With regard to this Bill certain amendments in the name of Senator Douglas have been circulated. They present some difficulty, but perhaps the House will agree to consider them even though they were not handed in in time. They raise some rather complex questions as to whether they come quite within the Bill. I would like to have an opportunity of considering whether or not they come within the scope of the Bill.
Ennis Urban District Council (Dissolution) Bill, 1929— - Constitution (Amendment No. 11) Bill, 1928—Third Stage.
The Seanad went into Committee.
Cathaoirleach
Perhaps if they were taken before Section 3 I may be able to give some help. I think that would be the most convenient time to take them.
SECTION 1.
Article 34 of the Constitution shall be and is hereby amended by the deletion of the words "by a vote of Seanad Eireann" now contained therein and the insertion in lieu of the words so deleted of the words "by an election at which the candidates shall be nominated in such manner in all respects as shall be prescribed by law and at which the electors shall be the members of Dáil Eireann and the members of Seanad Eireann voting together. The voting at such elections shall be by secret ballot and no elector may exercise more than one vote thereat. The place and conduct of such elections shall be regulated by law."
I move Amendment 1:
Section 1. To delete all after the word "law" in line 31 down to the end of the section.
I move this amendment for the purpose of clearing the ground and of giving Senators an opportunity of considering the subject matter of this Bill very carefully. This Bill, which I think is not necessary, only relates to the filling of casual vacancies in the Seanad. We have filled a casual vacancy in the Seanad recently. I think that it has been admirably filled. We filled that casual vacancy acting upon our usual and ancient lines. Should it happen that casual vacancies occur in the future, I think we could fill them quite satisfactorily acting on the method that we have hitherto adopted. Therefore, it does not seem to me that there is any immediate hurry for this change in our Constitution. We have been amending our Constitution very liberally of late. In fact, I think we have been very hurried in amending the Constitution. The reactions to amendments of the Constitution, which happens to be a written one, may be very far-reaching, as other countries have discovered. It seems to me that we should be very slow in the matter of amending our Constitution in important details, and this, I take leave to say, is a detail of importance. My idea in moving this amendment is to leave things practically as they are, at all events, until such time as we can fully consider what we really mean to do. We have acted rather hurriedly, I think, in amending our Constitution. I do not think that the country itself has kept pace with our Constitutional amendments, and I am not quite sure that the country as a whole approves of some of the amendments to the Constitution that we have hurriedly made. All these matters are of grave importance, and should be attended to carefully and with every desire to give expression to the ideas that other people may bring to bear upon them. In this country we certainly have no lack of ideas, but I am afraid that very often on important matters ideas are either absent or people do not express them. This, however, is a matter on which unquestionably very divergent views prevail.
I have strong ideas as to the composition of the Seanad. I think it should be based upon the electoral principle. Other members of the Seanad may be in favour of an electoral college, while other members of the House may be in favour of other methods. I think it would be well for us to make up our minds as to what the majority of the people of this country want in the way of a revising chamber. Since the setting up of the Oireachtas, this House I claim has done very useful work, and there is every reason to hope that in the future we shall continue to render useful service to the country. I think we owe it to the country that we should take thought in these matters, and should not embark upon an avenue from which later on we may wish to change in another direction. We should not embark upon these avenues without full consideration of what the changes made would entail. I think that we should carefully consider all our plans, and should have an investigation into what the people think is the best in the public interest. I think, too, that when the majority of the people come to a determination as to what their decision is in regard to the composition of the Seanad, that that should be carried out in a constitutional way. I am perfectly certain that an elected Seanad is the best. Other people have different ideas on the subject, but what does the country want? That is the important matter. The country is more vitally interested in a proper solution of this issue than any member of the Seanad or the Dáil. Time, I think, should be afforded for the people of the country to take thought about their own interests. That being so, it would be very advisable for us to give the country an opportunity of declaring its intentions.
My appeal is for time, consideration and reflection upon all these matters. I think that we should continue to fill casual vacancies in the way that we have been accustomed to do it in the past, and that there is no necessity for this amendment to the Constitution until such time as the country has made up its mind as to what sort of a Seanad it wants.
I am afraid that I have failed to grasp the meaning of the amendment. From what the Senator has just stated, I do not know whether the Senator has really read the amendment that is proposed to the Constitution or not. This is a proposal to alter the method of filling vacancies which occur in the Seanad. The new method proposed is that these vacancies shall be filled by the Dáil and Seanad voting together. It is provided in the Bill that the voting at such elections shall be by secret ballot and that no elector may exercise more than one vote. The title of the Bill specifies what its purpose is. What the Senator means to effect by striking out all after the word "law" I must say that I do not know, but at any rate it would lack a good deal of the definiteness prescribed in this measure. I take it from the Senator's speech that he desires to have some information as to what the country wants in the matter of elections to the Seanad. That is another question altogether. This Bill only deals with the filling of casual vacancies in the Seanad. The object of the Senator's amendment, I take it, is that casual vacancies should as in the past be filled by the Seanad itself. If this Bill is passed, another measure will be introduced specifying the manner in which the election shall take place, and making all the other necessary arrangements. I do not know what the Senator's intention is in moving the deletion of all the words in the section after the word "law."
