I understand the Bill is being recommitted for the purpose of the amendments.
Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Bill, 1937—(Second Recommittal).
Therefore the amendments are the only things that can be discussed. Is that so?
Yes.
I understood from the President that he was anxious that we should see the whole Bill. Now we are really only given an opportunity of discussing the amendments. I do not know that I am objecting, because I do not think it wise to give to the President a further opportunity of making the Bill still worse. I realise fully and pay a tribute to the immense amount of work he has put into this, but the result is that every stage is worse than the previous one. Therefore, I for one shall not object to the proposal now before the House, namely, recommitting the Bill merely for the purpose of the amendments, because I think the more thought he gives to the subject the more lamentable are the results.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 1.
In page 5, before Section 6 (4), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(4) The day appointed by an order under this section for the expiration of the time for ex officio nominations shall always be subsequent to the day appointed by the same order for the expiration of the time for Dáil panel nominations.
This amendment is for the inserting of a new sub-section relating to the time for ex officio nominations. The time is not precisely defined; it is simply provided that it must be later than the day of the expiration of the time for Dáil panel nominations, which must itself be not less than seven days after the expiration of the time for nominations by nominating bodies.
That is what the amendment means. What is the idea?
That is the purpose of it.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 5, line 50, Section 9 (1), after the word "up" to insert the words "and maintained".
The existing provisions of the section require that a register of nominating bodies should be set up in accordance with the Act. The amendment would require that the register shall, in addition, be maintained in accordance with the Act. The amendment is designed to lay stress on the fact that the first register will continue for the future to be the register of nominating bodies, subject only to annual revisions, and that there will not be a new register in subsequent years. The idea is to make it clear that there is a continuing register.
Do I understand that this amendment is to make it clear that there is a continuing register?
With revisions.
If the President throws his mind back a couple of days he will remember that he was equally clear that I was wrong in arguing that the register continued.
I am not so sure of that.
If the President will just throw his mind back he will remember that. My argument was that the register continues, and that, therefore, nominations on the register were not in the position of nominations proposed for the first time. The President eloquently argued that he was quite sure it meant the opposite.
We need not get into a metaphysical discussion.
Now, the idea of the President objecting to metaphysics! Really there is a limit to absurdity, even in this Dáil. When it comes to metaphysics, I know a fair amount of it myself, but I keep it completely out of the Dáil. However, there was an important question raised on that section and the President was quite clear, so important was the point, that the register did not continue. I hope he has looked into the matter from the point of view of the particular section I have in mind.
I do not remember the details of the argument. What I was interested in was the position of the returning officer. This is the practical part of it, whatever may be the theory—there is a question of theory and practice. In practice what will happen is that the Seanad returning officer will have in front of him the existing register. Unless there are withdrawals from that, it will be taken as a portion of his work having been already done. But the register could be amended, altered, changed, just the same as if he had only a provisional list. If I said the other thing, in theory, then, I was wrong and the Deputy is right.
It was not a question of theory, but of what the powers were. According to the argument of the President, it seemed to me the powers of the returning officer were different according as (1) the register could be and should be regarded as legally a new register, or (2) whether it would be regarded as a register continuing. On the last day I understood that if you opted for one or other of the alternatives the practical powers of the returning officer were different; it was purely a question of the practical powers. However, it is the President's funeral, not mine.
I was interested in the practical side.
So I see.
I am certain, notwithstanding what the Deputy says, that from the practical point of view what I said in substance was correct. I admit the theoretical basis was not the same. Where you talk of a continuing register which can be amended, changed or altered in any respect and whether that in practice differs from the fact that you take up your register——
I am not interested in the theory at all, I can assure the President.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In page 6, line 6, Section 9 (2), paragraph (b), to delete the word "and" and substitute the word "or".
It is felt that the existing provision is somewhat tightly drawn and may exclude certain bodies whose objects and activities relate to some extent to one particular activity, but might not be representative of persons engaged in that activity. In other words, you must have had the other things "and" something else and it was felt that the "or" was preferable. It leaves it a little looser than the original drafting.
Has the President any particular bodies in mind?
The Deputy was twitting me the last day for not mentioning special bodies.
Not twitting the President.
That is what it amounted to. The point was that I deliberately avoided committing myself to any particular body. It is the returning officer's business; it is being put on to him by law, and whilst the Opposition are in a position of glorious irresponsibility in that particular matter, I am not. I took bodies without committing myself to any particular one. The Deputy, if he runs his mind over some possible bodies, will see that there are bodies whose objects and purposes may include a certain activity which may not be covered by the activities for which the panels are designed, and which might not be regarded as really representative of these bodies. I think it would not be right to draw this too tightly so that these bodies would not be allowed in. In the last analysis it is a matter for the returning officer.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 has some connection with amendment No. 6.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In page 6, Section 9 (2), before paragraph (d), to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
(d) no body which is composed wholly or mainly of persons who are in the employment of the State or of persons who are in the employment of local authorities and the objects of which include the advancement or protection of the interests of such persons in relation to their said employment shall be eligible for registration in the said register.
This amendment proposes to insert a new provision, prohibiting the registration in the register of nominating bodies of associations of State or the local officials or employees of local authorities, whose objects include the advancement or protection of the interests of its members in relation to their employment. A question of principle comes in here, obviously, and that is whether it is advisable that bodies such as civil servants and local employees should be entitled to be registered as nominating bodies. It is on the general principle that it is inadvisable that public servants such as these referred to here should have political affiliations with a particular Party that this amendment is introduced. I think it will be generally conceded that it is not advisable there should be any close relation between public servants and political Parties, because public servants are supposed to do there work in the public interest, irrespective of what particular Party or Government is in office. I do not expect there will be any difficulty in getting general acceptance of that view.
Is this aimed particularly at the Civil Service Association? I should like to know if that is the body particularly in view, or if there is a corresponding body so far as local employees are concerned, the officials of local bodies? Is it aimed to exclude these?
It is of a general character, as the Deputy sees, and it will include any such bodies.
I cannot quite follow a portion of the argument of the President. He objects on account of affiliation with a particular Party. In order to take part in this Seanad election will it be necessary to get affiliated with a particular Party—is that the idea?
There is no purpose in nomination unless there is hope of election. Then you will have the election of representatives of some kind into the Seanad. They might be regarded as the mouthpiece of a political organisation, with the result that you will have particular political associations interested in particular members of the Legislature and that, I think, would be undesirable.
I understood that what was undesirable was political association with a particular Party. Now, the President has explained that association with a particular Party is necessary if there is to be any hope of election.
Oh, no.
But I have taken it down.
The Deputy will understand I am not calculating every word.
What I want to know is what is in the mind of the President.
What I think the House understood me generally to mean was this, that if you have Civil Service organisations, organisations of public servants, whether they be in the State service or the local service, organised from a political standpoint with political functions, as undoubtedly they would have if they nominated a person for the Seanad, that person would be regarded as a spokesman and they would have a special interest in that person. If that person were associated with a Party, he would be regarded as having a special affiliation with the Party. The whole thing could be so linked up that it would appear that it brought the civil servant directly into politics. Probably what would develop would be Party politics and I think it is undesirable in the general interest to have that. That was the attitude of the previous Administration just as it is ours now.
I want to stress that. It is quite clear that the President does realise that you must belong to a political Party to get elected to this particular body; that is admitted, owing to the character of the electorate. Now, surely, if the civil servants have an association to promote their interests, they do get into touch with political Parties and they do get into politics in that way. They have votes for members of the Dáil and, surely, if they have, what is the ground for depriving them of the privilege in this instance? They represent a certain point of view; they represent more definitely and more clearly the administrative standpoint than the county councils do, who are more in the position, not of administrators, but rather of a local parliament. The real administrative work there is done by officials, as it is done by officials in the State. If you have a panel from the administrative point of view, there would be a stronger case for allowing civil servants to get representatives on that than there would be to give them votes for the election of a member of the Dáil, which would also be calculated to bring them into politics. Possibly the President will say that it has brought them into politics already.
I can only say that what this amendment is designed to do is advisable and necessary. The Minister for Finance is here and he knows the history of the attitude of the previous Administration in matters of this sort better than I do. This was the point of view taken by the previous Administration. It is a point of view on which we are equally strong and we are introducing this amendment to make sure that the results I have indicated will not come about. That, I think, is in the public interest.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In page 6, line 37, Section 9 (2), paragraph (g) to delete the word "fifteen" and substitute the word "thirty".
The purpose of this amendment is to meet the view expressed by Deputy Brennan and other Deputies. They suggested that it would be advisable to have a larger number on the ballot paper than were to be elected—a substantially larger number. We have amendments later on to provide, for example, that where there is one to be elected, we shall have two down. Where we have a number of nominating bodies greater than the number to be elected, we are giving them two each. Fifteen is the greatest number of nominating bodies we can have and, if you give them two each, it will bring them up to 30. This amendment will ensure that there will not be any clash between the provisions of this section and provisions which will occur later on.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In page 6, to add at the end of Section 9 a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) Each of the following bodies, and no other body, shall be a local authority for the purposes of this section, that is to say:—
(a) the council of a county, a county or other borough, or an urban district, and the commissioners of a town, a municipal corporation, and
(b) a person who is established by or in pursuance of any statute to perform any of the functions of any of the bodies mentioned in the next preceding paragraph of this sub-section, and
(c) a committee or joint committee of or appointed by any one or more of the bodies mentioned in either of the preceding paragraphs of this sub-section.
I should like to add to paragraph (a) in the amendment on the Order Paper the words "a board of guardians". This is purely a drafting amendment.
Paragraph 3 (a) will then read:—
the council of a county, a county or other borough, or an urban district, and the commissioners of a town, a municipal corporation, a board of guardians, and...
Is there such a thing as a board of guardians in the Free State?
I did not inquire, but I am sure the Department which asked to have those words inserted had information on the subject.
There is no such thing as a board of guardians in the Free State.
There might be later.
I am sure that this amendment would not have been suggested unless there was reason for it. The proposal was circulated to Departments, and one Department sent in a note asking to have this amendment made.
There may be some such bodies in the Six Counties. This amendment will make provision for their coming in according to the Constitution.
Agreed to add the words proposed to paragraph 3 (a).
Would the President give consideration to harbour boards which are very important public bodies?
This crushes them out.
There is no amendment down in connection with harbour boards.
If we get through these amendments to-day, I shall ask to have the completion of the Report Stage postponed so that if there are any matters like that mentioned by the Deputy they can be brought up by way of amendment to-morrow. I shall consider the question of harbour boards.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In page 6, line 45, Section 10 (2), after the word "bodies" to insert the words "at the preparation of that register in the year 1938".
This amendment is intended to effect that the provisions of Section 10 (2) will apply only to the preparation of the register of nominating bodies in 1938. The sub-section is, in fact, drafted with reference to the initial preparation of the register in 1938, as is clear from the reference in paragraph (c) to the date—31st January, 1938. Separate provision is made in Section 17 regarding the annual revision of the register of nominating bodies, including applications for registration on annual revision. References in Section 17 to applications for registration are of a more general character and are not as tightly drawn as those in Section 10.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendments Nos. 8 and 9:—
8. In page 6, line 55, Section 10 (2), paragraph (c), to delete the figures and letters "31st" and substitute the figures and letters "24th".
