there is a penalty, and he would then find that a very serious position would arise, as certain disgruntled persons, not satisfied with the method of election or with the seven people selected by the county council, would be entitled, as the law stands, to go to the nearest Civic Guard station and there insist upon the Attorney-General's Department instituting a prosecution in regard to what these people had done.
The point arises as a result of what is proposed under this section. I hope I will not be criticised for making this suggestion or, as a member of this Party, criticised for holding up the business of the House. The suggestion I make is a constructive one. I would like to see something put into the section to make it clear beyond doubt that a person who has a contract with a local body will not be penalised under the Local Government Act, 1898, and the Application of Enactments Order, 1898.
I do not think they could be. It is not a meeting of the county council, it is a meeting of the members constituting the county council. However, if there is any possibility of any point arising out of the Deputy's statement, I will have it examined and made right. I do not think there is any difficulty about that.
Do you want the section to go through as it is?
I appeal to the Minister to give an undertaking to re-draft the section. As far as the House can understand the position, and as the Minister has admitted, the way is left open for all sorts of happenings. Things that were hitherto illegal can happen under this proposal. For instance, it has been stated that one might sell votes freely. That is a position we should not allow. A further illustration regarding the selling of votes is that it has been suggested that some person might have two, three or four votes. It was stated that one Deputy would have three votes. There may be other Deputies who would have two or three votes. That would be introducing a peculiar situation. Apparently they could not as Deputies sell their votes, but they could sell the other votes. I appeal to the Minister to withdraw this proposal and to give the House an undertaking that it will be re-drafted in such a way that when it comes before the House again we can be all satisfied that the things that have been suggested could not happen.
I think it would be easier and more convenient to let the section go into the reprint of the Bill and then have it considered. Otherwise, there would be a gap in the reprint. The amendment that has been suggested could be put in at the next stage. It is much better that the section should go into the reprint and be amended on the next stage.
With regard to the point raised by Deputy Bennett, that is not the position. If any Act, such as the Corrupt Practices Act, could apply to members of the Dáil, it would apply also to others.
That was not admitted previously in this debate.
It was. If it did not apply to members of the Dáil I asked why it should apply to others.
You stated plainly last night that it did not apply.
We wanted to know what the law was. The Minister was asked what the law was going to be.
The Minister was asked if it could be changed, and he said "no," that he saw no reason for it.
The Minister was asked what the law was going to be, and he said he would not change this.
I do not think the Minister should press this section at this stage, even though there will be a gap.
It is easier to mend it afterwards.
The difficulty is that we are asked to pass a section which is bristling with difficulties and capable of immense corruption.
The Minister has admitted that a person may be permitted to vote for the new Seanad even though he has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for some criminal offence, and may even vote although he is at present in jail. The Minister has admitted that that is possible and, further, that it is possible under the section for a person to sell his vote. The Minister is in doubt as to whether a person who is a member of a dissolved county council can sit again as a member of that council, if it is reconstituted, and vote for the election of the seven who are to constitute the electoral college without being liable to certain penalties which automatically are visited upon him if he is an employee or a contractor as well as a member of the county council.
These are three clear difficulties that have arisen under the section. The Minister admits that at least two of them are possible, and that the third may also be possible. Nevertheless, he asks us to pass the section. Why should we do that? Would it not be much better for the Minister to withdraw the section and come back on the next stage with a section to meet all those difficulties, and then ask the House to pass it with the knowledge that we are not openly and blatantly passing a section which will permit fraud and scandals of the kind I have described to arise under the section that is before us? No member of the House can vote for this section as it stands, certainly no member independent of Party discipline. If we were to vote for this section as it stands, then, on the next stage, the Government might decline to close the gaps that have been pointed out, and at a later stage we could be told if the things that I have referred to as possible happen, that we voted for a section permitting such things to happen. It does not bring the Government any credit to ask the House to pass an amendment which opens up so many possibilities of fraud and corruption. Surely, the Minister would have no difficulty in doing what I have asked him to do.
The way I look at this is that if you want to travel on a road it is easy to do so if you are not impeded by obstructions. In the case of this section, it places an obstruction in the way. I suggest to the Minister that he should withdraw it and deal with the matter on the next stage.
Taking the three points mentioned by Deputy Norton, they are relatively small ones compared to the section as it stands. First of all, he mentioned the matter of a man selling his vote. That will not come into this section. It will be dealt with in another Bill. The other two points were: (1) that a person might be guilty of an offence since the council of which he was a member was dissolved, and (2) the point raised by Deputy Esmonde, that a man might commit an illegality by attending meetings of the council if he was also an employee or a contractor under the council. If it is necessary to deal with these two points, then that can be done in one amendment to this long section.
I would point out to the Minister that there are other sections as well as this one. We were accused of obstruction last night because we tried to get the Minister to face the situation that he is facing now and to reconsider these things. But the whole time we got a nonpossumus from him on every one of these points.
Would the Deputy point out to me any question that I did not answer last night?
The Minister refused to meet the points that I put.
I answered every question that was put.
And still it is "No" under this Bill.
That is not what the Minister was asked. I understand that the Minister is now dealing with one Bill without any reference to any other Bill.
We discussed the Bill before.
If that is the Minister's attitude it is no wonder that the laws of the country are in the mess that they are in. He was asked was it the intention of the Government to do a certain thing regarding the prevention of corruption. "No," he says to-day, "we are doing it." When asked would he meet the point raised by Deputy Norton and myself with regard to members of a dissolved county council who might be guilty of an offence, he said "No".
Excuse me. I said it was difficult.
He is ready to meet it to-day, but he refused to meet those points last night. We could not get an answer from him.
We have the admission now from the Minister that, as the section stands, it would be legal for a member of a county council to sell his vote.
So that what the section, as it stands, means is that people in a position to elect to the Seanad can legally and openly sell their votes. It is no excuse for the Minister to say that by another Bill, which is not before the House, steps will be taken to prevent that.
Surely the Deputy realises that where you provide for a thing of that kind in another Bill, you are not expected to put it into this Bill as well. It surely ought to be sufficient to provide for what the Deputy complains of in another measure. I do not want to discuss the Consequential Provisions Bill, but that particular matter will be dealt with there. Deputy O'Sullivan accuses me of being very accommodating to-day and not so accommodating last night. The only difference is that I said last night it was a difficult thing to deal with, and that I said to-day we would try to meet it.
The Minister says that the Consequential Provisions Bill will deal with this matter. Will he show us where it deals with it? I take it for granted that Section 10 in the Consequential Provisions Bill is meant mainly as a sop to Deputy Norton: to justify his phrase "The Road Back," because what we are doing under that section is repealing the Act of 1936 abolishing the Seanad. This is a marvellous piece of gymnastics on the part of the President. Under that section he is repealing the 1936 Act abolishing the Seanad, save a few unimportant sections. Will the Minister show us how the section in the Consequential Provisions Bill does all that he says it does?