I am afraid that this is not an amendment at all. It is an annihilation of the Bill. If you stop after the word "law," then you abolish our old method of filling casual vacancies. If you strike out what follows the word "law" then you will have no method of getting a Senator elected at all.
Cathaoirleach
I am afraid that if the amendment were carried it would have the effect of hanging up the Bill.
I would like to read the Constitution as it will be, supposing the amendment moved by Senator Sir Thomas Esmonde is passed. Article 34 would then read:
"In the case of the death, resignation or disqualification of a member of Seanad Eireann his place shall be filled by an election at which the candidates shall be nominated in such manner in all respects as shall be prescribed by law."
That would not mean very much.
Perhaps I may develop my thesis further. In regard to the filling of casual vacancies by law, I gather from a remark that has fallen from the President that a Bill is being prepared to enable casual vacancies to be filled by law under this new Act. But have not casual vacancies that occurred here before been filled according to law? What about Senator Sir Nugent Everard? He was elected the other day, and is his election invalid? There is no doubt that if this amendment is carried, or if this Bill is withdrawn altogether, that casual vacancies can be filled as they have been filled hitherto. In that case it will not make any difference. There has been no particular explanation of the reason for introducing this measure dealing with the filling of casual vacancies. In my opinion it is a Bill that is utterly unnecessary. It will entail the passing of another Bill which has not yet been introduced so as to enable casual vacancies to be filled—this is the real gravamen of the situation—by an election with the Dáil and Seanad voting together.
May I give the Senator one reason?
I submit that it is a matter for the country to decide whether casual vacancies in the Seanad shall be filled by the Dáil and Seanad voting together. We have heard very strong criticisms of the method of election to the Seanad under the new system. It is time for us to take the first opportunity that we can to change it. If the country desires a change we should make it. The only way you can discuss these matters is by amending an altogether unnecessary constitutional reform. I do not think that either the President or Senator Brown has contributed anything to our enlightenment on the subject, nor have they explained to us what the necessity is for the introduction of this Bill.
This Bill appears to have been introduced into the Dáil without any speech being made by the Minister in charge. The reports of the Second Reading debate and of the subsequent stages in the Dáil have never been printed. The result is that what took place in regard to this Bill has never been made public up to the present. Owing to the fact that a new system has been introduced with regard to the publication of the Parliamentary Reports, the debates on the Second Reading and further stages of this Bill have not yet been published. Altogether, this is a sample of the way that we make laws in this country. The importance of the matter lies in this: that we are amending the Constitution under which we live. Surely we ought to have some explanation, or some reason given, for a change in the Constitution under which we have managed to live fairly successfully during the last three or four years. I have taken the opportunity on these Bills to draw the attention of the public to the facts of the situation. I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without suggesting to the country that, in matters relating to amendment of the Constitution, even in regard to the filling of casual vacancies in the Seanad, it ought to take credit to itself and declare its opinion so that the Oireachtas generally may follow it.
Cathaoirleach
This Bill, I take it, is the outcome of recommendations made by the Joint Committee?
Yes, but we know nothing about that.
Cathaoirleach
Do you wish, Senator, to press your amendment?
I am not particularly anxious.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 1 agreed to.
I move:—
Before Section 2 to insert a new section as follows:—
"2. Article 34 of the Constitution shall be and is hereby amended by the deletion of all words from `shall retire from office' to the end of the section, and the substitution of the following words: `shall, unless he sooner dies, resigns or is disqualified, hold office for the residue of the term for which the member whose death, resignation or disqualification occasioned the vacancy, would have held office if he had not died, resigned or been disqualified.' "
It has generally been permitted in this House to raise matters on the section of a Bill on the Committee Stage although no specific amendment has been put down. It was at first my intention to raise the matter I have referred to on the Second Stage, but I found there was no section which exactly coincided with it, and then I found that in order to deal with it it was necessary to put down an amendment. Standing Orders provide that on Committee Stage, with the Cathaoirleach's permission, an amendment may be moved without the usual notice.
Cathaoirleach
Quite; that is the position.