9. In page 7, line 13, Section 12 (1), to delete the figures and letters "31st" and substitute the figures and letters "24th".
This is a table of dates. I told the House on the last occasion that we would, when we got a little farther, get closely into the question of dates. These dates have been carefully considered. The election is to be completed on the 29th March, and I hope the dates here will enable us to do that. The intervals, which have been closely studied, are rather short, but we could not extend them farther without getting into a dangerous position at the end. These changes in dates are simply intended to fit into the new scheme.
These dates have reference to the first election?
Yes.
And to preparation of the list of nominating bodies for subsequent elections as well?
Yes.
Has the President considered the dates on which the various operations in connection with the panels will be completed in respect of subsequent elections? The subsequent election will take place on the dissolution of the Dáil. In the original Bill there were provisions which suggested that the last day for completing the panel might be the very date that the Dáil assembled. These were dates which I was anxious that the President should look into. I admit that the changes made here give a little more rope so far as the first election is concerned. That is important, but it is the elections after the dissolution of the Dáil on subsequent occasions with which I am concerned at the moment. The House should have an opportunity of coming together for several days before it proceeds to the nominations. The possibility that that might not be so was adumbrated in the first Bill. There was a provision to the effect that the last date was to be not later than the date of the assembly of the Dáil, which would make it possible to be on that particular date.
Perhaps the Deputy would look at Section 6 (3), in which the following provision has effect:—
The day appointed under this section for the expiration of the time for general panel nominations shall not be less than four weeks after the dissolution of Dáil Eireann and, where practicable, shall not be prior to the date fixed for the reassembly of Dáil Eireann after such dissolution.
That is the point—"where practicable". My point is that all this question of completing the panel by the Dáil may, in fact, be prior to the meeting of the Dáil.
There is a period fixed by the Constitution also, and if that period is practicable, this would work out in the same way.
The Taoiseach has certain powers. Suppose a Party goes to the country and is defeated, and suppose that, for some reason or another, it is not found practicable to fix any date except a date prior to the meeting of the Dáil. In that case the Taoiseach, who may have lost the confidence of the country, will be the person who will act as Taoiseach, so far as the panel is concerned. Furthermore, even where practicable, a date for the Dáil meeting may be fixed and there may not be an election of the Taoiseach, whether you have proportional representation or not on that occasion.
I will have a special look into it from the point of view of the possibility of the wrong Taoiseach acting. The intention is that it should be the new Taoiseach.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:—
In page 7, line 32, Section 12 (2), to delete the words "eligibility for".
Section 12 (2) defines the information which the Seanad returning officer may require from an applicant for registration in the register of nominating bodies. As the sub-section stands, the information sought by the returning officer must be relevant to the eligibility for registration of such applicant. It is considered that that is a little too tightly drawn, and does not clearly authorise the Seanad returning officer to require information which may be necessary to consider the relative claims of different bodies for registration in respect of the same panel. The deletion of the words as proposed in the amendment would give the Seanad returning officer somewhat wider powers in this regard.
Eligibility is included now?
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In page 7, lines 38 and 39, Section 12 (3), to delete the words "refuse to register in the register of nominating bodies" and substitute the words, "disallow an application for registration in the register of nominating bodies made by".
This is merely a drafting amendment and is intended to secure consistency in the use of the expression "disallow an application". It caused some trouble when we were discussing it before, so we are deleting it, and bringing it into line generally with other sections.
Is there any difference in practice between the two phrases?
No; it was merely a question of the desirability of having the same phrase.
In practice, it means the same thing as what is here?
Yes.
As we are on this point, may I ask a question with regard to sub-section (3)? Do I take it for granted that the returning officer is authorised to strike out any branch, or affiliated or subsidiary body?
If it comes in as an independent unit.
Is he bound to do that?
No, he is not bound.
Will the President look at sub-section (1)-(c)? It says that he shall "disallow any applications which he is authorised by the subsequent provisions of this section to disallow."
The Deputy's point is that he may disallow?
And, therefore, must. He may disallow according to sub-section (3), and that is all that is intended, but he must disallow according to sub-section (1) (c) what he may disallow according to sub-section (3). If the intention is to give him any discretion, I suggest that the discretion is taken away, but there may be a completely different legal interpretation from what the words seem to mean.
The Deputy's reading of it seems to be quite correct. All I can do is to have it examined again and see what is in it. We may find that the lawyers have some other meaning for it, but I would take the reading that the Deputy takes out of it.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 12:—
In page 7, before Section 12 (5), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(5) The three next preceding sub-sections of this section shall apply and have effect in relation to every annual revision of the register of nominating bodies as well as the first preparation of that register.
This amendment makes the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 12 applicable to an annual revision of the register of nominating bodies as well as to the first preparation. Sub-section (2) relates to the information which the Seanad returning officer may require; sub-section (3) empowers him to disallow applications from certain classes of bodies, and sub-section (4) empowers him to allow applications for the register to be amended.
The President will remember that when this Bill was before us in one of its previous incarnations, one of the objections raised was the considerable power given to the returning officer. An effort was made then to get a guarantee from the President that the returning officer would be in a position of complete independence. The President said he would consider the matter, but we see no evidence of that consideration. I propose, Sir, to make this matter relevant.
The Chair does not question the relevancy of the Deputy's remarks. The Chair was approached privately on the matter, and agreed, owing to the nature of the discussion on a previous stage of this Bill, to allow the question to be raised on this stage.
I think it would be quite relevant, anyhow.
The Chair has in any case no objection to its being raised.
We objected very strongly, and we gave reasons which appeared to irritate the President any time the McCarron case was mentioned. Therefore, I shall not mention it. It is not a case which the Minister can afford to laugh at, but, as I cannot deal with the reasons why they should not laugh at it, I proceed to put a hypothetical case.
Are we entitled to discuss cases of that nature, Sir?
The Chair does not yet know the nature of the case. The Chair has allowed the Deputy to discuss a certain matter, and he is doing so.
We are to have a returning officer appointed who is responsible to the Minister for at least ten or 11 months out of the 12, and I suggest that that man, so far as his livelihood is concerned, is entirely under the control of the Minister, and we know what that means. He may, on the vague proposition that he is out of touch with the general conduct of the Government, be dismissed from that office. How he is out of touch is not explained, but, if he fails to recognise the general line of Government policy, he may be dismissed. That may happen in this particular case. The President, who is so much impressed with the desirability of having a man who is in an independent position, promised to look into the matter. I was expecting with the first batch of amendments—only ten pages—that there would be some reference to that. There is none. The position remains completely as it was. A man may cause dissatisfaction to the dominant Party, or the dominating faction in this House, and pressure may be brought to bear on the Minister. Have we any guarantee that the Minister will withstand that pressure? I suggest that we have none. Therefore, in the election of this body we cannot look upon a civil servant as being in the position of independence, though he will have practically the decision, as to whether or not bodies are eligible as nominating bodies, or whether people are eligible to be on a certain panel.
The powers that the Bill already gave the returning officer were pretty large. I suggest that this amendment increases them, for the following reasons: As the Bill stands, the view of that particular officer cannot be reversed—unless nine members are present and are positively in favour of reversing the opinion or decision of the officer in question. It is suggested that the quorum should be ten. Therefore, if six members stay away the decision cannot be reversed. You have in reality to have ten members who may be in favour of reversal before there is a reversal, and you must have a quorum. It is quite easy to engineer that a meeting falls through, and there is provision in the amendment that if the meeting does not take place, and if the matter is not considered, the decision of the returning officer shall stand. There you are adding actually to the powers of the returning officer in that respect.
The Deputy suggested that we should have a quorum.
Certainly.
Does the Deputy want it in or out?
I want a smaller quorum, certainly.
If we had nine.
What I pointed out was that you are giving real power to a smaller body to block the committee. You require nine positive votes at present to reverse. If there are six in favour and nine against, you could still reverse, but according to this, if there are five against reversing, you cannot reverse, because the five, or at least six, can stay away.
It is obvious that there is no use in reducing it below nine.
Not below nine.
I brought in the amendment because of the Deputy's remarks.
I wanted to make that point.
I do not think you could possibly meet all the cases that might arise with manoeuvring. If you make up your mind that there is going to be manoeuvring between Parties that way, I think they would defeat you no matter what you put in. I would rather knock this out altogether and have no quorum. It must be a majority in the case of a Party, and you would have to have at least a majority of the committee, which would represent the majority view of the House in that matter. They would have to be there if they wanted to get a reversal and would want nine. There has not been any reduction in the value of the committee.
Not quite.
Is there any particular value in keeping it?
There is, because mere abstention will not make the whole proceedings abortive. The abstention of six will make the whole proceedings abortive, whereas, if the Bill stands, six will stand and they cannot prevent the other nine reversing.
I am prepared to take nine.
In which amendment?
If there is agreement.
We can take it later if it is more convenient.
The only difference is that there may be some considerations which do not occur at the moment. However, I am prepared to risk it by giving way and overlooking some particular point if the Deputies wish to leave it over. We can come to it again.
I do not want to argue it now.
I prefer to leave it over with the other points that we will have to-morrow. The other matter which the Deputy raised is of considerable importance. I have given it consideration, and from the theoretical point of view, I think, in practice, whatever fears those in opposition might have, when Parties have the responsibility of government they do not behave in the way suggested by some remarks that were made. The returning officer is in a semi-judicial position. We have had that position in connection with the Dáil elections. Considerable power is given to the Seanad returning officer, although he only works at that for a small portion of his time. As a general principle I would like if power was given in the case of the Dáil or the Seanad to an independent officer, if I could get one, and if it was worth the expense that would have to be faced for the establishment of such an officer with an office. The inquiries I have made so far have led me to think that I cannot make a case from the point of view of having whole-time work for such an officer. Even if we came to the conclusion that such an officer could be provided with whole-time work, and that there was work to warrant the setting up of a little office for himself, nevertheless I do not think we should do it here. What we should do in that case is to appoint a special officer, who would have the functions of this officer, functions in the Dáil, and perhaps functions of that sort at the Local Government elections. Though the view of the Department charged with keeping down expenditure and looking after finances is against the appointment of such an officer, still I do not think we can regard the matter as completely closed.
Personally I would like to be satisfied more completely than I am that there is not whole-time work for such an officer and that whatever small staff he would require would not be justified, in view of the importance of the functions he has to perform. If I came to the conclusion, and if the Government agreed that the setting up of such an officer was desirable, I think we should do it separately and independent of this Bill, and simply add to the powers which he would have under this Bill some other powers in connection with the Dáil and local elections. I do not think it would be wise to put that in at this stage. I fully realise the arguments of Deputies that if the powers were abused there might be an effort to bring pressure to bear on an officer of this sort. However, I think it extremely unlikely. In other cases there have been part-time officers exercising functions of a semi-judicial character, and there has never been a suggestion that an effort was made on behalf of the Administration to interfere with them in the exercise of their functions. I could not do that here.