Section 2 revives the Act, if you like, and Section 3 states how.
What portion deals with the Corrupt Practices Act?
That can be dealt with under the Bill itself.
Why not tell us the evidence on which it is not necessary to put into the Bill before us the safeguards that we are asking?
That matter is dealt with in the portion of the Seanad Act that is being revived. There are sections in that Act dealing with corrupt practices.
Can we be sure that they will apply to the people who will elect the new Seanad?
The Act is being revived to that extent.
Can the Minister give us the section, so as to make the position clear?
The Minister has never seen the Bill before, so we might as well let him alone. He does not understand it.
Will the Minister deal with Deputy Bennett's point?
I thought I had dealt with it. Which point is the Deputy referring to?
I am referring to the point that, at the present moment, it is perfectly legal for any member of a county council to barter his vote.
Yes, if the Consequential Provisions Bill does not go through.
Yes, that is so; but assuming that this section is passed, is it not true that the moment it is passed the trade is open?
Yes, but I presume that the Consequential Provisions Bill will be passed before there is any question of nominations.
Yes, but will the Minister admit that at the present moment these people are potential sellers of votes, as Deputy Bennett has pointed out—both potential sellers and legal sellers?
Then, if this amendment is passed in its present form, the trade is open?
The only remedy for that is that the Consequential Provisions Bill will be passed at the same time.
Is the Minister serious in asking us to vote for this amendment?
Well, there was a time when he would be scourged for doing so by the organisation of which he claims to be a member.
Of course, we know that, if the Minister wants his Party to vote for this very unsavoury section, he will get them to do so. Deputy Norton, Deputy O'Sullivan and other Deputies have pointed out the unsavouriness of the section, but I want to speak on another aspect of it. I am speaking on the question of its legality. I have already pointed out the position with regard to the provision for every council of a county or a county borough holding a meeting, and so on. That implies that the commissioners must hold their meetings. The Minister says that they must not, because they cannot; but what is the legal position?
Under sub-section (3), they cannot.
I admit that they cannot appoint certain persons, because there is only one in it; but does not the section set out that they must hold their meetings?
But does not sub-section (3) provide an exception?
It does not. There is not a single, solitary word about the powers the commissioner has, nor is the word "exception" once mentioned anywhere. He has the powers here under sub-section (1) of this particular section you are trying to pass. I am raising that point in addition to the other unsavoury points raised by other Deputies. Deputy Norton asked the President here yesterday a rather pertinent question. He asked the President when it was that he thought of this particular type of electorate, and the President did not answer. It was evident, however, that it was thought of in haste, because, if the President or the Government thought anything of that system they would have introduced it in the case of nominations for the Presidency.
If you are going to have members of dissolved county councils, who may be guilty of all kinds of offences, coming along and being allowed to take part in the elections for the Seanad in this way, there was no reason whatever why they should not be also eligible in the case of elections for the Presidency. We have not that in the case of an election for President, but we have it here. The Minister says that certain things are withheld here, but the section does not say so. In a preceding sub-section the commissioner has the right and authority to meet.
But he is excepted by sub-section (3).
Sub-section (3) says:
"In the case of every council of a county or a county borough which is for the time being dissolved under Section 72 of the Local Government Act, 1925, the electors required by the foregoing provisions of this section to be elected by such councils shall be elected from amongst themselves"
and so on. That refers to those people, does it not?
It does but not to the commissioner who is carrying on the work.
The sub-section speaks of persons who were members of a council before it was dissolved. Obviously, that was before the commissioner came in.
But does that take from sub-section (1), where you have given the right to every county council, including the commissioner?
It does, certainly. We except certain people.
You do not. You duplicate them. You give it also to the members of the dissolved county council.
I should like to deal with the point made by Deputy Brennan with regard to the nomination of the President. It must be remembered that it is not expected that you will have a large number of candidates for the Presidency—probably about three or four—and they will have a number of counties and members of the Dáil to nominate them. That is very different from this question of elections for the Seanad. It must also be remembered that it could be held, and rightly held, that an unscrupulous Minister for Local Government could dissolve all the county councils before an election came off.
The Minister certainly has not got a grip on the reason behind either the county council nominations for the President or this matter here, because what was really in the mind of the Minister for Local Government and the mind of the House was that he should not put into the hands of a commissioner the rights of the people.
If the President thought it was right in the case of a dissolved county council to resurrect and restore the rights of the people in this case, it was equally right to do so in the other case.
The fact is that the President never thought of it at the time, and the thing is such a rotten thing that nobody would have put it up.
What the Constitution says with regard to the election of a President is that he may be nominated by not less than four county councils. We are not reviving a council here; we are only bringing the council together for a certain purpose.
Question put: "That the proposed new section be inserted."
The Committee divided: Tá, 49; Níl, 34.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- 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, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Friel, John.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Hannigan, Joseph.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Kelly, James P.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- 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.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Tubridy, Seán.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Bennett, George C.
- Benson, Ernest E.
- Bourke, Séamus.
- Brasier, Brooke.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Davin, William.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Nally, Martin.
- Norton, William.
- O'Brien, William.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- Esmonde, John L.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Heron, Archie.
- Keating, John.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Lawlor, Thomas.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGowan, Gerrard L.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, John M.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Bennett and Heron.
Question declared carried.
I move amendment No. 92:—
In page 13, before Section 21, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) The Clerk of Dáil Eireann shall, not later than, in the case of the first Seanad election, the 31st day of January, 1938, or, in the case of every subsequent Seanad election, three days after he has received all the returns to the writs for the relevant Dáil election, send to the Seanad returning officer a statement of the names, addresses, and descriptions of the members of Dáil Eireann who are entitled under this Act to be members of the electorate at such Seanad election.
(2) So soon as the Seanad returning officer has received from the Clerk of Dáil Eireann the statement in relation to a Seanad election mentioned in the next preceding sub-section of this section and has ascertained the result of all the elections of electors by councils of counties or county boroughs (including any elections by former members of any such council which is for the time being dissolved) in relation to such Seanad election, the Seanad returning officer shall prepare for such Seanad election an electoral roll containing the names, addresses, and descriptions of all the persons who appear from such statement and results to constitute the electorate for such Seanad election.
(3) It shall be lawful for the Seanad returning officer to make such inquiries and take such steps as he shall think proper for ascertaining the correct name, address, and description of every person whose name is required to be entered in an electoral roll, but no inaccuracy in the name, address, or description of any person in an electoral roll shall invalidate such electoral roll.