That is the course I took. My reason for moving the amendment is that I feel it is a mistake to co-opt persons to fill vacancies, and that the persons so co-opted should go out of office at the next triennial election. I think it would be very much better if the person co-opted remained a member of the Seanad for the term of office for which the person in whose place he was co-opted would have held office, whether that be one year, six years, nine years, or whatever it may happen to be. The principal reason why I think that some such principle should be inserted in the Bill, or dealt with in some other way, is that we have at present in each triennial election a number of persons at the tail-end elected for a short period. Under the old method of election there was no objection to that, because the person at the bottom of the list was presumably the person least desirable. Under proportional representation that does not work. It seems to me that an arrangement by which we increase the number 20, as it is now, by all the vacancies which occur during the three years, to, say, 24 or 25, is a mistake, and that it would be much better if we kept to the exact number of 20. That would be fairer all round. I mentioned this matter on the Second Stage.
There is a kindred matter which could be dealt with at the same time, although I have not specifically referred to it here, and that is at present we co-opt a person, even though it be only three months before the next triennial election, thereby co-opting a Senator for a very short period, and making him stand again for election, which, I think, is very undesirable, as, in my opinion, it would be no great calamity if the House had to do with 59 members in the meantime. I am satisfied the amendment comes within the scope of the Bill. The custom has been to make amendments to the Constitution as specific as possible, and to deal with only one subject. This is a kindred subject, but it is possible it would be regarded as a different subject. I would like the President to look into the matter before Report and see whether an amendment of this sort could be wisely put into the Bill, so that if it meets with approval it could be put into this Bill, or dealt with in another Bill. It would be better have it dealt with in one Bill in view of the plan carried out by the Government of having constitutional amendments to deal with one subject only. My difficulty as regards moving the amendment was: I was not sure whether a separate Bill would not be the best way of dealing with the matter. I think there is a strong case for co-opting a person for the term of office for which a Senator who died, resigned or was disqualified was elected.
If the amendment by Senator Douglas is in order, I suggest to him to add to it that when a vacancy occurs in the Seanad through the death, resignation, or disqualification of a member three or six months before a triennial election, such vacancy shall not be filled until the time of the triennial election. I think if that suggestion could be adopted it would be a wise proceeding.
Cathaoirleach
I suggest to the House that it would be better to let this matter stand over for the Report Stage.
It is rather a pity the amendment had not been produced during the meeting of the Joint Committee. It looks to be a sensible one. With regard to the other suggestion, that if a member died three months before an election the vacancy should be left unfilled until the ordinary triennial election, that is not a sound line to go on. The Seanad, according to the Constitution, is composed of 60 members, and this suggestion is to say that at a certain time it shall consist of 59, 58, or 57 members. I do not know whether the amendment suggested by Senator Douglas alters the scope of the Bill, but the principle appears to me not objectionable.
I raised this matter on the Second Stage, and I then drafted an amendment which I intended to move as soon as I had consulted Senator Brown on a technical point. I was obliged to be away out of Dublin until yesterday, and that is why I handed in the amendment only to-day.
I saw it only twenty minutes ago.
I take it from the President that it would not be in accordance with the Constitution to leave a vacancy unfilled, but it seems to me that to fill a vacancy which occurred only three months before the triennial election is unreasonable.
The principle of the amendment is against the other suggestion. The principle of this is that a person should be elected to fill the same term of office as that of the Senator whose removal created the vacancy. I cannot understand Senator Douglas mixing that up with the other proposal. The two things are not connected.
The discussion has gone on as if this was an agreed amendment. I want to enter a caveat and put in my protest before there is an adjournment of the question. It seems feasible, and would commend itself to the majority Party in the Oireachtas, but there is a serious objection to it from my point of view. The House is elected on the basis of proportional representation. If the principle of this amendment were accepted, all by-elections occurring between the triennial election would be won by the majority Party. To that extent the principle of proportional representation is destroyed, and normally people elected in that way and going out at the end of three years enables the balance to be restored, for they have to submit themselves for reelection and then we have proportional representation coming into operation.
Cathaoirleach
I suggested at the beginning that it was questionable whether the amendment would be in order and that it should remain over for further opportunity for its consideration. I would like it to be held over to the Report Stage, and then everybody could consider it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The following amendment stands in my name:—
New section. Before Section 2 to insert a new section as follows:
2. This Act shall have effect on the day, and not before the day, of the passing into law of an Act prescribing the manner of nomination of and the method of conducting the election for a member of Seanad Eireann in the place of a member who dies, resigns, or becomes disqualified."
I do not propose to move this amendment at this stage, but I reserve to myself the right if necessary to bring it forward on the Report Stage. A new Bill has been introduced and it may pass or it may not. If it passes it will have to come to this House and may pass the Second Reading. If the Bill gets to the Fourth Stage in this House then this amendment of mine will have no reason for existence at all. If the Bill now before the Dáil reaches this House and gets a Second Reading and passes the Committee Stage, then would be the opportune time to say whether it will be necessary to insert any provision such as is suggested in the amendment.
The Seanad went out of Committee.
Bill reported without amendment.