I wish to point out, notwithstanding the reluctance I have in a certain matter, that the President says that this is a purely theoretical business. But we have practical things before us. What is the good of saying that it is purely theoretical when it happened in the case of one of the principal servants of the State? Was not that a practical matter? Why does the President think he can ride away when an important point is raised by saying that the matter is purely theoretical and not a practical one? If it is possible to dismiss—as it was possible in the past to dismiss—an officer in connection with the appointment of a doctor, where no political consideration ought to enter—if I might take that phrase from the President—where there ought to be no party manoeuvring, surely the danger is still greater here where the question of politics directly comes in, and where there is considerable power vested in this particular officer as to what he will do. The President must know that we cannot shut our eyes to what was done at that time. We can see how the Minister on that occasion stood over and protected the civil servant against political attack. Is there any better guarantee for this man now who is to be appointed? He certainly will not be dismissed on the grounds—I never suggested that he would—that political pressure was brought to bear on the Minister, but what I suggest is that political pressure may be brought to bear on the Minister and that other grounds will be found for his dismissal. The danger is there, and it is not a theoretical danger. Nobody has proved better than the President himself, or than the Minister mentioned in this Bill, that the danger is not a theoretical danger, but that it is a practical danger.
When we had this Bill last before the House the President held out the hope that he might be able to meet the case that we on this side put up: to consider that the door was considerably open so far as that is concerned. We are now asked to live on hope because the door is not completely closed. We are as usual going backwards in this respect. The President agrees in principle with the desirability of what we are urging, but I am afraid the whole history of this Bill is that, once the President agrees with a thing in principle, that is the one thing that is not going to be carried out in the Bill or anywhere else. He has proved that in every details of the Bill, and in the general principles and lines of the Bill. The suggestion that at some future, unheard of date the Minister charged with the keeping down of expenditure—such a misdescription of the present Minister for Finance I have never come across: if he was described as the Minister who was put in there to make expenditure bound up beyond all limits that were thought possible it would be a more accurate description of him—but apparently keen as the President is on this particular matter, suddenly the knife of the Department of Finance comes down on his neck. The President is obviously not going now or at any future time— let us be clear on that—to meet the case that we put up, and for two reasons. The first he has stated and the second is that he acknowledges the soundness of the principle at the basis of what we are asking. Therefore the matter is closed, and this man, who is in a position to decide a number of important political questions, will be at the complete mercy, and we know what that mercy is, of the Minister for Local Government.
I do not want to follow the Deputy on the line that he has taken. I do not think that this is the proper place to discuss the question which he has alluded to. I simply point out this, that the action taken by the Minister was taken not in the direction in which the Deputy has been suggesting. It was taken to defend public policy which was adopted in order that public administration might be kept as pure as possible. That was the direction in which the action of the Minister was taken, and that was in the direction of sustaining that policy. Now the Deputy has suggested that it might be taken in an opposite direction. I would point out to him that the officer to whom he has referred was the secretary to a Department, and that the secretary to a Department is an executive officer responsible immediately to a Minister. His appointment comes directly from the Executive Council. He can be removed by the Executive Council, if for any reason he is regarded as an officer who is not doing everything in the office that should be done in order to make the policy of the Government as effective as it can be, and the administration, which the Government is charged with, as effective as it can be.
This is a case where an officer is appointed part-time, I will admit, in a semi-judicial capacity. There has been no suggestion—I hate suggestions of the sort coming from Deputies who were members of a previous Administration —at any time that the decisions of officers who, under the law, have been put in a semi-judicial position have been influenced by members of the Government. I agree there are many things that, in principle, are better than many things which we have to accept in practice. Very often we have to accept in principle things which we would prefer if they could be put into practice. We have a practical position here which was recognised by some of the Deputies who have spoken from the other side. When I mentioned this first the criticism was made: Would this officer have whole-time functions to discharge; would it be justifiable to create an officer of that sort for the amount of work that would have to be done under the Bill? I had the idea of trying to find whole-time work for him by extending his functions to Dáil elections and local elections. The information that has been sent to me is to the effect that even by adding the Dáil elections and local elections there would not be sufficient work for a single person to employ him whole-time, and that if we did set up such an officer it would also mean setting up special staff. Consequently, I have been deterred from taking the course of making the position a whole-time one, and of bringing in concurrently a Bill for that purpose, simply by considerations of the expense involved.
The Department of Finance rightly questions matters of that sort, and asks whether the practice that has worked up to the present of giving officers part-time semi-judicial functions in which they are allowed to decide on their own, should not be continued: whether this would not be the thin end of the wedge, creating a whole host of semi-independent departments with their own staffs and thereby unjustifiably increasing expenditure. Now that is the practical consideration which has deterred me from trying to meet the Deputy in the direction in which evidently he would like me to go. All that I can say about it is that that is the practical consideration. The fact that we are giving way to that practical consideration is not an indication that we would not like to act in the other direction, but there are difficulties in the way which make it inadvisable. That is my attitude towards it.
I cannot agree with the suggestion that it was for purity of administration that that particular dismissal took place. I suggest it was for the very opposite reason.
It has been very interesting to hear the President say that the case, so far as the public are concerned——
The question of that particular office does not arise.
It certainly came as a revelation——
The Deputy cannot discuss that matter.
I am only going to say this, that if there was a new departure in that respect by this Government there might be something to be said for it, but there was not any new departure with regard to the maintenance of the integrity of the office. It was simply a continuing office and a continuing policy, and, therefore, this thing does not carry at all.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13:—
In page 8, before Section 13 (4), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(4) The quorum for a meeting of the appeal committee shall be ten members personally present.
Section 13 relates to the election of the Appeal Committee, and the amendment proposes that the quorum for a meeting of the Appeal Committee shall be ten members personally present. That is related to the matter we have been discussing.
There is one point with regard to Section 13, Sir, to which I should like to call attention. It is possible that members elected to that Appeal Committee may have a direct interest in some of the appeals submitted to them. In other words, they may be members of some of the bodies who are appealing.
I am sorry, but I did not quite hear what the Deputy was saying.
What I am saying is that certain of the members elected to the Appeal Committee may possibly be members of or interested in some of the bodies appealing to that Committee. Is it proposed to take account of that?
It is not proposed to do so in the Bill. I do not think that point is covered in any way, but it must be remembered that the Committee will be members of the Dáil and elected by the Dáil. I do not know how that point would be covered, and I am sure that the Deputy will realise that it would introduce hopeless complications if we were to introduce matters of that kind. I think it should be left as it is. However, in regard to the matter of the quorum; I think we will take nine as the quorum, as has been suggested, instead of ten.
Having regard to the nature of this measure, the House must decide. Am I to take it that it is proposed that the quorum for the appeal committee shall be nine members?
Yes.
Instead of the ten members mentioned in the amendment as a quorum for a meeting of the appeal committee, the quorum shall be nine?
Yes.
Yes.
It will then read: "that the quorum for a meeting of the appeal committee shall be nine members personally present."
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
I move amendment No. 14:—
In page 8, line 45, Section 15 (1), to delete the figures and letters "15th" and substitute the figures and letters "11th".
Section 15 (1) requires the appeal committee to consider appeals as soon as conveniently may be after the 15th February, 1938. The proposal contained in the amendment is to change this date to the 11th February, 1938. I have a longer explanation of the amendment here, but I do not think there is any particular point in reading it.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 15:—
In page 8, line 46, Section 15 (1), after the figures "1938" to insert the words "and not later than four days before the time for the expiration of general panel nominations at the first Seanad election".
This amendment fixes a limit to the time allowed to the appeal committee for the considering of appeals, the limiting date being four days before the time for the expiration of nominations by nominating bodies. It is necessary to fix such a limit in order to allow time for the nominating bodies, as finally determined following the consideration of appeals, to nominate candidates to the panels. They want four days, and it will give them a little bit of an interval.
We are referring now, I presume, to a body that has been ruled out by the returning officer and that had appealed?
Yes.
Because, in the other case, it would not be necessary. However, it seems to me that a period of four days is rather short.
Yes, I know; but the point is, that in all this we are rather tied for time.
I can quite understand that with regard to the first Seanad, but why should we be tied for time with regard to subsequent Seanaid? I think that we are possibly creating a lot of difficulties in that regard. While it may be true that we are tied for time with regard to the first Seanad, I do not think we are tied for time with regard to subsequent Seanad—in fact, I hardly think that a fortnight would mean anything with regard to future Seanad.
Well, I shall have to look into this matter. I admit what the Deputy says about there being no reason why we should be tied for time in regard to future Seanaid or why this period should be limited to four days. This has immediate reference, anyway, to 1938, and we come along later to the annual revision and then we will see how it works out.
Very well.
Amendment agreed to.
The next amendment is No. 16, to which amendment No. 18 is complementary.
I move amendment No. 16:—
In page 8, before Section 15 (3), to insert a new sub-section as follows:
(3) If an appeal to the appeal committee is not decided on or before the fourth day before the expiration of the time for general panel nominations at the first Seanad election, such appeal shall be deemed to have been disallowed by the appeal committee, and the decision of the Seanad returning officer which was the subject of such appeal shall have effect accordingly.
This amendment is consequential on amendment No. 15. It inserts a new sub-section under which the decision of the Seanad returning officer will be regarded as upheld in any case in which an appeal to the appeal committee has not been decided within the prescribed time. It is setting a limit to the time in which the committee can sit, and that is necessary, generally, in order to force a decision.
Who calls this body together?
Is the Deputy referring to the appeal committee?
Yes.
I think it is the Clerk of the Dáil. Of course, the committee regulates its own procedure.
But who calls them together?
That is another point we can deal with. I think it is the Clerk of the Dáil who has charge, in general, of these matters. However, I shall make a note of that with a view to see if it is covered.
Very good.
With reference to that, it is for the House to regulate the procedure generally, and therefore it would be a matter for the House to regulate the procedure with regard to the appeal committee also, except in so far as it might be regulated by law.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 17:—
In page 9, line 7, Section 16 (1), to delete the figures and letters "16th" and substitute the figures and letters "12th".
Section 16 (1) prescribes 16th February, 1938, as the date on which the Seanad returning officer is required to sign and publish the registered nominating bodies where there is no appeal to the appeal committee. The amendment changes this date from the 16th February to the 12th February.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 18:—
In page 9, line 14, Section 16 (2), after the word "decision" to insert in brackets the words "(if any)", and in line 18 after the word "decided" to insert the words "or deemed to have been disallowed" and in line 19 after the word "decision" to insert in brackets the words "(if any)".
This amendment inserts certain words in Section 16 (2). The changes made are consequential on amendment No. 16.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 19:—
In page 9, line 21, Section 16 (2), to delete the words "sign and publish in the Iris Oifigiúil” and substitute the words “on or before the third day before the expiration of the time for general panel nominations at the first Seanad election, sign”, and in line 22 after the word “aforesaid” to insert the words “and shall publish the same in the Irish Oifigiúil as soon as conveniently may be.”
Section 16 (2) relates to the signature and publication by the Seanad returning officer of the register of nominating bodies in the case where appeals have been made to the appeal committee. The amendment provides that the signature must take place not later than the third day before the expiration of the time for nomination by nominating bodies; that is, the day following the latest date given to the Appeal Committee for the consideration of appeals, and that the publication in Iris Oifigiúil must take place “as soon as conveniently may be.” That is all. Again, as Deputy O'Sullivan has pointed out, it provides for a very short time, and we shall have to take that into consideration. However, it is the best we can do for the year 1938. Certainly, it curtails the time, but we will see whether it is covered in the case of the annual revision.
It seems that, in some cases, publication in Iris Oifigiúil is sufficient, and that in other cases there is to be publication in the daily papers. If the President will look at the next section, he will see that it says that there must be publication in the daily papers.