(4) The persons whose names are entered in an electoral roll shall be arranged in such roll in the alphabetical order of their surnames and, in cases of identity of surname, of their other names, and shall be numbered consecutively in that order.
(5) Every electoral roll prepared under this section shall be final and conclusive and not open to review by any court, and the persons whose names are set out in any such electoral roll, and no other persons, shall be entitled to vote at the Seanad election to which such electoral roll relates.
Is the Minister still remaining in charge of the Bill?
There is no good wasting time then.
If I have that effect I will stay here.
Will the Minister not give any explanation of the amendment?
I think it would be only a waste of time. So far as I can see, it is very plain and easy to read and understand.
Mr. Morrissey
And therefore very easy for the Minister to explain.
The first sub-section of this new section provides that the Clerk of the Dáil shall send to the Seanad returning officer the names of members of the Dáil who are entitled to be members of the electorate. Then, the returning officer, having also ascertained the result of the elections of electors by county councils and county borough councils, will make the electoral roll. Sub-section (3) lays down that the returning officer shall make such enquiries in regard to proper names, addresses and so forth as he may think proper. It lays down also that if a person does by any chance give a wrong address that does not invalidate the election. The roll will be then arranged in alphabetical order. The roll, so arranged, it is also provided, will be final and conclusive.
Coming back to sub-section (3), it states that it shall be lawful for the returning officer to make certain inquiries. Does that include inquiries into such matters as were mentioned here to-day with regard to the right of certain people to vote?
No, that will be dealt with in the last section we considered.
I do not know if the Deputy is going back to the point regarding a person found guilty of an offence?
That will come in under amendment No. 91—the new section.
The Minister when we were discussing the last amendment said that it would not be possible——
That is, if we do amend it.
We have no indication so far that you are going to amend it. If the Seanad returning officer will have power to make inquiries with regard to names and addresses, he certainly also should have power to make inquiries with regard to matters that are more important, namely, the right and authority of these people to vote.
I think the Deputy is arguing whether it should appear in the last amendment or in this.
It does not appear anywhere.
I said that we intended to bring in an amendment, if practicable, on the next stage dealing with that matter.
Sub-section (2) of this amendment states:—
So soon as the Seanad returning officer has received from the Clerk of Dáil Eireann the statement in relation to a Seanad election mentioned in the next preceding sub-section of this section and has ascertained the result of all the elections of electors by councils of counties or county boroughs (including any elections by former members of any such council which is for the time being dissolved)...
Now, I hold that the Minister, according to the terms of his previous section, made no provision for these members of county councils that were for the time being dissolved. We cannot bring them into existence again without an Act and an election because in the previous section the statement commences: "In the case of every council of a county or county borough which is for the time being dissolved". That applies to a county council elected in 1934. Members of previous councils are not county councillors. The only person who can claim to be a county councillor, in such an instance, is the commissioner. Therefore such councillors have no existence and are not given an existence. They cannot have that existence without a new election or a special Act of Parliament giving them that power. It cannot be given to them under this section. The provision made in sub-section (2) of amendment No. 92 reads: "including any elections by former members of any such council which was for the time being dissolved". I do not know if it is possible to introduce a short Bill giving these people legal status, that is, members of a county council that was dissolved before 1934. I hold that under this Bill you cannot legalise the position.
Does the Minister consider that the wording of sub-section (2), line 6, of this amendment— this has reference to the point raised by Deputy Gorey—is consistent with the wording of the previous amendment, sub-section (3), which states: "...the electors required by the foregoing provisions of this section to be elected by such council shall be elected from amongst themselves by the surviving persons who were members of such council immediately before it was dissolved"? Now, this amendment sets out that as soon as the Seanad officer has received from the Clerk of Dáil Eireann the statement "...and has ascertained the result of all the elections of electors by councils of counties or county boroughs (including any elections by former members of any such council which is for the time being dissolved)". Here we have the expression "former members of any such council which is for the time being dissolved". Does that mean any former member of that particular council?
You might take it back to 1898.
That wording is not consistent with the wording of the previous amendment.
Does the Deputy not realise that, when we say former members in sub-section (2) of amendment No. 92, it is merely a reference back to sub-section (3) of amendment No. 91? It is not necessary to give a definition of the members in every reference.
In the previous amendment they were defined as the surviving persons who were members of such council immediately prior to its dissolution.
They are defined there and we refer back to them.
Would it not be better to have a clear definition in this section?
You seek to do something in this sub-section of the amendment that you have not done in the other amendment. The question of validity here is on a par with what would happen if previous members of the Dáil claimed the right to come in here and vote. They have no longer a legal status in the State. The whole thing is, in fact, laughable. It is rather tragic in my opinion.
Apart from that—and I think that point requires to be rectified—there is another sub-section of the amendment which appears at the top of page 24, which says:—
Every electoral roll prepared under this section shall be final and conclusive and not open to review by any court and the persons whose names are set out in any such electoral roll, and no other person, shall be entitled to vote at the Seanad election to which such electoral roll relates.
That seems to me to be a very drastic provision. Certain information as to who are entitled to constitute the electoral college is collated by the Seanad returning officer. He may make such inquiries as he can about members, and if on the part of the local authority there is some conspiracy to permit a certain improper thing to happen, and as a result of that conspiracy a person not entitled to vote managers to have his name included in the seven to be elected—we have got to remember again that some of these councils have been removed for municipal mismanagement—and, if in any case, they can succeed in fooling the Seanad returning officer in getting a name on the electoral roll, the insertion of that name on the electoral roll shall be final and conclusive and shall not be open to review by any court. So that, although we may have patent evidence of some illegality having been committed, it is apparently not possible for anybody to have that illegality made the subject of proceedings in any court. As a matter of fact, it is very doubtful even if the returning officer having put the name on the list can delete it after he discovers that illegality. I should like to hear the Minister justify that section.
As far as I can recall, in the Electoral Act there is a similar provision. The returning officer must have the final word. What could you do, suppose there was a delay in some case? Suppose the Supreme Court had to decide whether a name should be on or not, the whole thing might be held up for five or six months. You must make the returning officer's word the final word. If he says it is a final and a conclusive list, then it must be so.
Put in a nutshell, the whole position is that the President and the Government are in a hurry, and must have this thing done.
I suggest that the only thing to do is to cut the county councils out of this whole Bill, and be done with it.
That is going back to another matter.
Why should it not be possible, even if it takes time and involves an appeal to the court, to remove from the electoral roll the name of a person who has been improperly included? Why should we, with our eyes wide open, permit a state of affairs to continue whereby a person who should not be an elector would in fact be permitted to be an elector?
Perhaps the Minister would consider giving some explanation to the House as to the possibility of an election petition being lodged after the election. If, after prosecuting that election petition before the court, a member is disqualified, according to this Bill, as I read it, he is entitled to vote at a Seanad election.
I should like to get the Deputy's request a bit clearer.
An election takes place in let us say, the constituency of Bohola, and five members are elected. An election petition is lodged for any one of the dozen reasons for which an election petition may be lodged. Before the election petition is decided the members who have been returned cannot sit, as I understand the law, but they are entitled to vote here. Alternatively, a person may be elected but may subsequently be disqualified for various reasons. Deputy Costello mentioned one of them, which apparently has gone into abeyance, but there may be others. Notwithstanding the fact that a person would not be entitled to sit in the Dáil, nevertheless he could vote. Furthermore it was mentioned here yesterday on this section that any mistake which may occur either in the names, the description, the address or anything else will not invalidate the roll. It is not necessary, I am sure, to bring to the Minister's mind the fact that a mistake in your income tax form may land you in serious difficulties. The penalties are always on the individual, but the State in this case exculpates the officer responsible, and itself incidentally, from any mis-description or other mistake that may arise. The third point is the point made by Deputy Norton and it is a point of some importance, namely, that apparently there is a court of first instance and no other in this case. There is a returning officer. Why is a roll necessary? Was a roll necessary in the case of the election that formerly took place in which members of the Seanad and the Dáil voted?
There was the same sort of register.
Assuming that there was, there was never a mistake?
There was no cause of complaint, but for a mistake which occurs here and which is apparently anticipated there is no provision. The strange thing about it is that it may occur in reference either to a member of the Dáil or to a member of the county council. The county council electors are the children of the Minister and we have no interest in them, but so far as members of the Dáil are concerned we have an interest in them. As I say, under this section as it is drawn, the Seanad returning officer can make any return he wishes. All he requires to have is Ministerial backing. You can have a register composed of 40 members, or composed of electors of the Minister's Party. I am sure that is not the intention. The Minister is not unaware of the fact that in one important and progressive Catholic country in Europe, so engineered and gerrymandered were the electoral results that a minority Party got into power, waged war in the country, and has ruined a great number of people. The Seanad returning officer may be an excellent individual. He may have the confidence not only of the Minister but of all Parties in the House. We are not dealing with him. This measure is one that is going to last presumably, if we interpret the Minister correctly. The Seanad returning officer may be in future the nominee of a corrupt political Party. He has absolute control and power to regulate the electoral college for the Seanad in future, and while we have courts which allow for an appeal from decisions made by them—an appeal from courts at the very bottom probably to the very top —here you have one individual who cannot be made responsible as long as the Minister is prepared to stand over whatever he does.
As I said already, in reply to Deputy Norton I think, in all elections you have an electoral roll which is prepared by some person such as a returning officer. Even for the Dáil election——
Is there not a very big difference?
There is a difference. An election petition brought afterwards, I think, cannot question the electorate. It may question other matters. The same applies here. Section 27 deals with election petitions. Questions may be raised with regard to the counting of the votes or something like that, but not with regard to the electoral roll. As I said to the Deputy when he was speaking, practically the same provisions applied in the election of the old Seanad. The electoral roll was prepared, and it could not be questioned once it was prepared. After all, I think it was possible there for an unscrupulous Ministry to appoint a Seanad returning officer who would blatantly if you like leave out members of the Dáil and Seanad, and so have all one side electing the new Seanad. It is not likely to occur, I suggest. I know that the President, in dealing with another part of this Bill, has promised to consider how this Seanad returning officer should be selected and appointed so that as far as possible he would be an independent person.
As far as I am concerned, it is not a question of suspecting the bona fides of the Seanad returning officer. A case may arise where a county council which was first elected in 1928, subsequently abolished, but reconstituted for the purposes of this electoral college— remember it was a body previously suppressed for illegalities of one kind or another—may meet, and with dimmed memories of their qualifications to act as an electorate they may proceed to elect seven members to constitute this new electoral college. Some of those people may not be entitled to vote. They may suffer from one type or other of the disqualifications which prevent them from being electors even within the meaning of this Bill, or within the meaning of the Corrupt Practices Act if it is now or subsequently made to apply to them. The returning officer may not know that, and consequently may put the names of those persons on the electoral roll. It is possible, I suggest, under this section that the returning officer may prepare a roll on say Monday and declare on Tuesday that the roll has been prepared. The section says that the persons whose names are set out in any such electoral roll and no other person shall be entitled to vote at the Seaned election to which such electoral roll relates. The returning officer may discover on Friday that there are one or two people on that roll whose names should not appear on it. Having first declared the existence of the roll, and incorporated those names on the roll, is he entitled to revise the roll even when it is brought to his notice that certain persons' names are improperly entered there? Is that possible for the returning officer?
I do not think it is. I do not think the returning officer can revise it once he has signed the final roll.
So that if he prepares it on Monday, exhibits it or makes its existence known on Tuesday, and has it gazetted on Wednesday, and then abundant evidence is brought in on Thursday and every other day for the subsequent week that A, B, C and D are, in fact, disqualified from being electors, the returning officer is to say to whoever produces that information: "It cannot be helped; I cannot possibly interfere now with the electoral roll." That type of thing might not be very serious in a Dáil election, where the number of electors is close to 2,000,000, and where one or ten votes would not affect an issue very much; but it is of considerable importance in an electoral college of this type, which is restricted and which is elected in a particular way. A situation of that kind should obviously be guarded against. I wonder what defence the Minister can make for permitting a Seanad election to be held, and, with our eyes wide open, permitting non-qualified people to act on a restricted franchise selected in this peculiar way?
Naturally, I would like to meet a point like that as far as I possibly could. If I were to visualise it, I think what would happen is that the returning officer would take all the care he possibly could to see that the names were correct. I am sure everybody will admit that. I do not think the returning officer would make his final and conclusive roll until he was satisfied that he had it in every way correct. Probably he would not make it until it was required. I do not think the situation would arise that was pictured by Deputy Norton, about the returning officer preparing the roll and then people pointing out that certain electors were disqualified.
Somebody on the roll could have done some act which might render him ineligible.
I do not think Deputy Norton or anybody else would like to have a whole election upset because of something discovered after the papers had gone out. I am sure that the returning officer will take every possible care. However, if there is any doubt about it, we will reconsider the matter and improve it if it is necessary to do so.
The Minister was probably at an election at some time or other and he voted. If it so happens that a name is not recorded accurately in the register, the Minister, I am sure, will understand the position. For instance, there are various names which are subject to a particular peculiarity. If you take the name "Brown" it can be spelled in two ways. Similarly, the name "Smith" can be spelled in two ways. If you go into a polling booth, and the name is not correctly returned—for instance, if the Christian name is put down as "Thomas" instead of "Thomasini," or any other peculiar difference of that sort—the presiding officer will inform you that that name is not on the register. You can swear you are the person there returned, and you will get a vote. Is that the case here?