The publication there is of notices, and the idea is to give as widespread publicity as possible.
Is not the same publicity desirable in the case of the matter referred to in amendment No. 19?
I do not think so. It is not quite the same thing, because there will be certain bodies there that will be immediately concerned, and I hardly think it is necessary in that case.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 20:—
In page 9, line 30, Section 17 (1), to delete the words "at least two daily newspapers" and substitute the words "every morning daily newspaper published in and".
This amendment is designed to bring the reference to publication of a notice in newspapers in connection with the annual revision into conformity with the corresponding provision in Section 11 relating to the first preparation of the register. In Section 11 the reference is to "every morning daily newspaper published in and circulating throughout the State," and in Section 17 (1) in its present unamended form the reference is to "at least two daily newspapers circulating throughout the State." That was a hang over. Previously we had changed it, and what is here was the original, so to speak.
What does "circulating throughout the State" mean?
That is a matter that will have to be left, I am afraid, to the discretion of the officer. The important thing is the morning daily papers.
It does not mean all morning daily papers?
No.
Why is the limitation there?
You can imagine a small daily paper that might be confined to a certain area. We have evening papers confined practically to a city.
Take the morning daily papers?
You might possibly have a morning daily paper, too, confined to a small area. We cannot perceive the future. We might have possibly a morning daily paper circulating in Cork only, or one circulating in a confined area, say, in Waterford, or any other city, such as Galway.
You would not call Cork a confined area?
If it were clearly only a city newspaper. We do not know. As it stands, it obviously means every morning paper that we have.
Is it possible that I am listening to the same man who a few minutes ago was condemning theoretical things and looking only to practical things which are likely to occur? Are there any daily papers except the three morning daily papers in Dublin? Why have it in then? Taking a leaf from the man who spoke a short time ago about leaving this question of metaphysics and general theoretical questions aside and getting down to the practical, I find it difficult, on reading the section as it stands, to know what it means. "Published in every morning daily newspaper published in and circulating throughout the State and in such other (if any) daily newspaper as the said officer shall, with the sanction of the Minister ..."—why is the Minister brought in?
There is a question of public expenditure in connection with it, and you will have to have somebody to settle it.
I take it to mean Irish newspapers?
Yes.
A newspaper could be published but not printed in Ireland.
There is a point that might be considered.
I want to know whether the "State" mentioned here is Eire, and in what sense? Is the word "State" marked here intended to exclude, for instance, the Belfast daily papers from it or to include them? Are they circulating in the State?
The meaning of the word "State" when dealing with the Consequential Provisions Bill definition and so on is made very clear. What we are dealing with at present is what is the meaning to be applied to these terms in the existing circumstances. I have not the Bill with me, but I think the Deputy will find that that matter is covered.
I presume the President knows. What does the word "State" mean here?
Within the area of jurisdiction.
The Twenty-six Counties?
The area of jurisdiction at the moment.
The Twenty-Six Counties. Why not say it?
The area of jurisdiction. It might not always be the Twenty-Six Counties. The Deputy is always talking about practical things. To-morrow is a very practical thing, and the question of morning daily newspapers circulating throughout the State was an important addition and of practical importance. The Deputy wants to omit it. I say it is of practical importance because you might very well have daily morning papers, as you have evening papers, that would not be, in fact, circulating throughout the State. It is simply a safeguard. I do not want to lay inordinate stress upon it, but if the Deputy is talking about what is and what is not making practical provision, I say that making provision for a possible to-morrow or a probable to-morrow is.
This is very practical. Take, for example, a paper like the Cork Examiner. Does that circulate throughout the State?
I say it does.
Does it circulate in Fermanagh and Donegal?
I do not know to what extent.
That is my difficulty. If you put in the phrase "morning daily paper" in practice you put in all you want.
All right. I will let to-morrow go to the winds and meet the Deputy on the matter.
Does the President agree that the word "printed" might be put in?
It says "every morning daily newspaper published in". I take it that "published in" would mean that it was an Irish daily newspaper. I think the Deputy's point is covered by "published in".
How does amendment No. 20 stand now?
I will omit "circulating throughout". The Deputy need not say that we do not give way to him occasionally.
That matter does not arise out of the amendment tabled. It would be better to submit the amendment later.
Is it in order to move it now? I am not clear as to the wish of the Chair.
The Chair objects to accepting amendments without consideration. It confuses the records and may lead to errors.
Very well. As I pointed out, my intention was to postpone the completion of this stage until to-morrow, and, if there are any little things like that, we can put them formally before the House.
There is always the danger of confusion.
I agree.
What about amendment No. 20?
I take it amendment No. 20 passes?
Is amendment No. 20 agreed to?
There is a furthere amendment to the section.
It will come later.
Amendment No. 20 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 21:—
In page 9, lines 56 and 57, Section 17 (3), paragraph (a), to delete the words "appear to him to be eligible for such registration" and substitute the words "whose applications he does not disallow".
Section 17 (3) sets out certain things to be done by the Seanad returning officer in carrying out the annual revision of registered nominating bodies. Paragraph (a) of the sub-section as it stands would require him to register all bodies which have applied and "appear to him to be eligible...." It is not in fact intended that the Seanad returning officer should register every body which appears eligible and the drafting of the paragraph in this form was due to an oversight. The amendment will provide that he will register those bodies "whose applications he does not disallow".
The President will remember the point made the last time. The number of bodies he can recognise is limited.
Yes.
A certain number of bodies come over from the new register. It is now acknowledged that they are on that new register. They are not new proposals for the register technically, according to what we discussed a short time ago. They are on the continuing register. There is a body on that register. The returning officer is faced with this position. Another body applies and he thinks it is more suitable, but he is limited by the number he can put on. One is already on and he can only delete on certain grounds, namely, the grounds that it has ceased to exist or ceased to be eligible. Now a body that has not ceased to exist and is still eligible may not be as desirable as a new claimant.
That is true.
I suggest that is not a theoretical point.
I agree. The only question is whether it is not actually covered by the draft. Again, I shall have another look to see if it is. It is all a question of whether the draft covers that point. I agree that it is important that the Seanad returning officer should not be prevented from adding a new, more acceptable body by some phrase that would indicate that he could only accept that body when some other body was knocked off. We shall take a note of it. These matters which were raised by Deputies previously on this Bill were all noted and attempts were made to meet them wherever it was found that there was any substance in the points raised. Very often in a Bill like this there may be something picked up which one needs to have in connection with another part of the Bill.
Does the President think that amendment No. 22 meets the point?
We shall have a look at it.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:—
In page 9, line 60, Section 17 (3), paragraph (b), after the word "registration" to insert the words "or the deletion of which from the said register appears to him to be necessary and proper in consequence of or to permit the allowance of the application of another body for such registration."
The paragraph affected by this amendment is one requiring the Seanad returning officer, in the course of the annual revision of the registered nominating bodies, to delete from the register bodies which have ceased to exist or have ceased to be eligible for registration. The amendment expands this provision by requiring the returning officer to delete any body "the deletion of which ... appears to him to be necessary and proper in consequence of or to permit the allowance of the application of another body ...". I think that meets the Deputy.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 23:—
In page 10, line 43, Section 18 (2), paragraph (b), after the word "bodies" to add the words "and any body which applied at such annual revision for registration in the said register, whether such application was allowed or disallowed".
Section 18 (2) (b) as it stands empowers any registered nominating body to appeal against the allowance on annual revision of another body. The amendment carries the provision further so as to empower any body which applied for registration at the annual revision to appeal against the allowance of another body. It is a wider power of appeal.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 24:—
In page 11, line 3, Section 19 (2), after the word "election" to insert the word "quorum".
Section 19 (2) applies to the annual revision appeal committee certain provisions which are expressed earlier in the Bill in relation to the first appeal committee. The amendment adds to the provision so applied the provision regarding the quorum of the appeal committee which is contained in amendment No. 13. The number is not mentioned here.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 25:—
In page 11, to add at the end of Section 19 a new sub-section as follows:—
(5) As soon as any annual revision of the register of nominating bodies has been completed in accordance with this Part of this Act, the Seanad returning officer shall publish in the Iris Oifigiúil the said register as revised at such annual revision and the said register as so published shall be conclusive evidence of the alterations made in the said register at such annual revision.
I have been handed a small amendment to this amendment. The amendment should, therefore, read: "... the Seanad returning officer shall sign and publish in the Iris Oifigiúil”
Is publication in the Iris Oifigiúil considered sufficient for nominating bodies all over the country? Would it not want a wider publication?
I do not think so, for the register of nominating bodies. If it is a matter of news, the newspapers will always take the matter up.
It may be a matter of very great importance to certain bodies.
We will get the publicity for nothing, whereas in the other case the State would have to pay for it. If it is a matter of public interest, the newspapers will be glad to take it from Iris Oifigiúil.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 26:—
In page 11, before Section 20, but in Part II, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Every body which appeals to the appeal committee or to an annual revision appeal committee shall pay to the Clerk of Dáil Eireann a foe of twenty pounds, and the payment of such fee before the expiration of the time limited by this Act for sending or delivering such appeal to the Clerk of Dáil Eireann shall be a condition precedent to the entertainment of such appeal by the appeal committee or the annual revision appeal committee, as the case may be.
(2) Every fee paid to the Clerk of Dáil Eireann in pursuance of this section shall be retained by him until the appeal in respect of which such fee was paid has been decided by the appeal committee or annual revision appeal committee (as the case may be) and—
(a) if such committee reverses the decision of the Seanad returning officer which is the subject of such appeal or if, in the case of an appeal to the appeal committee, such committee fails to decide the appeal within the time limited in that behalf by this Act, the Clerk of Dáil Eireann shall forthwith repay such fee to the appellant by whom it was paid to him, and
(b) in every other case, the Clerk of Dáil Eireann shall pay such fee into, or dispose of it for the benefit of, the Exchequer in such manner as the Minister for Finance shall direct.
(3) The Public Offices (Fees) Act, 1879, shall not apply in respect of fees payable under this section.
This is an entirely new matter which was never mentioned at any stage.
It is, but it is introduced with the same idea that was mentioned in another connection. On a previous occasion it was suggested that we might try to limit the number of nominations and as a method of limiting the nominations, a fee was suggested, not from this side of the House.
I am raising the point that it is out of order.
The Deputy has said quite rightly that this is a new matter. The Chair has some misgivings, but considering the nature of the Bill and what has happened on all the stages of the Bill, the Chair has allowed it.
I see. The Bill is so comic that the Chair has allowed it.
The Chair has not asserted that the Bill is comic, but I sincerely hope that it is unique from the point of view of procedure.
It is indeed unique.
It may be something unique in the Bill, but on its merits. I suggest that it is a wise provision, otherwise you would have all sorts of appeals. You might have a Committee of the House sitting to hear appeals on all sorts of frivolous matters. The fee is inserted so as to make sure that bodies, before appeal, will study their chances of success and see whether they have really a good case. After all, we may take it that the bodies who will apply to be put on the register will have some funds, and, if there is a good case, there is no reason why they should not be able to back it up with a fee of £20.
Will the nominating bodies have to put down that amount?