You can swear you are the person meant?
Yes. If I interpret this section correctly, it means persons whose names are set out in any electoral roll, and no other person.
Sub-section (c) is meant to cover that particular point.
We assume that every effort is made to get the correct name and address, but if it does not get them, it does not invalidate the register. Perhaps the Minister will explain that point?
There appears to be a conflict between two sub-sections. If, as Deputy Cosgrave said, a person is entered as "John Brown" on the electoral roll, and it appears that the name "Brown" is spelled differently elsewhere, it would appear under sub-section (5) that he could not exercise the vote, but under sub-section (3), from what the Minister says, he could.
Let us take an alternative case.
Deputy Cosgrave referred to the name Brown, and mentioned that it can be spelled with a final "e".
There are even more remarkable cases than that. So far as this is concerned, not only have you to fulfil all the technicalities of the law as it is drawn, but you have to run the risk of the compositor. As far as I can read this, a man perfectly entitled to vote is prevented from doing so merely because his name is not properly recorded.
I may not be interpreting this sub-section aright, but it is meant to cover such cases. In this particular case you have a Seanad returning officer dealing with something like 400 names and it is almost inconceivable that he would not have the correct names and addresses of everybody. I think he is certain to have them.
It is almost inconceivable that he would not have the correct names? Is that the Minister's point? What, then, is the meaning of the section?
If the section reads so that a printer's error may prevent a person having a vote, then we will see about having it improved.
The returning officer must secure himself. Can he exercise a discretion? I have very grave doubts that he can. He has the word of the statute against him and I can find no reason to lead me to conclude that he is entitled to exercise his discreation with regard to that.
Is the Minister going to meet the situation?
I think sub-section (3) covers that point, but if there is any doubt about it we will see that it is made right.
What about the point I referred to—if it is brought to the attention of the returning officer that a person's name appears on the roll and that person is not entitled to be there?
He must sign the conclusive roll at some stage.
But he ought to be allowed to get after the person whose name is not properly entered.
I take it the Minister has been to a racecourse and he is aware that there is a regulation with regard to the time of starting. Will he undertake to give the starters in this case an opportunity of knowing the time to start? There is to be a preliminary register, but a certain difficulty arises in that people may have trouble in ascertaining if they are entitled to be entered as electors. There is no preliminary canter in this case. You are told there is to be a race, but you are not told the time to start and you have no opportunity of knowing if your horse is at the post.
Would it not be possible to put on the returning officer the obligation to declare publicly who is on the register? If anything was known which might disqualify a person, that information could be conveyed to the returning officer and he has another chance of amending the roll.
We will certainly look into that point.
Will the Minister admit this? The Dáil is part of the electoral college. To make the members of the last Dáil, who are not here now, members of the electoral college would require legislation. If we did introduce members of the last Dáil, it would be introducing a new principle and that could not be brought in at this stage of the Bill. Is that not so?
That is a matter for the Ceann Comhairle: I could not say, really.
That would be bringing in a new principle which it is not permissible to bring in at this stage. In the same way, the bringing in of dissolved county councils under your previous amendment was introducing a new principle which should not be brought in at this stage.
The President declared on the Second Reading that this Bill had no principle and that it could be amended in any way.
There are certain rules which govern all of us here, including Governments.
I wish the natural law would get liberty in most things in Ireland at present. I contend that the provision in sub-section (2) of this amendment cannot be given effect at this stage. It introduces a new principle. It proposes to do something the doing of which you did not contemplate. You did not provide for it and it cannot be done now.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I think that amendment No. 94 might be debated with amendment No. 93. It is for Deputies to say how far amendment No. 93 meets amendment No. 94.
I move amendment No. 93:—
In pages 13 and 14, Section 21 (1), to delete paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d), and substitute one paragraph as follows:—
(a) every ballot paper shall contain the names, addresses, and descriptions of all the candidates named in the several panels arranged in the alphabetical order of their surnames and, in cases of identity of surname, of their other names, and either in one continuous column or in two or more columns as the Seanad returning officer shall, with the consent of the Minister, consider to be most convenient.
Is there any objection to taking out the word "other" before the word "names" in the amendment and putting in the word "Christian".
"Other names" means Christian names.
The description "Christian names" would suit most people in this country and probably absorb other names as well.
This is the phrase used in the case of all other Acts.
We should not be ashamed to put in the usual designation.
This phrase has been used, so far, in all legislation.
It does not include "Christian" in every case.
It does include "Christian" and more than "Christian".
It includes double-barrelled names which some of the members may have.
They could be mentioned but the Christian names ought to be inserted. I do not know that there is any objection to the word "Christian".
Certainly, I have no objection but I do not know that it would have the same legal significance. Perhaps I shall be expected to say a word on amendment No. 93. This is merely intended to provide a change from the panels to the one long ballot paper. I think it covers what Deputy Norton sought.
I accept amendment No. 93 as covering No. 94.
I have considerable objection to amendment No. 93. A lot of discussion has circled around the position of this person who is to be called the Seanad returning officer. A certain amount of adverse criticism was directed to him by Deputy McGilligan and by Deputy Norton and it was intimated that something would have to be done to clear him from the coils of the Minister, whoever he might be. In answer to that, I think that the President and the Minister for Agriculture indicated that they were making an honest endeavour to arrive at something in the nature of a decent conclusion. They stated that they were trying to concoct some kind of personage who would not be subject to Ministerial control. I think that the Comptroller and Auditor-General was quoted as an example. It was intimated that the Government would make an honest endeavour to clear this officer of Ministerial control. In amendment No. 93, it is suggested that, even in mere detail, he must have the consent of the Minister. This big, magnaminous person who is supposed to be a mean between a body corporate and an individual, who is supposed to be omnipotent, has now, for the purpose of dealing with such a common or garden thing as two sheets of foolscap, to ask the Minister's consent as to whether he is to utilise one or two columns. I think that that is simply ludicrous and is striking at the root of the promise the President gave. If this person is to be all-powerfull, the suggestion underlying the words, "with the consent of the Minister", is definitely contrary to the assertions by the President and the Minister for Agriculture. I think this example provides evidence that there is something behind this proposal and that really this magnanimous, omnipotent person to be known as the Seanad returning officer will be still under the thumb of the Minister. I do not know if that is the intention. It is suggested in that small matter when the consent of the Minister has to be obtained as to whether he will utilise one or two columns of a couple of sheets of foolscap. That is depriving him of the function of even a small office boy.
May I ask whether a person who leaves out certain initials of his Christian name and is generally known, say, as "John Smith" will have his paper invalidated if he describes himself as he is generally known?