No, only in the case of an appeal. After the returning officer has decided upon the register, there is a power of appeal to a Committee of the House. We do not know how many may apply and if the Seanad returning officer rules out a whole number of bodies, as being clearly covered in accordance with the intentions of the Act, if they feel that they have a grievance, they should not be simply permitted to keep a Committee of the House engaged for a long time hearing their appeals. There would be considerable expense and the time of members would be taken up, and I think it is not unreasonable to insist on a deposit. I should like to hear it argued on its merits. The sum of £20 is purely an arbitrary figure.
That is not the point.
Personally, I took the figure in a purely arbitrary way but it seemed to be necessary to call for some fee to prevent frivolous appeals by certain bodies.
I think it is a good provision. I should just like to point out to the President that in paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) it is stated that, in certain circumstances, the £20 shall be returned in the event of the appeal being successful or in the event of the Committee not deciding the appeal within a certain time. Is it not usual, in provisions of that nature, to give the Committee a discretion to decide that in the event of the appeal not being frivolous, the fee shall be returned?
There is something to be said for that view.
I do not think a body will decide at all—I mean if they are practical people and not theoretical—whether they have a good case.
That is so.
They will decide whether the case will be turned down or not, but that may be very different from a decision as to whether they have a good case. Does the President expect such a lot of appeals?
I hope not, but there is often frivolous litigation and vexatious litigation too.
I think there ought to be some method of ensuring that if they are not frivolous they will not be penalised. I think appeals ought to be, I do not say encouraged, but at any rate not made difficult.
I think, on further consideration, Deputy McGowan will see that it would be putting an onus on the Committee to decide as to whether an appeal should have been brought before it or not and, therefore, you would have a large number just taking their chance that they would have a sympathetic or soft Committee, and keeping them engaged for a long time.
Is there any machinery permitting the presentation of appeals in a case like this: If a nominating body wants to make its case will it be entitled to appear through counsel?
The procedure will be arranged by the House in the first instance, and I suppose it may give certain power to the Committee to regulate the procedure.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendments Nos. 27, 28, 29 and 30:—
27. In page 11, Section 21 (2), paragraph (a), to delete the word "exceeds" in line 44 and substitute the words "is not less than", and to delete the words "one person" in lines 47 and 48 and substitute the words "two persons".
28. In page 11, Section 21 (2), paragraph (b), to delete the word "exceeds" in line 50 and substitute the words "is not less than", and in the same line to delete the words "does not exceed" and substitute the words "is less than", and in line 53 to delete the word "two" and substitute the word "three".
29. In page 11, Section 21 (2), paragraph (c), to delete the words "does not exceed" in line 55 and substitute the words "is less than", and to delete the word "three" in line 58 and substitute the word "four".
30. In page 12, lines 1 and 2, Section 21 (2), paragraph (d), to delete the words "exceeding by one" and substitute the words "equal to twice".
This series of four amendments provides a new basis for determining the number of persons that may be nominated to a panel by a nominating body. The following is the new basis: If the number of nominating bodies is not less than the number of persons to be elected—Deputies will remember the number for each of the panels —then the number of persons to be nominated by each nominating body is two. If it is not less than half, but less than the whole number of persons to be elected, then the number to be nominated by each nominating body will be three. If the number of nominating bodies is more than one but less than half the number of persons to be elected, then the number to be nominated by each body will be four. Deputies would want to have a complete table in order to see how the thing will work.
What about a wee blackboard?
I think it would be no harm, as a matter of fact. I am taking now the cultural panel and the industrial and commercial panel. Suppose the number of nominating bodies was one, the number of persons to be nominated by that body would be eight. In case you had two such bodies, each of them would nominate three, and you would have six for four places. In the other case you would have eight for four places. Suppose you had three bodies, the number to be nominated by each of them would be three, and you would have a total of nine. If there were four bodies, each would nominate two, and you would have a total of eight; and in the case of any numbers from five to 15, you would have a total of from ten to 30. The numbers then would run: eight, six, nine, eight, as the total numbers. The intention was to get, as well as we could, about double the total number to be elected.
I take it for granted that the same compulsory powers exercised by the Taoiseach afterwards apply to those increased numbers? In case there is not full nomination, the Taoiseach intervenes? That applies to those increased numbers?
There is a special rule applying in that case. The intention is to see that there are at least two more than the number to be elected.
There is no compulsion on those people to nominate the full number?
They have either to do all or none. Otherwise it would be regarded as void.
Take the General Council of County Councils. Would they have to nominate four? If they nominate only three, what would happen?
I would say it would be void.
Although the President has gone a good way to meet the points raised on the last day, and has cleared away a certain amount of difficulties which we foresaw, it seems to be a bit unfortunate that there should not be a better system, giving us say eight, six and nine. After all, if the electoral college is to elect four out of six, the selection is very narrow, indeed. If there happened to be three nominating bodies, they would have 33? per cent. wider selection. I do not know if the President can come nearer to equality in the matter than he has come here. There is very grave and serious disparity in the number even as it stands.
I do not know if it is very serious. We will do the best we can, with the complications that we have, to get something working out satisfactorily.
Amendments agreed to.
SECTION 22.
I move amendment No. 31:—
In page 12, line 16, Section 22 (2), to delete the words "Every nomination of a person" and substitute the words "All nominations", and in paragraph (a), line 19, to delete the word "nomination" where it firstly occurs and substitute the word "nominations".
This is purely a verbal amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 32:—
In page 12, Section 22 (2), paragraph (b), to delete all from the word "which" in line 21 to the end of the paragraph and substitute the words "shall nominate by one and the same nomination paper all the persons whom it is entitled to nominate,".
This amendment is also verbal. The paragraph which it affects was drafted on the understanding that nominating bodies would in certain circumstances be empowered to nominate only one person each to a panel. As a result of amendment No. 27, the least number which a nominating body will nominate will now be two, and it is, therefore, necessary to alter the wording.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 33:—
In page 12, before Section 22 (3), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) In the case of the Irish County Councils' General Council and in the case of the Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland, the persons to be nominated to the administrative panel by such bodies respectively shall be chosen by the members of such body voting on the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote.
This amendment inserts a new sub-section in Section 22, providing that the nominees to the administrative panel of the Irish County Councils' General Council and the Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland shall be chosen by proportional representation.
What exactly is the composition of that second body? I am not referring to the political composition; I mean the actual composition.
I am told it is roughly two from each of the municipal bodies.
Do the officials attend?
An official may attend, I am told.
May they be members of the body?
Only the two delegates may vote.
May the town clerk vote?
Not unless he is a delegate.
He may be a delegate?
There are usually two delegates.
That does seem to cut across further fundamental principles.
The Deputy is quite right. I am afraid it does. For purity in principle we will have to——
I do not look to the President for that.
We cannot make this perfect.
I just wanted information.
What are the numbers to be nominated by those two bodies?
He does not know; he cannot tell beforehand.
It depends on the number of nominating bodies there will be to a panel. Besides the administrative, you have the social bodies.
They may come in?
Yes.
I think there should be something done about disqualifying officials of the councils who will be delegates. That cuts across your civil servants.
I see the point and I will examine whether it is really worth while trying to deal with it. We may take it for granted that there is hardly an Act in which there will not be some little thing. It is our business to make it as perfect as possible, but we cannot meet very small points.
Can anybody nominate less than two?
No.
Or more than two?
Oh, yes, but nobody can nominate less than two.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 34:—
In page 13, Section 23, to delete sub-section (3).
The amendment is for the deletion of the sub-section, which sets out that where a person has been nominated to a particular panel by two or more nominating bodies, his name shall be stated once only in the provisional panel. It is proposed that no deletion of duplicate entries should take place until the completion of the panels. It is only postponing it for a later stage, instead of doing it on the one stage.
That is the question of nominating to a panel. The President has dealt in a subsequent amendment with the point I raised?
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 35:—
In page 13, line 12, Section 23 (4), after the word "form" to insert in brackets the words "(including division into two sub-panels)".
This amendment inserts a reference to the division of provisional panels into two sub-panels to correspond with the sub-panels into which the final panels will be divided in accordance with Section 32. The definition of sub-panel is contained in amendment No. 47 to Section 32. For convenience of reference you talk of the Dáil sub-panel and the nominating bodies' sub-panel.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 36:—
In page 13, before Section 24 (2), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) If a member of Dáil Eireann signs as a nominator two or more nomination papers, both or all of such nomination papers shall be wholly void.
This amendment inserts a new sub-section in Section 24 providing that if a member of Dáil Eireann signs more than one nomination paper, all the nominations signed by him shall be wholly void.
This means a nomination for more than one candidate?
Yes—is not that what I said?
It is, only that a person may send in nomination papers and, as there may be something wrong, he might like to send in fresh ones.
It is merely that he cannot nominate two persons. Is the phrasing not accurate?
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 37:—
In page 13, Section 24, to delete sub-section (2).
This amendment deletes sub-section (2) of Section 24 which relates to duplicate entries in provisional panels from Dáil nominations.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 38:—
In page 13, Section 25 (1), paragraph (b), to delete all from the word "who" in line 51 to the word "Eireann" in line 52 and substitute the words and brackets "(other than the Taoiseach for the time being) who has previously held the office of Taoiseach or the office of President of the Executive Council of Saorstát Eireann or both of those offices".
This amendment is for the purpose of making clear the intention that no person can make ex-officio nominations in more than one capacity. That was Deputy McGilligan's point. It was suggested during the debates on the recommittal of the Bill that the Taoiseach might be entitled to nominate both as Taoiseach and as a former Taoiseach or former President of the Executive Council.
He will be entitled to nominate as Taoiseach and as a member?
Yes.
The fact that the Taoiseach nominates two men would not prevent him as a member of the Dáil from joining in the nomination of another person?
No; he is a nominating body in that way.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 39:—
In page 14, before Section 26, to insert a new section as follows:—
Whenever the Seanad returning officer receives a nomination paper (other than a nomination paper declared by this Act to be wholly void and a nomination paper so received after the time limited by this Act for such receipt), he shall forthwith post up, in such public place in the county borough of Dublin as he shall consider most suitable, a notice stating the fact of the receipt by him of such nomination paper and the name, address, and description (as stated in such nomination paper) of the person purported to be nominated by such nomination paper and the panel to which such person purports to be so nominated.
This amendment is for the insertion of a new section before existing Section 26, requiring the Seanad returning officer to post up a public notice in Dublin regarding nominations received by him. It is considered desirable to have some formal, and at the same time, simple and expeditious method of publishing nominations. The moment it is posted up, the papers will give it wider publicity.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 40:—
In page 14, line 52, Section 26 (3), paragraph (a), after the word "and" to insert the words "the validity or invalidity of the nomination purported to be made thereby and shall", and in line 54, after the word "paper" to insert the words "or a nomination".
Section 26 (3) sets out certain things which the Seanad returning officer is required to do on the completion of the panels. Paragraph (a) refers to the examination of nomination papers and ruling upon their validity. The amendment inserts in the paragraph, for the purpose of completeness, a reference to the validity or invalidity of the nomination purported to be made by a nomination paper.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 41:—
In page 14, line 57, Section 26 (3), to delete the word "aforesaid".
This amendment is purely verbal, as the word to be deleted is not required.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 42:—
In page 14, lines 57 and 58, Section 26 (3), paragraph (b), to delete the words "determine in respect of each such person whether he is or is not" and substitute the words "delete from such provisional panel the name of every such person in respect of whom he is not satisfied that such person is", and on page 15 to delete all from the word "and" in line 1 to the end of the paragraph.