On the last amendment, I said that I believed sub-section (3) did cover such a case and that a person so described would be entitled to vote. We shall have the matter further examined and, if there is any doubt, we shall make it right. As regards the main point raised by Deputy McGowan, we do consider that an amendment should be moved on next stage to give some indication as to the panel to which a person belongs and whether he is a Dáil or an outside nominee, so that the voter would have guidance in distributing his votes.
What about the words "with the consent of the Minister"?
I believe all those words are in all the Electoral Acts. I am not sure what the reason is but, from my experience in bringing in Bills, I think the intention is to prevent a very extravagant returning officer from purchasing too much stationery.
But there was no personage known as the Seanad returning officer in other Electoral Acts.
In the case of the former Seanad, there was.
You think that the words are inserted for the purpose of curtailing expenditure?
That is the only explanation I can think of.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 94 not moved.
I move amendment No. 95:—
In page 14, lines 10 and 11, section 21 (1) (e), to delete the words "in the same part of the ballot paper", and in sub-section (2), to delete, in line 21 and also in lines 24 and 25, the words "of each and every of the five parts".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 96:—"In page 14, to delete Section 21 (3),"—agreed to. (The President and Deputy Norton).
Section 21, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 22.
(1) An elector when marking his ballot paper must vote separately in respect of each panel as if the ballot slip containing that panel were a separate ballot paper.
(2) An elector in giving his vote in respect of any panel must place on the ballot slip containing that panel the figure 1 opposite the name of the candidate for whom he votes, and he may in addition place on the said ballot slip the figures 2 and 3, or 2, 3, and 4, and so on opposite the names of other candidates in the order of his preference.
(3) Any ballot slip—
(a) which does not bear the official mark, or
(b) on which the figure 1 standing alone is not placed at all or is not so placed as to indicate a first preference for some candidate, or
(c) on which the figure 1 standing alone indicating a first preference is set opposite the name of more than one candidate, or
(d) on which the figure 1 standing alone indicating a first preference and some other number is set opposite the name of some candidate, or
(e) on which anything except the number on the back is written or marked by which the voter can be identified,
shall be invalid and shall not be counted.
(4) The invalidity of a ballot slip shall not of itself prejudice or affect the validity of any other ballot slip forming part of the same ballot paper.
The following amendments were agreed to.
97. In page 14, to delete Section 22 (1).—(An tUachtarán, Deputy Norton.)
98. In page 14, line 34, Section 22 (2), to delete the words "in respect of any panel", and in line 35 to delete the words "slip containing that panel" and substitute the word "paper", and in line 37 to delete the words "said ballot slip" and substitute the words "ballot paper". —(An tUachtarán, Deputy Norton.)
99. In page 14, line 40, Section 22 (3), to delete the word "slip" and substitute the word "paper".—(An tUachtarán, Deputy Norton.)
I move amendment No. 100:—
In page 14, Section 22, to delete sub-section (4).
Will the Minister say how many ballot papers the voter will get?
One as the Bill now stands.
With reservations as to how it is to be used.
There will be no reservations as to how you are to vote, but there will be reservations as to how the candidates will be elected. So many from each panel must be elected and so many of the Dáil nominees must be elected.
Could you not give us a more elaborate explanation than that?
It does not arise on this amendment.
Are we not dealing with ballot papers now?
It could better be raised on amendment No. 109.
We will have that question later.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 22, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 23.
(1) On the day appointed for the issue of ballot papers at a Seanad election the Seanad returning officer shall send by registered post to each person whose name is on the electoral roll for that election at the address stated on such electoral roll such number of ballot papers as such person is entitled to receive together with a form of declaration of identity.
(2) Whenever a person to whom ballot papers for a Seanad election should be sent under the foregoing sub-section of this section states in writing to the Seanad returning officer that more than twenty-four hours have elapsed since such ballot papers should have been delivered to him in the ordinary course of post and that he has not received such ballot papers and that he desires duplicate ballot papers and declaration of identity to be issued to him, the Seanad returning officer, if such statement is received by him not less than forty-eight hours before the close of the poll at such election, shall forthwith or, if such statement is received by him less than forty-eight hours before the close of the poll at such election, may send by registered post to such person at the address mentioned in the foregoing sub-section such number of ballot papers as he is entitled to receive and a declaration of identity all of which, by being printed on paper of a special colour or otherwise, are clearly distinguished as duplicates of the ballot papers and form of declaration of identity originally sent to such person under this section.
(3) Every declaration of identity shall be in the prescribed form.
(4) No person shall be entitled to receive any duplicate ballot papers under this section on the ground that the number of ballot papers received by him was less than the number of ballot papers which he was entitled to receive.
I move amendment No. 101:—
In page 15, lines 1 and 2, section 23 (1), to delete the words "such number of ballot papers as such person is entitled to receive" and substitutes the words "a ballot paper".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 102 not moved.
I move amendment No. 103:—
In page 15, line 4, section 23 (2), to delete the words "ballot papers" and substitute the words "a ballot paper", and in lines 9 and 10 to delete the words "duplicate ballot papers" and substitute the words "a duplicate ballot paper", and in lines 16 and 17 to delete the words "such number of ballot papers as he is entitled to receive" and substitute the words "a ballot paper", and in lines 7, 9, and 19 to delete the word "papers" and substitute the word "paper".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 104 not moved.
I move amendment No. 105:—
In page 15, to delete section 23 (4).
Amendment agreed to.
Section 23, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 24.
(1) Every person entitled to vote at a Seanad election shall be entitled to vote at that election in the following and no other manner, that is to say, by marking and returning by registered or ordinary post to the Seanad returning officer the ballot papers sent to him under this section together with the form of declaration of identity similarly sent to him therewith duly made and completed by him.
(2) Whenever a person entitled to vote at a Seanad election states in writing to the Seanad returning officer that he duly returned by registered post to the Seanad returning officer the ballot papers and form of declaration of identity sent to him under this section and that the same do not appear to have been delivered to the Seanad returning officer and that he desires duplicate ballot papers and declaration of identity to be issued to him, the Seanad returning officer, if such statement is received by him not less than forty-eight hours before the close of the poll at such election, shall forthwith or, if such statement is received by him less than forty-eight hours before the close of the poll at such election, may send by registered post to such person at the address mentioned in the first sub-section of this section such number of ballot papers as he is entitled to receive together with a form of declaration of identity all of which, by being printed on paper of a special colour or otherwise, are clearly distinguished as duplicates of the ballot papers and form of declaration of identity originally sent to such person under this section.
(3) No person shall be entitled to receive any duplicate ballot papers on the ground that the number of ballot papers which he had sent to the Seanad returning officer was less than the number of ballot papers which he was entitled so to send.
I move amendment No. 106:—
In page 15, line 34, Section 24 (1), to delete the word "papers" and substitute the word "paper".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 107:—
In page 15, line 41, Section 24 (2), to delete the word "do" and substitute the word "does", and in line 43 to delete the words "duplicate ballot papers" and substitute the words "a duplicate ballot paper", and in lines 49 and 50 to delete the words "the address mentioned in the first sub-section of this section such number of ballot papers as he is entitled to receive" and substitute the words "his address as stated on the electoral roll a ballot paper", and in lines 40 and 53 to delete the word "papers" and substitute the word "paper".
Would the Minister explain this? It refers to "a duplicate ballot paper".
It is consequential on the provision for a single ballot paper and substitutes one ballot paper for the five originally prescribed.
In the event of a citizen or citizeness making an error in marking the ballot paper, is provision made?
It is provided for. A new ballot paper will be issued.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 108:—
In page 15, to delete Section 24 (3).
Amendment agreed to.
Section 24, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 25.
Amendment No. 109 is to insert a new section which is a re-draft of Section 9. Deputies will see on the amendment sheet that there were two amendments to Section 9—three in number, but two in substance—and the Chair suggested that those might be moved to the new section now or deferred until Report Stage, so that Deputies might see the text in its complete form. It is open to Deputies to adopt either course, but possibly as the Deputies concerned are not here, they might be left over until Report Stage when they can see whether they should move them then in a different form or not.
Amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 40 not moved.
I move amendment No. 109:—
In page 16, before Section 25, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) The numbers of members of Seanad Eireann to be elected from each of the panels shall be as follows, that is to say:—
(a) five members shall be elected from the cultural and educational panel, of whom four shall be persons nominated to that panel by nominating bodies and one shall be a person nominated to that panel by members of Dáil Eireann;
(b) eleven members shall be elected from the agricultural panel, of whom five shall be persons nominated to that panel by nominating bodies and six shall be persons nominated to that panel by members of Dáil Eireann;
(c) eleven members shall be elected from the labour panel, of whom five shall be persons nominated to that panel by nominating bodies and six shall be persons nominated to that panel by members of Dáil Eireann;
(d) nine members shall be elected from the industrial and commercial panel, of whom four shall be persons nominated to that panel by nominating bodies and five shall be persons nominated to that panel by members of Dáil Eireann;
(e) seven members shall be elected from the administrative panel, of whom three shall be persons nominated to that panel by nominating bodies and four shall be persons nominated to that panel by either members of Dáil Eireann or ex-officio nominations.
(2) Whenever the number of persons nominated by nominating bodies to a panel is less than the number of members of Seanad Eireann required by the foregoing sub-section of this section to be elected from persons so nominated to such panel, the full number of members of Seanad Eireann required by the said sub-section to be elected from such panel shall be made up from the persons nominated to such panel by members of Dáil Eireann or, in the case of the administrative panel, from persons nominated to that panel either by members of Dáil Eireann or ex-officio nominations.
(3) Whenever the number of persons nominated by members of Dáil Eireann to a panel (other than the administrative panel) is less than the number of members of Seanad Eireann required by the first sub-section of this section to be elected from persons so nominated to such panel, the full number of members of Seanad Eireann required by the said sub-section to be elected from such panel shall be made up from the persons nominated to such panel by nominating bodies.
(4) Whenever the number of persons nominated by members of Dáil Eireann to the administrative panel together with the number of persons nominated to that panel by ex-officio nominations is less than the number of members of Seanad Eireann required by the first sub-section of this section to be elected from persons so nominated to the said panel, the full number of members of Seanad Eireann required by the said sub-section to be elected from such panel shall be made up from the persons nominated to the said panel by nominating bodies.
This sets out the number of members to be elected to each panel. As already outlined to the Dáil, five are to be elected from the cultural and educational panel, four of these to be nominated by outside bodies and one by the Dáil members; 11 to be elected from the agricultural panel, six of whom shall come from the nominees of Dáil members and five from outside; 11 from the Labour panel with the same division; nine from the industrial and commercial panel, four of whom shall be nominated to the panel by nominating bodies and five from the nominees of Dáil members; and seven from the administrative panel, of whom three shall be nominated by nominating bodies and four by Dáil members. The amendment provides in the next three sub-sections that if there are not sufficient nominations from outside bodies, the deficiency can be made from the Dáil nominees and vice versa.
Sub-section (1) (a) refers to five members elected from the cultural and educational panel, of whom four shall be nominated by nominating bodies and one by members of Dáil Eireann. I take it that there are really 11 involved there, six of whom shall be nominated by the universities. Is that right?
Mr. Morrissey
The position, so far as that particular group is concerned, is that the Dáil is to have the election of only one out of 11, which means, in effect, that you are presenting to the Government of the day another Senator, in addition to the 11 the President already has power to nominate. The Government of the day normally has a majority in the House and, therefore, can elect that one Senator. I should like to hear some reason advanced as to why the proportions should vary so much in subparagraph (a) as compared with any of the other groups, because the position, in effect, is that of the 11 to be elected, the Dáil is allowed to elect only one, and that, in turn, means that you are presenting the Government of the day with another Senator.
The Deputy means that the majority Party is almost certain, if it votes as a body, of getting that one Senator. There is some force in that contention, but the reason the numbers are put as they are is that, first of all, you have the universities, which I take as, roughly, coming into that cultural panel. The electorate is very large in the sense that it is composed of all the graduates. They may give you a professional man, a business man, or any other type whatsoever, and although the fact that they are graduates will indicate that they are in a special way associated with cultural matters, you would feel it advisable, over and above that, to give bodies such as the learned professions who have organisations of their own a fair chance of nomination. It was suggested by Deputy McGilligan that here we had a panel where we could leave the whole of the election on the outside, and the idea of giving them as large a number as possible was a recognition of that fact. The proportion was given in that way because we want to try to get 21, and the six and five we have in the case of the 11 was regarded, in existing circumstances, as a good apportionment, and if you keep that in, you must get the rest from somewhere, so that, in respect of the numbers being allocated, that seems to be a good allocation.
The particular point the Deputy has raised did not occur to me, I confess. I think Deputy Dockrell has some amendments dealing with the allocation of numbers. He wants to change the number in the industrial panel and to balance it up by subtracting from the administrative panel. I will look into it and shall bear in mind what the Deputy has said, to see whether I could not do something. The only panel on which there is a possibility of doing anything is the administrative panel. By looking at that panel I might so arrange that we could get the total of 21 we want.
Mr. Morrissey
My main objection is to "one." I have no very strong objection to giving outside bodies the right to nominate 11, but I have a strong objection to the Dáil electing "one."