The object of this amendment is to throw on a candidate the onus of proof that he is qualified for the panel for which he has been nominated. If the section is amended as proposed, it will be sufficient ground for deletion from a provisional panel that the Seanad returning officer is not satisfied that the person concerned is qualified. The returning officer will not be required to determine whether the person is, in fact, qualified or not. This will make it easier for the Seanad returning officer and the judicial referee to come to a decision on the spot. The onus of supplying the necessary evidence is on the party applying.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 43:—
In page 15, before Section 26 (4), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(4) If, when the provisions of the next preceding sub-section have been complied with in respect of all the provisional panels, any person is found to be entered in two or more provisional panels, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) the Seanad returning officer shall retain the name of such person on such one of those provisional panels as such person or his agent shall elect;
(b) if such person or his agent (as the case may be) refuses or fails to make such election or neither such person nor his agent is present or reasonably available, the Seanad returning officer shall retain the name of such person on such one of the said provisional panels as the Seanad returning officer shall determine by lot;
(c) the Seanad returning officer shall delete the name of such person from all the said provisional panels except the provisional panel on which he is required, by whichever of the foregoing paragraphs of this sub-section is applicable, to retain the name of such person.
This amendment inserts a new sub-section providing for the case where a person is entered in two or more provisional panels. Such person will be retained on one panel only, and the question on which panel he is to be retained will be determined by his choice or, if he fails to choose, by lot. The alternative there will be to let the returning officer make the choice.
This amendment starts with the phrase "If, when the provisions of the next preceding sub-section of this section have been complied with". This is done in stages and there is a stage completed at this point and names have been deleted from the provisional panel?
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 44:—
In page 15, lines 17 and 18, Section 26 (4), to delete the words "the next preceding sub-section of this section" and substitute the words "this Act in relation to the proceedings at the completion of the panels".
This amendment will have the effect that the Seanad returning officer must have regard to the decisions of the judicial referee, not merely in carrying out the provisions of Section 26 (3), but in carrying out generally the provisions of the Act in relation to the completion of the panels. He has to take cognisance of the decisions.
This amendment was necessary owing to the fact that a new sub-section has been sandwiched in but the President has given it a very wide significance. The point was, I think, raised on Report Stage. Perhaps the President would indicate how the amendment meets that point.
Under the sub-section, the Seanad returning officer must have regard to all decisions of the judicial referee in carrying out the provisions of the Act in relation to the panels. By knocking out these words, the phrase is of universal application. With these words inserted, the phrase was confined to a specific manner.
That refers to decisions of the judicial referee on questions referred under the Act. This amendment has reference not only to the ruling of the panel for the first Seanad but to the ruling of the panels thereafter. The phrase may, and I suggest in the context in which it is used most likely will, have this meaning—that the Seanad returning officer is to have regard to a body of decisions built up from time to time by the judicial officer in regard to the ruling of the panels. It is intended, at least, to include that.
That view is wider than the view I took.
Does it mean then ad hoc decisions of the judicial referee on questions there and then referred to him?
That was the intention.
Let us refer to Section 27 in connection with this question. It is the question I raised before. I asked the President a moment ago was not this contemplated as being taken in stages, one stage being complete. He said "yes." There is a stage complete when the Seanad returning officer has ruled out the name or names of a person or persons as not being qualified. Coming to Section 27, we find that the only people who can raise a question are people whose names are on the list. The President said that there was to be a clarification or an amendment of that provision, that he thought the ruling of persons' names off the list could be challenged and brought to the judicial referee by the person whose name it was proposed to remove. His latest statement to me is that this is to be done in stages, one stage being complete when the name is removed. A man whose name is removed could not, therefore, get referred to the judicial referee the question whether his name was properly removed or not.
The judicial referee is present during the whole of the time. I take it that the Deputy's point is that a name having been ruled off, it is desirable that the person concerned should have some chance of appeal. The point is whether, while that is being done, the judicial referee is present or not. If he is present, the appeal can be made to him there and then. As it stands, it would appear as if the judicial referee were present during the whole of the time that this stage is being gone through. He is there at the completion of the panels.
Mr. X, an applicant or aspirant for the Seanad, finds himself on a provisional panel at a certain time. He is on that panel after certain matters have been attended to in relation to the validity of the nomination paper, which the Seanad returning officer can, of his own motion, decide. He survives that test and, when you come to the stage called "the completion of the panels," the name of Mr. X is on the list. The Seanad returning officer comes along under Section 26 and rules the name off. I asked the President if he contemplated this being done in stages. He said "yes." There is a stage at which Mr. X's name goes off the list. The Seanad returning officer is only coerced into bringing before the judicial referee a question by a person whose name is still on the list. Can a person whose name is ruled off appeal to the judicial referee? Whether he can or not, is full of doubt. The more obvious explanation, after the statement of the President as to stages, is that he cannot appeal unless he anticipates what the Seanad returning officer is going to do and calls the attention of the judicial referee to the matter. Otherwise, his time will have gone. Section 27 (2) says that the Seanad returning officer may and, if so requested by any person whose name is on the provisional panel, shall, refer to the judicial referee any question arising during the completion of the panels. If a man's name has gone off the list, can he ask for the reference?
To answer that, I should have to construe the various paragraphs together more closely than I can do just now. I shall take another look at the matter before to-morrow. The whole question is whether, through all the stages at which a nomination can be disallowed, the judicial referee is present or not. At any stage at which he is present, he can be appealed to. If there is a stage at which he is not present, the Deputy's point is a good one and I shall have to look into it.
I do not think his presence matters. It is a question of the time in which he can be brought into effective operation.
Let us look at Section 26 (2) which says:—
When preparing the provisional panels... the Seanad returning officer shall not insert in any provisional panel the name of any person purported to be nominated by a nomination paper which is declared by this Act to be wholly void or which is received by him after the expiration of the relevant time for receiving nominations.
Does the Deputy refer to the exceptions?
The only thing declared wholly void by the Bill, as I read it, was an invalid nomination paper.
With these exceptions "the Seanad returning officer shall prepare the provisional panels without considering or inquiring into the validity of any nomination paper." We have only to pay attention to the exceptions. The first exception is in relation to a nomination paper declared by the Act to be wholly void. The Seanad returning officer's judgment is to be taken on that. Does the Deputy desire an appeal from that?
That is another point, but it is not the point I am at.
"Our which is received by him after the expiration of the relevant time for receiving nominations." If the Deputy does not want to have an appeal on these two heads, are not all the names on the provisional panel and will they not all be there when the judicial referee is present so that appeal can be made to him?
I do not think that the presence or absence of the judicial referee matters much.
Section 26 deals with the completion of the panels, and it seems to me that all the names will be on the list at the time that the judicial referee is present, with the two exceptions I have mentioned. It would appear that you are providing for an appeal in all the other cases. However, I will look into it again.
Surely, there is ambiguity in this. There is no doubt that at some stage of a provisional panel there ought to be entered on the panel everybody except those whom the Seanad returning officer in his absolute discretion may wipe off. The President told me that this was going to be done in stages. The operative phrase in Section 27 (2) is that the Seanad returning officer must bring things to the judicial referee, if he is so requested by a person whose name is on the provisional panel for the time being under consideration. Let there be a stage. There is some process going on, and the Seanad returning officer says: "I do not think that man is qualified," and he rules him off. Once he is ruled off, has his name not disappeared?
Yes, but he will have to have regard at that stage to any appeal that may be made to the judicial referee.
That is not here. He is to have regard to the decisions of the judicial referee. "Decisions" means really past decisions. When one, in a court of law, quotes decisions, one is quoting decisions embodied in old cases, and the word "decisions" has something of that atmosphere about it. It is not the ad hoc, there and then decision of the judicial referee. If it is, suppose you have an applicant or aspirant for the Senatorial office. He is there himself and is not accompanied by an agent. The Seanad returning officer says: “I have a series of rules which I am going to apply to this list,” and, amongst other things, he says: “Here is my test for ruling on the qualifications of people.” That is listened to by a man who does not comprehend at the moment that the ruling by way of principles is hitting his particular case. The Seanad returning officer waits for an objection to be made; none is made, and Mr. X suddenly finds his name deleted. The first notice he gets of that deletion is when the Seanad returning officer says: “That rules out so many names,” and at that moment Mr. X is not a person whose name is on the provisional panel for the time being under consideration. Is he not allowed to ask the judicial referee to rule whether that has been correctly done or not? Surely he ought to be so entitled. It apparently is the intention that he should, but if you read the phrase in Section 27 (2) you will see that there is at least ambiguity. The only man who can elevate a claim, which must be granted, for an appeal to the judicial referee is a man whose name is on the panel for the time being under consideration. If it is to be taken that the phrase “provisional panel” applies to a panel starting at some stage and continuing until the very end of the ruling, the matter might be——
That is the intention.
It may be the intention, but there is ambiguity in the phrase used. I take the case of a person who is forgetful or who does not comprehend the point of an objection being made. He suddenly wakes up and finds that the Seanad returning officer says: "You have no longer any interest in the proceedings; you are off the list." Can he turn round and say: "I was on the provisional list and, as such, am covered by the phraseology in Section 27 (2) and I want the judicial referee to pronounce on whether you are right or wrong in ruling me out"? I think there is a possibility that that man may find himself adjudged to be a person whose name is not on the provisional panel and who has no right to compel the Seanad returning officer to get the case considered.
It would seem to me, reading it, that the provisional panel for the time being refers to the panel after the deletions which he can make on his own motion.
It is a question of what the words "panel for the time being under consideration" mean.
Yes, it all depends on what that means.
If this panel starts by being a provisional panel somewhere about the opening of Section 26, and it is not finished by any intermediate rulings of the Seanad returning officer, there may be no harm done; but if a position has been reached at which a ruling has been made and a man's name has disappeared, he, I think, is prohibited from insisting on the Seanad returning officer putting the case to the judicial referee.
I will have it further examined, but I think the phrase "provisional panel for the time being under consideration" means this particular panel which is going to be considered as a whole and which stands after the deletions I have referred to. Any person whose name is on that has a right to appeal against his being struck off.
Any person whose name is on it, but not any person whose name was on it.
There is a paper with a list of names on it and I call the paper as it stands before I begin to strike out anybody the provisional list. It continues to be the provisional list until I introduce a new and amended version which is called the revised list. The name is on it, even though I may have drawn my pen through it to prepare for the next list.
The point which Deputy Linehan has raised is a fortification of my argument, because the phrase is "any person whose name is on the provisional panel" and not "is or has been" or "was at any time."
It is a question of what the phrase "the panel for the time being under consideration" means. There is a list which contains a certain set of names and it is the panel which is for the time being under consideration. You knock out names from it, but it still is the panel as it was, although you have drawn your pencil through certain names, and anybody whose name is on that is entitled to appeal.
Is it the President's suggestion that if a man's name was printed on a particular list, being a provisional panel, and the Seanad returning officer draws his pencil through it by way of deleting him from the panel, his name is still on the panel until a new list is printed on which his name does not appear at all?
What he will say is: "I propose to eliminate him," and he will draw his pencil through the name with the intention that when he has the revised list that name will not appear. The name is on the printed list. It is a question of words and what we mean by them. I am not finding any fault with the criticism of these matters. We ought to try to be accurate, but it is a question of what is the most natural interpretation and of what is meant. We do not want ambiguities at all. It seems to me that the intention running right through is that you would have a provisional panel at a certain stage, and the names on that document will be the names on the provisional panel. Then you proceed on a process of revision, which takes place over a certain time. It is not necessary to knock a name off the list altogether. You can put a cross in front of a name to indicate that those people are going to go off, and any person whose name was on the list, if a mark of any kind appears at his name indicating that it will not appear on the revised list, can, at any stage, appeal.
I think the President dropped into the use of a phrase about which Deputy Linehan raised his point. He said, "any man whose name was on the list." That is not here. I put Deputy Linehan's point in this way: Suppose the phrase were, "any person named on the provisional panel"? He can appeal, and his appeal must be granted in the sense that the appeal is taken to the judicial referee. But that is not the phrase. If the phrase was, "any person named," it would mean "named at any time"; but the phrase is, "any person whose name is on the provisional panel." What does that "is" refer to? Surely, if at the time he attempts to make his appeal, his name is not on it, if it has been deleted, his appeal is gone. Suppose it was a general phrase, such as "a person named on the provisional panel," or "a person entered on the provisional panel." That may mean "named at any time" or "entered at any time," but when you say "a person whose name is on the panel..." I am going to interpret it as "at that time." He may apply for a ruling to the judicial referee, and must get such a ruling. Any person whose name was deleted, even though still at a provisional stage, and even though there is a document headed "Provisional Panel"— and that heading to the panel never changes until a final ruling is given— would be precluded from appeal.
I will have another look into it to see if there is anything I can do.
Would the words, "whose name is or has been," do?
I want to see a general principle running through this, and I would be very slow to change it unless I was satisfied otherwise.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 27.
I move amendment No. 45.
In page 15, before section 27, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) If, when the provisions of the next preceding section have been complied with, the number of persons whose names are entered in any sub-panel of a provisional panel does not exceed by at least two the number of members of Seanad Eireann required by this Act to be elected from such sub-panel, the Seanad returning officer shall adjourn to a convenient day and hour the further proceedings at the completion of the panels and shall report to the Taoiseach the said deficiency in the said sub-panel and furnish to the Taoiseach a copy of the provisional panels as settled immediately before the said adjournment.
(2) Upon receiving such report as is mentioned in the next preceding sub-section of this section, the Taoiseach shall nominate to every sub-panel in respect of which he receives such report such number of persons as will be sufficient to bring the number of persons on such sub-panel up to a number exceeding by two (and no more) the number of members of Seanad Eireann required by this Act to be elected from such sub-panel.
(3) Whenever the Taoiseach is required by the next preceding sub-section of this section to make nominations to a sub-panel, it shall be lawful for him to make additional nominations to such sub-panel in excess of the number of nominations required by the said sub-section, but such additional nominations shall be substitutional only and shall be operative only if and so far as is requisite by reason of the invalidity of one or more of the other nominations made by the Taoiseach under this section to such sub-panel.
(4) Every nomination made by the Taoiseach under this section shall be made in accordance with the following provisions, that is to say:—
(a) such nomination shall be made in writing on a nomination paper in the form (modified as requisite) prescribed for ex-officio nominations;
(b) every such nomination shall be made by a separate nomination paper;
(c) every nomination paper shall state the sub-panel in respect of which the nomination is made and shall also contain the particulars required by the said prescribed form of nomination paper to be stated therein (including a statement of the qualifications of the person thereby nominated for the panel to which he is so nominated) and shall be signed by the Taoiseach;
(d) every nomination paper shall be delivered or sent to the Seanad returning officer and shall be so sent or delivered that it is received by the Seanad returning officer before the time to which the completion of the panels was adjourned under the first sub-section of this section.
(5) On the resumption of the completion of the panels after the adjournment thereof under the first sub-section of this section, the Seanad returning officer shall consider and rule upon the nominations made by the Taoiseach under this section (including examining and ruling upon the qualifications of every person so nominated for the panel to which he is so nominated) and shall enter in the proper place in the proper provisional panel the name, address, and description of every person whom he finds to be validly so nominated together with a statement, in such form as he thinks proper, of the qualifications which he determines to be in fact the qualifications of such person to be on such panel.
This amendment has some relation to amendment No. 63.
I presume this is in order. I raised the point before, that this is a new matter, but I am not pressing it.
It has been ruled in order.
I do not know. We have not reached it yet. How does it relate to amendment No. 63?
The purpose is to make sure that you will have completion of sufficient nominations. This amendment has to deal with nominations by the Taoiseach to complete the sub-panels. If the number of persons on a provisional sub-panel is not at least two more than the number to be elected from that sub-panel the Taoiseach is required to nominate such number as will bring the total on the sub-panel up to two more than the number to be elected. Such nominations would be subject to examination in the ordinary course by the Seanad returning officer with whom the judicial referee will sit. To provide for the possibility of nominations under this section being disallowed, the Taoiseach is empowered to nominate a number of substitutes for any persons nominated by him in this connection who may be disallowed.
I gather that we are reverting to Section 21 and the amendments passed to that section, and that it is compulsory on nominating bodies to nominate the full number they are entitled to nominate. Therefore, this can only apply where a mistake has been made in nominating.
Or failure.
Therefore, it will apply to the whole body if there is failure. If a body is bound to nominate six and nominates five, all the power is given to the Taoiseach. Why should it be given to the Taoiseach?
You want to make sure that the whole thing will not be voided by failure of the parties.
Why not leave it to the Dáil?
Did not Section 40 deal with it?
There has been deletion with regard to that? Why should this be given to the Taoiseach and not to the Dáil?
The nominating bodies are given the right to nominate, and you want to have the nominations completed. What suggestion do you make or what machinery would you have?
Section 40 (2) in the present Bill.
It may be pointed out, so far as Section 40 is concerned, that these nominations would be nominations by the Dáil from their own panel. Not at all. It could be arranged that they would be nominated by the Dáil on to the nomination panel. I take it that the nominating bodies are in the first case the Dáil. Why cannot the Dáil do this as well as the Taoiseach?
I am afraid in case of failure you would want to have some ultimate reserve.
This is not ultimate. This is not put in to meet failure under Section 40. It is put in substitution for Section 40. I think there is a later amendment, No. 63 to delete sub-sections 2, 3 and 4 of Section 40. It is not that this is going to meet the deficiency which may occur after Section 40 is left in but is in substitution for it. Is there a definition of sub-panel?
There is, in brackets —"the Dáil sub-panel" and "the "nominating bodies sub-panel."
In an amendment?
Yes. I would not like to decide this matter straight off. The objection that was taken is this: That seeing that the Dáil will make its own nominees later, any shortage from the nominating bodies should be filled up by the Dáil rather than by the Taoiseach.
Yes, that is Section 40.
Suppose we kept Section 40 as it was. What is going to happen? If the nominating bodies do not fill, through failure to do so, and you have not got as many as are required for that panel, it is blank and has to be filled somehow. The original Section 40 was intended to have the nominations filled from the Dáil. Similarly the intention was that if there were blanks from the Dáil they would be filled up from the nominating bodies. That might not be so easy and you might have to give them another opportunity of doing it. Supposing you had both in that position, certainly there would be a one for bringing in some other body. We must have some stage of finality. When we go from one stage to another, you want a simple way to bring about finality by giving somebody like the Taoiseach power to fill up. What we have here is used in substitution for the other two. The Deputy has raised a point that I think should be met. If he agrees, we might leave this over until to-morrow when we will be having the final run through the Bill. I understand the Deputy's point to be that any power there is for filling up, in the case of outside nominating bodies, should be in the Dáil. You would want proportional representation in order to do that. There may be difficulties there that we will have to face, and perhaps in the end it might be simpler to have what is suggested here, that the ultimate power should reside in the Taoiseach. Then there is the question of the filling of vacancies.
The President, I think, has in view failure on the part of nominating bodies, either through their failure to put up the requisite number, or through a certain number of the people they do put up being disallowed. When that lacuna has been made good, he thinks there may be another stage to be dealt with. My suggestion is, why not have the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, or the Committee of Selection, for the second stage, and the Dáil for the first.
I think it will be necessary to give some person like the Taoiseach the ultimate reserve of power of nomination.
You have an appeal body of 15 for the ultimate but not for the first stage. For the first stage, I think the power should remain with the Dáil. There is this point. The nominating body must put forward the nominations. There is no compulsion, of course, so that you may not get from the nominating bodies the required number. Supposing there are ten nominating bodies. They will nominate 20, each nominating two. When you say that it is compulsory for the nominations, does that mean that it is compulsory that each must nominate two, but that it is not compulsory that the original panel must contain 20?
When we are having the final run through the Bill to-morrow I will see what we can do with regard to meeting the points made by the Deputy. I will see if it is possible to have someone for the ultimate stage other than the Taoiseach.
Is it clear that the only amendment bringing in a definition of "sub-panel" is the one that occurs later in the Bill?
The definition is in amendment No. 47.
Should not the phrase there be attached to the division of panels where the division first occurs? Is not the ordinary procedure in legislation this: that if you are going to refer to something throughout an Act, you make the reference attach to the first use of it?
Naturally. I agree with the Deputy, but I am informed that it was thought more convenient to bring it in where it is in the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 15, line 51, Section 28 (1), after the word "paper" to insert the words "the validity of any nomination".
We are simply adding here that, among the questions that may be raised, is the question of the validity of any nomination.
Does the phrase "the validity of any nomination" as opposed to the phrase "the validity of a nomination paper" occur earlier in the Bill?
I do not think so.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 47:—
In page 17, line 16, Section 32 (2), after the word "parts" to insert in brackets the words "(in this Act referred to as sub-panels)", and in line 17, after the word "which" to insert in brackets the words "(in this Act referred to as the nominating bodies sub-panel)", and in line 18, after the word "which" to insert in brackets the words "(in this Act referred to as the Dáil sub-panel)".
Amendment agreed to.
I propose moving now the following series of amendments—Nos. 48, 49, 50 and 51:—
48. In page 17, lines 53 and 54, Section 34 (1), to delete the words "shall hold a meeting at which such council", and in line 56, after the word "election" to add the words "and shall, if such election is contested, hold a meeting of such council at which such election shall be held."
49. In page 18, Section 34 (2), before paragraph (c), to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
(c) if such election is not contested, the secretary of the electing council shall, immediately after the close of the nominations, send to the Seanad returning officer the names, addresses, and descriptions of the electors who were duly so nominated;
50. In page 18, line 10, Section 34 (2), paragraph (c), before the word "the" where it first occurs to insert the words "if such election is contested", and in line 11, to delete the word "such" where it first occurs and substitute the words "the said".
51. In page 18, line 21, Section 34 (2), paragraph (c), before the word "the" where it first occurs to insert the words "if such election is contested", and in line 11, to delete the word "such" where it first occurs and substitute the words "the said".
51. In page 18 line 21, Section 34 (2), paragraph (d), to delete the words "such voting" and substitute the words "the election".
Amendments agreed to.