I appreciate the full force of the Deputy's point and I will have to consider it. You have to do these things carefully or otherwise you upset the whole scheme.
Mr. Morrissey
I am satisfied with that.
I will not promise that I will change it, but I promise to look into it to try to meet the Deputy's point.
What is the meaning of these words in sub-section (2) of Section 109 "shall be made up from members of Dáil Eireann"?
I am not quite satisfied with that, for the reason that I think the provision made here is not in the right place. It is a provision that should be really met in the case of the nominations. If the nominating bodies wanted to make sure of getting their nominees elected without any supervision, they had only to be short in the panel and they were certain that the number that was short would get in. I do not like that, and I will bring in an amendment to try to get into this a provision that is necessary. There is no way of penalising a body. You give them a statutory privilege and if they— do not avail of it you cannot penalise them. You must make some arrangement so that the whole thing will not fall to the ground, if they fail. The idea behind it is that if, in the case of other nominations, there is not a sufficient number to be nominated, not merely to give the exact number to have something in addition, so that there would be a genuine choice for the electorate. You could not add the nominations from Dáil Eireann. We assume that the nominations will be in excess of the number required. If both are short, which is unlikely, we would have to meet that situation, and the idea is to treat them as casual vacancies. We will want another Bill, in addition to this one, for casual vacancies that are not provided for here. The drafting department thought it better not to complicate this Bill by dealing with casual vacancies. This is the only Bill which is urgent. If we are to deal with casual vacancies that can be dealt with in the other Bill. The Deputy need not worry about this, as there will be another opportunity to deal with it in the amended form.
It will be substantially altered.
I think it will. It is objectionable in this form, because the nominating bodies have no right to nominate less than they are entitled to nominate.
I think the President will remember that he confessed to two brain waves at the Committee, one concerning county councils, and the other the non-separation of the panels for the purposes of the election. Is that idea dropped?
Will the candidates be divided into panels?
Will the President explain how it will work out?
We will have to put in a new Schedule in order to fit in with the new scheme.
Is it proposed to eliminate the Schedules?
I will have to leave them in. There is no amendment to delete them, but, in fact, I will have to substitute new Schedules which will accord with our whole scheme. As it is they are of a type that would not fit in.
Before doing that, will the President explain when he comes to the Schedules what he proposes to substitute and how it will work out? If you have one panel right through, what would happen if you got a popular man in the cultural panel who gets first preference? I should like to know how the quota is fixed. Perhaps that could be made clear. It seems to me to be very complicated.
I am by no means an expert on the counting of votes. The position will have to be examined very carefully from that point of view, and we will have to try to get our expert to do the best he can. I made some suggestions last night that it would be well if we could see the different panels. Since then I have been talking to some experts and they say, from their experience, that it would be very dangerous, because it would lead almost certainly in a number of cases to putting one, two or three on.
We will have to have one long list, and there will be an indication on the ballot paper whether those on it come from the nominating bodies or the Dáil. That is the only thing we could have. I do not know how far we will have the qualifications. We will have to go into that in detail on the new Schedule.
That is the reason I am raising the question now. Take the agricultural panel, on which you might have a concentration of votes, so that if the votes were divided between all the Schedules seven might be the quota. They might so concentrate on that that 15 might be necessary for a man to be elected, while on the next panel, one or two first preferences might get a man elected. That means that the Party that can control the votes and that can machine the people will get the seats.
The Deputy may make up his mind that each particular group and Party in the election will sit down and calculate it to a nicety.
So far as they cannot, so much the better. But, so far as it is possible, they will calculate to a nicety the number of people they will put on each particular panel, in order to have the best possible chance of having them elected.
It is my contention, and the President should consider it, that it may turn out that, in order to be elected, one man should have 15 votes, while on the other hand, three votes might put another man in. There is no means of knowing beforehand.
It seems to be a toss-up as to what will happen.
The Deputy knows that the method taken will be a double check. I do not know how the papers would be arranged when putting down the numbers. According as the right number for each panel is built up, then all the others who have been nominated for that panel go. All sorts of things that would not happen ordinarily will happen with this long list that you are going to have. You will have people who get a large number of votes being eliminated because there is no further place for them, and people who get a comparatively small number of votes being elected in their own particular panel because of the fact that there is room for them in that panel.
The element of chance is tremendous there.
I do not see any way of improving it.
Unless you keep to the panels.
If we could, I confess that I would rather have the panel system, but then it would limit the smaller Parties, and groups would have a much smaller chance. It was really in the hope of trying to give the smaller groups and Parties reasonable representation in the voting that we adopted the one system. It is the one thing that makes it possible to eliminate what was perhaps an objectionable feature in the Bill as introduced, that you wanted 25 members to nominate. That was one method of restricting the numbers and dealing with the panels. With regard to the numbers, I have already promised Deputy Morrissey that I will look into that question of one. If there is to be any balancing, the only place I can see it is in the case of the administrative panel. We want here 21 and 22. As regards labour, industry and commerce and agriculture, I think that division is right and proper, and in the circumstances I would not like to alter it. I may be able to get what we want. Two would be disadvantageous to the bigger Party. I know that Deputies, and particularly Deputy O'Sullivan, will not believe me when I say that I am not interested fundamentally in the state of Parties in this particular matter—I mean in what would result —because I do think that, with the limited powers of the Seanad, there will be a tendency to criticise a Bill from the point of view of trying to improve it, and not merely to obstruct or anything of that sort. Even though giving two would mean that it would be almost certain that you would get one from each of the bigger groups, still you would want to have a very big majority for the Party to get two. The one was not intentional. I am not promising to change it, but I undertake to look into it.
Amendment No. 109 agreed to.
Sections 25 and 26 agreed to.
SECTION 27.
Question proposed: "That Section 27 stand part of the Bill."
Would the President say if the grounds for which a petition may be lodged are clear in the Bill?
I am afraid that I am not an authority on election petitions. I have not paid much attention to the purely machinery part of the Bill. I am told that what we have here is the same as in the enactments measure.
I would be glad if the President would explain to me the meaning of paragraph (e) in Section 1:—
(e) references to the House of Commons shall be construed as references to Seanad Eireann and references to the Speaker of the House of Commons shall be construed as references to the Cathaoirleach of Seanad Eireann.
I got a shock when I read that.
The point, apparently, is that we have no new election petition laws so that we have to fall back, so to speak, on the previous carry-over of the law with respect to election petitions.
It was merely that my soul, as a citizen of Éire, was a bit upset that prompted me to ask the question.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 28, 29, 30 and 31 agreed to.
THE SCHEDULES.
I take it that the amendments to the Schedules are not being moved.
As the Schedules will have to be changed, I ask Deputies not to move the amendments to them at this stage.
Amendments not moved.
First and Second Schedules agreed to.