I move amendment No. 52:—
In page 18, Section 34 (2), to add at the end of the sub-section two new paragraphs as follows:—
(e) as soon as the Seanad returning officer has so ascertained the results of all the elections held in pursuance of this section, he shall prepare, sign, and publish in the Iris Oifigiúil a list of the persons elected at such elections, showing separately the persons elected by each electing council, and such statement as so published shall be a conclusive and final declaration of the result of every such election;
(f) the expenses of every election held in pursuance of this section (other than the expenses of things required by this sub-section to be done by the Seanad returning officer) shall be borne by the electing council and shall be raised, in the case of the council of a county, by means of the poor rate as a county-at-large charge and, in the case of the county boroughs of Dublin and Limerick, by means of the municipal rate and, in the case of the county boroughs of Cork and Waterford, by means of the poor rate or such other rate as the Minister shall direct.
This amendment adds to Section 34 two new paragraphs, lettered (e) and (f). Paragraph (e) provides for the publication in Iris Oifigiúil of a list of the persons elected; and paragraph (f) provides that the expenses of every such election shall be borne by the electing council—that the expenses of every election held in pursuance of this section, other than the expenses of things required to be done by the Seanad returning officer, shall be borne by local funds.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 53:—
In page 18, section 34, to delete sub-section (3), and substitute a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) The following provisions shall apply and have effect in relation to 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 (No. 5 of 1925), that is to say:—
(a) the electors who, if such council were not so dissolved, would be required, by the foregoing provisions of this section to be elected by such council shall be elected from amongst themselves by the surviving persons (in this Part of this Act referred to as the former members of such council) who were members of such council immediately before it was so dissolved and have not, since such dissolution, suffered an adjudication in bankruptcy or a conviction of a crime or offence which would have terminated their membership of such council if it had not been so dissolved or such of such persons as think fit to take part in such election;
(b) every candidate for election at such election shall be nominated in writing by two of the former members of such council;
(c) if such election is contested, a meeting of the former members of such council shall be summoned and the election shall be made at such meeting by the former members of such council present at such meeting (or such of them as think proper to vote), voting by secret ballot on the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote;
(d) the provisions of the next preceding sub-section, so far as they are not inconsistent with the foregoing provisions of this section, shall apply with such modifications as shall be necessary or shall be prescribed by regulations made under this section.
The object of this amendment is to delete the existing sub-section (3), and to substitute a new sub-section which will provide more clearly and explicitly for the election of electors by councils. Paragraph (a) of the new sub-section refers to the disqualification of persons who have suffered an adjudication in bankruptcy or a conviction of a crime or offence which, in the ordinary way, would have terminated their membership of the council if it had not been dissolved. In other words, such persons are excluded.
Paragraph (a) of the proposed new sub-section refers to "the electors who, if such council were not so dissolved, would be required, by the foregoing provisions of this section, to be elected by such council, shall be elected from amongst themselves", and so on. Actually, however, in some cases, the council, required by the foregoing provisions of the section, has not been dissolved. I suggest that, in three or four cases, it is the previous council that was dissolved. This Act requires certain councils to make nominations in the normal way, or councils that were acting at the last county council election. Well, three or four councils were dissolved—and one has been dissolved since that time—and so far as the amendment goes that case is met. For instance, in the paper—I think it is a similar paper to that from which the President first got his knowledge of the political complexion of these matters —I learn that three councils have been dissolved. My contention is that the Act refers to the bodies elected in 1933 and to any council elected in 1933, that was since dissolved, but it has been provided for those that were dissolved before 1934.
I think I see the Deputy's point. Again, however, I do not know for the moment whether the point is fundamentally sound or not, and all I can say is that I shall look into it. There is no doubt that the councils are a continuing body, but I should like to examine that point in order to see whether or not there is any need for this.
Is a dissolved council a continuing body?
No, but the county council itself is. However, as I say, I shall have to see whether there is anything in that point or not.
With regard to amendment No. 53, it is possible that I may not have read these lettered paragraphs of the amendment correctly, but there seems to me to be an attempt, in paragraph (a) of the proposed new sub-section, to meet a difficulty that was raised here on the last day. Then, however, the amendment seems to relapse into the former deficiencies when you get down to paragraph (c). I take it that the meaning of paragraph (a) is, simply, to prevent members of dissolved county councils from being electors if, since the dissolution of the council, they have been found guilty of a crime or have been adjudicated bankrupt. Therefore, as far as paragraph (a) is concerned it seems to be all right; but then paragraph (c) provides for a meeting of the former members of such council. It seems to me that the meeting referred to in paragraph (c) is not a meeting of the people referred to in paragraph (a). Paragraph (c) speaks of a meeting of the former members of the dissolved council, including the adjudicated bankrupts and those who have been convicted of a crime, evidently. It does not speak as in paragraph (a), of a meeting of such members of the council who were members of it immediately before it was dissolved and who have not, in the meantime, suffered an adjudication in bankruptcy or the conviction of a crime or offence which would have terminated their membership of the council; it speaks of a meeting of former members of the council. It says that a meeting of the former members shall be summoned and that the election shall be made at the meeting by the former members of the council present at the meeting. That is on page 8. I am referring to amendment No. 53 and I am contrasting lettered paragraph (a) with lettered paragraph (c).
A definition is given in paragraph (a). There is an addition there where it refers to members who have not, since the dissolution of the council, suffered an adjudication in bankruptcy or a conviction of a crime.
Yes, that is in paragraph (a): but paragraph (c) seems to contemplate the summoning of a meeting of all of the former members, whether they had been adjudicated bankrupt, convicted of crimes, or not.
Yes. Under paragraph (c) they are all summoned.
However, Deputy McGowan has made a suggestion to me just now which I think is right. I think the point is that the people who are summoned under paragraph (c) are the former members of the council, as defined in paragraph (a), and the former members of the council as defined in paragraph (a) are defined as those members who have not been disqualified by bankruptcy and so on.
Yes.
Well, that meets that point, but there was another point which was raised on the last occasion. When you have summoned all of the former members of the council, or the surviving members, two things may happen: one is that you may have nominated and elected a man, who, since the dissolution of the council had been convicted for a crime or adjudicated a bankrupt. That point, apparently, is met; but the second point is, that a man who becomes one of the elected seven may immediately offer his vote for subscription, because after that he may do something to disqualify him from membership of the county council, but his title to vote for the Seanad is that he is one of seven nominees, and, as such, apparently, he may do everything or anything that would disqualify him for membership of the council—such as being adjudicated a bankrupt, being convicted of a crime, or selling his vote —but is still able to exercise his vote for the Seanad. I do not think there is any attachment of the Corrupt Practices Act to such a person. We were told on the last day by the Minister for Agriculture that it was intended there should be. It is certainly not met by this amendment. It might be met by some impact between the Corrupt Practices Act and a man who was a voter for the Seanad.
There is the Consequential Provisions Bill.
It was explained that that Bill would apply to people who became members of the Seanad. There is no doubt that a man who becomes a member of the Seanad, with the Corrupt Practices Act being revived with regard to membership, would be disqualified from being a member of the Seanad if he became bankrupt or was disqualified for some crime. I am dealing with the intermediate stage. Supposing some nominees of a county council put themselves on record in a newspaper as saying: "We will take £50 each for our votes," what happens?
The Prevention of Electoral Abuses Act is also revived.
Does it apply to a special electorate based on these additions of seven nominees from each county council? It does apply obviously to members of Dáil Eireann. They become an electoral body because the right to nominate or vote for a member of the Seanad depends upon membership of the Dáil. Membership of the Dáil is broken by any of these corrupt practices, but is membership of one of these groups of seven representing the county councils broken by a corrupt practice? We were told the last day that it was not intended it should be so.
That is part of the Seanad election.
On Thursday last the Minister for Agriculture clearly laid down that they could accept bribes; that the law as it stood did not affect that, and that it was not the intention of the Government to provide that the law should affect that. I think that is an absolute statement of the case. Meanwhile, the Minister went asleep during the night, and while he was asleep something occurred, because next morning all the points made against the Minister, and which he repudiated as being absurd, he said were all met. Therefore, I am sure the Minister was wiser asleep than when he was half awake in the Dáil. Next morning he explained that the Consequential Provisions Bill did apply the corrupt practices to all electors. He did not explain how it did, but we were to accept that it did on the faith of the Minister who the night before said the opposite. That is our difficulty. Have we any guarantee or any proof of this. Because we have two opposite statements from the Minister who was in charge of the Bill— that the Corrupt Practices Act did apply, and that it did not apply and that it was not the intention of the Government to apply it. I understand the contention now is that you are reviving all references to the Seanad in the old legislation barring one or two.
Also the Prevention of Electoral Abuses Act.
That is revived? Is that absolutely clear and definite?
Yes.
Our difficulty is that we got two opposite statements.
The Minister was dealing with the Bill in front of him.
He was asked would the Government remedy that and he said no.
With regard to the first point raised by Deputy McGilligan I suggest that it would be even more clear by transferring the words inside the bracket to the third last line to come in after the word "dissolved". It says "the surviving persons (in this part of this Act referred to as the former members of such council)". If you move it down after the word "dissolved" you apply the disqualification to the surviving persons. I think that would make it clearer.
I think that is necessary, because undoubtedly as it stands "former members of the council" appears only to mean surviving persons, not surviving persons less those people referred in the words which follow. Deputy Benson makes the point that if the words "(in this Part of this Act referred to as the former members of such council)" were brought down to the second last line of the amendment they would cover the surviving members, less those unfit persons who were adjudicated bankrupt or otherwise.
I see the point and will look into it.
Some effort has been made to meet the point raised on the last day with regard to this. I am sorry the President was not here on that occasion because we could have got some assurance. Perhaps it would have curtailed a lot of discussion then if we had somebody who would meet the position. Although an effort has been made, I am not sure that it meets the contention raised. It speaks "of the surviving persons (in this Part of the Act referred to as the former members of such council)". In what Part of the Act are they referred to as "the former members of such council"?
In sub-section (c), two paragraphs down.
This can be read in two ways. For instance, members of a council dissolved since the election in 1934 can be fittingly described as former members of the council resurrected for the purpose of this Bill. But it is doubtful if former members of a council, who went out of office in 1934 and ceased to be councillors by the operation of the statute, come under the head of former councils, inasmuch as they went out of office not by anything the Minister did, but by the operation of the ordinary statute that brought them into existence. Although an effort has been made to do it, I doubt very much if it does do it.
That is the same question as Deputy O'Sullivan raised in another connection to see whether we really covered these. I think we do, but I will look into it to see if that point is completely and absolutely covered.
If it is going to be the councils elected in 1928, of which many members are dead and of which only the skeleton remains, it is merely a tragic joke. I know one council of which six of the former members are dead and another council of which four are dead. I do not know about the others, but I would say they are in a like position. When you remember that these councils were elected ten years ago the whole idea of county councils is a joke.
There are only three or four affected.
Five or six—Westmeath, Leix, Waterford, Kilkenny, South Tipperary, and probably some others.
There are not six there.
When the members of these bodies meet, can they hold their meeting with or without a quorum? Will the usual rules about the quorum apply or not?
The real position is that any citizen of a county eligible under the County Councils (Electoral) Act has as much right to be summoned by the secretary of a county council as those people who were formerly county councillors and who went out of office entirely by the operation of the statute.
Is the question of adjudication in bankruptcy regarded as a corrupt practice, something to disqualify a person from being elected to or sitting as a member of either of the Houses?
It is rather late to be virtuous in that respect.
There is something behind the Deputy's question which he has not the courage to say.
Let it be clear that there is no reference to the Deputy.
The order was to report progress at six o'clock.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-day.